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

Note: Since these log files are derived from the Closed Captions created during the Channel 6 live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. These Closed Caption logs are not official records of Council Meetings and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records or transcripts, please contact the City Clerk at 974-2210.

MAYOR GARCIA: AT THIS TIME I AM GOING TO CALL TO ORDER -- (MICROPHONE FEEDBACK) -- THERE WE GO. (MICROPHONE FEEDBACK). OKAY. NO, I DON'T THINK -- YOU CAN'T HEAR ME IN THE BACK, CAN YOU- NOW CAN YOU HEAR ME- FRED- OKAY- AT THIS TIME, MY NAME IS GUS GARCIA, AT THIS TIME I AM CALLING TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10TH, 2002, OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL IS MEETING IN THE MAIN ROOM AT THE SOUTH AUSTIN SENIOR ACTIVITY CENTER, 3911 MANCHACA ROAD. I WANT TO WELCOME ALL OF YOU. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WELCOMING THE COUNCIL TO YOUR FACILITY. IT'S GOOD TO BE HERE. IN ATTENDANCE IS -- STARTING ON MY RIGHT IS COUNCILMEMBER DANNY THOMAS, IN PLACE 6; COUNCILMEMBER WILL WYNN IN PLACE 5; COUNCILMEMBER BETTY DUNKERLY IN PLACE 4, OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, LISA GORDON; OUR CITY ATTORNEY, SEDORA JEFFERSON; AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM, JACKIE GOODMAN, WHO OF COURSE YOU KNOW BECAUSE SHE LIVES IN SOUTH AUSTIN; AND THEN JUST ARRIVING IS COUNCILMEMBER RAUL ALVAREZ AND SOON TO ARRIVE IS COUNCILMEMBER DARYL SLUSHER. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE 1:30 P.M. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION GENERAL. AND FIRST SPEAKER IS MR. JIMMY CASTRO, MR. CASTRO, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, GUS, GOOD AFTERNOON, I DO HAVE SOME SLIDES TO SHOW YOU THIS AFTERNOON, I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON MY OWN BEHALF, I HAVE ALSO SERVED AS A FORMER BOARD MEMBER OF THE MILLWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN NORTH AUSTIN. I AM HERE TO REMIND EVERYONE TO TAKE THE TIME TO VOTE, TUESDAY NOVEMBER THE 15TH. EARLY VOTING WILL BE FROM OCTOBER 19TH THROUGH NOVEMBER THE 1ST. THE NUMBER ONE REASON TO VOTE IS THE TAXES. THE NUMBER ONE QUESTION CURRENTLY BEING ASKED BY EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IN AUSTIN IS WHAT ABOUT MY TAXES- AND THE NUMBER ONE RESPONSE IS: IT MUST BE THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THIS A MISCONCEPTION BECAUSE THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER THE TRAVIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE SCHOOL TAXES KNOWN AS ROBINHOOD. THIS FIRST SLIDE SHOWS THROUGH THE LEADERSHIP OF CITY MANAGER TOBY FUTRELL AND THE BUDGET OFFICE, THIS YEAR'S PROPERTY TAX IMPACT IS WITH NO CHANGE IN THE TAX RATE. THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR SENIORS AND RETIREES. NEXT. THE AVERAGE HOME VALUE IN AUSTIN IS $158,000. THE TOTAL TAX BILL THIS YEAR WILL BE $3,586. THE AVERAGE HOME VALUE IN SAN ANTONIO IS $88,000. THE TOTAL TAX BILL THIS YEAR WILL BE $2,244. NEXT. THE U.S. CENSUS FIGURE SHOWS THAT CENTRAL TEXAS IS AMONG THE TOP 10 HOTTEST SPOTS IN THE NATION FOR SENIORS. NEXT. BUT CURRENTLY, 50% OF THE FAMILIES WHO MOVE INTO WILLIAMSON COUNTY ARE FROM TRAVIS COUNTY. AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON PEOPLE ARE LEAVING IS THE TRAVIS COUNTY TAXES. NEXT. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TRAVIS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISAL PROTESTS IN 2002 WERE 53,000. NEXT. IN TRAVIS COUNTY, FOR AN AUSTIN RESIDENT LIVING IN THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, A HOME VALUED AT $172,000 CAN EXPECT TO SEE THEIR TAXES INCREASE BY $498. NEXT. UNDER THE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM, KNOWN AS ROBINHOOD, THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IN 2003 WILL PAY $150 MILLION TO THE STATE. THIS SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING. IT IS BROKEN BECAUSE THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT A RICH SCHOOL DISTRICT. ESPECIALLY WHEN 70% OF ITS STUDENTS IS ON A FREE LUNCH PROGRAM. NEXT. FINALLY, THE BEST WAY TO FIX THE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM KNOWN AS ROBINHOOD IS SIMPLE. IF YOU WANT AN OMELET, YOU HAVE GOT TO CRACK SOME EGGS, THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA.

LET ME ALSO SAY THAT YOU COMPARED US TO SAN ANTONIO. THERE'S ONE OTHER COMPARISON THAT I THINK IS APPROPRIATE. NONE OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAVE GOTTEN INDICTED. [ LAUGHTER ] ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE ON OCTOBER 12TH, WE WILL BE CELEBRATING COUNCILMEMBER DANNY THOMAS' BIRTHDAY. IF YOU WANT TO WISH HIM A HAPPY BIRTHDAY, YOU CAN SEND HIM AN E-MAIL TO DANNY.THOMAS AT CI.-- [ LAUGHTER ] WILLIAM J. THOMAS. MR. WILLIAM J. THOMAS. MR. GUS PENA.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, GUS PENA, PRESIDENT OF EAST AUSTIN CONCERNED HISPANICS AND SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE RAINBOW COALITION. WE, TOO, ARE HAPPY TO BE HERE AT SOUTH AUSTIN SHE ACTIVITY CENTER. WHEN I RAN FOR CITY COUNCIL, WE GOT A LOT OF VOTES HERE IN THIS SENIOR COMMUNITY IN SOUTH AUSTIN, EVEN THOUGH I'M A NATIVE OF EAST AUSTIN, BUT I WANT TO THANK THEM, ALSO. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, CITY MANAGER, I WANT TO BRING UP AN ISSUE AGAIN THAT I BROUGHT UP ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO OR HAVE BEEN BRINGING FORTH FOR MORE THAN THREE WEEKS AGO REGARDING THE ISSUES AND THE PROBLEMS THAT BRACKENRIDGE -- AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. MAYOR, I HAVE NOT HAD ANY KIND OF FEEDBACK GIVEN TO ME REGARDING BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL ON WHAT THE CITY OR CITY'S ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN TO REMEDY THE SITUATIONS AT BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL. AND I THINK THIS HAS GONE ALONG FAR ENOUGH. I THINK WE DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY, WE SHOULD GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THAT, GUS, I THINK THAT'S NOT PROMOTE. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE BEING HARASSED, CONTINUOUSLY, NOT JUST A ONE ITEM ISSUE. I THINK IT'S MORE THAN THREE OCCASION OR MORE THAN FOUR OCCASION, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, MORE THAN 10 OCCASIONS, THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. ALSO I CALLED MR. THOMAS GALLAGHER, DR. PAT HAYS, THEY DID NOT RETURN MY PHONE CALLS. IS THERE A PROBLEM HERE- DO WE SEE SOMETHING THEY ARE TRYING TO HIDE- I HOPE NOT. THIS IS A LEGAL ISSUE THAT COULD INVOLVE THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND SETON ALSO AND BRACK. I STRONGLY URGE THAT SOMEBODY -- GIVE ME SOME FEEDBACK, THIS IS A CRITERIA THAT CAN BE DEALT WITH BY THE FEDERAL OFFICIALS. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO THAT ROUTE, WE WILL TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPECT AND CONTINUITY AT THE HOSPITAL. NO INDIVIDUAL THAT IS THERE FOR A HEALTH REASON IS NOT DISRESPECTED OR TREATED APPROPRIATELY. ANOTHER ISSUE, ELIGIBILITY OFFICE, JACKIE. WE ARE STILL HAVING PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE BEING DENIED ACCESS. NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT KIDS OR INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR 30'S TO 40'S, TALKING ABOUT SENIOR CITIZENS, ANOTHER THING ALSO, WE ARE VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED I MENTIONED DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS THE CO-PAY. YOU INCREASE $2, $3, THE SENIOR CITIZENS THAT ARE ON FIXED INCOME CANNOT AFFORD THESE CO-PAYMENTS. IT DOESN'T MATTER. MIGHT NOT SEEM MUCH TO YOU OR TO ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT HAS SOME MONEY. TWO EXTRA DOLLARS OR THREE EXTRA DOLLARS ADDS UP. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BUT A FIXED INCOME YOU ARE GOING TO BE HURTING. YOU MIGHT HAVE TO GO WITHOUT SOMETHING TO PAY FOR YOUR CO-PAYMENT OR OTHER ISSUES, YOU MIGHT SUFFER SERIOUS ILLNESS. AGAIN, MAYOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I WANT TO INFORM YOU THAT WE MET WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO DEVELOP A MAN TO FIGHT CRIME IN EAST AUSTIN, MONTOPOLIS DEVELOP A PLAN TO FIGHT CRIME IN EAST AUSTIN, I DO APPRECIATE THE MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH CHIEF NOTICE AND THE COMMUNITY, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU ONE THING, WE WILL DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO LIKE WE DID IN 1994. BRING IN THE FEDS IF WE HAVE TO. I APPLAUD THE EFFORTS THAT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS REALLY DONE TO AUGMENT AND HELP A.P.D. [BUZZER SOUNDING] ANYWAY, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. PENA. JOHN HARDMAN. MR. JOHN HARDMAN. IS MR. WILLIAM J. THOMAS HERE- WILLIAM J. THOMAS. IF NOT, THOSE ARE ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE UNDER CITIZENS COMMUNICATION GENERAL. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO TO THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS AND THE FIRST ONE IS ON ITEM NO. 1 IS DISCUSS -- THIS IS THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM, DISCUSSION REAL PROPERTY RELATED TO THE BARTON SPRINGS CLEAN WATER PROJECT FUNDED BY THE MAY, 1998 ELECTION, PROPOSITION 2 BONDS. THAT IS POSTPONED TO OCTOBER THE 24TH, THE YEAR 2002. ITEM 43, DELETE THE WORDS APPROVE A RESOLUTION DIRECTING AND ADD THE WORD DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO BRING FORWARD A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25-10 OF THE CITY CODE, SIGNED REGULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE SIGNS IN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAYS -- RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND ON ITEM 45, WHERE WE ARE SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PART OF THE AUSTIN TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE RECOMMENDED TIME IS THURSDAY, OCTOBER THE 31ST, OF THE YEAR 2002. AT 4:00 P.M. IT WAS POSTED AS OCTOBER THE 31ST, 2001. THE TIME CERTAINS ARE THE ONES THAT WE HAD ALREADY, WHICH IS THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. AT 3:00 WE WILL HAVE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. AND WE HAVE SIX ITEMS TO CONSIDER THERE. AT 4:00, WE HAVE ZONING HEARINGS AND DECISIONS, THAT'S ITEMS Z-1 THROUGH Z-12. STAFF WILL REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT FOR ITEMS 11 AND 12 RELATED TO THE EAST MLK COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TO OCTOBER THE 24TH AT 4:00 P.M. THEN AT 5:30 WE HAVE LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PREVIEW OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MS. CITY MANAGER, DO YOU HAVE ANY-

WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ITEMS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBERS, DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS FOR THE OCTOBER THE 24TH OR SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL MEETINGS-

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR. I BELIEVE THAT ON THE 24TH WE HAVE THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES RESOLUTION AND IN LIGHT OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE THING TO TALK ABOUT. BEHIND US IS AN ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PRESENTATION THAT WAS PUT INTO THE SENIOR CENTER LONG AFTER IT WAS BUILT, BUT IT REALLY HAS MADE A DIFFERENCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL BE BRINGING TO THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT -- NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS- OKAY. WE NOW WILL GO TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE MEETING, WE, THE CITY CLERK -- THERE YOU GO -- I WAS LOOKING FOR YOU, I COULDN'T FIND YOU. DID THEY GIVE YOU A MIC-

CLERK BROWN: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: IN THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING, THE CITY CLERK, MS. SHIRLEY BROWN, READS INTO THE RECORD THOSE ITEMS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS NOT REQUESTED FOR DISCUSSION AND WE -- WE READ THEM INTO THE RECORD, THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK ON THOSE ITEMS, I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AT THAT TIME. AND THEN WE WILL VOTE ON ALL OF THE ITEMS TOGETHER. MS. BROWN-

CLERK BROWN: THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR TODAY, ITEM NO. 6, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WORK SESSION OF OCTOBER 2ND AND THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 3RD, 2002; ITEM NO. 7, 8, 9, 10, ITEM 12, MAYOR, I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO PULL DUE TO THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP.

MAYOR GARCIA: 11 AND 12 BOTH, YES.

CLERK BROWN: ITEM 13 WE ARE PULLING BECAUSE OF THE SPEAKERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

CLERK BROWN: ON CONSENT THEN ARE ITEMS 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 ARE APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS, THE CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY BOARD, BRUCE WILSON IS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S REAPPOINTMENT. THE ELECTRICAL BOARD, ROBERT SCHMIDT IS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S REAPPOINTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, DAVID ANDERSON IS MAYOR GARCIA'S APPOINTMENT. ITEMS 40, 41, 42, 44, AND 45 WITH THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. AND 43 -- LET'S SEE.

CLERK BROWN: WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I WILL PUT THAT ONE BACK ON.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. 43 IS GOING BACK ON CONSENT.

SLUSHER: AND JUST TO -- WHEN -- IF -- THIS IS TO GET THE STAFF TO COME FORWARD WITH SOME PROPOSALS, IF -- IF AT THAT TIME I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SEND IT THROUGH THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, BUT NOT UNTIL. AND I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION ON 40, MAYOR, WHEN YOU ARE READY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

SLUSHER: WELL --

MAYOR GARCIA: ITEM NO. 11 AND 12 ARE PULLED, 13 IS PULLED, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENT ITEMS. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT MS. BROWN READ INTO THE RECORD- IF NOT, I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCILMEMBERS. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING-

SLUSHER: YES, MAYOR. ON NUMBER 40, THAT'S THE EARLY ACTION COMPACT FOR CLEAN AIR. I'M IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT -- THAT, WELL, ONE THING THAT'S FRUSTRATED ME ABOUT THE WAY THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT IS STRUCTURED IS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO INTO NON-ATTAINMENT BEFORE YOU CAN TAKE A LOT OF MEASURES TO CLEAN UP THE AIR. I WOULD RATHER TAKE SOME OF THOSE MEASURES BEFORE WE GET TO THE POINT OF BEING IN NON-ATTAINMENT. WE CAN TELL FROM LOOKING AT THE AIR AND A -- IN A LOT OF INSTANCES JUST FROM BREATHING IT THAT IT'S NOT AS CLEAN AS IT SHOULD BE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT ARE SUFFERING FROM ASTHMA HAVE TO HAVE -- HAVE BREATHING DEVICES. SO I'M TOTALLY FOR THIS. WHAT I WAS WONDERING, THE PRESENTATION THAT I SAW YESTERDAY AT CAMPO, THAT THE PLAN WOULDN'T BE SUBMITTED FOR ANOTHER 17 MONTHS. IS THERE -- THERE IS A TWO-PART QUESTION. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN SPEED THAT UP- AND, TWO, ARE THERE MEASURES THAT WE COULD TAKE BEYOND WHAT THE CITY IS DOING ALREADY EARLIER THAN 17 MONTHS-

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. BLUNT- I UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS PLAN WAS GOING TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

SLUSHER: WHAT THEY SHOWED US YESTERDAY WAS THE SIGNED INTENTION, THAT'S THE WAY IT APPEARED TO ME, THE ACTUAL PLAN ITSELF ISN'T SUBMITTED FOR ANOTHER 14 MONTHS.

THE COMPACT IS DECIDED INTO TWO STEPS. THE FIRST IS THE COMPACT WHICH IS BEFORE YOU TO SIGN TONIGHT OR TO -- TO NEGOTIATE AND PLEDGE TO SIGN IS TO PLAN -- PUT TOGETHER THE PLAN WHICH I WILL CALL FOR LACK OF BETTER WORD YOUR PRECIP, YOUR [INAUDIBLE] IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO WORK WITH OUR -- HOLDING TOGETHER THE COALITION OF FIVE COUNTIES AND 12 CITIES AT THIS POINT TO WORK ON THIS PLAN SO IN ABOUT 17 MONTHS FROM NOW WE WILL HAVE A FINAL AUTHORIZED PLAN THAT YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON AT THIS POINTS. THERE WILL BE A STRONG FISCAL NOTE ATTACHED TO THAT. AT WHICH POINT WE SUBMIT IT TO THE STATE, THEN THE STATE WILL PUT IT INTO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, IT WILL BECOME A PART OF LAW. ONCE YOU HAVE DECIDED -- I TRIED TO COUNSEL NOT TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL THE COMPACT IS SIGNED. IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THINGS SUCH AS NO IDLING, THERE'S A VARIETY OF OTHER ONES, THERE'S NO REASON WHY YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TAKE THIS UP AND DO THEM AS YOU WANT AT THIS POINT. THERE ARE THINGS THAT THE STATE AND FEDS DO, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL NECESSARILY OVER ENGINES, FUELS, THE TIMING OF [INAUDIBLE], THAT SORT OF A THING. BUT WE HAVE COMMITTEES WORKING NOW TO TRY TO GET EXTRA SULFUR DIESEL INTO THE AREA, STEPS ALONG THAT MATTER. BUT ONCE THIS COMPACT IS SIGNED, WE HAVE BROUGHT THE COALITION THIS FAR, THIS IS THE TIME -- THE CITY WANTS TO STEP OUT AND DO SOME ORDINANCES OR THINGS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF WHAT YOU ALL CAN DO, HAVE AT IT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. WELL, ON THE -- AS FAR AS THE INSPECTION -- ADDED THAT TO INSPECTIONS, I -- FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR CITIES BECAUSE OF, ONE, THE COST OF THE EQUIPMENT, HOW MUCH DOES THAT EQUIPMENT COST-

WELL, IT DEPENDS -- I HAVE STARTED INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE TO START LOOKING INTO THIS. THERE'S THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT TYPES OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS THAT YOU CAN GET INTO THAT ARE AVAILABLE NOW THROUGH THE STATE. I HOPE THAT POSSIBLY IN THE NEXT LEGISLATURE WE CAN ADD A COUPLE TO THAT, THESE ARE ALL SET UP FOR THE ONE HOUR STANDARD, MAY BE MORE RIGOROUS THAN WE NEED RIGHT NOW. BUT FOR THE PROGRAM TO WORK, IT'S GOT TO BE -- [INAUDIBLE] ACCEPTED PROGRAM, THEN TCEQ WILL -- WILL IMPLEMENT IT AND DEPARTMENT OF -- OF PUBLIC SAFETY WILL ENFORCE IT. IF WE WANT TO DO OUR OWN PLAN, WE CAN, BUT THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING WILL FALL ENTIRELY ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO DO. IT'S BETTER TO FIND A STATE PLAN WE CAN HOOK ON TO SO THEY CAN HELP US ABSORB THOSE COSTS AND MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. WELL, LET ME ASK YOU ONE MORE. IS THIS IN ANY WAY GOING TO DELAY OTHER MEASURES THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DO GO INTO NON-ATTAINMENT-

THE ONLY DOWN SIDE THAT I COULD TELL YOU THAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT ON THIS, IF WE DO GO INTO NON-ATTAINMENT, CMEC MONEY IS AVAILABLE TO US, BUT RIGHT NOW ONLY THE CURRENT NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS ARE AVAILABLE TO. THERE ARE SOME -- SOME FORCES AT WORK ON THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LEVEL TO TRY TO GET CMAC MONEY AVAILABLE FOR NEAR NON-ATTAINMENT AND 8 HOUR NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS. BUT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL BEYOND WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE.

SLUSHER: THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE FOR NOW, MAYOR, BUT I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING AT WHAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT ON OUR OWN BEFORE THE 17 MONTHS. THEN ACTUALLY 17 MONTHS, THERE'S STILL SOME TIME AFTER YOU SUBMIT IT THEN TO THE FEDS BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY GO INTO ACTION, RIGHT-

THE TIME LINE IS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT ONLINE ACTUALLY PROBABLY BEFORE WE EVEN WOULD BE DECLARED NON-ATTAINMENT. IT WILL ALREADY BE PART OF OUR PROGRAM. THAT'S THE TIME LINE THAT'S REQUIRED IN THE [INAUDIBLE]

SLUSHER: WHEN WOULD THAT BE-

[ LAUGHTER ] I GUESS DEPENDS WHETHER WE BOMB IRAQ OR NOT. RIGHT NOW -- PROBABLY THE EARLIEST THAT THEY WOULD DECLARE NON-ATTAINMENT WOULD BE IN THE SPRING OF 2004. AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE -- BY -- BEFORE CHRISTMAS OF 2003 AND I'M HOPING THAT BY THEN WHEN IT'S -- WHEN THE PLAN IS APPROVED, WE WILL ALREADY HAVE IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL OF THE STEPS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO THAT WAY IS IT REALLY EARLY ACTION THEN- I'M SORRY THIS IS TAKING SO LONG, MAYOR --

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, NO, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, TOO.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

WELL, WHAT MAKES IT EARLY ACTION IS THAT NORMALLY MOST AREAS DON'T START TO DO ANYTHING TO START TO CLEAN UP THE AIR UNTIL THEY ARE DECLARED NON-ATTAINMENT. WE OUGHT TO HAVE ALREADY A PLAN SUBMITTED AND WORK STARTED BEFORE WE BE DECLARED -- BEFORE THIS CALENDAR TIME WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE BEING DECLARED NON-ATTAINMENT. BY HAVING THIS PLAN IN PLACE AND ENFORCED BY THE STATE WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO AVOID BEING DECLARED NON-ATTAINMENT. THE WORDING WILL STILL BE WORKED OUT. IT'S UNDER A POTENTIAL LAWSUIT NOW. WE PROBABLY WOULD BE DECLARED NON-ATTAINMENT IN ABEYANCE OR SOMETHING, TEMPORARILY NON-ATTAINMENT, SOME SORT OF WORDS LIKE THAT. WITH THE IDEA THAT AS LONG AS WE DO WHAT WE SAY WE ARE GOING TO DO, THE MONITOR SHOW THAT'S WE HAVE CLEANED UP THE AIR, WE WILL NEVER GET THE OFFICIAL TERM NON-ATTAINMENT ATTACHED TO US.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO WITH NON-ATTAINMENT, THEN THERE'S MEASURES THAT YOU ARE FORCED TO TAKE. AT LEAST THEORETICALLY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WE EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE. AT THIS TIME, THE E.P.A. HASN'T FINISHED THEIR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE 8 HOUR NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS. WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE, WHAT THEY REQUIRE FOR THE ONE HOUR NON-ATTAINMENT, BUT SAYING THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR THE 8 HOUR NON-ATTAINMENT WOULD BE SPECULATIVE AT THIS POINT.

SLUSHER: LET'S SAY IF WITHIN IS CONCERNED ABOUT -- ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU GET DECLARED NON-ATTAINMENT AND WHAT THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT ENTAIL, BECAUSE I HAVE EXPLAINED WE DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HASN'T SAID EXACTLY OR DECIDED EXACTLY. SO ONE WOULD BE -- YOU GET DECLARED NON-ATTAINMENT, WHATEVER THAT ENTAILS. TWO, WE JUST WANT TO CLEAN UP THE AIR. AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. ARE WE BETTER OFF ON JUST CLEANING UP THE AIR AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AT THE EARLY ACTION COMPACT OR WITHOUT IT-

WE ARE PROBABLY A YEAR AND A HALF IN ADVANCE IF WE START ON OUR OWN KNOWN WITH THE EARLY ACTION COMPACT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. CERTAINLY THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MOVING EXTREMELY SLOWLY. ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING APPEARED THE CITY IS DOING ON THIS. I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED IN LOCAL CONTROL AND LOCAL ACTIONS JUST TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENTS POSSIBLE THIS. IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A DENT IN IT, IF WE ARE, IS GOING TO REQUIRE, ONE, FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR AUTOMOBILES AND MUCH MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW, AND STRONGER STANDARDS ON AUTOMOBILES AND PLANTS, BUT I DO THINK WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE THAT -- POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. FRED, HOW BIG IS THE AIR SHED THAT IS COVERED WHEN THEY GO TO DETERMINE NON-ATTAINMENT- FOR THIS AREA-

WHAT THE AIR SHED WOULD ACTUALLY BE DECLARED AS NON-ATTAINMENT ON AN 8 HOUR STANDARD RIGHT NOW IS SPECULATIVE. WE EXPECT IT TO BE THE FIVE COUNTY MSA. CALDWELL, BASTROP, HAYS, TRAVIS AND WILLIAMSON COUNTIES. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED ON TO THE 03 FLEX, WHICH WAS TO ADDRESS THE ONE HOUR STANDARD AND WE HAVE ALREADY ACHIEVED SOME SUCCESSES UNDER THAT. WE WENT TO THOSE FIVE COUNTIES AND THE PRINCIPAL CITY IN EACH ONE OF THOSE COUNTIES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE OTHER THING IS THAT, AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER MENTIONED THIS, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME KIND OF A PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO LET THE PEOPLE IN THIS REGION KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS WE ARE NOT DOING THIS TO -- TO AVOID GETTING DESIGNATED AS BEING NON-ATTAINMENT. WE ARE DOING THIS BECAUSE THIS IS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS AREA. THOSE OF US THAT ARE SENIOR CITIZENS AND THOSE OF US THAT ARE CHILDREN CAN GET ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE QUALITY OF THE AIR. THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE VERY SIMPLE FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. IF ANY OF YOU DRIVE AROUND AUSTIN, YOU SEE AUTOMOBILES THAT ARE SPEWING OUT THAT BLUE SMOKE. THOSE AUTOMOBILES POLLUTE AS MUCH AS 50 TIMES AS MUCH AS A REGULAR TUNED AUTOMOBILE. SO THERE OUGHT TO BE A WAY TO REPORT THOSE CARS TO SOMEBODY TO THAT THEY CAN GET A LETTER SAYING GET YOUR CAR, GET IT TUNED UP, BUT DON'T HAVE IT OUT ON THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, POLLUTING THE AIR. THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING, INSPECTION THINGS THAT I'M SURE WE WILL FIND A WAY THROUGH THE EARLY ACTION COMPACT. BUT I FOR ONE FEEL VERY POSITIVELY ABOUT THE FACT THAT AUSTIN IS TAKING THE LEADERSHIP POSITION OF SAYING WE NEED TO CLEAN OUR AIR NOT BECAUSE WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT, WE WANT TO DO THAT, TOO, BUT BECAUSE WE WANT TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE. THAT'S I THINK THE PRIMARY FOCUS. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS-

GOODMAN: MAYOR, LET ME ASK ONE THAT YOU JUST KIND OF GAVE RISE TO. I WAS WONDERING ABOUT WHETHER IF WE ARE "IN ABEYANCE" NOT PLAY OUT IN NON-ATTAINMENT, WHETHER THAT MODIFIED OUR ABILITY TO GET ANY HELP FROM FEDERAL DOLLARS. I HAVE ASKED SEDORA JEFFERSON OUR CITY LEGAL TO LOOK INTO THAT. BUT THE OTHER THING IS IF DOLLARS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE AVAILABLE FROM ALL OF THE MONEY THAT WE SEND THERE AND WE IMPLEMENT STANDARDS HERE AND PEOPLE ARE CALLING IN OTHER PEOPLE FOR SMOKING AUTOMOBILES, IS PART OF THAT FEDERAL HELP ANY KIND OF LOAN PROGRAM OR REPAIR PROGRAM OF SOME SORT FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THAT KIND OF MAINTENANCE, BUT MUST HAVE A CAR, ESPECIALLY IN A CITY WITH A MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM SUCH AS OURS.

THAT SOUND LIKE A MULTI PART QUESTION. I WILL TRY TO DO THE BEST I CAN. AS FAR AS THE -- WHAT THEY CALL THEY HAVE A LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. IF WE SET UP AN INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, THE COUNTIES CAN OPT IN FOR, IT'S CALLED [INAUDIBLE], IT PROVIDES THE PEOPLE THAT EITHER -- THAT QUALIFY DUE TO LOW INCOME, A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY TO EITHER FIX UP THEIR CAR OR REPLACE IT, INSTEAD OF IT BEING BORNE DIRECTLY BY THEM. HOW THIS MONEY IS COLLECTED IS A LITTLE HIGHER FEES FOR INSPECTION FOR EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTY. THE COUNTIES HAVE TO OPT INTO THIS BY COUNTY. IT'S TRYING TO BE SET UP RIGHT NOW IN DALLAS AND HOUSTON, IT HASN'T BEEN FULLY EXECUTED YET. THEY ARE STILL WORKING OUT SOME OF THE KINKS. BUT THERE IS A PROCESS TO HELP THOSE OF LOW INCOME EITHER GETTING A BETTER VEHICLE OR GET THE REPAIRS PAID FOR BY THE STATE. AS FAR AS OTHER MONEYS COMING IN, THE ONLY OTHER MONEY THAT I KNOW OF THAT'S OUT THERE THAT'S AVAILABLE TO NON-ATTAINMENT AREA THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO US NOW IS LIRAP -- I MEAN IS THE CMAC FUNDING. THE STATE GIVES YOU WHAT WE CALL RIDER 13 MONEY THROUGH CAP TO CO-TO DO A LOT OF MODELING EMISSION INVENTORY WORK. IN THIS STATE BUDGET I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THAT MONEY BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE THAT MODELING IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR US TO CONTINUE DOWN THIS ROAD ON CLEANING UP OUR AIR. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL AND THE LEGISLATIVE -- I KNOW THAT YOU ARE PUTTING TOGETHER YOUR LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE SOON TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO WHATEVER YOU WHAT WHATEVER YOU CAN TO SUPPORT THE CONTINUANCE OF THAT FUNDING SO WE CAN DO OUR MODELING. THE OTHER MONEYS THAT COME TO US ARE PROGRAMS LIKE CLEAN CITIES, WHERE WE CHARGE [INAUDIBLE] SET UP ALTERNATIVE FUELING STATIONS. THAT MAKES -- GIVES US ACCESS TO A VARIETY OF GRANTS, LIKE WE JUST GOT A GRANT THAT HELPS THE -- THE AIRPORT PUT IN AN ALTERNATIVE FUELING STATION. THERE ARE OTHER GRANTS OUT THAT THAT WE CONTINUALLY SCOUR FOR AND LOOK FOR THAT WE TRY TO DO OUR BEST TO GET. WE HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY SUCCESSFUL SO FAR.

GOODMAN: THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA- LET ME GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA ONE MORE TIME. AND CHIEF THOMAS WE WILL BE WITH YOU AS SOON AS WE VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. SORRY THAT -- THAT YOU DIDN'T GET THE WORD THAT THE COUNCIL WAS MEETING HERE INSTEAD OF AT LCRA. ITEM NO. 6 WHICH IS APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE WORK SESSION OF OCTOBER 2ND, 2002 AND THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 3RD, 2002, ITEMS 7, ITEM 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, WITH THE APPOINTMENTS READ INTO THE RECORD, WHICH ARE CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY BOARD, BRUCE WILSON, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S REAPPOINTMENT; ELECTRICAL BOARD, ROBERT SCHMIDT, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S REAPPOINTMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, DAVID ANDERSON, MAYOR GARCIA'S APPOINTMENT; ITEMS 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, THAT'S IT. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THERE A SECOND- SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. FURTHER DISCUSSION- IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO- MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7-0 ON THE CONSENT ITEMS. WE CALL MR. WILLIAM J. THOMAS DURING THE 1:30 CITIZENS COMMUNICATION GENERAL. HE WASN'T HERE. SO AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE MR. THOMAS. MR. THOMAS, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M HERE TO RAISE A QUESTION, FIRST OF ALL, I'M WILLIAM THOMAS OF MILLWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF AUSTIN. MY QUESTION IS BASICALLY WHY IS THE CHIEF OF POLICE [INAUDIBLE] WHEN AN ORDINANCE WILL BE ENFORCED, HOW IT WILL BE ENFORCED. OF COURSE I'M REFERRING TO THE HOT POTATO ORDINANCE PASSED ON AUGUST 29TH TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER THE 9TH PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE FRONT AND SIDE YARDS. AS OF 11:00 MORNING, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WERE STILL NOT PROMULGATED AND SO THE POLICE AT 311 WILL NOT UNDERTAKE TO INVESTIGATE A COMPLAINT OF A CAR PARK ODD A SIDE YARD. OR ON THE FRONT YARD. THEY REFER TO THE D.R. AND THE D.R. SAYS, WELL, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY RULES AND REGS FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE. NOW, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER THE 9TH. WE ARE -- WE ARE AT OCTOBER THE 10TH. UNLESS I HAVE MISREAD THE CALENDAR. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY MEANS OF ENFORCING THE LAW. BUT IN ORDER TO TEST THE POLICE, AND TO DETERMINE WHO THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT, AT ONE LOCATION, AT THE CORNER OF ASPENDALE AND ASPENDALE COVE, THERE WERE ON ONE OCCASION $120 IN FINES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM TWO CARS ILLEGALLY PARKED IN A DRIVEWAY BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW AND CITY ORDINANCE, AND ONE CAR WAS PARKED WITH ITS LEFT SIDE TO THE -- TO THE CURB. IT MAY HAVE BEEN TOO CLOSE TO THE FIRE HYDRANT. BUT THAT'S IMMATERIAL. THE PARKING WITH THE LEFT WHEEL TO THE CURB IS A $40 FINE UNDER SECTION 16. SO RIGHT THERE, AS A -- HAD A POLICE OFFICER APPEARED, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN $120, THE CITY IS HURTING FOR MONEY. WHY SHOULD [INAUDIBLE] BE TOLERATED IN SUCH A BLATANT FASHION. IN 36 HOURS, NO POLICE OFFICER HAD ARRIVED. THAT WAS FROM 11:00 ON A SATURDAY MORNING UNTIL 11:00 ON SUNDAY NIGHT. AND NO POLICE OFFICER ARRIVED, THE CARS WEREN'T MOVED, THEY WEREN'T TICKETED. THEY ARE OUT THERE TODAY. THE -- THE TRUCK FROM THE PLUMBING COMPANY PARK THERE'S IN THE EVENING AND WEEKENDS. VERY CONVENIENTLY THE HOURS THAT THE D.R. IS NOT PRESENT. SO THE 311 WON'T TAKE THE CALL, THEN THE D.R. ISN'T THERE TO ENFORCE IT. IF THERE WAS ANYTHING TO ENFORCE AND SO FAR THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR HIS DEPARTMENT HAS DONE NOTHING TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS. WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH THE TRIED AND TESTED RULE OF GO OUT AND HANG A TICKET ON THESE CARS. THE FACT THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN CONTROVERSIAL, MILLWOOD IS AN AREA THAT ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE. AND WHY ISN'T IT BEING ENFORCED IN THOSE AREAS THAT WANT IT ENFORCED- BECAUSE WE DO HAVE [INAUDIBLE] LAWS, THEY ARE DESTROYING THE GRASS, CREATING MUD HOLES. I HAVE SOME PICTURES HERE WHICH SHOW THAT THE ONE CAR IN THE PARKING LOT -- [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC] [BUZZER SOUNDING]

THESE ARE ALL FOR YOU TO SEE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. RIGHT HERE.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC] ... IS THE ONLY WAY TO PUT IT. NOTHING IS BEING DONE TO CALL THEM TO TASK. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN-

FUTRELL: MY UNDERSTANDING, RICK, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING, AN UPDATE THAT YOU CAN GIVE US ON ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE- THIS IS ASSISTANT CHIEF RICK COY. THEN CHIEF AFTER YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO JUST GIVE A QUICK UPDATE TO THE COUNCIL, IF YOU WILL TALK WITH THIS GENTLEMAN AND SEE IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT HIS SPECIFIC ISSUE AND WHAT WE CAN DO. >

SURE. RICK COY, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THIS ISSUE, THERE'S LEGAL ISSUES, CITY LEGAL, WORKS WITH THE CHIEF'S OFFICE, WE ARE FINALIZING THE LANGUAGE TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE IT. WE SHOULD BE NEARING COMPLETION OF THAT. THERE WAS A HOLDUP AS FAR AS THE LANGUAGE WITH LAW.

FUTRELL: WHAT'S YOUR TIME FRAME FOR GETTING THAT ISSUE INVOLVED WITH LAW SO IT CAN GO INTO ENFORCEMENT- ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WEEK-

I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH DAVID DOUGLAS. I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYTHING MAJOR. IT'S THE FINAL STAGES. RUDY, CHIEF LANDEROS AND DAVID DOUGLAS --

FUTRELL: IF YOU COULD FOLLOW UP WITH MR. THOMAS, TO BE SURE WE HAVE THAT ADDRESS, WHERE WE ARE, WHAT OUR TIME FRAME IS.

IF I CAN ADD SOMETHING. A RULE IS BEING DRAFTED SO THAT THE ORDINANCE CAN BE ENFORCED AND SO THAT'S IN PROGRESS. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S GOING TO BE ADOPTED ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS, SO I THINK THE TIME FRAME IS SOON, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ABOUT A COUPLE OF WEEKS SINCE I HEARD ABOUT IT. BUT I DO KNOW A RULE IS BEING DRAFTED.

WE HAVE WRITTEN OR POLICIES FOR ENFORCEMENT AS FAR AS -- GENERAL POLICIES, THOSE ARE ALREADY WRITTEN OUT. WE ARE JUST WAITING ON THE FINAL POLICY TO COME BACK.

I THINK THE QUESTION THAT IS THE COUNCIL ORDINANCE SAID IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE EFFECTIVE YESTERDAY, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT WE ARE RUNNING BEHIND. IF WE COULD GET THIS EXPEDITED SO WE CAN GET MOVING ON THAT ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. ROBERTS, IF YOU COULD JOIN CHIEF COY SOMEWHERE IN A ROOM OUT THERE SO YOU ALL CAN DISCUSS THE ISSUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THOMAS: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS-

THOMAS: I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN DO THIS FOR BRIEF -- FOR THE TIME OF GETTING THE ORDINANCE FINALIZED OR THE RULES MAYBE WE CAN HAVE 311 ADVISE THAT WE ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS SO THAT THE CITIZENS WON'T FEEL THAT WE ARE NEGLECTING THE CITIZENS, LET THEM KNOW WHEN THEY ARE CALLING IN.

FUTRELL: WE WILL DO A BETTER JOB OF MAKING SURE WHEN SOMEONE CALLS WITH AN ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT THE SITUATION IS AND WHAT OUR TIME FRAME IS.

THOMAS: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE WILL NOW GO TO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. THE FIRST ONE IS -- I GUESS WE WILL CALL THESE UP TOGETHER, ITEMS NUMBER 11 AND NUMBER 12, I WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: YEAH, MAYOR, THERE'S A FEW ISSUES ON THIS ONE. MS. MURPHY, COULD I -- THE ONE THAT I'M THE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE PROPOSAL TO -- ON THE WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS, INCREASING THOSE THERE. I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I WOULD LIKE TO DO IT. THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURAL ISSUES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DO THAT AS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. THAT'S ONE THING. THE STAFF IS ALREADY WORKING ON A HEAD WATERS PROTECTION ORDINANCE THAT I UNDERSTAND IS STILL A FEW MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD. I WANT TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO PROTECT THIS, WITHOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT, JUST DOING AN ORDINANCE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WITHOUT NOTIFYING PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFECTED. AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T WANT IT TO TAKE SO LONG THAT WE END UP WITH THE AREA NOT REALLY PROTECTED BECAUSE THINGS GET GRANDFATHERED. SO I KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THAT. ONE IDEA IS JUST TO DO IT ON SECOND READING TODAY AND LET YOU COME BACK IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH THE -- WITH THE ANALYSIS. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH-

JUST BRIEFLY THERE'S A COUPLE OF OPTIONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT TO PROTECT THESE CREEKS THAT DON'T HAVE CLASSIFICATIONS RIGHT THERE AND THEREFORE NOT SETBACKS FOR DEVELOPMENT. ONE WAS THE IDEA THAT, YOU KNOW, IF COUNCIL DESIRED THEY COULD DO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND YOU WERE DISCUSSING SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH OUR PEOPLE PROPERLY NOTIFIED -- WITH ARE PEOPLE PROPERLY NOTIFIED HAS THERE BEEN PROPER DISCUSSION OF THAT ITEM. THE OTHER THING THAT WE ARE LOOKING ON IS THE HEADWATER PROTECTION REGULATIONS OUT OF THE MASTER PLAN, WATERSHED PROTECTION MASTER PLAN, I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL HAVE THOSE READY TO BRING TO YOU WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. SO THAT WOULD PROVIDE PERMANENT PROTECTION THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. THE ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE, OF COURSE, AND -- IN THIS SCENARIO IS THAT IF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WERE FILED IN THE INTERIM WITHOUT SOME SORT OF PROTECTION, THEN -- THEN UNDER CHAPTER 245 THEY WOULD BE NOT SUBJECT TO THOSE ORDINANCES OR THAT ORDINANCE WHEN IT WAS PASSED. SO THAT'S THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS. MS. GLASGO AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING ONE IDEA, WHICH I GUESS WOULD BE WHEN YOU WANT TO DO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AS A WAY TO PROTECT THE CREEKS IN THE INTERIM UNTIL WE BRING THE ORDINANCE FORWARD, THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER THE IDEA OF DOING THAT WITH THE STATED IDEA OF COMING BACK AT -- WHEN THOSE ORDINANCES WERE BROUGHT FORWARD AND REZONING THIS ROT TO REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AT THAT TIME HAVING THE WATERSHED REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT PROTECTION. SO -- SO THAT IS AN OPTION FOR YOU. I THINK ALICE MAY HAVE SOMETHING MORE TO SAY ABOUT THIS. SO --

SLUSHER: OKAY.

GLASGO: GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, ALICE GLASGO. THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO PAT'S COMMENT ON THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE, THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES THAT WERE BEING UP ZONED AND THEREFORE GOT NOTICE ON THE ZONING. BUT THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES ALSO THAT WERE, COULD BE AFFECTED BY THE -- IF YOU WERE TO IMPOSE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY REQUIRING ADDITIONAL SETBACKS, THAT WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF ANY ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE THEIR BASE DISTRICT WASN'T CHANGING AT ALL. SO THAT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR SOME PROPERTIES THAT WERE NOTIFIED WOULD BE OKAY, BUT THOSE THAT DID NOT GET ANY NOTICE SAYING THAT YOUR ZONING IS CHANGING WOULD NOT BE AWARE OF -- OF THE CHANGE.

SLUSHER: SO IF WE TRIED TO DO -- AN ORDINANCE THROUGH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THEN WE RUN INTO THIS NOTIFICATION PROBLEM.

GLASGO: CORRECT FOR THOSE TRACTS THAT WERE NOT BEING REZONED AT ALL AT THIS TIME. SO YOU ARE -- YOUR OTHER OPTIONS ARE OBVIOUSLY TO CONSIDER THE OTHER OPTION THAT PAT MENTIONED THAT -- THAT YOU COULD DIRECT STAFF TO -- TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS OF THE HEADWATERS PROCESS THAT IS GOING ON TO BRING IT IN WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS OR SO.

SLUSHER: HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO NOTIFY FOLKS- WE HAVE SEEN IN -- IN OTHER AREAS OF BARTON SPRINGS, IN PARTICULAR, THERE'S BEEN A DELAY OF THAT LONG. THAT YOU GET HUNDREDS OF CASES, I DOUBT WE ARE GOING TO GET HUNDREDS IN THIS AREA. BUT IT WOULDN'T TAKE HUNDREDS TO NEGATE THE IMPACT OF A NEW ORDINANCE.

NO. IT WOULDN'T TAKE THAT LONG. WE COULD CERTAINLY IF IT'S YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE US GO BACK AND IDENTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY SUCH AN ORDINANCE, OR SIMPLY TO NOTIFY EVERYBODY AND MAKE THEM AWARE OF IT, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.

SLUSHER: HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD TAKE- LET'S SAY THEN PASSING ON SECOND READING TODAY, NOTIFIED THE ANYBODY THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS, WHAT WOULD BE THE SOONEST WE COULD GET IT BACK.

I WOULD SAY FOUR WEEKS AT A MINIMUM. WE NEED TO GIVE THEM A 15 DAY NOTICE FOR THE HEARING AND I BELIEVE UNLESS YOU WANT US TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION- DO WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION-

ON THOSE PROPERTIES, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO NOTICE AS TO ANY ZONING CHANGE, THOSE PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE CALL PULLED OUT OF THIS THAT ARE GOING TO GO BACK, THEY CAN GO BACK AT THE SAME TIME. WE CAN PUT THAT ON AN ACCELERATED TRACK AND GET THEM BACK UP HERE. BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL PROPERTIES AS YOU WILL RECALL FROM OUR PREVIOUS FIRST READING THAT FOLKS DESIRED, COME FORWARD AT THE LAST MANUSCRIPT, HAD NOT BEEN PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS AND DESIRED A CHANGE IN ZONING THAT WE HAD NOT NOTIFIED FOR. AND WE ADVISED AT THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME BECAUSE NO NOTICE HAD BEEN PROVIDED, WE WOULD HAVE TO PULL THOSE TRACTS BACK AND TAKE THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE CAN DO THIS AT THE SAME TIME AND BRING THOSE -- BRING ALL OF THAT UP TOGETHER AND WE CAN GET THAT ON THE FAST TRACK FOR YOU AND BRING THAT BACK THROUGH.

SLUSHER: YOU THINK FAST TRACK WOULD BE ABOUT FOUR WEEKS-

DEPENDS ON WHEN ALICE CAN GET IT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AGENDA. BUT -- AS FAST AS WE CAN GET IT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA, WE CAN NOTIFY AT THE SAME TIME FOR COUNCIL AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK. COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE IN THE PAST THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON'T TAKE ACTION THE SAME WEEK AT THE COMMISSION THAT WE DO AT COUNCIL. BUT WE COULD GO ON AHEAD AND MOVE THINGS QUICKLY AND JUST SORT OF KIND OF GOING AHEAD AND COMPRESSING THAT SCHEDULE AND GETTING IT BACK TO YOU VERY QUICKLY. IT IS FAIRLY A SIMPLE ISSUE BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WITH A CREEK SETBACK, IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD ON THOSE PROPERTIES. IT'S NOT A COMPLICATED ZONING CASE IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. I THINK WE CAN BRING IT BACK TO YOU VERY QUICKLY. WE CAN MAKE THE COMMITMENT TO YOU THAT WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO YOU VERY QUICKLY.

SLUSHER: OKAY. WELL, MAYOR PRO TEM IS THAT THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD PREFER TO GO ABOUT IT AS WELL.

GOODMAN: ACTUALLY, THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE SIMPLEST WAY. I DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYBODY ELSE GETTING CONFUSED AT THIS LATE STAGE. SO --

SLUSHER: DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER IDEA THAT YOU WERE -- MIGHT DO THAT-

GOODMAN: WELL, IT WOULD HAVE RELIED ON HAVING A PLAN FOR THE WATERSHEDS RIGHT NOW, ON HAVING AN IDEA FOR THE OVERLAY. BUT SINCE THE OVERLAY WASN'T NOTIFIED FOR -- ON ALL OF THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES --

SLUSHER: MS. GLASGO WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS TEMPORARY OVERLAY UNTIL THE ORDINANCE, BROADER ORDINANCE IS READY FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION-

GLASGO: NO. I THINK THE THOUGHT WE HAD OF THE TEMPORARY OVERLAY WOULD STILL REQUIRE NOTIFICATION.

SLUSHER: I UNDERSTAND. BUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A TEMPORARY ONE UNTIL -- WITH WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED, I'M JUST VERIFYING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THOUGH, IS THAT'S TEMPORARY UNTIL THE -- UNTIL THE COUNCIL DEALS WITH THE HEAD WATERS ORDINANCE AND AT THAT TIME THEN THE OVERLAY WOULD GO AWAY AND THE AREA WOULD BE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER COUNCIL PASSES AT THAT TIME.

THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO UNDER THAT WE WOULD PASS THE WHOLE PLAN ON SECOND READING TODAY- BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN -- I GUESS WE COULD PASS THE REST OF IT ON THIRD IF YOU WENT THROUGH AND TOOK OUT WHAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE. BUT THAT MIGHT -- HOW WOULD YOU PREFER ON THAT MS. CITY ATTORNEY-

I THINK IT'S -- ACTUALLY I THINK IT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE. THAT IS GOING AHEAD AND ADOPT YOUR PLAN AND YOUR ZONINGS ON SECOND AND THIRD READING TODAY. YOU WOULD HAVE -- YOU ARE NOT REMOVING ANY PROPERTIES, ALL THAT YOU ARE DOING IS ADOPTING THIS ON SECOND AND THIRD READING, THEN TELLING THE STAFF THAT -- DIRECTING THE STAFF TO GO BACK AND INITIATE A NEW ZONING CASE THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR A CO OF THE SETBACKS THAT YOU DESIRE TO HAVE IN THOSE CREEKS, THEN WE WILL TAKE THAT SETBACK CO BACK THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU.

OKAY.

AM I CLEAR --

YOU CLEARED IT UP FOR ME ANYWAY. THE -- PASS THE PLAN ON SECOND AND THIRD READING TODAY. THESE OTHERS ONES WILL BE SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY OUTSIDE THE PLAN AS FAR AS -- WELL, MAYBE THAT'S NOT A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT, BUT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO IT-

I DON'T BELIEVE THE PLAN WOULD BE AFFECTED AT ALL. WHAT WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS JUST THE ZONINGS, PURSUANT TO THE PLAN. SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS BRING YOU BACK A ZONING CASE WITH THE C.O. THAT YOU DESIRE.

THAT'S CORRECT. ON THE MOTION SHEET THAT WE HAVE PASSED OUT, I BELIEVE STAFF PASSED THAT OUT, YOU ASKED US TO BRING BACK THE MOTION SHEET FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING TO DISCUSS SEVERAL TRACTS. YOU HAD HEARD FROM PROPERTY OWNER CRAIG ALTER REPRESENTING SOUTH PLEASANT VALLEY CONDOMINIUMS. HE REQUESTED AN UP ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNCIL'S DESIRE IS, SO MAYBE IT WILL BE WORTHWHILE TO JUST WALK THROUGH THAT MOTION SHEET, WHICH KIND OF WALKS YOU THROUGH SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS, THAT WAY IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SECOND AND THIRD READINGS FOR BOTH THE PLAN AND THE REZONINGS, THEN WE KNOW WITH CERTAINTY HOW YOU WANTED TO PROCEED WITH THOSE TRACTS THAT WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED FOR YOU. IF IT WOULD BE OKAY WITH CITY COUNCIL, I CAN HAVE THEM WALK YOU THROUGH THE MOTION SHEET, TRACT BY TRACT, SO WE KNOW IF WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED AND COVER ALL OF THOSE TRACTS, INCLUDING THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES WE KNOW GOING OUT AFTER YOUR DIRECTIVE THAT WE ARE PURSUING EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DO BASED ON THAT MOTION SHEET AND THE PROTECTION OF THE WATERWAYS.

MAYOR GARCIA: BEFORE MS. LOPEZ COMES UP, COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY-

DUNKERLY: I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: GIVE MORE VOLUME.

DUNKERLY: YOU MAY ANSWER MY QUESTIONS AS WE GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS. THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE PLEASANT VALLEY VILLAS, WHATEVER THEY ARE. THEY HAVE BOND MONEY ACCRUED, MY CONCERN WAS WHATEVER ZONING DELAYS THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER THAT WOULD AFFECT THEIR APPLICATION WITH THE STATE. THAT WAS MY CONCERN.

GLASGO: I BELIEVE THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD AFFECT THEM WOULD BE THE TIMING OF THE PLAN. THEY HAVE ALREADY FILED A ZONING APPLICATION, IT'S ALREADY BEING PROCESSED CURRENTLY TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN A FEW WEEKS AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL I BELIEVE BY OCTOBER THE 24TH. HOWEVER IF YOU APPROVE THE PLAN TODAY AS IT IS, IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE MIXED USE THEY WANT ON THE PLAN. THEREFORE THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO WALK THROUGH THE MOTION SHEET AND GIVE YOU OPTIONS --

DUNKERLY: MY CONCERN WAS YOU SAYING WE ARE GOING TO DELAY THIS FOR SIX WEEKS AND BRING IT BACK, FOUR WEEKS, THAT WAS THE CONCERN.

GLASGO: OKAY.

DUNKERLY: LET'S GO THROUGH THE MOTION SHEET.

FUTRELL: STUART, IF YOU WILL MONITOR THE SITUATION, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU NEED TO ADD TO CLARIFY THE HOUSING PROJECT AND BOND DOLLARS, SIGNAL AND STEP UP, OKAY- YOU ARE SIGNALING AND STEPPING UP, OH, HO.

IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING IF THE NOTICE THAT IS ALREADY GONE OUT FOR THE ZONING CHANGE PROCEEDS ON COURSE, THAT WILL MEET THE TIMING ISSUES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS RELATIVE TO FUNDING. BOTH MS. LOPEZ PHELPS AND MR. ALTER ARE HERE TO CLARIFY THAT BUT THAT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING AS OF THIS AFTERNOON. THE NOTICES THAT HAVE GONE OUT ON THAT ZONING CASE WILL MEET THEIR TIME LINES, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CONTAINING ANYTHING IN THE MOTION AND PULL THAT TRACT OUT OF YOUR APPROVAL PROCESS THIS AFTERNOON, SO THAT THE PLAN PORTION AND ZONING CASE OCCUR ON THAT SEPARATE DATE INSTEAD OF TODAY THAT WILL MEET THEIR BUSINESS NEEDS.

FUTRELL: I SEE NODDING IN THE BACK, I THINK WE ARE ALL IN SYNC ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER-

SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. HIRSCH ARE YOU SAYING ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION WE HAD EARLIER ABOUT THE WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS DOESN'T AFFECT THIS -- AFFECT THE -- THE PROJECT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AS FAR AS THEIR TIMING WITH THEIR BONDS-

THEIR ZONING CASE CAN COME FROM BEFORE YOU IN THE TIME LINE THAT IS NOTICED CURRENTLY AND WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT WHETHER THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL OVERLAY DOES OR DOESN'T AFFECT THEIR PROJECT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE -- WE HAVE DONE THAT ANALYTICAL WORK. BUT YOU CAN STILL CAME UP THAT CASE ON HALLOWEEN AS IT'S SCHEDULED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

SLUSHER: ON HALLOWEEN.

DUNKERLY: COULD I CLARIFY THAT- DO WE NEED THAT OUT OF THE ACTION TODAY-

OUT OF THE ACTION TODAY, BOTH OUT OF THE PLAN AND OUT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING TO BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS LATER AS A PLAN AMENDMENT WITH ALL OF THOSE PROCEDURAL ISSUES.

OKAY.

COUNCILMEMBER, I WOULD ADD THAT BECAUSE THAT TRACT HAS BEEN NOTICED FOR A ZONING CHANGE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO IMPOSE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT HELPS YOU WITH YOUR CREEK SETBACKS.

SLUSHER: I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT-

BECAUSE THAT TRACT HAS BEEN NOTICED FOR A ZONING CHANGE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO IMPOSE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT ACCOMPLISHES YOUR SETBACKS.

SLUSHER: I GOT YA.

THEY HAVE TO RUN THEIR ANALYSES ABOUT HOW THAT AFFECTS THEM, BUT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO IMPOSE THAT IF YOU WISH.

SLUSHER: THEN THERE WERE -- I'M SORRY, MS. DUNKERLY YOU HAD THE FLOOR. MAYOR, WHEN SHE'S DONE I HAVE A QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS- COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: MS. TERRY, ON THE TWO ZONING CASES THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, TWO THAT ARE POTENTIAL GOING TO THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION OR PLANNING COMMISSION.

PLANNING COMMISSION.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THAT WOULD BE THE -- THERE'S ONE CASE THAT'S ON 183 THAT'S SINGLE FAMILY. SURROUNDED BY CS IN THE PLAN, THE OTHER ONE IS ON HOEKE LANE. WHAT ARE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

THE STAFF AND NEIGHBORHOOD RECOMMENDATION IS TO KEEP THE EXISTING ZONING AS IT WAS. AND I'M NOT SURE IF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HERE TODAY. I HAVEN'T SEEN EITHER ONE OF THEM. MR. AMIN OWNS THE PROPERTY --

MAYOR GARCIA: THEY ARE BACK THERE.

SLUSHER: ARE WE GOING TO HAVE SPEAKERS, MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, WE HAVE SOME.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

AND MR. AMIN AND MR. CAMPOS HAVE BOTH MET WITH -- AS FAR AS I KNOW, JUST MR. HOWSON AND MR. SLOAN TO DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL REZONINGS AND I KNOW BOTH OF THOSE RESIDENTS ARE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF THEM.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WILL JUST WAIT UNTIL WE HEAR FROM FOLKS BEFORE WE -- BEFORE WE MOVE ON THAT ONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

SLUSHER: BUT I DO PLAN TO PURSUE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO PROVIDE STRONGER WATER QUALITY PROTECTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE SPEAKERS AND THEN IF THERE'S QUESTIONS, WE WILL CALL YOU BACK UP.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. THOMAS. THE FIRST SPEAKER IS MR. JACK HOWSON, FOLLOWING MR. HOWSON IS MR. LEE SLOAN, MR. SLOAN HAS -- ONE PERSON GIVING HIM SOME TIME, MR. SLOAN WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES. MR. HOWSON THANK YOU FOR COMING, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, SIR, THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS. I AM HERE TODAY TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO -- TO ADOPT THE PLAN AS IT'S BROUGHT TO YOU WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS OR PULLINGS. TO HONOR THE 11 MONTHS OF INPUT BY THE NEIGHBORS. AND PEOPLE AND STAFF THAT WORKED HARD ON THIS PLAN. AND I'M ALSO HERE TODAY TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE PROTECTION FOR THE CREEKS AND UNIQUE WATER FEATURES IN OUR AREA. YOU HAVE HEARD MANY DISCUSSIONS COMING FROM OUR PART OF TOWN, SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN TO OUR PART OF THE WORLD APPEARED SEEN OUR WATER FEATURES. THIS IS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME IMMEDIATE -- PROVIDE SOME IMMEDIATE PROTECTION FOR A SORELY NEEDED UNDEVELOPED WATERWAY SYSTEM, THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. HOWSON.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. LEE SLOAN, MR. SLOAN. MS. HOWSON HAS DONATED TIME TO YOU, SO YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES.

VERY GOOD, THANK YOU PEG. MAYOR GARCIA, MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS LEE SLOAN, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE KENSINGTON PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. I DO NOT PLAN TO TAKE SIX MINUTES AT ALL, BUT JUST HERE AGAIN TO EXPRESS THE ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT EVER OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. YOU WILL RECALL AFTER THE FIRST READING BEFORE COUNCIL THERE WERE TWO OUTSTANDING ISSUES. THE FIRST WAS INCREASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS FOR THE -- FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AREA OUT THERE. THE SECOND WAS HOW TO DEAL WITH LAST-MINUTE CHANGES THAT ARE BROUGHT BY DEVELOPERS OR LANDOWNERS OR AGENTS WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PLAN. I THINK WE HAVE A WAY TO RESOLVE BOTH OF THESE ISSUES, THE FIRST IS ALREADY BEING PRESENTED TO YOU UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT WERE THE TWO ITEMS BROUGHT UP. WE SUPPORT THOSE. WE, OF COURSE, WOULD LOVE THOSE TO BE IN PLACE IMMEDIATELY. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR NOTIFICATION AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD SUPPORT THAT. AND WE THANK YOU THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE GIVING US THESE 50-FOOT CENTER LINE SETBACKS ON THE CREEKS AS PROPOSED OR HOPE YOU WILL, ANYWAY. THE -- THE SECOND ITEM IS HOW TO HANDLE LAST-MINUTE CHANGES. I HAVE TO DISAGREE WHAT WITH MS. TERRY, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT TO BE A DIRECTIVE OF COUNCIL LAST TIME THAT THESE PROPERTIES BE PULLED THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED. JACK HOWSON AND I WENT OUT AND DISCUSSED WITH SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, WE HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH THE PLEASANT VALLEY COURTYARDS PEOPLE. HAVE ARRIVED AT AN AGREEMENT HERE I THINK THAT WOULD PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLAN AND AT THE SAME TIME WOULD PROVIDE THE TYPE OF RELIEF THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE SEEKING. LET ME GO INTO THAT JUST BRIEFLY. THERE HAVE BEEN A SERIES OF MEETINGS BETWEEN PLEASANT VALLEY COURTYARDS AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO TRY TO WORK OUT AGREEMENTS THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AND PROTECT THE SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED SITE. I THINK GOOD PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THAT EFFORT AND IN A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO MOVE THIS PROCESS ALONG THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLEASANT VALLEY HAVE AGREED TO A SERIES OF STEPS THAT WILL PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ALSO ALLOW -- AND PLANNING PROCESS AND STILL PROVIDE THE DEVELOPER WITH A SPEEDY HEARING OF HIS PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE. THESE ARE OUTLINED IN A DOCUMENT THAT I'M GOING TO PASS OUT. BUT BEFORE THAT LET ME SAY IF AN AGREEMENT CAN BE WORKED OUT WITH THIS DEVELOPER, WE WILL THEN BE HERE BEFORE YOU TO SUPPORT THESE ZONING CHANGES. BUT I WANT TO WARN YOU THAT THIS IS NOT A DONE DEAL AT THIS TIME. IF THE DEVELOPER INSISTS ON ACTIONS THAT WOULD HARM OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, OUR SPRINGS, CREEKS OR WETLANDS, WE WOULD BE BACK HERE IN FORCE TO ADAMANTLY OPPOSE SUCH A DEVELOPMENT. I THINK WE ARE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS, I THINK THIS COMPROMISE AGREEMENT HERE WOULD PROVIDE AN AVENUE WHERE WE CAN ATTAIN BOTH PROTECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE PLANNING PROCESS AND ALLOW THEM A SPEEDY RESOLUTION. I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY READ THIS AND I KNOW THAT -- THAT CRAIG AND AMELIA WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION TO MAKE SURE THIS CAN BE IMPLEMENTED THE WAY WE THINK IT CAN. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT PLEASANT VALLEY COURT YARDS REGRETS IT FAILED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS WHEN MANY OF THE ISSUES MIGHT HAVE BEEN ADDED. IN THAT REGARD, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THERE DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS, THEY SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLAN AND THE PLANNING PROCESS BE MAINTAINED AND THAT ITS PROPERTIES NOT BE PULLED FROM THE PLAN. THE NEIGHBORHOODS, ON THEIR PART, RECOGNIZE THE HARDSHIP THAT A SIGNIFICANT DELAY IN THE ZONING WOULD IMPOSE ON PLEASANT VALLEY COURTYARD. THEY HAVE AN EXPRESS DEADLINE OF 31 OCTOBER THIS YEAR. SO WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COUNCIL TWO ITEMS: ONE IS THAT YOU UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THAT THESE PROPERTIES AND OTHER PROPERTIES NOT BE PULLED, BUT THAT WHAT YOU DO IS THAT YOU DESIGNATE THESE PROPERTIES AS QUALIFYING FOR THE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION, WHICH IS A PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDMENT PROCESS. THAT HARDSHIP EXEMPTION SHOULD ALLOW THEM TO MOVE RIGHT AWAY TO FILE FOR OR TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ZONING CHANGE OR A ZONING CASE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, LEE. CRAIG ALTER. MR. CRAIG ALTER. MR. ALTER, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. CRAIG ALTER WITH SOUTHWEST HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT THE STATEMENT THAT WAS JUST MADE BY MR. SLOAN. WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO LESSEN THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. WE ARE SIMPLY LOOKING FOR A METHOD BY WHICH OUR ZONING CASE THAT HAS BEEN FILED CAN GO THROUGH THE STEPS NECESSARY. GO BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND GO -- COME BACK TO YOU ON OCTOBER THE 31ST. IF YOU ALL HAVE A CLEAR DIRECTION ON HOW WE CAN DO THAT, WE WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW THAT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT -- THAT THE PROVISION UNDER THE HARDSHIP LANGUAGE IS NOT REALLY IN EFFECT YET AND -- AND IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AS A PROCEDURE BY WHICH TO COME BACK. WE ARE LOOKING FOR THAT PROCEDURE. WE ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY ASKING THAT YOU ALLOW US IN WHATEVER MANNER YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, CONTINUE WITH OUR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING, GO THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS AND COME BACK TO YOU ON OCTOBER 31ST. THERE IS A REAL DEAD LINE HAS THAT HAS TO BE MET AND THAT IS NO LATER THAN THE MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER. SO WE DO NEED TO GET BACK TO YOU BY THE END OF OCTOBER. SO I WOULD LIMIT MY COMMENTS TO THAT AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. ALTER- SO THE PROPOSAL THAT -- THAT MR. SLOAN PUT ON THE TABLE WHERE THAT -- THAT THE PROPERTIES WOULD BE DESIGNATED AS QUALIFYING FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION, YOU ARE SAYING THAT PROVISION IS NOT CLEAR; IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING-

I DON'T HONESTLY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS. I READ IT THIS AFTERNOON AS I SAT IN THE AUDIENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME. IF THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO KIN THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND -- TO CONTINUE THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE OF AN APPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE. IF THERE'S ANYTHING MORE TO IT THAN THAT --

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK MR. STUART HIRSCH IS COMING UP HERE TO EXPLAIN THAT PARTICULAR POSITION.

I KNOW MS. TERRY WILL CORRECT ME IF I AM IN ERROR, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE PROPOSAL IS GOING TO BE BEFORE THE COUNCIL AT ITS NEXT MEETING. SO YOU HAVE NOT ADOPTED THAT PARTICULAR DRAFT ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT. SO IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ZONING STEAM THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WAS THE ONLY THING AT THIS POINT THAT WE COULD LAWFULLY DO GIVEN THE STATUS OF THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, THAT'S WHY WE PROPOSED THE SEPARATION PROVISION AT THIS POINT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT -- THAT THAT WAS TODAY THE ONLY MECHANISM AVAILABLE TO US.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT.

THAT ORDINANCE IS UP BEFORE COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, ON THE 24TH, ALICE. ALICE, CAN YOU COME UP -- WELL, RICARDO IS HERE. IS THERE AN EXEMPTION AVAILABLE NOW THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY TO BE ON A FAST TRACK AND COME BACK OR ARE THEY SUBJECT TO HAVING TO WAIT-

THE WAY WE HAVE -- RICARDO SOLIS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING. THE WAY WE HAVE THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO COUNCIL LATER ON THIS MONTH, WOULD HAVE AN EXEMPTION PROVISION THAT WOULD SMART HOUSING -- CERTIFIED SMART HOUSING PROJECTS WOULD NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE -- THE -- THE TWICE A YEAR CYCLE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT.

SO AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, IF THIS IS ADOPTED RIGHT NOW, TODAY, ON SECOND AND THIRD READING, ON THIS -- AND THESE PROPERTIES ARE LEFT IN, THEN THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THAT CYCLE- THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT CYCLE- ALICE, HELP ME OUT.

SLUSHER: MS. TERRY, MAYOR.

I THINK THAT THE WISER COURSE WOULD BE TO PULL THESE PROPERTIES OUT SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY QUESTION --

SLUSHER: LET ME SEE IF I CAN MAYBE SOLVE THAT. SINCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE PLANNING TEAM PRESENTED A COMPROMISE HERE, WHICH THEY SAY THAT WE SHOULD DESIGNATE THIS AS QUALIFYING FOR THE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION AND NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDMENT PROCESS, OKAY, BUT THE -- THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE IN PLACE UNTIL AT LEAST NEXT WEEK BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY TIME -- THAT'S WHEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IT ON OUR AGENDA. BUT I DON'T THINK IN PUTTING THIS OUT THERE, I DON'T THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SAYING -- I DON'T THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO BE TRICKY, SAY, WELL, PUT IT UNDER THAT BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST. SO WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY, WE ALLOW MR. ALTER'S GROUP TO PROCEED UNDER THIS, WE CAN ADD THOSE STIPULATIONS IN MOVING FORWARD. THAT THEY GET TO GO UNDER WHAT THE LANGUAGE -- PUT THE LANGUAGE IN AS COMING UP NEXT WEEK, THAT THEY CAN GO FORWARD UNDER THAT-

WHAT WE COULD DO IS WE COULD ADD THAT HARDSHIP LANGUAGE FROM THAT ORDINANCE, IN THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DIRECTING US TO DO, INTO THIS ORDINANCE SO THAT IT APPLIES TO THESE PROPERTIES.

SLUSHER: THAT'S MY SUGGESTION EXACTLY. I THINK THAT GETS TO THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED A MINUTE AGO BY MR. SLOAN.

JUST TO CLARIFY, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, THE HARDSHIP PROVISION THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS PROPOSED PROCESS WOULD BE ONE CASE AND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN -- LIKE IN SMART HOUSING CERTIFIED CASES, WE DO HAVE AN EXEMPTION FOR -- FOR THOSE AND SINCE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE -- TO BE PROVING A HARDSHIP, FOR INSTANCE, SO -- SO WE DO HAVE -- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HARDSHIP CASES AND THEN ALSO FOR -- FOR CERTIFIED SMART HOUSING PROJECTS. SO --

SLUSHER: SO EITHER ONE OF THOSE WE COULD -- THIS WOULD QUALIFY FOR-

CORRECT.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. AMELIA LOPEZ PHELPS. MS. LOPEZ PHELPS. AND FOLLOWING MS. LOPEZ PHELPS IS RENALDO CAMPOS. MS. LOPEZ PHELPS, WELCOME.

GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS AMELIA LOPEZ PHELPS. MY COMMENTS ARE VERY BRIEF. I JUST WANTED TO REPORT BACK LIKE I SAID I WOULD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. WE HAVE BEEN MEETING AND HAVING NUMEROUS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WITH KENSINGTON PARK AND SCAN, DISCUSSING VARIOUS ISSUES, INCLUDING SETBACKS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, LOCATION OF UNITS AND THINGS OF THAT -- LEAVING THE UNITS CLOSEST TO THE CENTER OF THE SITE AS POSSIBLE. I THINK WE ARE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO AGREEMENTS. THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE WAITING FOR NOW IS FOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TO REPORT BACK WITH HIS FINDINGS TO DETERMINE WHERE WE CAN SET THOSE BUILDINGS. ONCE WE RECEIVE THAT AND DETERMINE WHAT OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE GOING TO BE, THEN WE CAN GO AHEAD AND AMEND OUR ZONING APPLICATION WITH LOWER ZONING CATEGORY. THAT'S FOR THE MOST PART THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE ONLY THING THAT'S KEEPING US ON HOLD AS FAR AS THE FINAL AGREEMENT. AND AS WAS DISCUSSED JUST A MOMENT AGO, THE ONLY THING THAT WE WERE SORT OF NOT CLEAR ON WHAT WE COULD ALL AGREE TO IS THE HARDSHIP SITUATION TO PROTECT OUR PROJECT TO BE SURE WE WEREN'T LEFT OUT THERE WITH NO AUTHORITY FROM COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION TO MEET OUR OCTOBER 31ST DATE. SO WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE TIME THAT SCAN AND FRANK MCCLARK MEMBERS HAVE SPENT WITH US AND LOOK FORWARD TO FINALIZING THAT AGREEMENT WITH THEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. LOPEZ PHELPS. RENALDO CAMPOS, FOLLOWING MR. CAMPOS IS MR. AMIN, FAROOQ AMIN. MR. CAMPOS, WELCOME, SIR.

HOW ARE YOU DOING- MY NAME IS RENALDO CAMPOS, I LIVE AT 2505 [INAUDIBLE] LANE. I AM ALSO REQUESTING THAT THE ZONE BE CHANGED TO C.S. INSTEAD OF WLO AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTED. I HAVE BEEN THERE 41 YEARS, I FEEL LIKE A LITTLE REQUEST LIKE THIS IS NOT A MAJOR REQUEST FOR MY PART. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU, ALSO, FOR THIS VENUE OF LETTING US COME BEFORE YOU TO VOICE OUR OPINION ABOUT THE CHANGES. OUR FAILURE TO NOT RESPOND TO THE MAILOUTS THAT WERE MAILED TO US BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I FEEL LIKE IS -- SHOULD NOT PENALIZE US FOR NOT -- YOU KNOW, FOR YOU GUYS NOT LISTENING TO US AT THIS TIME. A LOT OF PEOPLE RECEIVE A LOT OF STUFF IN THE MAIL AND DON'T ADDRESS IT. WE DIDN'T FEEL -- I DON'T SEE HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS TO RESPOND TO IT. I ONCE HAD DR ZONING ON MY PROPERTY, I HAD A BUSINESS GOING THERE AT ONE TIME, I FELT LIKE I WOULDN'T LOSE IT. SO -- IF WE COULD APPROVE IT AT THIS TIME, DURING THIS PROCESS INSTEAD OF COMING BACK OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IT WOULD SURE HELP OUT. AND -- I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

SLUSHER: I HAVE A QUESTION, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER-

SLUSHER: MR. CAMPOS, DO YOU HAVE A PLAN, SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO PUT IN RIGHT NOW, A SPECIFIC MAP, OR ARE YOU JUST LOOKING FOR THE ZONING-

THE ZONING FOR THE OPTION TO -- TO NOT HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE AGAIN. RIGHT NOW WHILE IT'S GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THROUGH THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AND -- AND THIS PROCESS, I WOULD FEEL LIKE IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS TO ADDRESS IT AT THIS TIME.

SLUSHER: OKAY. BECAUSE -- BECAUSE I'M -- I'M NOT -- AS YOU SAID, I THINK THE WAY YOU PUT IT, YOU SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR NOT RESPONDING TO THE MAIL.

RIGHT.

SLUSHER: I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE'S SOME -- SOME REASONS THE PLANNING TEAMWORKED THROUGH AND THE STAFF WELCOMED THIS FOR WLO.

RIGHT.

SLUSHER: SO I'M GOING TO CALL THE STAFF UP IN A MINUTE TO DISCUSS THAT. I DIDN'T THINK JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T COME TO THE MEETINGS YOU SHOULD NOT GET THE DESIGNATION THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND AT THE MEETINGS WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE PARTICIPATED, THEY DISCUSSED ALL OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA AND DECIDED ON WHAT THEY THINK THE ZONING OUGHT TO BE. SO IT MIGHT BE THAT WE END UP SAYING, WELL, THAT WE AGREE WITH WHAT CAME OUT OF THERE.

OKAY.

SLUSHER: BUT WE WILL SEE. I'M STILL THINKING THIS ONE THROUGH EVEN AS WE SIT UP HERE. THANK YOU.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS-

GOODMAN: NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.

THOMAS: ONE QUESTION.

GOODMAN: OKAY WAIT, WAIT. THERE IS A QUESTION.

THOMAS: I'M SORRY, I JUST COULDN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO AT THE PROPERTY. I KNOW YOU SAID --

CS ZONING.

THOMAS: WHAT DID YOU WANT TO DO ON THE PROPERTY-

A RESTAURANT OR SOME KIND OF EATERY.

THOMAS: DID STAFF WITH THE ZONING THAT IS RECOMMENDED HE CAN'T DO THAT- EXCUSE ME.

THOMAS: YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION, THANK YOU, SIR.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF WAREHOUSES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD -- I MEAN THEY ARE TRYING TO CHANGE IT FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD TO A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT. I FEEL LIKE HAVING A LITTLE BUSINESS RIGHT THERE IS NOT GOING TO ADVERSELY IMPACT MY AREA. I'VE BEEN THERE 40 YEARS, THAT'S ALL THAT I'M ASKING YOU.

THOMAS: THANK YOU, SIR.

GOODMAN: OUR LAST SPEAKER IS MR. FAROOQ AMIN.

YES, MY NAME IS FAROOQ AMIN, I WAS HERE AT THE LAST MEETING AND HAD MADE A REQUEST FOR CS ZONING OF ONE LOT, WHICH HAS BEEN LEFT OUT AND ACTUALLY [INAUDIBLE] RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER HAD DIRECTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- SOME MR. LEE JONES TO LOOK INTO THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE -- ANYTHING DIFFERENT FROM THE -- WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT AT THE LAST TIME. BUT -- BUT THIS WILL EVENTUALLY BE A CS ZONING. BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AFTERWARDS IF WE CAN ACCOMMODATE IT AT THIS TIME. AND IT WOULD COST ME QUITE A BIT TO GET THAT DONE, PLUS THE TIMING AND I WOULD -- I WOULD URGE THAT THIS CORRECTION BE MADE RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU.

SLUSHER: SIR, DO YOU LIVE ON THE PROPERTY-

NO, SIR, IT'S JUST VACANT PLOT RIGHT NOW.

SLUSHER: NO HOME ON IT-

THERE'S NO HOME ON IT, YES.

SLUSHER: OKAY, THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, THERE WERE SPEAKERS. MAYOR, DO YOU MIND IF I ASK STAFF ONE QUESTION QUICKLY ABOUT MR. AMIN'S PIECE-

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL RECOGNIZE THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: THANKS, DID YOU EARLIER SAY THAT YOU HAD RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL ZONING ON 183-

THAT'S CORRECT. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS SHOWING ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AIRPORT OVERLAY AS COMMERCIAL. ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. HOW FAR, WE DIDN'T INITIATE REZONINGS AT THIS POINT SINCE THERE ARE A LOT OF HOUSES THERE ALREADY, AND WE DID PER COUNCIL'S REQUEST TALK WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY OWNERS AND WE EXPLAINED TO THEM WHAT THE PLAN WAS RECOMMENDING AND EVERYONE WE TALKED TO WAS FINE WITH THAT. WE DID HAVE TO MAIL OUT A FEW LETTERS TO SOME PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE PROPERTIES, DON'T HAVE STRUCTURES RIGHT NOW ON THE PROPERTIES AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANY OF THEM.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE WHY THAT SEEMED THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO, THOUGH, I'M NOT FOLLOWING.

WE --

GOODMAN: ACCORDING TO THE TRAVIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, NOT THE ZONING BUT THE USE, IS WHAT DRIVES TAX APPRAISALS, RIGHT-

THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE CORRECT.

GOODMAN: AND SO IF ONE TRACT OF LAND OR ONE -- ONE LOT WENT COMMERCIAL, IT -- IT IN THEORY DOES NOT AFFECT ANYBODY'S TAX APPRAISAL, TAXES OR ABILITY TO CONTINUE LIVING THERE IN A RESIDENTIAL STYLE.

LET ME CLARIFY. THE MAIN DESIRE BEHIND REFLECTING ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP COMMERCIAL FOR THOSE PROPERTIES WAS TO GIVE THE OPTION TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY WANTED TO REZONE IN THE FUTURE, INSTEAD OF STAFF BEING VERY HEAVY HANDED AND SAYING, WE ARE GOING TO REZONE YOUR PROPERTIES, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF EXISTING HOUSES, WE REALLY WANTED TO PROVIDE AN OPTION TO THOSE PEOPLE IF THEY CHOSE TO REZONE TO COMMERCIAL.

GOODMAN: WELL, IT'S NOT STAFF'S PLACE TO OFFER THAT ANYWAY, IT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM'S PLACE.

AND THAT WAS PRESENTED AS PART OF THE PLAN.

GOODMAN: AND IDEAS AND INFORMATION, WHICH I WOULD ASSUME, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S A POSSIBLE FUTURE WITH ALL COMMERCIAL, WHICH -- WHICH FOR 183 IS PROBABLY A LOT LIKE SOME OTHER ROADWAYS THAT USED TO HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL WITH THE CAPACITY OF THAT -- BUT THE CAPACITY OF THAT ROADWAY HAS MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO LIVE SAFELY. SO IS IT THAT YOU DON'T OFFER THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM AND THE NEIGHBORS ALL OF THE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM WHEN YOU ARE DOING THESE PLANS-

NO. THESE WERE -- THESE WERE PRESENTED -- THE RATIONALE WAS PRESENTED EARLY ON WITH THE AIRPORT OVERLAY AND THIS IS -- THIS IS REALLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS SINCE THERE IS AN AIRPORT OVERLAY THAT LIMITS FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THIS WAS ALL EXPLAINED EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS, THE CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA, AND THE -- AND THE OPTION THAT WAS PUT FORWARD BECAUSE A LOT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS REQUESTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BY AIRPORT, THE AVIATION DEPARTMENT, WHOM WE ALSO MET WITH, THAT WAS THE OPTION THAT WAS PUT FORWARD IS THE FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO. WHEN WE STARTED MEETING AND HAVING ZONING MEETINGS AND FUTURE LAND USE MEETINGS. AND AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, WE HAD DIFFERENT SCENARIOS PRESENTED. AND COMMERCIAL -- COMMERCIAL CAME OUT AS MAKING THE MOST SENSE BASED ON WHAT WE HAD HEARD FROM SURVEYS, WHAT WE HAD HEARD FROM PEOPLE AROUND THIS AREA. AVIATION DEPARTMENT. ACTUALLY, WE DID HEAR FROM SOME RESIDENTS WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA AND SOME OF THEM DID COMMENT THAT COMMERCIAL SERVICES WERE -- WERE DESIRED.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THAT'S WHAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME THEN. WHILE WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS AND WHILE EVERYBODY IS IN THE NOTIFICATION MODE, AND WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE FUTURE AND NOT HAVING TO DO SO MUCH PIECEMEAL PLANNING AND COMING THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHY WOULD WE HAVE NOT -- HAVING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THOSE THOUGHTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING TEAM IN FRONT OF US -- NOT GO AHEAD AND -- AND PUT OUT THE OPPORTUNITY OR THE OPTION TO HAVE REZONINGS AS A PART OF THE -- OF THE OTHER ZONINGS THAT ARE WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED BY.

WE ACTUALLY DID. OUR FIRST NOTIFICATION -- WELL, IT WASN'T FORMAL NOTIFICATION. OUR FIRST NOTICE OF THE REZONINGS DID INCLUDE THOSE PROPERTIES TO BE REZONED AND WE DID HEAR SOME COMMENTS BACK FROM THOSE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TAX RATES AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THOSE AREAS ARE ELDERLY AND THEY DON'T PLAN TO DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THEIR HOMES. AND SO -- AT THAT POINT, AFTER HAVING RECEIVED SOME CALLS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT REZONINGS OF THEIR PROPERTY, WE DECIDED TO GO WITH THE OTHER -- OR PRESENT THE OTHER OPTION, WHICH WAS TO JUST CHANGE THE LAND USE. SO THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO WANTED COMMERCIAL ZONING ON THEIR PROPERTY COULD GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. WITHOUT HAVING TO GET A PLAN AMENDMENT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. YOU LOST ME AGAIN, I'M SORRY. LET'S COME BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND. I HAD ASKED FOR A ZONING MAP, YOU KNOW, JUST A REGULAR ZONING MAP LIKE WE GET ON A ZONING CASE. I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD THAT IN YOUR BACKUP, ACTUALLY.

GOODMAN: I DIDN'T FIND IT.

IN THE ZONING BACKUP, IT WAS INCLUDED. OKAY.

GLASGO: MAYOR PRO TEM- I'M GOING TO INDUSTRY TO EXPLAIN THIS PART OF IT BECAUSE I WAS INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ON THE PROPERTY THAT IS ON -- LET ME GET THE MICROPHONE. THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS HERE, U.S. 183. THERE ARE A FEW HOMES DOWN HERE AND A FEW -- A FEW HOUSES PLUS UNDEVELOPED LAND. HIS WE OBVIOUSLY MET WITH THE CITIZENS IN THE FIRST WORKSHOP TO SOLICIT INFORMATION, AND WE GIVE THEM OPTIONS, WE ALSO MET WITH THE AVIATION DEPARTMENT TO GIVE US A FEEL FOR WHAT THEY FEEL IS THE NEED TO SERVE THE AIRPORT. THEY FELT LIKE THERE WAS A NEED FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING OTHER THAN INDUSTRIAL ZONING, WHICH YOU HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF, BUT GR TYPE OF USES, CS, WHERE YOU HAVE RESTAURANTS, OTHER BUSINESS THAT'S PEOPLE CAN GO TO WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE DOWNTOWN. THIS AREA FALLS WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE WHERE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT DID NOT EXIST OR PLATTED BEFORE 1991 IS PROHIBITED. THEREFORE IT MAKES SENSE TO OBVIOUSLY WE RECOGNIZE THIS OUGHT TO BE COMMERCIAL. BUT HAVING RECEIVED CONCERNS, I REALIZE WE UNDERSTAND YOU AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPRAISAL PROPERTY IS NOT BASED ON ZONING. BUT BASED ON THE DISCOMFORT OF THE FOLKS OVER HERE, THEY UNDERSTOOD THE BUFFER ZONE AND UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY COULD HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES REMAIN AND THEY CAN CONTINUE THERE BASED ON THE EXEMPTIONS THAT WERE THERE BEFORE THE BUFFER ZONE WAS CREATED. GIVEN THEIR CONCERN, THE OPTIONS WERE LAID OUT THAT THEY KNEW THAT THEY COULD GET ZONING, THEY DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE CHANGING THE ZONING TODAY. THEY WERE COMFORTABLE REFLECTING ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO COINCIDE WITH THE AIRPORT BUFFER ZONE, THAT IF IT IS DESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL ON THE LAND USE MAP FOR FUTURE -- AT THIS POINT WHEN THEY ARE COMFORTABLE TO COME BACK AND SEEK REZONING, THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED TO PURSUE AND THAT IS WHAT STAFF PRESENTED AS OPPOSED TO GOING AHEAD AND SAYING FINE, WE HEAR YOU, BUT WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ZONE YOU OR RECOMMEND ZONING TO COMMERCIAL SIMPLY BECAUSE THE AIRPORT BUFFER ZONE DOES NOT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT RECOMMEND COMMERCIAL ZONING BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCERNS. YET, HAVE PROVIDED THE -- THE OPTION IN THE PLAN THAT -- THAT SHOWING COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE THEY CAN JUST SIMPLY COME AND SAY I'M READY NOW TO GET MY ZONING, THEY CAN DO IT INDIVIDUALLY OR STAFF CAN INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO ZONE THE ENTIRE AREA AT THE SAME TIME. SO IT WAS NOT A MATTER OF WE DID NOT IGNORE IT AT ALL. WE STUDIED THIS VERY THOROUGHLY AND MADE THAT DECISION BASED ON THE DISCOMFORT LEVELS SOME OF THE RESIDENTS HAD.

GOODMAN: THANKS, ALICE. LET ME ASK YOU ONE MORE QUICK THING ABOUT THAT THEN, WHEN WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS DISCOMFORT -- WELL, TWO THINGS. ONE IS JUST I WANT TO FIND OUT IF MR. AMIN HAS RESIDENTIAL USE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A ZONING MAP THE WAY I'M ASKING, JUST THE REGULAR, TYPICAL ZONING MAP. SO THAT WAS WONDERING IF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS FLANK MR. AMIN. THE SECOND WAS, THOUGH, WHEN WE GOT CALLS FROM PEOPLE, TO US AT THE CITY OR WAS IT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM AND WERE THEY OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BE A PART OF WHATEVER WAS STILL HAPPENING THERE. AND I GUESS THERE IS A THIRD THING, DID WE EVER INVITE MR. ART COREY OUGHT TO TALK TO PEOPLE WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING AND RELEASES-

GLASGO: YES --

GOODMAN: AND DOES HE COME.

GLASGO: YES AND HE HAS. THE FIRST PLACE WE HAD MR. COREY WAS IN THE GOVALLE JOHNSON TERRACE AREA BECAUSE WE ARE DOING -- TOGETHER THE STAFF AND THE PLANNING TEAM WERE RECOMMENDING A LOT OF DOWN ZONING AND SOME UP ZONING, OBVIOUSLY. THERE WAS CONCERN FROM RESIDENTS, THEY WANTED TO HEAR FROM ART COREY AND TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY SHOULD TREAT PROPERTIES REGARDED THE UP ZONING OR DOWN ZONING SO THEY WOULD NOT AFFECT THEIR APPRAISED VALUE. MR. COREY WAS INVITED. HE ATTENDED AND EXPLAINED IT. WE ALSO LEARNED A LOT, TOO, FROM THAT PROCESS THAT JUST MERELY CHANGING THE ZONING DOES NOT NECESSARILY AFFECT THE APPRAISAL OF YOUR PROPERTY. IT'S HOW YOU USE IT. SO, YES, HE'S DONE THAT. IN THIS CASE WE KNEW THAT INFORMATION WHEN WE [INAUDIBLE] SO WE WERE AWARE OF THAT INFORMATION, SO WE WERE ABLE TO SHARE IT WITH THE RESIDENTS. BUT PEOPLE ARE SKEPTICAL ABOUT HEARING THAT. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE THE MISCONCEPTION OF THE FACT THAT ONCE YOU GET UP ZONING THAT IT AUTOMATICALLY AFFECTS THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY CONSIDERED THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE.

GOODMAN: I THINK THAT THEY WOULD FEEL BETTER AND MORE CONVINCED IF THEY HEARD IT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH. WHEN YOU START RELATING SOME THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE MYTHOLOGY IS SO TIME WORN AND RESPECTED, IN ORDER TO GET THE FACTS OUT TO PEOPLE, THEY REALLY NEED PROBABLY TO HEAR FROM MR. COREY HIMSELF OR MAYBE HE WOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH TO DO A TAPE FOR US OR SOMETHING.

GLASGO: WE CAN SEEK THAT. BUT I DO WANT TO ASSURE THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE PLANS ARE NOT STATIC. THE PLANS CHANGE AND EVOLVE OVER TIME WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO OR FIVE, WE DO GO BACK AND AMEND THE PLANS. SO AT OBVIOUSLY THE TIME WHEN WE GO BACK AND TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS OR SOONER, WE CAN GO BACK AND OBVIOUSLY ACCOMMODATE THOSE AREAS WHERE PEOPLE ARE THEN READY TO GO. WE AS STAFF CAN VERY COLLECTIVELY GET THAT ROLLING.

GOODMAN: I UNDERSTAND THAT. JUST MY FINAL COMMENT, MAYOR, IS THAT THIS IS A HUGE, SOMETIMES CATHARTIC PROCESS, WHERE WE ARE TAKING GIGANTIC TRACTS OF LAND WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE COMING TOGETHER, WHO DON'T NORMALLY DO THIS, THEY ARE COMMITTING TO A YEAR, SOMETIMES TWO OR THREE OR EVEN FOUR YEARS OF WORKING TOGETHER ON MAPPING OUT [INAUDIBLE] THEIR FUTURE. IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THEIR FUTURE BUT WE ARE NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO MAP THAT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT IS APPROVED, THEN YOU HAVE LEFT SOME OF THE BENEFIT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BEHIND. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THAT'S THE FUTURE AND THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN CONSENSUS IN APPROVING IT, BUT YOU ARE STILL GOING TO MAKE THEM COME THROUGH IN THE PIECEMEAL FASHION, THE PLAN AND THE PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE FUTURE WAS GOING TO DO WILL BE LOST. WHAT PEOPLE WILL LOOK AT IS THE FACT THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL AND I THINK THAT THE PERCEPTION AND UNDERSTANDING WILL THEN ALWAYS BE RESIDENTIAL IS WHAT WE THOUGHT COULD SURVIVE HERE AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE IN TO -- TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL. SO I THINK THAT YOU ARE SETTING UP CONFLICTS BY NOT DOING SOMETHING AT THIS MOMENT. BECAUSE IT'S ALL -- IT'S ALL A CONCEPTUAL AND IT IS NOT IN THE APPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. BY ORDINANCE.

GLASGO: YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT.

GOODMAN: -- THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION.

GLASGO: YOU DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY ONCE WE WALK YOU THROUGH THE MOTION SHEET, THAT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS. SINCE WE DID NOT NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS THAT THEIR ZONING WOULD CHANGE, IF THE COUNCIL DESIRES FOR US TO GO BACK SINCE WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO NOTIFY PEOPLE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETBACK, WE COULD ALSO, YOU COULD ALSO ASK US TO GO BACK AND GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS BACK IN ZONING AT THE SAME TIME, WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT. THANK YOU.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

DUNKERLY: I HAD ONE QUESTION, THAT I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM MAY KNOW THE ANSWER TO SINCE SHE'S BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE. HAD MR. -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MR. AMIN PARTICIPATE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS.

THAT'S CORRECT.

DUNKERLY: HAD HE KNOWN HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS, HAD PARTICIPATED, HAD REQUESTED HIS PARTICULAR AREA TO BE COMMERCIAL, WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PLAN-

GLASGO: THAT -- IT'S -- YES. WE WOULD HAVE AT LEAST SENT A NOTICE -- SEE WITH MR. AMIN TODAY, YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY AS HE DESIRES. AND THE ONLY REASON IS NOT BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT RECOMMEND ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH THEN TRANSLATES TO ZONING TO COMMERCIAL, IT'S JUST THAT SINCE THERE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE A DESIRE FOR ANYBODY TO SEEK ZONING TODAY, WE DID NOT THEN NOTIFY LEGALLY LIKE WE SHOULD FOR UP ZONING CONSIDERATION.

DUNKERLY: I UNDERSTAND THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO GO DO THAT. BUT HAD HE PARTICIPATED AND REQUESTED THAT, IT ON PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE PLAN.

GLASGO: YES, WE WOULD HAVE HAD IT TODAY AND --

DUNKERLY: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.

GLASGO: YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ-

ALVAREZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MS. GLASGO, ON THE CASE ON -- IS IT HOEKE- HOEKE LANE-

GLASGO: HOEKE LANE, YES.

ALVAREZ: NOW, IF -- WHICH IS IT-

GLASGO: THIS IS HOEKE LANE RIGHT HERE.

ALVAREZ: SURROUNDED BY WHAT SEEMS TO BE AN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREA THERE --

GLASGO: CORRECT, INDUSTRIAL IN PINK, THIS AREA THAT YOU SEE HERE IN A LIGHTER PURPLE IS ALL -- WLO, OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT FOR --

ALVAREZ: WHAT I'M WONDERING IS LET'S SAY IF MR. CAMPOS WANTED TO DO A RESTAURANT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF BUSINESSES THERE, A LOT OF WORKERS AND SO THAT WOULD NECESSITATE GR OR CS.

GLASGO:GR, CORRECT.

ALVAREZ: WHATEVER THAT WOULD TAKE. BUT WOULD THAT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OR NOT- I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IN HIS SITUATION, IF -- IF WE WANT TO ALLOW THAT OPPORTUNITIES, WE WANT TO SEND IT THROUGH A PROCESS, WHAT WOULD THAT -- WHAT WOULD THAT PROCESS BE-

GLASGO: THE PROCESS WOULD BE, TODAY, COUNCIL HAS THE OPTION OF CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM OFFICE WAREHOUSE, THE WRAP OVER TO COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE THE OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT DOES NOT ALLOW RESTAURANT. HOWEVER, AS YOU CORRECTLY STATED, EARLY LR OR GR OR CS TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT. THEN IF YOU -- YOU COULD EITHER CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TODAY TO REFLECT COMMERCIAL FOR HIS PROPERTY, AND THEN DIRECT US TO GO BACK AND INCLUDING THE NOTICE FOR A REZONING TO -- TO ANY OF THOSE DISTRICTS.

ALVAREZ: I GUESS I'M WONDERING IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY. WHY ARE WE TRYING TO SAY THIS THAT AREA IT SHOULD ONLY BE WAREHOUSE LIMITED OFFICE. I KNOW THERE'S A LITTLE, ONE OTHER TRACT THERE ZONED CS OR COMMERCIAL. I GUESS I'M WONDERING IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY, ARE THERE -- WOULD THERE BE CONCERNS ON STAFF'S PART WITH REGARD TO THAT.

GLASGO: I THINK COMMERCIAL WOULD BE OKAY. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS CREATE A BALANCE IN THIS AREA. THIS IS ONE AREA IN THE CITY THAT WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING AS YOU CAN TELL. MOST OF IT IS EAST OF I-35 IN THE EAST AUSTIN OVERLAY AREA. SO YOU ALL KNOW WE LOOK AT IT, YOU CAN'T GET RID OF ALL OF OUR LI, THERE'S A LOT OF IT HERE THAT ACCOMMODATES EMPLOYMENT AREAS. WE TRIED TO CREATE A BALANCE OF NOT JUST PURE LI, BUT SOME OFFICE WAREHOUSE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME USES IN THE AREA THAT HAVE AN OFFICE AND A WAREHOUSE ASPECT. BUT THAT ATTRIBUTED TO OUR CONSIDERATION AND THAT -- OF THE PLANNING TEAM IN LOOKING AT CREATING THAT BALANCE WHERE YOU HAVE SOME OF THE OFFICE WAREHOUSE AND THEN YOUR INDUSTRIAL AND YOUR OTHER MIXED USE. BUT IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE -- IT WILL JUST ADD TO THE OTHER CS. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE, JUST THE NATURE OF THE USE IN THE AREA TRYING TO CREATE A BALANCE IN THE AREA.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS- OKAY. MS. GLASGO, DO YOU WANT TO HELP US OR MS. LOPEZ, ARE YOU GOING TO HELP US THROUGH THIS -- THIS SERIES OF MOTIONS-

OKAY. MOTION 1, IS TO APPROVE ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS THE PLAN AND THE REZONINGS AS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THEM. SO 1 A SPEAKS TO THE SMART HOUSING PROJECT, PLEASANT VALLEY COURTYARDS ON ST. ELMO ROAD. THIS MOTION WOULD BE BASICALLY TO PULL THOSE PROPERTIES FROM THE PLAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING COMBINING DISTRICT AND DEFER ACTION ON THEM UNTIL THEY ARE HEARD AT PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN BROUGHT FORWARD BACK TO COUNCIL AND THE ONLY OTHER WAY WITHOUT A PLAN AMENDMENT TO ACCOMMODATE A PROJECT LIKE THIS WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. SO THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF COUNCIL DIDN'T WANT TO -- TO REQUIRE A PLAN AMENDMENT IN THE FUTURE. ITEMS 1 B AND C ARE ZERO TERRY ROAD AND 1 B WOULD BE BASICALLY TO CHANGE THE ZONING AND LAND USE, ZONING WOULD BE TO LR-NP, 1 C WOULD BE JUST TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO COMMERCIAL WITHOUT DOING THE REZONING AT THIS TIME. 1 D IS MR. AMIN. AND THE MOTION WOULD BE TO -- TO REZONE HIM TO CS-NP OR DIRECT STAFF TO INITIAL WHY IT A REZONING TO CS-NP SINCE WE WOULD NEED TO RENOTIFY AND GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THIS. 1 E AND F ARE MR. CAMPOS' PROPERTY ON HOEKE LANE. 1 E WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND REZONE DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE A REZONING TO CS-NP. 1 F WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ONLY TO COMMERCIAL. 1 G AND H ARE MR. ANGELOU'S PROPERTY. HE HAD COME FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTING SOME SORT OF OFFICE DESIGNATION, HE DIDN'T COME TO THE COUNCIL HEARING ON THE 26TH. STAFF DECIDED TO LEAVE THIS ONE IN IN CASE IT BECAME AN ISSUE TODAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MS. LOPEZ- IF NOT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. OR A SERIES OF MOTIONS AS THE CASE MAY BE. MAYOR PRO TEM-

GOODMAN: I NEED TO ASK LEGAL IF WE SORT OF DO THIS, WHERE YOU HAVE A MAIN MOTION AND THEN YOU AMEND THESE OTHER THINGS INTO IT OR ARE THEY EACH A SEPARATE -- DO YOU HAVE TO DO ANYTHING FIRST-

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT -- AM I ON- THERE I AM. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WHAT YOU DO IS IF YOU WANT TO DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS THE FIRST MOTION, WHICH IS JUST APPROVE THE PLAN AND APPROVE THE ZONING, IF YOU WANT TO DEVIATE FROM THAT, THAT WHAT YOU DO IS -- IS YOU APPROVE THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WITH -- WITH THE CHANGES THAT YOU WISH TO MAKE AND YOU CAN SELECT FROM YOUR MENU THE CHANGES THAT YOU WISH TO MAKE. NOW, ONE THING THAT SONIA DID SAY WHICH MIGHT SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH -- WITH THE SMART HOUSING PROJECT IS INSTEAD OF GOING ON AHEAD AND CREATING A PROCESS IN THIS ORDINANCE, AND I HAVE THE LANGUAGE WHERE WE CAN DO THAT, WHEREBY YOU WOULD BE ACCEPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN FOR A SMART HOUSING CERTIFIED PROJECT, WHAT SONYA DID SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THAT THAT WOULD BE DESIGNATED AS MIXED USE; IS THAT CORRECT, SONYA-

YES.

OKAY. SO IF YOU WANTED TO, THEN THAT WOULDN'T -- WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THAT REGARD IS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE FROM THE DAIS. YOU COULD JUST -- WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS YOU WOULD -- YOU WOULD NOT DEFER ACTION ON THE PROPERTIES, BUT YOU WOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ON 1 A TO A MIXED USE PROJECT AND I THINK THAT YOU CAN DO THAT, THEN YOU WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVE OF ALLOWING THE REZONING THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE TO GET THE SMART HOUSING PROJECT BEFORE YOU WITH THE CORRECT ZONING.

SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM- BUT THAT ZONING CASE IS STILL PROCEEDING, THOUGH. AND -- AND I DON'T -- THAT SEEMS LIKE TO PREJUDGE IS BY CHANGING IT ON THAT MAP.

I AM -- I AM FLEXIBLE. WE CAN DO THIS EITHER WAY YOU WISH TO GO. THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU IS THAT YOU CAN EITHER GO ON AHEAD AND -- I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. INDICATE THAT AS BEING MIXED USE OR I CAN GIVE YOU THE LANGUAGE WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO COME BACK AND AMEND IT WITHOUT BEING TIED UP BY THE RESTRICTION, THE ONE YEAR RESTRICTION.

SLUSHER: IS THE LATTER THE ONE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER WHERE THAT WOULD BE THE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT WE DON'T HAVE IN PLACE YET.

IT IS NOT THE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION, IT IS THE EXEMPTION FOR SMART HOUSING, BUT I HAVE THE LANGUAGE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT-

SLUSHER: WELL, WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE COMPROMISE THAT WE READ BY --

THIS GETS THROUGH. THIS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY.

SLUSHER: WITHOUT CHANGING THE LANGUAGE --

CAN I READ IT TO YOU-

SLUSHER: SURE.

WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT YOU DO IS THAT YOU WOULD AMEND THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE PLAN TO ADD A NEW PART 3, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY ACCEPT AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AT ANY TIME EARLIER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SMART HOUSING CERTIFIED PROJECT AND THEN YOU WOULD CHANGE THE CURRENT PART 3 TO PART 4. AND THAT IS THE SIMPLEST, EASIEST WAY, IF YOU WANT THEM TO COME BACK THROUGH --

SLUSHER: BUT THE ZONING CASE STILL HAS TO PROCEED AND --

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: THE ACTUAL FATE OF THE PROJECT DEPENDS ON THE ZONING.

YES.

SLUSHER: AND AS YOU POINTED OUT EARLIER, THE WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS COULD BE PUT ON AS PART OF THE ZONING.

I'M GOING TO DEFER TO ALICE. IF SHE SAYS SHE CAN DO IT, WE WILL DO IT.

SLUSHER: I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT.

YES.

SLUSHER: I'M NOT TRYING TO REOPEN THAT DEBATE WE HAD EARLIER.

THAT'S CORRECT. WHEN THAT COMES BACK THROUGH, YOU ARE NOTICING THAT FOR A ZONING CHANGE, YOU CAN PUT THAT ON THERE.

GLASGO: COUNCILMEMBER, I WANTED TO POINT YOU OUT TO THE MOTION SHEET, YOU HAVE 1 A, MARTY SAYS YOU CAN DEFER THAT ACTION, YOU CAN PULL THE PARTICULAR TRACT AND POSTPONE IS TO OCTOBER 31ST, SO THEY CAN CATCH UP WITH THE ZONING CASE THAT IS PENDING. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT IF YOU CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, OR RATHER THE CONCERN YOU CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, ARE YOU PREJUDGING THE CASE. IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, THE OTHER OPTION IS EITHER TO JUST PULL IT OUT AND POSTPONE THAT PIECE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE PLAN TO OCTOBER 31ST, WHEN THE ZONING CASE COMES BACK TO YOU.

SO IN EFFECT YOU HAVE THREE OPTIONS. ONE, YOU AMEND THIS ORDINANCE; TWO YOU DESIGNATE IS MIXED USE; OR THREE YOU PULL IT OUT AND BRING IT BACK WHEN YOU BRING THE ZONINGS BACK.

GLASGO: 31ST OF OCTOBER, WHICH IS THE TIME LINE FOR THE ZONING CHANGE.

SLUSHER: I PREFER THE ONE MS. TERRY AND I WERE DISCUSSING A MOMENT AGO. I THINK THAT WAS OPTION 1 THAT SHE JUST LISTED.

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT MAYOR PRO TEM-

GOODMAN: IS THAT THE ONE, EXCUSE ME, WHERE WE ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT AT ANY TIME FOR SMART HOUSING CERTIFIED-

SLUSHER: YES.

YES, MA'AM.

GOODMAN: OKAY. YEAH, I THINK THAT I LIKE THAT ONE BETTER BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WITH THE MU HAS THAT DOES TO IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THEN IF WE ARE DOING WATER QUALITY AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE SORT OF ALLOWING MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THAT'S A STRANGE THING TO DO.

SLUSHER: RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO WE ARE DOING 1 WITH THE -- WITH THE WORDING -- ADDING THE WORDING THAT THE -- THAT THE -- THAT MARTY PUT IN-

WELL, YES. AS I UNDERSTAND THE -- WHOEVER IS MAKING THE MOTION, THAT THAT MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE ADD THE LANGUAGE THAT I SUGGESTED -- THAT WE CHANGE THE ORDINANCE IN THE MANNER IN WHICH I SUGGESTED IT AND I HAVE THE LANGUAGE AND I WILL GIVE IT TO MS. BROWN.

SLUSHER: I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION, MAYOR.

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

GOODMAN: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

SLUSHER: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER-

SLUSHER: MS. TERRY, WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO INCLUDE IN THAT MOTION THE WATER QUALITY -- THE OVERLAY THAT -- [INAUDIBLE] NOTICING IT -- DO I HAVE TO PUT THAT IN THIS MOTION-

WHAT YOU CAN DO, COUNCILMEMBER, YOU CAN SAY AS PART OF YOUR MOTION YOU WANT TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO -- TO BRING BACK THAT -- THE WATER QUALITY OVERLAY. THAT WILL NOT BE PART OF THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S JUST PART OF YOUR MOTION DIRECTING THE STAFF TO BRING THAT PIECE FORWARD.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THAT'S INCLUDED IN MY MOTION. [ LAUGHTER ]

GOODMAN: COULD I --

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT -- IS THAT AMENDMENT OKAY WITH THE SECONDER-

GOODMAN: OH, YEAH. I THINK SO. [ LAUGHTER ]

MAYOR GARCIA: DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND IT-

SLUSHER: DON'T GET GREEDY ON ME. [ LAUGHTER ]

GOODMAN: SO --

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND WITH TWO AMENDMENTS. MS. BROWN DO YOU HAVE THE WORDING ON THE AMENDMENTS-

CLERK BROWN: SURE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OR MS. TERRY CAN GIVE IT TO YOU.

I WILL GIVE THE WORDING. IT IS AS I READ IT INTO THE RECORD, BUT I WILL TYPE IT UP FOR YOU. THAT DOES NOT TAKE CARE OF ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS. WHAT THAT DOES IS APPROVE THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS, WITH THIS AMENDED LANGUAGE AND WITH THE DIRECTION TO STAFF. IF THE COUNCIL WISHES TO PURSUE ANY OF THESE OTHER ALTERNATIVES, THEN THOSE WOULD NEED -- WE HAVEN'T HIT THE ZONINGS YET. WE WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES ON THE MOTION SHEET IF YOU DESIRE TO GO THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

GOODMAN: MAYOR --

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. MAYOR PRO TEM-

GOODMAN: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK BOTH LEGAL AND THE MAKER OF THE MOTION ABOUT RELATIVE TO A FURTHER AMENDMENT. I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THE FOLKS NOT ONLY MR. AMIN THE OTHER FOLKS ALONG 183 WITH THE INFORMATION OR EVEN A VISIT FROM MR. COREY, OR A TAPE OR SOMETHING, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE ARE SORT OF BEING COUNTER PRODUCTIVE AND -- AND STICKING OUR OWN FOOT OUT TO TRIP ON IN THE FUTURE IF WE DON'T ASK ABOUT THE REZONING AND INITIATE FOR ANY WHO WANT THAT RIGHT NOW ON 183. SO I'M NOT SURE -- MS. TERRY, DOES THAT FIT AS AN AMENDMENT SOMEHOW OR IS THAT AN ADDITIONAL --

IT SOUND TO ME THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING STAFF TO DO IS BE SENSITIVE IN THE FUTURE TO THE -- TO THESE SITUATIONS AS THEY ARISE, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY.

GOODMAN: WELL, THAT, TOO [ LAUGHTER ] BUT RIGHT NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT MR. AMIN AND ALL OF THE OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE IN THAT RED STRIP ALONG 183. AND TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR A STAFF INITIATION OF REZONING.

OKAY. I, MR. AMIN'S -- MY -- WE MAY HAVE TO ADJUST THE PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE MR. AMIN AND THE OTHER GENTLEMAN'S PROPERTY. SO SONYA, IF YOU COULD HELP US BY TELLING US WHAT -- WHICH ADDITIONAL -- AMENDMENTS WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE TO THE MOTION TO DO THAT.

FOR MR. AMIN, WHICH IS MOTION 1 D, THE PLAN ALREADY RECOMMENDS COMMERCIAL LAND USE, SO YOU WOULD NEED TO SELECT 1 D TO DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE A REZONING.

WELL, WE ARE NOT AT THE ZONINGS YET. SO 1 D, MR. AMIN AS FAR AS THE PLAN IS CONCERNED IS ALL RIGHT.

AS FAR AS THE PLAN IS CONCERNED, HE'S FINE. HE HAS COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION.

AND THE OTHER PROPERTY-

THE OTHER PROPERTY, MR. CAMPOS' PROPERTY SHOWS AS WAREHOUSE LIMITED OFFICE IN THE PLAN AS IS. SO HE WOULD NEED TO HAVE EITHER 1 E OR 1 F, MOTION 1 E OR 1 F.

SO YOU WOULD NEED TO ADD 1 E OR 1 F.

GOODMAN: OH, WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, THOUGH, WAS NOT JUST MR. AMIN'S PROPERTY, BUT ALL OF THE RED. SO THIS ONLY SPEAKS TO MR. AMIN, I THINK.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE A REZONING FOR ALL OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTIES.

OR ANY OF THE OWNERS WHO WANTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS TIME TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TOGETHER.

WILL WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP FOR ANY OTHER PROPERTIES ALONG HIGHWAY 183-

NO. THE PLAN RECOMMENDS COMMERCIAL FOR ALL OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO THE PLAN, AS IT STANDS, IS FINE WITH RESPECT TO A COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE FUTURE.

ALL RIGHT. SO THEN -- BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE ZONING PIECE, THEN WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THE ZONING.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

GOODMAN: OKAY. IS THE REASON THEN THAT WE HAVE TO MENTION MR. AMIN IN THIS PARTICULAR MOTION BECAUSE WE ARE INITIATING A REZONING-

YES.

GOODMAN: OKAY. GOT IT. OKAY. SO IS THAT A FRIENDLY --

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME JUST ASK ONE QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND THEN WE AMENDED THAT TO ACTUALLY DO, WHAT, 1 A- OR 1 B-

I BELIEVE WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S MOTION WAS ACTUALLY MOTION 1, WHICH WAS NOT TO PULL THE TRACT, BUT TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE --

MAYOR GARCIA: SO 1 A, 1 B OR 1 C WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO BECAUSE YOU DID IT BY AMENDING THE MOTION.

WELL, 1 B OR 1 C IS A SEPARATE ISSUE. IF YOU ADOPT OR IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO WITH MOTION 1, THAT WOULD MEAN YOU ARE APPROVING THE ENTIRE PLAN AS IS BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO APPROVE THE ENTIRE PLAN OR ADOPT THE ENTIRE PLAN, YOU WOULD NEED TO RUN THROUGH THE OTHER OPTIONS.

MAYOR, IF I CAN HELP YOU, WE ARE NOT DOING 1 A. THE MOTION -- THE MOTION PRESENTLY ON THE DAIS IS NOT TO DO 1 A. IT IS TO DO ONE WITH THE LANGUAGE AS SUGGESTED. WE THEN NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER TO ACCOMMODATE MR. AMIN -- WE WANT TO --

MAYOR GARCIA: BEFORE YOU GO TO MR. AMIN WE DO ONE WITH THE AMENDMENTS, WE DON'T NEED TO DO 1 A OR 1 B OR 1 C-

THAT'S CORRECT.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, NOT UNLESS SOMEONE ASKS TO INCLUDE THOSE.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT, MS. LOPEZ-

YES. A COUNCILMEMBER WOULD NEED TO OR YOU WOULD NEED TO SPECIFICALLY REQUEST ONE OF THESE MOTIONS IN ORDER TO DEVIATE FROM MOTION 1.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO A, B OR C. NOW WE ARE TO D.

GOODMAN: THAT'S WHAT I AM ASKING THE MAKER OF THE MOTION IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT AS AN ADDITION TO THE MOTION IS 1 D AND ONLY 1 D. WHICH IS 183. SLIGHTLY EXPANDED 1 D, THOUGH, IN THAT WE ARE -- WE ARE ADDING ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, IF THEY CHOOSE, WITHIN THE RED STRIP ALONG U.S. 183.

LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS. 1 D, 1 E OR 1 F OR 1 G AND 1 H CAN BE AMENDMENTS TO 1-

CORRECT.

SO MAYOR PRO TEM YOU WANT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT FOR 1 D-

GOODMAN: YES --

MAYOR GARCIA: AS IT IS HERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN-

GOODMAN: SLIGHTLY EXPANDING FROM THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE UNDER 1 D. THE REZONING, TO INITIATE THE REZONING TO CSMP IS ONLY SPECIFIC TO MR. AMIN IN THIS MOTION AND MY REQUEST IS THAT WE EXPAND THAT AND OFFER IT TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE RED STRIP ALONG WITH MR. AMIN THE RED STRIP ALONG 183, RIGHT IF --

GOODMAN: YES.

SLUSHER: I WOULD ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THAT'S JUST OFFERING TO THOSE FOLKS THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR ZONING INITIATED CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PLAN IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. NOW WE ARE TO 1 E OR 1 F.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ-

YEAH, THIS IS A -- WE JUST DOING LAND USE, NOT THE ZONING --

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE DOING THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, YEAH, THE LAND USE. EAR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. I GUESS THIS IS 1 E AND 1 F FOR THE LAND USE MAP IS THE SAME, WITHOUT TELLING FOLKS WHERE I AM LEADING IS TOWARDS 1 E AND I MEAN IT'S -- THIS IS A DIFFICULT ONE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE LIKE THE REAL PROJECT NECESSARILY. THE ONLY THING THAT WE'VE HEARD IS THAT THE OWNER MIGHT WANT TO DO A RESTAURANT. SO WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE LIMIT IT A LITTLE MORE THAN JUST CS AND SAY -- PUT SOME LIMIT ON THE PERMITTED USES SO THAT IT WOULD ALLOW WLO USES AND RESTAURANT USE UNDER CS.

COUNCILMEMBER, THAT'S SORT OF GETTING THE -- GETTING AHEAD OF --

ALVAREZ: I'M JUST -- WELL, I GUESS DEPENDING ON WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE ZONING PART, IT MAY AFFECT WHETHER THIS IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR NOT. SO --

LET ME MAKE THIS SUGGESTION. FOR THE LAND USE PLAN, YOU ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT PLANNING, OKAY- AND THE ACTUAL ZONING WHERE YOU DO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND YOU ARE LIMITING PERMITTED USES THAT WILL COME LATER WHEN WE BRING THE ZONING CASE BACK.

ALVAREZ: I UNDERSTAND.

OKAY.

ALVAREZ: BUT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND COMMERCIAL VERSUS WLO, BUT I ALSO WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHERE IS THAT LEADING, IS THAT -- AGAIN, THAT MIGHT AFFECT WHETHER IT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR NOT.

SLUSHER: CAN I INTERRUPT YOU A SECOND. DID YOU SAY COMMERCIAL INSTEAD OF WLO OR YOU ARE GOING YOU ARE RECOMMEND WLO WITH THE POTENTIAL RESTAURANT USE-

ALVAREZ: I DON'T THINK THERE IS A RESTAURANT USE UNDER WLO, RIGHT-

NO, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.

ALVAREZ: SO ARE MOST WLO USES ALLOWED UNDER CS-

I BELIEVE SO.

SLUSHER: SO THEN YOU WOULD BE SAYING CS --

ALVAREZ: BASICALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IT WILL BE CS ZONING, BUT THE ONLY PERMITTED USES WOULD BE THOSE THAT ARE -- THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE UNDER WLO AND A RESTAURANT. EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE --

SLUSHER: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

ALVAREZ: -- NOT PERMITTED. IF HE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN A RESTAURANT HE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND GET A ZONING CHANGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHERE ARE WE-

OKAY. UNDER WLO -- UNDER CS, PARDON ME, MOST OF THE -- LET'S SEE, FOR WLO, THERE'S A FEW USES THAT -- WELL, MOST OF THE USES ALLOWED IN CS ARE PROHIBITED IN WLO, SO THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO PROHIBIT -- I BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT -- PROHIBIT THE USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER WLO.

ALVAREZ: BASICALLY EXCEPT FOR --

EXCEPT FOR RESTAURANT.

ALVAREZ: UH-HUH. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IF IT COMES DOWN TO THE -- TO A ZONING VOTE ON THAT.

RIGHT.

ALVAREZ: BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR -- FOR THIS PARTICULAR ACTION, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE CHANGE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM WLO TO COMMERCIAL TO ALLOW THAT. AND TO ALLOW A SEPARATE VOTE ON THAT.

SO IT -- IT SOUNDS LIKE IF YOU WANTED TO ENTERTAIN -- SINCE YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT THE ZONING AHEAD OF TIME, IF YOU WANTED TO ENTERTAIN SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A REZONING, YOU WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO GO WITH MOTION 1 E, SINCE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME TYPE OF A ZONING CHANGE. 1 F WOULD BE JUST TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. SO --

ALVAREZ: I'M LEANING TOWARDS 1 E, I GUESS THAT I WOULD OFFER THAT AS IT'S STATED THERE AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE. 1 E AND -- UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 1 E, BUT AS YOU PREVIOUSLY SAY, WHERE IT WOULD BE CS WAS -- WAREHOUSE LIMITED OFFICE -- WLO USES ONLY WITH THE ADDITION OF RESTAURANT-

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

ALVAREZ: THAT'S IT, WHEN WE GET TO THE ZONING.

SLUSHER: I WOULD ACCEPT THAT, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. NOW WE GO TO 1 G. 1 G IS -- THAT WAS NOT --

YEAH, THAT WAS MR. ANGELOU'S PROPERTY AND HE HASN'T COME FORWARD.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE DON'T NEED TO AMEND THE PLAN FOR THAT.

THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY WAS 1 B OR 1 C, I KNOW WE KIND OF SKIPPED THAT. THAT WAS KIND OF A DIFFERENT PIECE OF PROPERTY, ZERO TERRY ROAD. MS. LOPEZ PHELPS CAME FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL HEARING ON THE 26TH REQUESTING ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER A ZONING CHANGE TO LR-NP.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY WE WILL GO BACK TO 1 B OR 1 Z. WHICH ONE DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO --

IF ANY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IT WAS DIFFERENT THAN 1 A.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I GUESS -- THE PLAN WAS A --

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN CHANGING 1 G, BUT I -- I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE MAYOR PRO TEM, IF THE SECONDER AGREED TO THAT PREVIOUS ONE OR NOT, THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT FROM COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT WAS 1 E. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S WAS ON 1 E.

SLUSHER: BUT I'M SAYING I DON'T KNOW IF THE MAYOR PRO TEM -- I'M THE SECONDER OF THE MOTION, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE AGREED TO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER CONSIDERED THAT FRIENDLY, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU-

GOODMAN: WELL, AFTER MUCH THOUGHT, MAYOR AND WITH HIGH EXPECTATIONS OF THE WATER QUALITY ADDITIONS AND PROTECTIONS THAT WILL BE HERE SHORTLY, I'M OKAY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, COULD I ASK A QUESTION-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER-

SLUSHER: MS. LOPEZ, AT THE -- AM I CORRECT IN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN THEY HEARD THIS, THEY RECOMMENDED TO ADD SOME STRONGER WATER QUALITY MEASURES-

THEY WANTED A STRONGER ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENT IN GENERAL TO THE PLAN.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND SO I JUST -- I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR THIS TO BE THE PLANNING TEAM OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT DON'T DO ANY CHANGES ONCE IT GETS TO THE COUNCIL. I JUST CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, IF WE AGREE TOTALLY WITH THE PLAN, THEN I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO ANY CHANGES. I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE WHAT THE PLANNING TEAM RECOMMENDS. AFTER ALL THEIR HOURS, WEEKS, MONTHS, SOMETIMES YEARS OF WORK. WE SHOULD GIVE THIS A REAL STRONG WEIGHTING IN OUR DECISION. BUT I THINK IT'S THE COUNCIL THAT'S ENTRUSTED BY THE CITIZENS, BY THE VOTING CITIZENS TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISIONS ON THE ZONING CASES AND MANY OTHER MATTERS AND, FOR INSTANCE, THE WATER QUALITY PLAN TO INCREASE WATER QUALITY MATTERS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE OVERLAY, THEY WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THE PLAN THAT CAME FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED, WELL, LET'S DO SOME CHANGES AND NOW THE COUNCIL IS DOING THAT. AND SO WE ARE ALSO DOING THESE TWO -- TWO CHANGES IN THE LAND USE, SO I THINK THAT'S -- THAT IT'S CONSISTENT THAT IF YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES IN ONE AREA, YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO SO IN THE OTHER AREA. I DON'T THINK THAT DAMAGES THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS AT ALL. I THINK IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT IF WE THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY.

GOODMAN: WELL, MAYOR, IF I CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY TO IMPLEMENT THE LAND USE PLAN SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TEAM AND THE NEIGHBORS WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH. ON THE SECOND ONE, THE REASON THAT I THINK THAT THAT COULD BE OKAY IS BECAUSE IT IS A -- IT IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY ADDITIONAL FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS THAT YOU COULD DO THIS, KEEPING IT WITHIN A WLO AREA. YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DO ALL OF THE ENGINEERING UP FRONT, BUT IT SHOULD BE FAIRLY EASY TO MAP THE FLOODPLAIN AND TO EVEN CONSIDER DOING A FOOTPRINT OF CS OR GR OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND KEEPING THE REST OF THAT TRACT WLO, OTHERWISE YOU CAN DO IT THE OTHER WAY, TOO. YOU GO WITH THE HIGHER ZONING AND THEN YOU PRECLUDE EVERYTHING EXCEPT TO LOWER ZONING STANDARDS, BUT THE LETTERS ON THE MAP REMAIN THE HIGHER ZONING. SO I AM THINKING THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE COULD DO THIS THAT ACTUALLY ENHANCE THAT AREA AND USE [INAUDIBLE] LAND WITHOUT IMPACTING AND CERTAINLY IT WILL BE A NICE -- NICER PLACE TO GO WITH THE ADDITIONAL FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IN THERE. SO THAT WAS THE -- THAT WAS THE STRONGEST REASON. BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS ACCEPTABLE. I DON'T THINK IT REALLY GOES AT ODDS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THOUGH.

MAYOR GARCIA: RECAP, PLEASE.

MAYOR, I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHERE WE ARE. THE -- THE MOTION --

MAYOR GARCIA: OTHER THAN IN SOUTH AUSTIN, CORRECT- [ LAUGHTER ]

YES, SIR. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION IS THAT IT IS TO APPROVE THE SOUTHEAST COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS, WITH CERTAIN CHANGES. THE FIRST ONE IS TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY ADDING A NEW PART 3 TO -- TO PERMIT THE DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY ACCEPT AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AT ANY TIME EARLIER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN, IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SMART HOUSING CERTIFIED PROJECT AND THEN TO CHANGE THE CURRENT PART 3 TO PART 4. THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THAT YOU WOULD BE CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY AT ZERO U.S. HIGHWAY 183 FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL.

IT'S ALREADY COMMERCIAL. YEAH, 1 D IS JUST A REZONING MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. THAT IS -- I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, THAT'S JUST A REZONING MOTION. SO IT IS ALREADY DESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL AND WE WOULD ADDRESS THE REZONING. 1 E, HOWEVER, IS WE WOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2505 HOEKE LANE FROM WAREHOUSE LIMITED OFFICE TO COMMERCIAL.

CORRECT.

SO THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IN THE MOTION ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE CHANGED THE MOTION JUST A BIT, WITH REGARD TO THE SMART HOUSING PROJECT, MY -- I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU ALL ADOPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ORDINANCE FIRST AND THEN LET'S GO BACK AND CONSIDER THE ZONING IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE DONE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

GLASGO: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S ITEM ON THE -- ON THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

I WAS -- I WAS HOPING THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS THAT -- YES, WE CAN GO ON AHEAD AND SAY AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE GO -- THAT -- THAT THESE MATTERS GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT THE -- THAT THE STAFF IS DIRECTED TO BRING FORTH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE ZONING PORTION TO PROVIDE FOR SETBACKS FROM THE CREEKS AS OUTLINED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: THAT'S ON SECOND AND THIRD READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. MAYOR PRO TEM, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE --

[INAUDIBLE]

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDER, ARE YOU OKAY- ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS- IF NOT, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. MS. TERRY-

YOU ARE NOW AT THE ZONING AND WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU ON THE ZONING MOTIONS IS ESSENTIALLY YOU CAN APPROVE THE FRANKLIN PARK, MCKINNEY AND SOUTHEAST NPCD REZONINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. YOU CAN DEFER ACTION ON THE PROPERTIES FOR THE SMART HOUSING PROJECT, WHICH IS 4503, 4511 AND 4601 ST. ELMO ROAD WITHIN THE FRANKLIN PARK NCCD BEFORE THE CASE IS BROUGHT BACK BEFORE COUNCIL AND THIS IS WHERE THE STAFF ANTICIPATED A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF OCTOBER THE 23RD AND A COUNCIL DATE OF OCTOBER 31ST. NOW, WHAT YOU CAN DO, COUNCIL, IS YOU CAN DEFER ACTION OR YOU CAN MAKE THOSE ZONING CHANGES, UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE INSTRUCTED STAFF TO BRING THOSE CASES BACK TO YOU. IT IS UP TO YOU. YOU HAVE THAT OPTION, AM I CORRECT, SONYA-

THAT IS CORRECT. JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THE PLAN DOES RECOMMEND THE LAND USES THAT ARE INTACT RIGHT NOW, WHICH --

THEN AS FOR MR. AMIN'S PROPERTY, AGAIN, YOU WOULD BE APPROVING -- THAT GOES TO THE SECOND PAGE, 1 D AND THE ZONING, REZONING COLUMN, AND YOU WOULD BE APPROVING THE FRANKLIN PARK, MCKINNEY AND SOUTHEAST NPCD ZONINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL ON SECOND AND THIRD, EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE PULLING ZERO HIGHWAY U.S. 183 FROM THE SOUTHEAST NPCD AND DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE A REZONING FROM S.F. 2 TO CS-NP. AND THEN ON THE CAMPO'S TRACK, YOU WOULD BE APPROVING THE FRANKLIN PARK, MCKINNEY NPCD REZONING, ON SECOND AND THIRD, EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE PULLING 2505 HOEKE LANE FROM THE SOUTHEAST NPCD AND INITIATE STAFF TO REZONING FOR WLO, CS, NP AND THEN -- THEN WITH WHAT RESTRICTIONS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ HAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND NOTHING ON THE ANGLOS -- ANGELOU, CORRECT-

THAT'S CORRECT.

CAN YOU POINT TO THE AMIN PROPERTY AGAIN, THE ONE WITH THE ARROW- THAT WHOLE PROPERTY OR JUST THE LITTLE --

GOODMAN: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM-

GOODMAN: THAT'S WHY I HAD ASKED FOR ALL OF THE PROPERTY AND PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT RED STRIP DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL IN THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. UNLESS THEY ARE ALL -- MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE A REAL ADDRESS, SO UNLESS THEY ARE ALL CALLED ZERO 183, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY EVERYBODY IN THE RED STRIP. OR IF THEY REALLY DO ALL HAVE ZERO 183, THEN ALL ZERO 183 FOR INITIATION OF REZONING. ALL WHO CHOOSE.

ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTIES ALONG 183.

GOODMAN: EVERYBODY IN THE RED STRIP. ABOUT HOW MANY HOUSES OR HOW MANY OWNERS-

WELL, WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE WE MET WITH ABOUT -- I WOULD SAY ABOUT 10 PEOPLE, THOSE WERE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THEIR HOUSES OUT THERE AND WE HAD TO MAIL OUT ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE LETTERS. SO THE LETTERS WENT OUT TO PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T HAVE STRUCTURES.

GOODMAN: OKAY. SORT OF THE SUBLIMINAL SECTION OF THAT AMENDMENT, IF THAT'S WHAT IT TURNS OUT TO BE, WOULD BE THAT WE ASKED MR. COREY IF EITHER HE COULD COME OUT ONE MORE TIME OR MAYBE DO A TAPE FOR US WHERE WE PUT THE MOST ASKED QUESTIONS WHERE PEOPLE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT GETTING THE -- DO A TAPE WITH US WHERE WE PUT THE MOST ASKED QUESTIONS SO PEOPLE ARE SURE WE ARE NOT GETTING THE INFORMATION WRONG ABOUT HOW TAX APPRAISALS ARE ACTUALLY FORMULATED.

THAT CAN BE HANDLED AS A DIRECTIVE TO STAFF AND WE WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. AS OPPOSED TO BEING PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCIL, THE -- I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE ZONING, ON ITEM 12. AS EXPLAINED BY MS. TERRY. COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY MOVES APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND- SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION-

GOODMAN: IT HAS EVERYBODY IN IT, RIGHT-

I BELIEVE SO, INCLUDING COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S DIRECTIONS TO STAFF CONCERNING THE CS ZONING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION- IF NOT, ALL OF THOSE FAVOR IN SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO, MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. THANK YOU, MS. LOPEZ.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RECESS THE MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AND WE WILL MOVE TO -- TO -- TO THE MEETING, I WILL CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE -- OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. AND I WILL RECOGNIZE THE DIRECTOR, MR. HILGERS. WHAT DO THEY CALL YOU- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO -- IF YOU ALL COULD MOVE YOUR DISCUSSIONS TO THE FOYER, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT. A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

YES, SIR. IF YOU ALL COULD TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS TO THE FOYER, I'M GOING TO CALL BACK TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. MR. HILGERS.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WE HAVE SIX DIFFERENT ITEMS FOR YOU TODAY. AHFC ITEM NO. 1 IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF OCTOBER 3RD, 2002.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER ALVAREZ, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER DUNKERLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO.- MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. 3, 4, 5 -- WE HAVE -- WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMAS TEMPORARILY OFF THE DAIS.

TODAY IS -- IS THE DAY THAT WE HAVE ONCE A YEAR IN WHICH WE BRING BEFORE YOU OUR INDUCEMENT RESOLUTIONS, THE NEXT FIVE ITEMS, ARE PRIVATE ACTIVITY VOLUME CAP INDUCEMENT RESOLUTIONS. I WOULD EXPLAIN BRIEFLY THE PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC AND TO REMIND THE BOARD OF HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS. THE APPLICANT APPLIES TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TO THE STATE, APPLIES BY OCTOBER 1ST, TO US, WHO APPROVES WHAT IS -- THIS IS THE INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION, PHASE 1 OF THIS THREE-PHASED PROCESS. THE PROJECT IS THEN ASSIGNED A NUMBER AND PARTICIPATES IN A BOND LOTTERY PROGRAM ON OCTOBER 31ST, WHEN LITERALLY BALLS ARE DRAWN LIKE A LOTTERY AND THE PROJECT ASSIGNED A PRIORITY LEVEL AS A RESULT OF THAT PROCESS. THE TEXAS BOND REVIEW BOARD AWARDS THE VOLUME CAP AND GRANTS APPLICANTS 120 DAYS TO CLOSE THE TRANSACTIONS BASED UPON THAT LOTTERY SYSTEM. THEN THE APPLICANT BEGINS TO WORK WITH NEIGHBORHOOD AND SECURES THE SMART HOUSING CERTIFICATION FOR THEIR PROJECT. AT THAT POINT, THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD WOULD CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WE CALL OUR TEFRA'S. THE BOND TEAM STRUCTURES THE TRANSACTION, A BOND BUYER AND LOW INCOME HOUSING TEXAS CREDIT BUYER ARE IDENTIFIED AND THE TERMS ARE SET AND THEN THE THIRD PROCESS, THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION MEETS TO APPROVE THE SALES OF THE BONDS. AT CLOSING BONDS ARE ISSUED, FUNDS DEPOSITED WITH THE TRUSTEE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT BEGINS. THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND OCCUPIED AND MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY MONITORING BEGINS AT THAT TIME. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, MR. PRESIDENT, IF IT'S OKAY, IS READ FOR YOU -- THERE ARE -- AS I SAID, FIVE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS THIS YEAR, COMING TO US, FIVE DIFFERENT PROJECTS FOR THE BOND LOTTERY PROCESS. ITEM NO. 2, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST GO THROUGH ALL FIVE OF THEM IF THAT'S OKAY AT ONE TIME. AHFC-2. APPROVE AN INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION FOR A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS VILLAS ON SIXTH STREET, LOCATED AT 1900 BLOCK OF EAST 6TH STREET, TO BE OWNED BY A NEWLY CREATED TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPBELL-HOGUE & ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR BOND FINANCING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,547,000, TO BE SUBMITTED THROUGH THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE TEXAS BOND REVIEW BOARD MULTI-FAMILY LOTTERY FOR ALLOCATION OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY VOLUME CAP AUTHORITY THAT WILL BE HELD OCTOBER 31, 2002. I WON'T READ ALL OF THAT LAST SENTENCE ON EVERY ONE OF THESE, BUT I WILL READ THE REST OF THE LOCATIONS OF THESE APARTMENTS AND THESE MULTI-FAMILY SITES FOR YOU. AHFC-3. APPROVE AN INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION FOR A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS THE FALLWELL APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 3200 BLOCK OF INTERPORT LANE AT HIGHWAY 71, TO BE OWNED BY A TO-BE-FORMED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SPONSORED BY SGI, VENTURES, INC. FOR BOND FINANCING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000,000, TO BE SUBMITTED THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS IDENTIFIED AS ABOVE. ITEM NO. 4 AND 5, YOU WILL NOTICE, HAVE THE SAME ADDRESS AS THE ONE THAT I JUST READ TO YOU, AND THAT WILL ALLOW THE -- THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT TO HAVE THREE SHOTS AT THE LOTTERY. WHICH IS A CREATIVE WAY TO TRY TO GET MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE A -- TO HAVE A PRIORITY ACHIEVED. SO ITEM NO. 4 IS TO APPROVE AN INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION FOR A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS INTERPORT APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 3200 BLOCK OF INTERPORT LANE AT HIGHWAY 71, TO BE OWNED BY A TO-BE-FORMED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SPONSORED BY SGI, VENTURES, INC FOR BOND FINANCING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000,000, TO BE SUBMITTED THROUGH OUR PROCESS AS I MENTIONED BEFORE. ITEM NO. 5, TO APPROVE AN INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION FOR A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS TRICKEY APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 3200 BLOCK OF INTERPORT LANE AT HIGHWAY 71, TO BE OWNED BY A TO-BE-FORMED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SPONSORED BY SGI, VENTURES, INC. FOR BOND FINANCING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000,000. ITEM NO. 6 IS TO APPROVE AN INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION FOR A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS TRAVIS PARK APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 1110 EAST OLTORF DR., TO BE OWNED BY A TO-BE- FORMED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SPONSORED BY PACIFIC AMERICAN PROPERTIES, INC. FOR BOND FINANCING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,999,000. THIS PARTICULAR BOND ISSUE IS AN ACQUISITION AND REHAB TYPE APPROACH AS OPPOSED TO A NEW CONSTRUCTION ITEM. WITH THAT, I WOULD JUST HAVE ONE OTHER POINT FOR YOU IS THAT THESE PARTICULAR BOND INDUCEMENT RESOLUTIONS ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN WHAT IS TO BE CATEGORIES, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SECOND PRIORITY, WHICH MEANS THAT 100% OF THE PROJECT WILL BE RESERVED FOR UNITS WITH FAMILIES OF INCOMES UP TO 60% OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND WILL RENT THE UNITS AT 60% OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME PRESCRIBED RENTS. SOME OF OUR PROPERTIES IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN AT 60%, WE HAVE RENTED IT AT 50%, WHICH MAKES THEM A FIRST PRIORITY. SO THAT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION FOR THE FACTS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT NATURE OF THESE PROJECTS. WITH THAT, I WOULD BE JUST RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THESE INDUCEMENT RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S A LONG WAY TO GO IN THIS PROCESS BEFORE ANY OF THESE GET DEVELOPED.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION, BUT I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHICH ONE-

SLUSHER: ALL OF THEM, I SUPPOSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO WE HAVE TO TAKE THE MINUTES FIRST, HAVE WE ALREADY APPROVED THE MINUTES.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION ON 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6.

SLUSHER: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER SLUSHER ON 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6. IS THERE A SECOND- SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER DUNKERLY. ON TRAVIS PARK APARTMENTS, WHEN WAS THAT APARTMENT BUILT- THE '60'S-

LET ME SEE IF I HAVE GOT THAT. 1968.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO IT'S ABOUT 34 YEARS OLD, GIVE OR TAKE-

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THIS IS -- THIS $9 MILLION IS TO RENOVATE, PURCHASE AND RENOVATE-

YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THEY ARE SELLING IT FOR-

THERE'S -- THIS ONE ACTUALLY IS A FIRST PRIORITY, SO IT WOULD BE 50% INCOMES. THE PURCHASE PRICE IS $8 MILLION. 199 UNITS WITH -- WITH 48 ONE-BEDROOM, ONE BATH, 119 TWO BEDROOM, 1.5 BATHS AND 32 THREE BEDROOM AT 1.5 BATHS. RENTAL RATES $550 TO 820.

MAYOR GARCIA: ONLY A MILLION FOR RENOVATIONS.

TOTAL PROJECTED COST ESTIMATED AT 11,594,630.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THEY ARE GOING TO BUY IT FOR 8 AND THEN GOING TO TAKE THE --

THE BOND FOR 8.9 --

MAYOR GARCIA: THE 99,000.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEN THEY ARE GOING TO PUT SOME MORE TO DO THE RENOVATION-

SINCE THEY WILL HAVE THE 4% TAX CREDITS, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PUT THE ADDITIONAL CASH INTO IT THAT WILL BRING THE TOTAL COST TO 11,594,000.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. IS THAT ADEQUATE TO REBUILD THAT APARTMENT THAT'S 34 YEARS OLD- TO REHAB IT- WHAT IS REHABING- ROOFING AND DO THEY TEAR UP EVERYTHING INSIDE OR WHAT-

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC] THIS IS PROBABLY 1.9 OR $2 MILLION WORTH OF FACELIFT. APPLIANCES, THAT KIND OF THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

THAT WAS MARTIN GONZALEZ WHO RUNS OUR BOND PROGRAM.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER SLUSHER ON ALL OF THE ITEMS. AND SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER DUNKERLY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, ITEM 2 IS IN THE EAST AUSTIN AREA AND ONE THAT HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I WOULD LIKE FOR -- TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT'S ONE THAT I THINK HAS A LOT OF THINGS APPEALING TO ME. NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IT'S CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN AND IT'S ON THE BUS ROUTES AND IT'S ONE THAT SHOULD BE VERY -- VERY GOOD FOR THAT PART OF TOWN.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAD A COUPLE OF --

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER I MEAN BOARD MEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: THE MAYOR IS SPEAKING TO THE MERITS OF THE SECOND ONE HERE.

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: BUT REALLY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A LOTTERY, RIGHT-

THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

SLUSHER: EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR ON THAT AND THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT'S THE ONE -- THAT WILL GET PICKED OVER ANY OTHER ONE, RIGHT-

THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S RIGHT. JUST MAKING A PERSONAL --

SLUSHER: I'M NOT DISPUTING YOUR FACTS, I'M JUST MAKING ANOTHER POINT HERE THAT I WAS GOING TO MAKE ANYWAY, YOU JUST GAVE ME A GOOD SEGUE THERE. SO THE TAX CREDITS ARE FROM THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WHAT HAPPENS IS THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM IS ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS. THE TAX CREDITS THEMSELVES ARE FEDERAL TAX CREDITS THAT MAJOR CORPORATIONS BUY INTO THIS PROGRAM BY GETTING TAX CREDITS. THOSE CREDITS ALLOW FOR CAPITAL TO BE INFUSED INTO THESE PUBLIC PURPOSE ISSUES. AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM ITSELF SETS UP A POOL OF CAPITAL AT THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT'S ALLOWED TO BE ISSUED BONDS THROUGH WHICH BONDS ARE ISSUED AND THEN CHEAPER CAPITAL IS ALLOWED TO BE PLACED INTO REALLY WHAT THESE ARE PUBLIC PURPOSE ACTIVITIES.

SLUSHER: AND SO THE RATIONALE ON DOING IT THROUGH A LOTTERY, THE STATE DOING IT THROUGH A LOTTERY IS THAT THERE'S LIMITED FUNDS --

I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M THE BEST PERSON TO TALK ABOUT THE RATIONALE OF THE STATE, NOR DO I WANT ANYBODY ON MY STAFF TALKING ABOUT THE RATIONALE OF THE STAFF. [ LAUGHTER ]

BUT -- BUT THE FACT IS THAT YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT, BOARD MEMBER SLUSHER. THERE IS SO MUCH DEMAND, TYPICALLY SO MUCH DEMAND THAT IT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS THAT THEY CAME UP WITH SOME PROCESS AND ON THIS PROCESS IT'S A LOTTERY SYSTEM AND THEN THEY GO THROUGH AND THEY REALLY DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ON SOME OF THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY, THERE'S A VERY QUICK TIME LINE ON THESE PROJECTS. 120 DAYS FROM THE TIME THEY GET THEIR NOTIFICATION THAT THEY ARE ON THE LIST TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO BRING THEIR PROJECT VERTICAL. SO IT'S A TIGHT COMPETITIVE TIME FRAME AND IT WAS EXTREMELY -- IT HAS BEEN EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE IN THE PAST. BUT THAT'S THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE THAT THEY ARE OPERATING UNDER.

WHAT'S BEEN THE SUCCESS AS FAR AS BEING VIABLE PROJECTS. I KNOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TIME LINE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S FINANCIALLY VIABLE. WHAT ABOUT ONCE THEY ARE ON THE GROUND. NOT JUST IN AUSTIN, BUT AROUND THE STATE, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY PROBLEMS-

WELL, ACTUALLY, I WILL TELL YOU THAT IN AUSTIN WE HAVE BEEN VERY AGGRESSIVE THROUGH BOTH THE LOTTERY PROGRAM, OUR 9% CREDIT PROGRAM, WHICH IS ANOTHER AVENUE TO GET FINANCING FOR THESE MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS. ACTUALLY I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ASK MARTIN TO GIVE YOU A STATE PERSPECTIVE. MARTIN GONZALEZ SERVES ON THE TEXAS FINANCE CORPORATION -- HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, I WOULD LIKE FOR HIM TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOU A SENSE OF HOW THAT PROGRAM IS PERCEIVED AND OPERATED AROUND THE STATE OF TEXAS.

DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION THAT YOU WANT --

SLUSHER: JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT -- BASICALLY I'M LOOKING AT WHAT KIND OF DILIGENCE THERE IS AND WHO GETS INTO THE LOTTERY. I THINK THE LOTTERY IS SORT OF A ABSURD WAY TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FUNDS.

THE LOTTERY IS IMPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE, A WAY OF GIVING EVERYBODY AN EQUAL CHANCE. BECAUSE IN THE LONG RUN THE PROJECT THAT'S GET BUILT ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. THAT'S USUALLY DETERMINED BY FIRST -- BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO GET BONDS AND FOCUS ON CREDITS, THE BOND BUYER IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE WILLING TO BUY THAT PROPERTY, WHICH MEANS HE'S GOING TO DO HIS DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CASH FLOWS WORK BEFORE HE BUYS THE BONDS. THEN THERE'S 4% CREDITS AND THE BUYERS ARE GOING TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND MAKE SURE THE 4% CREDITS OR A PROJECT THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CLAIM OVER THE NEXT 15 YEARS. WITH THOSE TWO PRIVATE ENTITIES LOOKING AT THE FEASIBILITY AND ON TOP OF THAT BEFORE THE CREDITS ARE AWARDED, AT THE TIME THAT THE PROJECT RECEIVES AN ALLOCATION THEY HAVE THREE DAYS TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE STATE. THE STATE THEN DOES THEIR OWN DUE DILIGENCE LOOKING AT THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND ALSO LOOKING AT THE DISBURSEMENT POLICY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT PUTTING THIS NEXT TO ANOTHER PROJECT THAT PREVIOUSLY GOT TAX CREDITS THAT HASN'T REACHED FULL OCCUPANCY. SO ALL OF THAT IS -- ALL OF THE SAFEGUARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THING IS GOING TO BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

SLUSHER: THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE FOR NOW, MAYOR, UNLESS MR. HILGERS WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE.

I WANTED TO ADD ONE MORE THING. WE ALSO ADD A COUPLE OF LAYERS HERE LOCALLY ON THESE PROJECTS. ONE, WE ENSURE THAT THEY ARE ALL SMART HOUSING CERTIFIED BEFORE WE WOULD BRING THEM TO YOU FOR FINAL APPROVAL. AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF A LOCAL OVERLAY THAT THEY DO. WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE, ALL OF THOSE SAFEGUARDS. AND WE ALSO ANALYZE THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE ACTUALLY AND IN SOME CASES WE HAVE ADDED ADDITIONAL FUNDS EITHER THROUGH OUR HOUSING TRUST FUND AS WE DID IN SOUTHWEST TRAILS OR WE HAVE ADDED THROUGH A GAP FINANCING PROGRAM AS WE DID IN FORT BRANCH LANDING OUT IN -- IN THE MLK AREA. AND 183 AREA. SO WE LOOK AT THOSE FINANCIALLY TO MAKE SURE SOMETIMES THEY DON'T WORK BY THEMSELVES TO BE SUCCESSFUL. SO WE DO ALL OF THOSE PROTECTIONS AS WELL. SO I WANTED TO SAY WE DO OUR OWN LOCAL ASPECT OF THIS AS WELL.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MR. HILGERS.

WYNN: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN I'M SORRY, BOARD MEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, EXCUSE ME. MR. HILGERS I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT THAT 3, 4 AND 5, AS YOU SAY, ARE THE SAME PROJECT. THIS IS SORT OF A CLEVER WAY OF OWNER-DEVELOPER TO TRIPLE HIS OR HER CHANCES AT THE LOTTERY.

YES, SIR.

WYNN: I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE THE CITY IS ENABLING THAT TO HAPPEN, IT SEEMS TO ME. WHEREAS ON PROJECT NUMBER 2 DID WE SUGGEST TO THAT DEVELOPER, GEE, CHANGE YOUR NAME TWICE, WE WILL PUT TWO MORE AGENDA ITEMS ON OUR --

LET ME -- LET ME TELL YOU WHAT'S HAPPENED ON THAT. THESE ARE ACTUALLY THREE SEPARATE TRACTS OF LAND THAT THIS OWNER OWNS. THEY CAN'T DO THAT SO THEY ARE JUST CHANGING THEIR NAME ON THE SAME PIECE OF LAND. THE SAME ADDRESS, THREE SEPARATE TRACTS OF LAND THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT SO THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ON THE SAME ADDRESS, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE THREE SEPARATE APPLICATIONS WITH DIFFERENT LAND, THEY WOULDN'T JUST BE THIS FOOTPRINT ON THE SAME THREE APPLICATIONS. THEY WOULD BE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS.

WYNN: AS AN EXAMPLE, ON AFC NUMBER 3 --

YES, SIR.

WYNN: -- $15 MILLION REQUEST, HOW MANY UNITS WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT --

SURE -- LET ME GO THROUGH THIS. ON THEIR APPLICATION, I WILL GIVE YOU THE BACKUP ON THESE. LET ME GO THROUGH AHFC NUMBER 3 I GUESS FIRST AS YOU REQUESTED. THAT ONE IS FALLWELL APARTMENTS. ALL OF THIS IS EAST HIGHWAY 71. $15 MILLION. THIS IS 280 UNITS WITH 96 ONE BEDROOM, ONE BATH, 120 TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH, 64 THREE BEDROOM TWO BATHS WITH RENTAL RATE AT 644 TO 840.

WYNN: STOP THERE. NUMBER 3 IS 280 UNITS. HOW LARGE IS AHFC NUMBER 4-

NUMBER 4 IS 248 UNITS.

WYNN: AND NUMBER 5-

280 UNITS.

WYNN: AND SO -- SO IN THEORY THIS DEVELOPER IS PREPARED TO BUILD 700 AND -- MY MATH HERE -- 28 UNITS.

IN THEORY THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR. BUT IN PRACTICAL REALITY --

WYNN: REALISTICALLY, HE OR SHE WILL BE BUILD ONE --

THAT'S CORRECT. ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE LOTTERY SYSTEM IS THAT WE HAVE A REGIONAL ALLOCATION FOR THIS VOLUME CAP OF ABOUT $37 MILLION FOR OUR REGION. SO EVEN IF WE CAME UP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, WE WOULDN'T BE FUNDED ALL FIVE OF THEM UNLESS SOME OF THEM START FALLING OFF THE TABLE FOR NOT BEING FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. IT WOULD BE REALISTIC TO EXPECT THAT ALL THREE, EVEN IF THEY RECEIVED ALL FIRST THREE ALLOCATIONS WOULDN'T BE FUNDED. WE WILL BE FORTUNATE WITH OUR VOLUME CAP TO GET ONE GOOD PROJECT, EXTREMELY FORTUNATE TO GET TWO. BUT THOSE WOULD COMPLY WITH OUR VOLUME CAP.

WYNN: SO THIS DEVELOPER, IN THIS CASE, DIDN'T LIKE HIS OR HER ODDS AT PRESENTING A $45 MILLION, 728 PROJECT UNIT, SO THEY BROKE IT UP INTO THE THIRD.

THE MOTION WOULD BE 15 MILLION, PLUS 280 UNITS IS THE CAP FOR THE UNIT SIZE.

WYNN: OKAY. SO -- IF ONE OF THESE THREE WERE TO BE CHOSEN, AND GETS CONSTRUCTED, IS THERE -- WILL THERE STILL BE TWO MORE SITES OVER THERE FOR IN THEORY TWO MORE PROJECTS THAT COULD BE -- YOU KNOW, THAT WE COULD WORK WITH THEM TO DELIVER MORE PRODUCT --

YES, SIR.

WYNN: OR NEXT YEAR THEY APPLY AGAIN OR --

YES, SIR, THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT -- YES, SIR. PRACTICALLY SPEAKING AGAIN, THEY LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF -- OF PROXIMITY TO OTHER TAX CREDIT DEALS. SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT I THINK FOR THEM TO BE COMPETITIVE IN THAT. BUT IT'S POSSIBLE.

WYNN: BUT THE SITES WOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING.

YES, SIR.

WYNN: THERE WOULD BE SOME OTHER PROGRAMS.

GOODMAN: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: VICE-PRESIDENT GOODMAN-

GOODMAN: THANKS. THANKS TO BOARD MEMBER WYNN FOR ASKING A QUESTION THAT I WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT AND THE QUICK CLARIFICATION IS THAT THEY ARE NOT, IN FACT, APPLYING FOR $45 MILLION, THEY ARE APPLYING FOR ONE $15 MILLION SLOT. BUT WHICH LEADS ME TO THE SECOND PART OF THAT, IF WE ARE SAYING THAT THOSE THREE SITES NEXT TO EACH OTHER ARE APPROPRIATE FOR -- FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNIT LIVING, AND WE HAVE THE 60% MEDIAN INCOME CAP, DO WE ALSO HAVE SOME FORMULA FOR PERCENTAGES OF -- OF VARIOUS INCOMES WITHIN THAT -- WITHIN THAT COMPLEX OR FACILITY SO THAT IT DOES NOT IN FACT BECOME A DE FACTO PROJECT-

UM ...

GOODMAN: THE WAY IN THE PAST YEARS WE HAVE --

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

I'M NOT SURE THAT -- FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S A LOT OF PROTECTIONS IN THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM TO PROTECT FOR QUALITY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THOSE FACILITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE BOND COVENANTS. THERE ARE ISSUANCE -- THERE ARE -- WOULD BE CONSIDERATIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE SECTION 8 RESIDENTS IN THOSE APARTMENTS, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE CASH FLOWS WOULD BE EVEN GREATER THAN THESE APARTMENTS NECESSARILY -- THEY WOULD GO UP TO THESE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS, EVEN IF THE RESIDENTS WEREN'T PAYING DIRECTLY THOSE RENTS. YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO GO UP TO 60% WITH THESE -- WITH THESE TAX CREDITS. WITH THESE FOUR PERCENT CREDITS. NOW, ADDITIONAL -- ADDITIONAL LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY COULD BE REACHED AND ARE MORE GENERALLY REACHED WITH OUR 9% TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS, WHICH COME AROUND MORE TOWARDS THE SPRING, FALL, SUMMER -- SPRING AND SUMMER MONTHS. SO 9% TAX CREDITS ARE THE ONES WHERE WE GO TO THE MORE DEEPER SUBSIDIES OR LOWER INCOME LEVELS TO ACHIEVE. BUT THE SAME LEVEL OF QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PERIOD OF THE BONDS.

GOODMAN: OH, YEAH, I WASN'T REALLY INQUIRING ABOUT THAT. I WAS INQUIRING WHETHER AN INCOME LEVEL SHOULD REQUIRE YOU TO LIVE NEXT TO AND ASSOCIATE WITH ONLY THOSE OF YOUR SAME INCOME LEVEL. SO I WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE ECLECTIC MIX WAS. THE OTHER THING, RELATIVE TO THAT, BACK TO THE THREE-PRONGED APPROACH HERE, WE ARE DOING AN INDUCEMENT LEVEL FOR ALL THREE. SO AT THE POINT THAT ONE WAS CHOSEN, WOULD OUR OTHER TWO INDUCEMENT RESOLUTIONS EVAPORATE OR ARE THEY STILL ON THE BOOKS- SO IF IN FUTURE YEARS THEY OR SOMEONE ELSE WENT AFTER THE TAX CREDITS, OUR INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION WOULD BE PART OF THE RECORD-

THIS IS MARK [INAUDIBLE], OUR BOND COUNSEL. LET HIM ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

THE INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION IS ONLY GOOD FOR THE NEXT, THE CALENDAR YEAR. SO THE INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION FOR THOSE PROJECTS WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE YEAR 2003 IF THEY WANT TO COME BACK AND BELIEVE THAT THAT PROJECT WAS VIABLE FOR 2004, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU IN OCTOBER OF 2003 FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR. SO YOU ONLY GET ONE BITE OF THE APPLE PER APPLICATION PROCESS.

INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

I'M SORRY, I'M MARK [INAUDIBLE], WITH [INAUDIBLE], BOND COUNSEL FOR THE AGENCY.

GOODMAN: THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. MOTION BY -- BY BOARD MEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER DUNKERLY. FURTHER QUESTIONS- THESE ARE ALL ON ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6. IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO- MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. HILGERS. AT THIS TIME I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

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

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. WE ARE NOW GETTING TO WHERE THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE ARE VOTING WITH US. I APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST CAME BACK FROM NASHVILLE WHERE THEY HAVE 40 COUNCILMEMBERS, I THINK SOME OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO SIT IN THE AUDIENCE, YES, THAT'S HOW MANY COUNCILMEMBERS THEY HAVE. OKAY, MS. GLASGO, WE ARE GETTING TO YOU RIGHT ON TIME.

GLASGO: YOU ARE DOING VERY WELL.

MAYOR GARCIA: I NOW CALL UP, RECONVENE THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, OF OCTOBER 10TH, 2002, CALL UP FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL THE -- 4:00 P.M. ZONING HEARINGS AND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCES AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, MS. GLASGO.

GLASGO: THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, ALICE GLASGO, DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. OUR ZONING CASES FOR TODAY ARE AS FOLLOWS, Z-1, CASE C-14-99-1.01, AVERY RANCH P.U.D., LOCATED AT 15201 AVERY RANCH BOULEVARD AND 10500 AND 10550 PARMER LANE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM P.U.D. TO SIMPLY MODIFY THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR A GROCERY STORE WITH GAS PUMPS ON THE SIDE. THE CASE IS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION AND IS READY FOR FIRST READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: CONSENT FOR FIRST READING.

GLASGO: FIRST READING ONLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FIRST READING ONLY-

GLASGO: YES, MAYOR, ITEM NO. Z-2, C-14-02-77, TRAZANNA HALSTEAD LIBRARY EXPANSION, LOCATED AT 1025 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ STREET, CHANGE IN ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 NP, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING DEFINED -- TO CS-MU-CO-NP ZONING, THAT'S EXISTING ZONING, I APOLOGIZE, THE -- THE REQUEST IS TO P FOR PUBLIC, WITH AN NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT P-NP, PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-3, C14-02-79, KNOWN AS THE STONE TRACT, 9601 THROUGH 9641 SOUTH CHISOLM TRAIL, FROM INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTIAL, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY 3. THE ZONING AND PLATTING RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT SINGLE FAMILY 1 WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND OTHER CONDITIONS, THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-4, C14-02-85, LOCATED AT 7415 BRODIE LANE. THE EXISTING ZONING IS RURAL RESIDENTIAL, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE OF SINGLE FAMILY 4 A, EXCUSE ME, THAT'S EXISTING ZONING. RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY 4 A, THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THAT TO LO LIMITED OFFICE FOR TRACT 1, AND 2. THE ZONING AND PLATTING RECOMMENDATION IS GRANT R.R. RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR TRACK 3 AND NO WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR TRACT 1 AND 2 WITH OTHER CONDITIONS, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THIS GETS US READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. ITEM NO. Z-5, C14-02-107 LOCATED AT 301 WEST STASSNEY LANE, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM NO, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, TO SINGLE FAMILY 6, TOWNHOUSE AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS GRANT SINGLE FAMILY 6 WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND OTHER CONDITIONS, THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-6, C-14-02-119, CHANGE IN ZONING FROM GR-CO, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAY COMBINING DISTRICT TO CS-1, WHICH STANDARD FOR COMMERCIAL LIQUOR SALES AND THE -- THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, BUT THERE'S A BUILDING THAT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED AND THE LIQUOR STORE IS GOING TO BE LOCATED IN THE BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. Z-7, C14-02-124SH, LOCATED AT 6915 DECKER LANE AND 8620 LOYOLA LANE FROM G.R. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ZONING TO MULTI-FAMILY 3, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT F.M. 3 ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-8, C14-02-130, LOCATED AT 900 EAST BRAKER LANE FROM CS-1 COMMERCIAL LIQUOR SALES TO GR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT GR ZONING, THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-9, C14-02-131, NAMELY FOREST OAKS CEMETERY, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM CS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND GR, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SINGLE FAMILY 2 TO P PUBLIC. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT P ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR TODAY. Z-10 WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: MISS GLASGO, I HAVE THREE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON Z-8. AND I HAVE FOUR PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON -- ON Z-3. ALL OF THEM SPEAKING AGAINST. THE ONES ARE Z-8 ARE BOTH FOR AND AGAINST.

GLASGO: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT'S THE RULE, RECOGNIZE THEM DURING THE CONSENT DISCUSSION- IF THERE'S MORE THAN FIVE WE PULL THE ITEM FOR DISCUSSION, CORRECT-

THAT'S UNDER YOUR CONSENT AGENDA. FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS, IF THERE'S ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AGAINST.

IT PULLS IT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WE HAVE IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM, BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO Z-3 GOES OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

BECOMES A DISCUSSION ITEM.

AND Z-8.

AND Z-8. CORRECT.

GLASGO: MAYOR, ALSO, I FORGOT TO INDICATE THAT ITEM Z-11 AND Z-12 STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER THE 24TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONSENT AGENDA.

GLASGO: CORRECT. Z-11 AND 12.

MAYOR GARCIA: AS CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT.

GLASGO: CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO, COUNCIL, THE CONSENT AGENDA IS AS FOLLOWS: 1 IS FOR CONSENT FOR FIRST READING, 2 CONSENT FOR THREE READINGS, 3 IS A DISCUSSION ITEM, 4 IS CONSENT FOR FIRST READING, 5 CONSENT FOR THREE, 6 CONSENT FOR THREE, 7 CONSENT FOR THREE, 9 COP SENT FOR THREE. AND 11 AND 12 ARE CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO -- TO OCTOBER THE 24TH. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

GOODMAN: I WILL MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. IS THERE A SECOND- SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY. DISCUSSION-

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, GO AHEAD.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. MS. GLASGO, I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS HERE. ON THE BRODIE LANE THIS HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE, IS THAT CORRECT- NO GRANDFATHERING THERE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

ON Z-6, THAT SHOPPING CENTER ANYWAY IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED AND IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE.

GLASGO: I'M NOT SURE ON THAT ONE IF IT DID OR NOT.

SLUSHER: CERTAINLY DIDN'T APPEAR TO HAVE. I THINK -- GOT GRANDFATHERED. I'M WONDERING, THIS CASE THEN DOESN'T -- THIS JUST COVERS PART OF THAT- IT DOESN'T COVER THE WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER- LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE NATIVE PLANTS LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT THAT WE PUT ON OTHER ZONING CASES THAT HAVE COME THROUGH HERE ON THIS. IF I WAS TO DO THAT, WOULD THAT JUST APPLY TO THE LIQUOR STORE OR WOULD IT APPLY TO THE WHOLE PROPERTY.

GLASGO: JUST TO THE LIQUOR STORE PART AND WE ARE JUST ZONING A FOOTPRINT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE AREA THAT IS BUILDING WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO USE THE SPACE FOR -- IT WON'T GET YOU TO COVER THE ENTIRE SITE UNLESS THE APPLICANT JUST VOLUNTARILY AGREES TO COMPLY TO THE ENTIRE STATE.

SLUSHER: IS THE APPLICANT THE OWNER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.

I'M NOT SURE BUT SARAH IS THE AGENT PRESENTING.

COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, MY CLIENT TWIN LIQUORS IS LEASING SPACE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO THE PROPERTY OWNER DID HAVE TO SIGN THE ZONING APPLICATION. WE ARE JUST TAKING APPROXIMATELY 1800 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE SHOPPING CENTER ITSELF AS A TENANT.

SLUSHER: SO YOU DON'T REPRESENT RANDALL'S.

NO. I DO NOT.

SLUSHER: IS RANDALL'S THE OWNER, THAT WHO YOU ARE RENTING FROM-

I BELIEVE IT'S NOR WALK PROPERTIES.

SLUSHER: NOR WALK PROPERTIES-

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: IS THIS 1800 FEET ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.

YES, THE SHOPPING CENTER IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THEY ARE JUST GOING IN AND DOING A FINISH OUT.

SLUSHER: THIS IS NOT AN ADDITION TO WHAT IS ALREADY THERE-

NO. IT'S PART OF THE EXISTING SETUP.

SLUSHER: OKAY. WELL, I GUESS THAT I WILL JUST LET THIS ONE GO THROUGH. BUT I WOULD TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT, MAYOR, THAT -- THAT IT WOULD BE -- HOW WOULD I PUT THIS- THE MOST APPROPRIATE THING TO DO FOR OUR CORPORATE CITIZENS IS TO COMPLY WITH BOTH THE LOCAL ORDINANCES AND THE WILL OF THE VOTERS, WHO PASSED THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE BY A TWO TO ONE MARGIN. THAT WAS NOT THE CASE HERE WHERE THE RANDALL'S CORPORATION IS LOCATING A STORE OVER THE AQUIFER WHICH I THINK IS LIKELY GOING TO POLLUTE THE AQUIFER. AND THEY WERE ABLE TO DO THAT UNDER OUR STATE LAWS. BUT I WILL BE CONTACTING THEM TO TALK ABOUT -- ARE THEY WILLING TO -- TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY'S NATIVE PLANTS AND LANDSCAPING PROGRAMS WHERE THAT THE -- PARTS OF THE AREA THAT AREN'T PAVED OVER ALREADY CAN BE MORE SENSIBLE TREATED SO THAT WE CAN HOPEFULLY LESSEN THE POLLUTION. BUT I IT IS DISAPPOINTING TO ME TO SEE A MAJOR CORPORATION, WHICH IS MAKING -- WHICH IS MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO TRY TO MAKE MORE THROUGH BUILDING IN A WAY THAT'S GOING TO POLLUTE THE WATER SUPPLY OF AUSTIN.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I -- I AM WILLING TO -- MAYOR- MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: BECAUSE OF WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SAYS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND I HADN'T REALIZED THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY A WAY TO TALK TO THEM, ALTHOUGH IT MAKES SENSE NOW THAT YOU HAVE SAID IT, I AM WILLING TO AMEND MY MOTION TO TAKE Z-6 ON SECOND READING TO OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF AND/OR US TO GO TALK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE UP ZONING IS CERTAINLY A COMMERCIAL BENEFIT THAT THEY GAIN BY BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER. EVEN AFTER THIS TENANT GOES AWAY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS RETAIN THAT ADDITIONAL VALUE. SO IN RETURN FOR THAT, PERHAPS THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT HOW THEY CAN INTRODUCE ELEMENTS OF ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY PROTECTION INTO THE ENVIRONMENT THAT THEY ALREADY MAINTAIN.

SLUSHER: WELL, THANK YOU MAYOR PRO TEM. I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT WE HEAR A LOT FROM OUR CITIZENS ABOUT LET'S PROTECT THE AQUIFER, IT'S ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. BUT IF PEOPLE DON'T SHOP AT PLACES THAT ARE POLLUTING THE AQUIFER, THEN PEOPLE WILL STOP POLLUTING THE AQUIFER AND STOP BUILDING OVER THE AQUIFER IN THAT WAY. I WOULD POINT OUT THERE'S ANOTHER GROCERY STORE, H.E.B., AT WILLIAM CANNON AND SO HE OWE WILLIAM CANNON NEAR MOPAC, WILLIAM CANNON AND BRODIE THAT WAS BUILT UNDER THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE. SO I KNOW FOR ME ANYWAY, IF I WAS IN THAT AREA, IF I AM IN THAT AREA, THAT I WOULD GO TO SOMEBODY THAT IS NOT POLLUTING OUR AQUIFER RATHER THAN SHOP SOMEWHERE THAT DOES POLLUTE THE AQUIFER AND PROBABLY BARTON SPRINGS AS WELL.

GOODMAN: LET ME ASK COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY IF SHE WOULD ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION SO PERHAPS RANDALL'S CAN LOOK FORWARD TO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER EXTOLLING THEN SOME DAY.

GLASGO: YOU SAID SECOND.

GOODMAN: I THOUGHT YOU SAID Z-6 WAS ALL THREE.

GLASGO: YOU WANTED THAT FIRST READING ONLY.

IT IS ALL THREE. WE WOULD PREFER TO GO ON FIRST READING, BECAUSE IF THERE ARE PROVISIONS TO PUT IN THE ORDINANCE AS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, IF WE HAVE TO GET A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, THAT GIVES US MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY. WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO IT ON FIRST READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO ITEM 6 WILL BE CONSENT ON FIRST READING.

MS. CROCKER ASKED ME TO CORRECT HER EARLIER STATEMENT THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS HOLLOW RETAIL PARTNERS LIMITED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT-

HOLLOW RETAIL PARTNERS, LIMITED.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CORNER OF SLAUGHTER AND BRODIE WHERE THE NEW RANDALL'S IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE -- IN THE POSTING, SAYS HOLLOW RETAIL PARTNERS, LTD.

THAT IS CORRECT, THAT IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE CONSENT AGENDA IS AS FOLLOWS. 1 CONSENT FOR FIRST READING, 2 CONSENT FOR THREE, 4 CONSENT FOR ONE, FIRST, 5 CONSENT FOR ALL THREE READINGS, 6 COP SENT FIRST READING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT UP BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, YOU HAVE ONE MORE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ON 6-

NO. BUT IT'S ONE ON CONSENT. THE ONE ON DECKER I MEAN LOYOLA.

MAYOR GARCIA: 7.

7.

SLUSHER: THAT'S NEAR A PIPELINE, RIGHT, MS. GLASGO, WHAT KIND OF PIPELINE IS IT-

GLASGO: THAT'S CORRECT. HOLD ON, LET ME GET MY -- THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE HERE IS THAT THE SITE IS LOCATED TO AN ACTIVE PIPELINE TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THE ACTIVE PIPELINE TRANSPORTS REFINED PRODUCTS AND IS 16 INCHES IN DIAMETER. ALSO AN INACTIVE 6.63-INCH DIAMETER REFINED PRODUCTS PIPELINE IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT MR. GUERNSEY IS POINTING OUT.

SLUSHER: SO THOSE PIPELINES WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE CITIZENS FOR DISCUSSION NOW-

GLASGO: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: THOSE ARE ACTIVE PIPELINES, AREN'T THEY-

GLASGO: ONE IS ACTIVE, ONE IS INACTIVE.

SLUSHER: WELL, MAYOR, THE -- THE ONE THING -- WE HAVE ADDED TO SEVERAL ZONING CASES THAT THEY HAVE TO CONSULT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON WHAT'S LOCATED WITHIN 400 FEET. NOW, AFTER STAFF HAS DONE MORE STUDY OF THAT, THE RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE IS 200 FEET. BUT UNTIL THAT ORDINANCE IS PASSED, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO PUT ON THESE ZONING CASES, THE 400-FOOT LEVEL AND I WOULD BE WILLING TO -- THEN MAKE IT COMPLY WITH WHATEVER WE PASS. I GUESS THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET IN A SITUATION -- I KNOW THAT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF CONTROVERSY DURING THE STRATUS HEARINGS BECAUSE THE LONGHORN PIPELINE WAS GOING BY TWO OF THOSE PROPERTIES. AND WE ENDED UP PUTTING A -- I THINK HAD 150-FOOT SETBACK WHERE WE SET IT WITHIN 400 FEET THAT THE OWNERS HAD TO CONSULT WITH THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE FIRE CHIEF HAD FINAL SAY ON WHAT KIND OF BUILDING MATERIALS THEY COULD USE WITHIN 400-FOOT OR WOULD HAVE TO USE WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE PIPELINE AND EVEN WHETHER -- HOW CLOSE THEY COULD BILLED TO THE PIPELINE AND RECOMMEND THAT WAS DONE ON AN INDIVIDUAL TRACT BY TRACT BASIS. WHICH IS WHAT THE -- WHAT THE THINKING IS AT MOST PLACES AROUND THE COUNTRY DUE TO OUR RESEARCH. SO WE SAID 400-FOOT ON THAT, THE AREA OF THE FIRE CHIEF WOULD WANT TO -- SHOULD LOOK AT. NOW, THE ORDINANCE IS PROPOSED AFTER FURTHER STUDY, 200, BUT UNTIL THAT PROCESS IS COMPLETE, I DON'T WANT TO GET IN A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE HAVING A DIFFERENT STANDARD NEAR THE STRATUS PROPERTIES IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN, THAT'S A TOUGHER STANDARD THERE, THAN WE ARE HAVING IN EAST AUSTIN. IN PARTICULAR, SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONLY MADE THE PIPELINE COME IN THE CASE OF LONGHORN, I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE LONGHORN, BUT IN THE CASE OF THE LONGHORN, MADE THEM PUT IN NEW PIPE, IN THE -- OVER THE AQUIFER, TO PROTECT ENDANGERED SPECIES, BUT DIDN'T MAKE THEM DO ANYTHING IN THE EAST. WHERE -- WHERE THERE MAY NOT BE ENDANGERED SPECIES, BUT PEOPLE LIVE JUST LIKE IN THE WEST. SO I WOULD PUT THE SAME PROVISIONS ON THIS, THE 400-FOOT THAT WE PUT ON THE OTHER ONES. DID YOU WANT ME TO READ THIS PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, MS. TERRY-

I -- I HAVE THE LANGUAGE, IF YOU WANT -- EITHER WAY. IF YOU READ IT OR I'LL READ IT.

SLUSHER: SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDES LAND WITHIN 400-FOOT OF A PIPELINE MAY NOT APPROVED BEFORE THE FIRE CHIEF APPROVES PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN THAT ... FOR THAT PORTION OF LAND WHERE THE DESIGN IS DETERMINED BY THE FIRE CHIEF TO BE NECESSARY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT ORDINANCE, MR. FAUST, HAS FOR THE BEEN PASSED YET, BUT IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE COUNCIL. AND IT PERTAINS TO SAFETY ISSUE AND THE FIRE CHIEF IS THE ONE THAT'S --

WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND. WE AGREE TO THAT. MR. MAYOR, THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT 400 FEET WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH IN PERPETUITY. IF THE FIRE CHIEF AGREES TO THE 100-FOOT SETBACK WHICH WE HAVE NOW, WITH OUR CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, IT'S OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S IN THE RECORD BECAUSE THIS PIPELINE IS NOT A HIGH PRESSURE LINE. IT'S A LOW PRESSURE LINE. IT'S A -- IT DOESN'T CARRY -- IT CARRIES DIESEL FUEL AND STUFF OF THAT NATURE THAN IT DOES THE HIGHLY FLAMMABLE MATERIAL THAT LONGHORN CARRIES. AND THE ONE ON THE -- ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BOTH OF WHICH ARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS TRACT, NEITHER ONE OF THEM OR THE SAME SIDE OF THE EXISTING LOYOLA, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOYOLA AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF DECKER. SO IT'S NOT ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS THIS TRACT IS. SO WE HAVE A BUILT-IN BUFFER THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THOSE STREETS ON BOTH OF THOSE PIPELINES, I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE WERE UNDERSTANDING. IF THE FIRE CHIEF IS OKAY WITH IT, WE CAN CONTINUE WITH OUR PROJECT.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS DOES. THE FIRE CHIEF LOOKS AT WITHIN 400 FEET. IT'S UP TO THE FIRE CHIEF TO DETERMINE [MULTIPLE VOICES]

WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS-

THOMAS: YES, SIR, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS-

THOMAS: ON NUMBER 7, ALSO, IN THAT INACTIVE LINE, DO YOU KNOW WHAT USED TO BE IN THE LINE-

GLASGO: I DON'T BELIEVE I KNOW THAT UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE DOES.

THOMAS: OKAY.

CHUCK TELLS ME IT'S REFINED PRODUCTS.

THOMAS: REFINED PRODUCT, OKAY.

GLASGO: DOES THAT APPEARS YOUR QUESTION --

THOMAS: NOT REALLY.

GASOLINE.

SLUSHER: ISN'T GASOLINE REFINED-

THOMAS: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO GET. GASOLINE-

GLASGO: YES.

THOMAS: NUMBER 6, MAYOR, I DIDN'T GET TO ASK MY QUESTION ON ZONING, Z-6.

GLASGO: YES.

THOMAS: SINCE IT'S ON FIRST READING, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO VISIT ON THE -- ON 2500 SQUARE FEET FROM THE -- WHERE THIS LOCATION FROM THE SCHOOL, AND I THINK IT WAS WHAT --

GLASGO: IT COMPLIES WITH THE SETBACK. IT'S BEYOND --

THOMAS: FROM THE SCHOOL, NORTHEAST AND THEN A THOUSAND -- I JUST NEED TO KIND OF SIT WITH YOU, FIND OUT HOW MANY BLOCKS THAT IS.

GLASGO: YOU WANT TO TELL YOU THAT WHEN WE COME BACK FOR SECOND AND THIRD READINGS-

THOMAS: YES.

GLASGO: OKAY, WE WILL PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.

THOMAS: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER COMMENTS- THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND ON Z-6, MS. BROWN, THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSENT FOR FIRST READING ONLY. AND Z-7 WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT WAS INCORPORATED WITH REGARD TO THE PIPELINES.

I WILL HAVE THAT LANGUAGE THAT I CAN PROVIDE TO MS. BROWN.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IF FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO- MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. NOW WE GO TO Z-3.

GLASGO: Z-3 IS CASE C14-02-79 KNOWN AS THE STONE TRACT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 9601 THROUGH 9641 SOUTH CHISOLM TRAIL. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTIAL. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY 3, BUT HAS ACCEPTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMEND -- THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OF SINGLE FAMILY 1 WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. DUE TO THE SUBSTANDARD NATURE OF THIS ROAD, THE -- THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF CONDUCTED A TRAFFIC STUDY AND INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY COULD NOT HANDLE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON THIS ROAD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED SINGLE FAMILY 1 WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 28 UNITS. WHICH THE APPLICANTS ACCEPT. AND THAT IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THIS ROADWAY, WHICH IS SUBSTANDARD AND GIVEN THAT I WILL RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AFTER THE CITIZENS SPEAK TO IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. GLASGO. COUNCIL, WE HAVE FOUR SPEAKERS. THE FIRST ONE IS MARIE LA DUE. SANDRA GRUERY --

MAYOR.

[INAUDIBLE]

AND HENRY MORENO.

MAYOR, I THINK THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO GO FIRST.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S RIGHT. MR. LINEHAN, YOU DIDN'T SIGN A CARD SO THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T WRITE IN. MY NAME IS PAUL LINEHAN. [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU NEED TO GET THAT, SPEAK INTO THAT MIC OR THIS ONE. GIVE HIM MORE VOLUME ON THIS ONE, PLEASE-

IS THAT ALL RIGHT- MY NAME, PAUL LINEHAN, THIS IS A 13.06-ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THIS LOCATION RIGHT OFF OF SLAUGHTER LANE. THIS IS MARY MOORE SEARIGHT PARK, THERE IS A ROADWAY THAT GOES DOWN TO PAREDES MIDDLE SCHOOL IN THIS LOCATION C, APPARENTLY APPARENTLY AN AGREEMENT WORKED OUT TO IMPROVE THIS ROADWAY NETWORK SYSTEM THAT GOES INTO THIS AREA RIGHT IN HERE. YOU CAN SEE THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN THIS AREA, GROWTH IS COMING TOWARD THE SOUTH. THIS AREA IS ALL ZONED BASICALLY S.F. 2, IT'S ZONED S.F. 2, S.F. 3, S.F. 4 A, LO, CO, GR. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS WHEN THE CITY ANNEXED THIS AREA, THIS WAS AN OLD COUNTY ROAD THAT WENT DOWN AND CONNECTED IN WITH DAVID MOORE ROAD DOWN AT THE LOWER AREA. WHEN THEY CAME IN AND BUILT PAREDES MIDDLE SCHOOL, THEY CLOSED OFF THIS EXTENSION, THIS BECAME A LONG CUL DE SAC ROAD BUILT TO [INAUDIBLE] STANDARDS. WE TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO IMPROVE THAT ROADWAY, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FLOWER MOUND CASE YOU CAN'T PUT A RESTRICTION ON A ZONING CASE TO REQUIRE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. WE WERE WILLING TO DO THAT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT AND HAD WORKED WITH PUBLIC WORKS ON BUILDING HALF OF THAT ROAD WE, BUT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAID THAT -- BECAUSE WE WERE ASKING FOR S.F. 3, THIS WAS THE SITE PLAN THAT WE HAD PREPARED FOR THAT S.F. 3 ZONING. AFTER MEETING WITH -- WE ALSO MET WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE TO GET ACCESS OUT TO MARY SEARIGHT PARK BECAUSE IT WAS IMPROVED TO ROADWAY STANDARDS, BUT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, BASED OFF A CASE THAT HAPPENED OVER IN PEASE PARK FELT LIKE THEY DID NOT WANT TO ALLOW EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THAT ROADWAY. WELL, WE ALSO MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP. IN THEIR LETTER TO ME, AFTER MEETING WITH THEM, I TOLD THEM THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND WERE WILLING TO DOWNGRADE THE ZONING AND IN THEIR LETTER TO ME THEY SAID THAT THEY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD THE ASSOCIATION CONSIDER ANY ZONING DENSER THAN S.F. 1. SO WE -- I THOUGHT WE HAD REACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP FOR S.F. 1 ON THIS SITE. BETTY BAKER WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF 28 UNITS ON THE SITE. SO WE DID A ROUGH PLAN FOR THOSE 28 UNITS, WE DID THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THOSE 28 UNITS. AND THAT TAKES THE ROADWAY TO 74% OF CAPACITY. WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ON IT. RIGHT FOR YOU THERE'S ABOUT 181 TRIPS BEING GENERATED FROM THE EXISTING HOMES THAT ARE OUT THERE IN THE AREA RIGHT NOW. WE WOULD GENERATE ANOTHER 447, TAKE THAT ROAD TO -- TO 74% OF CAPACITY. WHICH -- WHICH WOULD MEET THE SAFETY STANDARDS. I DID TELL THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT I WOULD CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS TRACT AND WORK WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE COUNCIL TO SEE IF I COULD EVENTUALLY GET AN EMERGENCY ACCESS THAT WOULD TIE INTO MARY SEARIGHT PARK AT THIS LOCATION, IT WOULD NOT BE FOR THROUGH STREET ACCESS, BUT IN CASE THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY, WHILE WE ARE BLOCK LANE RESTRICTIONS, TO GET AN EMERGENCY ACCESS, SO -- SO THIS PAST WEEK I WAS SUPPOSED TO MEET WITH STEWART STRONG, BUT HE'S ON VACATION AND SO WE HAVE MOVED THAT OFF FOR ANOTHER WEEK. BUT THIS DOES HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY REALIZE THAT. THEY ASKED ME TO CONTINUE TO GET SOME TYPE OF ACCESS OFF THIS ROAD. SO -- SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM. AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR S.F. 1 ZONING. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. LINEHAN- NOT RIGHT NOW. MARIE LE DEUX, IF I MISPRONOUNCED YOUR NAME, PLEASE CORRECT ME. SANDRA GREARY.

YOU WILL HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME --

MAYOR GARCIA: GET THE MIC DOWN TO YOUR LEVEL. >

OKAY. I SAID YOU WILL HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME A LITTLE BIT, I HAVE NEVER PARTICIPATED IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS BEFORE.

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST LIKE -- AT THE KITCHEN TABLE, TALKING.

I'M A RESIDENT ON THE STREET. I LIVE AT 9600 CHISOLM TRAIL, SO THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE AFFECT ME, YOU KNOW, IN MY DAILY LIFE. I CAME DOWN HERE ACTUALLY EXPECTING TO HAVE TO STILL FIGHT AGAINST S.F. 3 ZONING. SO I'M A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED AT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF THE LETTER THAT I GOT. BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT, ALL OF THE RESIDENTS WE TALKED ABOUT IT, WE WOULD ACTUALLY PREFER BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF THE ROAD, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MANY CHILDREN THERE, WE WOULD PREFER TO KEEP THE PROPERTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND WE ARE KIND OF BEING PUSHED IN THAT DIRECTION CONSTANTLY. ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I DON'T THINK ANYONE BROUGHT UP, CONCERN IS THERE IS ONLY AN ENTRANCE THROUGH CHISOLM TRAIL AND I KNOW THAT WAS MENTIONED, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED ON ONE SIDE BY MARY SEARIGHT PARK, THERE IS A POWER STATION THERE, MULTIPLE THINGS THAT KIND OF GET IN THE WAY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. AND WE DID ASK THAT IN OUR LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT IF -- IF WE DID GET S.F. 1 WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT WITH SOME CONDITIONS, FUTURE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS POTENTIALLY AND ALSO A BUFFER ZONE BUILT BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE DEPENDING ON HOW THEY PUT IT IN THERE, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE VERY PROBLEMATIC FOR ALL OF US. AND -- AND I GUESS THAT'S ABOUT ALL I WANTED TO SAY. EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD, ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN WHO IS HERE ACTUALLY MEASURED IT AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN 18-FOOT WIDE ROAD. SO YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL NOW WHEN YOU ARE GOING DOWN, TWO CARS CANNOT EVEN PASS EACH OTHER AT SOME POINTS IN THE ROAD BECAUSE IT'S NOT -- IT WINDS AND IT'S NOT EXACTLY ON THE SAME WIDTH THE WHOLE WAY. THERE'S ALSO ONE OTHER THING I GUESS IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS DURING ALL OF THIS IMPROVEMENT, WHEN THE ROAD WAS BUILT AND EVEN WHEN THE SCHOOL WAS CONSTRUCTED, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER THERE WAS SOME CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTRA UTILITIES THAT WOULD BE NEEDED, HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THAT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE UTILITY LINES RUN DIRECTLY ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD, WHICH IS NOT VERY WIDE. SO IF IT WAS WIDENED THAT WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. LEDEUX. SANDRA GREARY. WELCOME.

THANK YOU, I, TOO, WAS THINKING THAT WE WERE COMING HERE STILL KIND OF FIGHTING THE S.F. 3 OPPOSED ZONING CHANGE. NEVERTHELESS THE REASON THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT RURAL RESIDENTIAL IS -- AND THAT I'M OPPOSED TO REALLY ANY CHANGE IS THAT BEING A MOTHER WITH SMALL CHILDREN ON A VERY WINDING, NARROW STREET, WITH THE CHILDREN ALREADY A SAFETY CONCERN WITH THEM PLAYING OUTSIDE, THERE'S 13 HOUSES ON CHISOLM TRAIL, OVER HALF OF THEM HAVE SMALL CHILDREN. IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN DOWN CHISOLM TRAIL, LIKE I SAID IT'S VERY WINDING, VERY NARROW. TO ME ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WOULD POSE A MAJOR -- A MAJOR CONCERN, SAFETY CONCERN. NOT ONLY FOR OUR CHILDREN, BUT FOR THE PETS, THE ANIMALS THAT LIVE ON THE STREET AND US AS WELL. AS -- AS MRS. LEDEUX SAID, CHISOLM TRAIL IS A ONE-WAY -- I MEAN ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT DEAD END STREET WITH NO HOPES WHAT I HAVE EVER HEARD OF, WITH NO HOPES OF GETTING ANY KIND OF ADDITIONAL IN OR OUT AREAS, EVEN FOR EMERGENCIES, SO THAT'S SOMETHING NEW TO ME. EVEN CONSIDERING S.F. 3 WOULD BRING US TO APPROXIMATELY 250, 350 MORE VEHICLES ON THAT ROAD ON A DAILY BASIS, THAT JUST WOULD BE COMPLETELY DANGEROUS, LET ALONE EVEN THE ADDITIONAL THAT MR. LINEHAN WAS TALKING ABOUT. IN CONCLUSION I'M IN COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. T.J. GRADY.

TJ GRADY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, I APPRECIATE YOU ALL BEING HERE SOUTH ON OUR SIDE OF TOWN, IT'S NICE TO BEE BOP OVER HERE AND HAVE A PLACE TO PARK. I LIVE ON THE STREET, TOO. WE OWN SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT OUR HOMESTEAD IS ON CHISOLM TRAIL. YOU REALLY HAVE TO SEE CHISOLM TRAIL TO UNDERSTAND THIS STREET. IT IS A SMALL, ASPHALT PAVED, ROAD NO CURBS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE GUTTER DRAINAGE ON BOTH SIDE. WE DID TRY TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANT'S AGENT MANY TIMES, FINALLY HE DID MEET WITH US UNPREPARED. AND REALLY THE -- WE HAD A LOT OF US THERE AND HE REALLY DIDN'T -- HE LEFT THE MEETING AND WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE HE LISTENED TO US OR HE UNDERSTOOD OUR CONCERNS. AND SO WE WERE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THE WAY WE WERE APPROACHED BY THE DEVELOPER'S AGENT. AND ALL THAT SAID, IT IS A NICE LITTLE RURAL NICHE. WE LOVE IT. I HAVE A DEER FEEDER IN MY FRONT YARD. WE -- WE HAVE SOME STUFF BUILT AROUND US AND WE ARE FINE WITH THAT. WE HAVE COME TO LIVE WITH THAT. BUT THIS IS REALLY A -- IT IS A LITTLE RURAL GEM OUT THERE AND WE LIKE IT THAT WAY. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT. BUT YOU KNOW WE VOTED A LONG TIME TO GO TO CHANGE OUR LOTS TO RR BECAUSE IT HAS THAT FEEL. IT FITS THAT OUT THERE. YOU PUT 14 HOUSES OUT THERE IN THIS RR TYPE OF ZONING, IT FITS OUT THERE. THERE'S SOME ECO DRAINAGE, SOME WATERSHED STUFF THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PROPERTY THAT ARE A CONCERN. I'M SURE THE DEVELOPER WORKED AROUND THAT WITH CITY STAFF. IT IS, IT IS JUST A LITTLE GEM OUT THERE. WE LIKE IT, BEFORE YOU MAKE A REALLY HARD CORE DECISION ON IT, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE PIECE OF PROPERTY APPEARED OUR LITTLE STREET. IT'S HOME TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE ARE SECOND GENERATION, SOME WITH GRANDKIDS, BUT THE MAJORITY OF US DO HAVE KIDS AND FAMILY. WE ARE FOR AUSTIN GROWTH, BUT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S THE RIGHT THING FOR THE RIGHT PLACE. REALLY RR FITS WELL THERE.

THANK YOU, MR. GRADY. HENRY MORENO.

MY NAME IS HENRY MORENO, I'M THE NEWEST RESIDENT OF THIS ROAD SOUTH CHISOLM TRAIL. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT -- THAT EVEN THOUGH S.F. 1 RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE, I BELIEVE THAT IT -- THAT IT WAS MADE ON THE LAST MINUTE RECOMMENDATION BY ONE OF THE COUNCIL. THE COMMISSIONERS ON THAT. AND WITH HESITATION, EVEN FROM THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION, THERE ARE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE ROAD THAT WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED WITH. EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS AN OVERLAY ON THIS, THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT THESE DEVELOPERS WOULD HAVE TO IMPROVE THE ROAD WHICH IS THE MAIN CONCERN OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE TALKING A ROAD THAT I JUST MEASURED BEFORE I CAME OVER HERE, IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, IT'S 18 FEET WIDE. AND WITH THE DRIVEWAY THAT I COME OUT OF, 19 FEET. AND UNLESS WE CAN GET A GUARANTEE THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT ON THIS ROAD, I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE -- WE ARE GOING INTO A CONDITION WHERE YOU HAVE A STREET THAT HAS NO STREET LIGHTS, NO SIDEWALKS, NOTHING THAT LEADS TO A MIDDLE SCHOOL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUST SHORT OF SLAUGHTER LANE, CHILDREN WALKING ACROSS SLAUGHTER LANE ON CHISOLM TRAIL TO THEIR MIDDLE SCHOOL AND VICE VERSA OF CHILDREN WALKING FROM THE SOUTH END OVER TO THE NORTH END OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT SHOULD BE VIEWED ON THIS ROAD. I DO HAVE PICTURES OF THE ROAD HERE WITH ME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT THIS -- ABOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THAT -- THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE REALLY WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER IS THAT IF -- IF YOU DO APPROVE ANY ZONING CHANGES, THAT THERE ARE CONDITIONS PUT ON -- ON STRICT IMPROVEMENTS OF THE ROAD PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION THAT'S DONE. I THINK THAT -- THAT WITH THE AMOUNT OF CHILDREN POPULATIONS IN THIS AREA, NO REAL ACCESS TO AND FROM SCHOOL AREAS, I THINK WITHOUT ANY IMPROVEMENT, YOU ARE PUTTING GREAT RISK AT ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. EVEN THOUGH THAT THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT S.F. 1 WOULD BE CONSIDERED, I THINK I WOULD GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF RR ZONING. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. MORENO. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. I WILL ENTERTAIN -- THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. THANK YOU. I RECOGNIZE MR. LINEHAN FOR REBUTTAL, AFTER BEING REMINDED OF THAT BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY. I WAS NOT GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, YOU NEED TO REALIZE THIS TRACT RIGHT IN HERE OFF OF DAVID MOORE ROAD WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TYPE OF ROAD THAT'S ON CHISOLM TRAIL HAS MF 1 ZONING ON IT. THE TRACT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PARK INTERSECTION IS M.F. 2, LR IN THIS LOCATION, LR, CO, AS YOU MENTIONED SLAUGHTER LANE IS KIND OF GOING COMMERCIAL. THE POSITION THAT I TOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT IS THAT THIS ZONING WOULD BE CREATING A DOUGHNUT HOLE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE MULTI-FAMILY AND HIGH END COMMERCIAL AROUND THAT, THIS 13-ACRE SITE. THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MADE, SO WE WILL HAVE TO POST HALF THE FISCAL FOR THE BOUNDARY STREET IMPROVEMENT OF. WE ARE WILLING TO DO THAT, THE STAFF WAS VERY CONCERNED TO MAKE IT A CONDITION OF ZONING. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GIVE PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION WITH THIS ZONING CASE TO GIVE US EMERGENCY ACCESS OUT TO MARY SEARIGHT PARK, IT'S NO LONGER JUST A PARK ROAD. IT HANDLE A WHOLE LOT OF SCHOOL TRAFFIC GOING TO PAREDES MIDDLE SCHOOL, TO HAVE AN ACCESS OUT THERE, IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS ROADWAY, WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. I WILL BE ASKING THAT WHEN I COME BACK FOR SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY. ALSO, I DO WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT AND IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION. ALSO THE PLANNING COMMISSION LIMITED THIS AS A -- TO 28 LOTS, WHICH IS 2.14-ACRES PER LOT. SO THAT'S 2.14 OR -- 2.1 UNITS PER ACRE. SO I JUST WANT YOU TO -- EXCUSE ME, TWO ACRE LOTS. SO THIS IS A 13-ACRE TRACT, LIMITED ON -- TO 28 LOTS, AND THE ROADWAY AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, ACCORDING TO THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL CAN HANDLE THE ROADWAY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. BUT WE WILL BE IMPROVING THAT WITH THE SUBDIVISION IN THE FUTURE. AND I DID MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WASN'T TRYING TO FINAGLE THEM. I WAS TRYING TO WORK ON A SOLUTION AS I WAS TRYING TO DO. WHEN I REALIZED THAT THEY SENT IN THEIR LETTER SAYING S.F. 1, I CAME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION. I AM WILLING TO ACCEPT S.F. 1 THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY VOTED ON. THANK YOU. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS --

MAYOR GARCIA: ONE QUICK ONE. ON THE ROAD ITSELF WHAT DID YOU SAY-

YOU HAVE TO POST ONE-HALF THE FISCAL BY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, SO WE WILL BE DOING THAT AS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS. IT'S SUBDIVISION, BECAUSE OF THE FLOWER MOUND CASE I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT A CONDITION OF ZONING.

THE POSTING IS FOR HOW MUCH OF THE ROAD-

IT'S FOR -- THIS POINT RIGHT HERE TO THIS POINT RIGHT THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT STREET --

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

THE WHOLE THING ACCORDING TO SUBDIVISION STANDARDS. SO THAT WOULD BE A 30-FOOT WIDE --

MAYOR GARCIA: AT THE TOP OF THE MAP, TOP OF TAKE DIAGRAM, WHAT STREET IS THAT-

THIS IS SOUTH CHISOLM TRAIL. [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC] WE WILL BE POSTING FISCAL FOR ONE-HALF OF THAT [INAUDIBLE]

MAYOR GARCIA: WHEN DOES THE ROAD -- WHEN IS THE ROAD GOING TO BE COMPLETED-

DEPENDING ON HOW QUICKLY I CAN GET THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. BUT THEY ARE ACTIVELY PURSUING TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND PUT SOME HOMES ON IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

THEY HAVE ASKED ME TO START, BUT I TOLD THEM THAT I WOULDN'T START UNTIL I WAS SURE THAT I HAD ZONING BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE PRUDENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. LINEHAN.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING ON Z-3. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION PASSES, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON Z-3. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN-

WYNN: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND AGAIN THE -- THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

GLASGO: THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ZONE THE PROPERTY RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS SINGLE FAMILY 1 WITH A DENSITY LIMITATION OF 28 UNITS. THE DIFFERENCE IS RURAL RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS YOU ONE UNIT FOR EVERY ONE ACRE. SO YOU WOULD END UP WITH 13-ACRE LOT, 13 LOTS, 130 HOMES. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE 28 LOTS. SO IT'S 13 VERSUS 28.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

GLASGO: YOU'RE WELCOME.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM-

DUNKERLY: I WILL PUT A MOTION, MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY FOR S.F. 1 AS RECOMMENDED -- S.F. 1-CO AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. IS THERE A SECOND-

WYNN: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION- COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER-

WYNN: PART OF MY SECOND, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. THE LIKELY TIMING OF IMPROVEMENTS ON CHISOLM TRAIL, I MEAN, MR. LINEHAN'S CLIENT WOULD HAVE TO POST FISCAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT PIECE OF IT. WHAT'S THE REALISTIC TIMING ON -- ON, YOU KNOW, STREETS -- STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THERE.

GLASGO: ACTUALLY THE WAY THAT PROCESS WORKS AT THE TIME OF SUBDIVISION, IN ORDER FOR THE SUBDIVISION PLAT TO BE IMPROVED, HE WOULD IDENTIFY THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE, WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT FISCAL IS POSTED, WE WOULD HOLD THAT MONEY TO MAKE SURE THAT HE MAKES THE IMPROVEMENTS. WE HOLD THAT MONEY FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. IF THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT MADE, OBVIOUSLY WE WILL GO AND -- [INAUDIBLE] -- THE PROBLEM BUT NOT ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT THE ROAD. THE -- THE OTHER OPTION, COUNCIL HAS IS TO REQUIRE THAT -- THAT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL -- TO OCCUPY THE BUILDINGS OR THE HOMES UNTIL THE ROADWAY IS COMPLETED. JUST TO ENSURE THAT THE ROAD IS IMPROVED.

WYNN: WHEN YOU SAY ROADWAY IMPROVED.

GLASGO: JUST THAT PORTION.

WYNN: JUST THE SECTION THAT THIS PROPERTY FRONTS, CORRECT- IS THERE A PLAN OR ANY LIKELIHOOD OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF THIS -- OF THIS TRACT-

GLASGO: NO, SIR. NONE IN THE FUTURE. THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLANS TO IMPROVE THAT AT ALL. THE ONLY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD OCCUR WOULD BE -- CAN HE WITH MAKE THE APPLICANT CONCUR TO IT, BUT THOSE THAT PERTAIN TO THE FRONTAGE OF HIS PROPERTY.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

GLASGO: YOU'RE WELCOME.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION-

SLUSHER: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER-

SLUSHER: MS. GLASGO, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE STAFF'S RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDING RURAL RESIDENTIAL INSTEAD OF S.F. 1.

GLASGO: THE REASON FOR THAT IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF, THEY INDICATED THAT THIS ROAD IS -- THEY CONDUCTED A STUDY AND INDICATED THAT THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DENSITY UNDER THE ZONING AND LOOKED AT THE TRIP GENERATION IN THE AREA AND CONCERNED WITH THE EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME OF SOUTH CHISOLM TRAIL IS 131 TRIPS PER DAY ACCORDING TO TRAFFIC COUNTS. THEN THE -- TWO ACCOUNT FOR THE SCHOOL BEING OUT OF SEASON, OF COURSE, YOUR TRAFFIC WAS DOWN, BUT GOES UP WHEN SCHOOL STARTS AGAIN AND GOES UP TO AN AVERAGE OF 144 TRIPS PER DAY. THE ROADWAY WIDTH IS APPROXIMATELY I THINK 16- FEET WIDE, IT'S RATHER NARROW TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. YOU CURRENTLY HAVE 13 HOMES ON THIS SITE, WE FELT THAT ADDING ANOTHER 13 WOULDN'T BE OVERTAXING THE ROADWAY SYSTEM. THAT WAS OUR BASIS FOR RECOMMENDING RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THEN MR. LINEHAN POINTED OUT THAT THERE'S AN M.F. 1 ZONING TO THE WEST. BUT THAT HAS R.R. BETWEEN IT AND THIS TRACT, DOESN'T IT- IF MY MAP IS CORRECT.

GLASGO: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR MAP IS CORRECT, YOU HAVE RURAL RESIDENTIAL WITH HOMES DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY ON CHISOLM TRAIL. THEN ABUTTING THOSE PROPERTIES YOU HAVE M.F. 1 ZONING, THAT'S CORRECT.

SLUSHER: ON THE EASTERN CORNER OF IT ANYWAY, CLOSER TO SLAUGHTER, YOU HAVE M.F. 2. WHAT'S THE RATIONALE IN ALLOWING THAT -- I GUESS THOSE ENTER ON TO SLAUGHTER LANE AND NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.

THAT'S CORRECT. THE STREET, HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IT CAN ACCOMMODATE AND THE ABILITY TO IMPROVE THOSE ROADS.

SLUSHER: ACTUALLY IF YOU DID THIS, YOU WOULD HAVE THE -- IF YOU DID S.F. 1 THAT WOULD BE DOUBLE WHAT RR WOULD ALLOW, BUT YOU ALREADY HAVE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE APARTMENTS AND -- I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MAKE THAT POINT EXACTLY RIGHT. BUT THIS WOULD GIVE YOU A LARGER SWATH OF R.R. WHERE IT'S NOT RIGHT NEXT TO AN AMOUNT.

GLASGO: CORRECT.

SLUSHER: AT LEAST NOT ON THE WEST. MAYOR, I'M MAKING A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS R.R.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. MOTION, SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER FOR R.R.

ALVAREZ: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. DISCUSSION-

ALVAREZ: MAYOR- I JUST WANT TO SAY JUST LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF UNITS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND THE ROAD AND WHAT CURRENTLY IS ON THAT ROAD, I THINK YOU -- THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO UTILIZE THAT -- THAT PARTICULAR ROADWAY. SO I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE. AT LEAST AT THIS POINT, WITHOUT KNOWING THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO APPROVE THIS DENSITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY-

DUNKERLY: I HAVE BEEN OUT ON THE PARK ROAD GOING INTO MARY SEARIGHT PARK, THAT ROAD SEEMS TO BE UP TO ALL SORTS OF STREET STANDARDS IS IS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL ROAD. I'M JUST WONDERING THE RATIONALE AS TO WHY THAT WOULDN'T BE THE OBVIOUS -- IT CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC THAN IT HAS RIGHT NOW. I WONDER WHY THAT WOULDN'T BE AN OBVIOUS OUTLET FOR THIS SUBDIVISION. THE PARK ROAD. THAT IS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY IS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL ROAD. I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT THE POLICY IS THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE ACCESS FOR -- FOR 20 HOMES OR WHAT HAVE YOU ON A ROAD THAT'S -- THAT COULD EASILY ACCOMMODATE THAT-

I THINK BECAUSE IT'S PARKLAND, IT'S DEDICATED PARKLAND, YOU CANNOT USE IT FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES.

DUNKERLY: OKAY.

SLUSHER: ISN'T THERE A PORTION OF THE CITY CHARTER THAT SAYS TO USE PARKLAND FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES DON'T YOU NEED AN ELECTION-

DUNKERLY: WELL, IT'S JUST A VERY SUBSTANTIAL ROAD. I DON'T UNDERSTAND -- I MEAN, IT'S BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE --

SLUSHER: IT IS PRETTY BIG.

IT IS.

GLASGO: IT IS.

DUNKERLY: JUST INTERESTED AS TO WHY IT COON BE USE BECAUSE IT REALLY IS UP TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARD.

IT IS PARKLAND. THERE ARE SPECIAL PROVISIONS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO USE IT AS A PUBLIC ROADWAY. WHICH IS WHY I AM ASSUMING MR. LINEHAN WAS PROPOSING IT JUST BE EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. BUT THERE ARE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AS TO WHAT YOU CAN DO ON PARKLAND.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER COMMENTS- DISCUSSIONS- MAYOR PRO TEM WE ARE CONSIDERING A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF R.R. Z-3. FURTHER DISCUSSION- IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO- PASSES ON A VOTE OF -- [ LAUGHTER ] -- PASSES FOR R.R. ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 2.

GLASGO: THAT'S GOING TO BE FIRST READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: FIRST READING. THE -- THE COUNCILMEMBERS VOTING NO ARE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY.

GLASGO: THE NEXT ITEM MAYOR THAT WAS PULLED WAS --

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND.

GLASGO: I'M SORRY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY Z-8.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, JUST FOR A SECOND, I NEGLECTED ON Z-4 TO PUT ON THE -- THE LANDSCAPING NATIVE PLANTS OVERLAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING ON ALL OF THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONING CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR -- THE APPLICANT ALREADY AGREED IN MY OFFICE TO HAVE THAT, I DIDN'T THINK TO PUT IT ON --

MAYOR GARCIA: WE PASSED THIS ON FIRST READING ONLY, SO THAT CAN BE AN INSTRUCTION TO COME BACK ON SECOND AND THIRD READING TO DO THAT, INSTEAD OF GOING TO RECONSIDERATION.

WE WILL BRING BACK A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

THE APPLICANT ACCEPTED THAT, TOO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. GLASGO, Z-8.

ITEM NO. Z-8 IS CASE C14-02-130, THIS CASE IS LOCATED AT 900 EAST BRAKER LANE. THE CURRENT ZONING IS FOOTPRINT ZONING FOR CS-1, WHICH STAND FOR COMMERCIAL LIQUOR SALES DISTRICT. AND SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL ZONED THIS TRACT CS-1 IT WAS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING IF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WEAPON SOUGHT WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE OWNER WOULD NOT OBJECT TO A ROLLBACK TO G.R. TO AVOID THE PREPONDERANCE WITHOUT IT BEING USED ACCORDINGLY. THAT IS WHAT IS OCCURRING HERE. WE ARE BASICALLY ROLLING BACK THE ZONING BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS COUNCIL IMPOSED ON TAKE CASE WERE NOT MET. I WILL BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AFTER THE SPEAKERS MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. AFTER THE OWNER --

MAYOR GARCIA: THE APPLICANT IS CALHOON PROPERTIES. IS MR. TOM CALHOON HERE.

MS. CROCKER.

YES, GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS SARAH CROCKER, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF TOM CALHOON. I MADE THE APPLICATION TO ROLL BACK THE ZONING TO GR TO BRING IT INTO THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE PRIOR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED. I BELIEVE SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE HERE TO SPEAK TODAY, YOU THINK THAT I KNOW WHY. I WILL GO AHEAD AND LET THEM SPEAK, ADDRESS ANY OF THEIR CONCERNS AFTER THEY ARE FINISHED. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, MR. MICHAEL LEE. AND MR. LEE, ARE YOU HERE- YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN ADDITIONAL TIME BY TWO OTHER SPEAKERS, YVONNE JOHNSON, IS SHE HERE- AND LESTER JOHNSON. SO YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE IT. [ LAUGHTER ]

THANK YOU, MAYOR, I HOPE THAT I DO NOT HAVE TO USE THEM. MY NAME IS MICHAEL LEE, I AM A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NORTHEAST WALNUT CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE ZONING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN. WITH ME I HAVE TWO OTHER MEMBERS, LESTER JOHNSON OR PRESIDENT, YVONNE JOHNSON, NO RELATION, ONE OF OUR THREE VICE-PRESIDENTS. THEY HAVE ELECTED ME TO DO THE TALKING SO TO SPEAK BECAUSE THERE'S NO NEED TO BE REPETITIOUS AND BECAUSE I HAVE MORE EXTENSIVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST HISTORY OF THIS SHOPPING CENTER AND THIS PARTICULAR FOOTPRINT THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. WE SIGNED UP, I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, WE CHECKED BOTH FOR AND AGAINST ON THIS CASE.

I NOTICED THAT.

AND -- THE REASON IS, I HOPE THAT I HAVE A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU, WE ARE BASICALLY FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING, BUT THE AGAINST WE CHECKED WE DON'T THINK IT GOES FAR ENOUGH. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. MS. GLASGO DID MENTION THERE'S A ROLL BACK COVENANT IN THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY THAT IS UNDER YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT AND THAT'S VERY TRUE. THE CITY DIDN'T INITIATE THIS "ROLLBACK" IT WAS A CHANGE INITIATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER HIMSELF. IT'S ACTUALLY NOT -- ONLY THE CITY CAN INITIATE A ROLL BACK UNDER THE COVENANTS TO MY UNDERSTANDING. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ACTUALLY, WHY WE THINK THIS DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH IS THAT THE FOOTPRINT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS ONLY TWO-THIRDS OF THAT FOOTPRINT ZONED IN 1995 WHEN YOU MAYOR WERE ON THE COUNCIL, I BELIEVE AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER GOODMAN WAS ON THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, ALSO. THE REMAINING WILL STILL REMAIN CS 1 COVERED BY THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT COVERING THE ROLL BACK. IN 1995 WE TOLD THE COUNCIL THAT WE THOUGHT THIS WAS NOT A GOOD TYPE OF ZONING AND A GOOD TYPE OF USE, IT WAS A PROPOSED JAZZ NIGHTCLUB TO GO IN. THE COUNCIL UNDERSTAND OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE ZONING PERHAPS ALLOWING A SUCCESSION OF LIQUOR ORIENTED BUSINESSES TO OCCUPY THAT LOCATION AND THEY KNEW OUR CONCERN WAS VALID. BUT THEY DECIDED THAT -- THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME DECIDED THAT THE ZONING WOULD BE GRANTED WITH THE COVENANT THROWN IN THERE SO WE WOULD HAVE SOME ASSURANCE IN THE FUTURE THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE JUST AN UNENDING SERIES, PERHAPS, OF THESE TYPE OF BUSINESSES IN THAT SHOPPING CENTER. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK OF YOU TONIGHT IS TO -- IF YOU WILL, PLEASE, CONSIDER HONORING THAT -- WHAT I CONSIDER THE COMMITMENT AT THE TIME OF THE COUNCIL TO ROLL THAT ZONING BACK. AND TO PLEASE ASK THIS COUNCIL TO INITIATE CONSIDERATION OF ROLLING BACK THE ZONING ON THE REMAINING ONE THIRD OF THAT FOOTPRINT TO G.R. AS WELL. THAT IS THE REQUEST WE WILL MAKE OF YOU TONIGHT. THERE MAY BE ONE OTHER REQUEST. THE SITUATION IS A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE OPENER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER WAS WELL AWAY THERE WAS A ROLLBACK ON THIS FOOTPRINT, HE HAS MADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH A BUSINESS PERSON TO OPEN OTHER NIGHTCLUB ON THE REMAINING ONE THIRD OF THAT -- THAT IS UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW. IN FACT IT'S WELL UNDERWAY. IN FACT NEXT TUESDAY THERE WAS TO BE SCHEDULED A HEARING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION TO ALLOW THAT PROPOSED MUSIC AND DANCE NIGHTCLUB, THE CURRENT MUSIC AND DANCE NIGHTCLUB TO OPEN. MS. CROCKER TOLD ME THAT HEARING WILL BE POSTPONED FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT IT WILL GO TO THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF ACTIVITY UNDERWAY, A COMPLICATING FACTOR, I RECOGNIZE THAT. STILL ALL IN ALL, WE FEEL LIKE THAT THE ZONING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ROLLED BACK YEARS AGO AND HAD WE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD KNOWN AS MUCH THEN AS WE DO NOW ABOUT THE ROLLBACK RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR AND HOW THEY HAVE TO WORK AND THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS TO INITIATE THEM, ET CETERA, IF WE HAD NOPE ALL OF THAT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU LONG BEFORE NOW. IT WAS ONLY IN RECENT MONTHS THAT WE BECAME AWARE OF THE ACTUAL MECHANICS OF THIS THESE ROLLBACKS AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY REPRESENT THANKS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THIS CASE THAT HAS COME UP NOW IN THE PROPOSED USE ON THE REMAINING ONE THIRD HAS JUST CAUSED US TO BEGIN TO THINK THAT WE HAVE COME DOWN HERE AND TALK TO BUT THIS. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CAN DO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO. WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER A ROLLBACK, EVEN IF THE FACE OF THE FACT OF SOMEONE TRYING TO OPEN A BUSINESS THERE THAT MAY HAVE AN INVESTMENT ALREADY MADE. IT'S UNFORTUNATE. IF I'M GOING TO BLAME ANYONE FOR THAT UNFORTUNATE SITUATION DEVELOPING, I WOULD BLAME THE OWNER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER WHO SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, I DON'T FEEL LIKE IN GOOD CONSCIENCE THAT I CAN STAND HERE AND TELL YOU THAT MY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD APPROVE OF THE OPENING OF A NIGHTCLUB THERE NOW JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE GOT IF NOT MISLED WASN'T TOLD THE FULL STORY AND MANAGED TO SINK SOME MONEY INTO THE OPENING OF A BUSINESS. WE THINK THAT THAT ROLLBACK PROMISE, NOT PROMISE. THAT COMMITMENT MADE BY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL SHOULD BE SOMETHING THIS COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER VERY SERIOUSLY. ESPECIALLY THE LENGTH OF TIME IT'S BEEN. THERE WAS A ONE YEAR TIME FRAME, IT'S NOW BEEN SEVEN YEARS, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ROLLED BACK A LONG TIME AGO TO HONOR THAT COMMITMENT. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CONSIDER HONORING THAT THAT COMMITMENT TODAY, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BEND A FEW PEOPLE OUT OF SHAPE. SHOULD THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WE WILL PROBABLY BE BACK DOWN HERE ON APPEAL TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU AT THAT TIME. IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO -- SHOE BE WILLING TO CONSIDER A -- SHOULD YOU BE WILLING TO CONSIDER A ROLLBACK AT THIS TIME EVEN IN FACE OF ALL OF THE COMPLICATION, I WOULD ASK YOU TO FIND OUT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OR WHOEVER WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ASK THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION TO PUT THE HEARING ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON HOLD UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE COUNCIL DECIDES WHETHER IT MIGHT WISH TO CONSIDER THE ZONING ROLLBACK JUST TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLICATING THE ISSUE OF HAVING THE THING -- HAVING THE ROLLBACK UNDER YOUR CONSIDERATION AT THE SAME TIME THAT THERE'S A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING GOING FORTH. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT I MENTION ONLY BECAUSE IT -- IT MIGHT KEEP THINGS FROM GETTING EVEN MORE COMPLICATED IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S ABOUT ALL THAT I HAVE TO SAY. WE ARE CONCERNED OVER THE FACT THAT THIS HAS TRANSPIRED. WE ARE VERY -- ALMOST DISMAYED BY THE FACT THAT IT'S GOTTEN TO THIS STAGE AND WE HAVE TO COME DOWN HERE WHILE PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE ON OPENING THAT CLUB. WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH YOU AND THE APPROPRIATE BODIES LONG BEFORE IT GOT TO THIS POINT, BUT IT JUST DIDN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY. AND OUR CONCERN WE FEEL IS VALID BECAUSE AGAIN A MUSIC NIGHTCLUB CAN OPEN THERE NOW, GOODNESS KNOWS WHAT CAN BE THEIR SUCCESSION OF VARIOUS NIGHTCLUBS, BARS, COULD BE IN THEIR. THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTED CENTER, WE HOPE IT IS, SANDWICH SHOPS, NAIL SALON, PAINT STORE, RESTAURANT, ADULT VIDEO ARCADE. THERE'S A JACK IN THE BOX THERE AND IT'S -- IT'S A DOLLAR GENERAL, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS BEER AND WINE PERMIT THERE SALE FROM WHEN IT WAS A DRUG STORE. BUT IT'S NOT A BAR AND NIGHTCLUB ORIENTED SHOPPING CENTER WE DON'T THINK. IT'S NOT THAT PART OF TOWN, WE DON'T THINK IT SETS A VERY GOOD IMAGE. PROBLEMS TO THE SOUTH OF US ON THE NEXT MAJOR STREET DOWN SOUTH AT RUNDBERG LANE. WE WOULD JUST AS SOON KEEP THE MOST FAMILY ORIENTED BUSINESSES WE CAN IN A SHOPPING CENTER LIKE THIS. WE CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED THAT POSITION OVER THE YEARS STARTING IN 1995 AND EVER SINCE. I WILL QUIT TALKING. I HOPE THAT I DIDN'T TAKE MY FULL NINE MINUTES. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT I HAVE TRIED TO TELL YOU OR WHY WE ARE HERE OR ANYTHING, I WOULD BE GLAD TO TRY TO ANSWER THEM BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS QUITE A MOUTHFUL.

MAYOR GARCIA: ON THE THIRD LEFT THAT YOU MENTIONED, THAT ONE THIRD OF THE SITE ITSELF, DID YOU INDICATE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION HAS STARTED ON THE -- BUILDING THE BAR OR SALOON.

YES, SIR. I HAVE VISITED THAT SITE AND MET WITH THE PROPOSED OWNERS BASICALLY -- NOT THE PROPOSED OWNERS, THE OWNERS AND PROPOSED OPERATORS OF THE CLUB AND TOLD THEM EVERYTHING THAT I COULD ABOUT THE PAST HISTORY AND EXPRESSED MY REGRETS. MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE MORE OR LESS FINISHED WITH WHATEVER WOULD BE REQUIRED INSIDE IN TERMS OF PHYSICAL FACILITIES. MS. CROCKER COULD TELL YOU BETTER, WORK DONE, MONEY SPENT.

THEN YOU MADE CONFERENCE TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEING ISSUED. BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE CITY GOT IT BACKWARDS AND ISSUED THE C.O. FIRST. NOW THERE'S A HEARING ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THAT WILL BE HELD AT THE ZONING AND PLATTING AT SOME FUTURE TIME. SO IT'S KIND OF MESSY. AND I -- I DON'T PROPOSE TO SPEAK FOR THE OWNER IN TERMS OF WHY HE DID WHAT HE DID OR WHAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS GIVEN PERMISSION TO DO BY THE CITY SO FORTH. MS. CROCKER CAN PROBABLY SPEAK FOR HIM MUCH BETTER THAN I COULD. BUT, YES, MY GUESS WOULD BE, AGAIN, SUBJECT TO CONFIRM PLAYING, THAT THEY ARE MORE OR LESS READY TO OPEN AS SOON AS THEY GET AHOLD OF THE REQUIRED CITY PERMITS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE WILL CLARIFY THAT WITH STAFF. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LEE- WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE MAY CALL YOU BACK.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND LISTENING TO THIS STORY. AND YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS AND I JUST WISH WE HAD BEEN ABLE TO COME TO YOU WITH THIS REQUEST FOR A ROLLBACK IN A MORE TIMELY MANNER, AT A TIME THAT WOULD FOR THE HAVE CAUSED SO MUCH TROUBLE FOR SO MANY PEOPLE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. LEE. MS. CROCKER, REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU, SARAH CROCKER AGAIN. THIS CASE WAS ACTUALLY, THIS CENTER WAS IN FRONT OF YOU BACK IN APRIL WHEN THERE HAD BEEN A LARGE CS 1 CASE FILED ON SOME OTHER PROPERTY, WHICH YOU ALL DENIED. I WAS HIRED BY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE RENTED THE 1800 SQUARE FEET THAT IS ZONED CS 1 THAT'S ADJACENT TO THIS PARTICULAR TRACT OR PORTION OF THE CENTER. THEY ARE FROM WEST AFRICA. THEY HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. THEY BASICALLY WANTED TO OPEN UP A CULTURAL ENTERTAINMENT CENTER FOR PEOPLE JUST LIKE THEM WHO LIKE TO GET TOGETHER AND LISTEN TO THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF MUSIC. THEY ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT ON THIS FACILITY LAST OCTOBER. THEY WERE TOLD THEY HAD THE CORRECT ZONING, WHICH IS TRUE, THEY DO. IT'S CS 1. THEY WENT TO THE CITY, THEY WERE ISSUED A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. THEY SUBMITTED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEY WERE ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A COCKTAIL LOUNGE. THEY THEN WENT OUT AND SPENT QUITE A BIT OF MONEY OUT OF THEIR SAVINGS AND FINISHED THE PLACE OUT. AT THAT TIME, THIS OTHER ZONING CASE WAS WIELDING ITS WAY THROUGH. THERE WERE A LOT OF INSPECTORS OUT THERE WHO THEN STOPPED BY TO VISIT THEM, ASKED THEM WHAT THEY WERE GETTING READY TO DO. THEY WERE JUST GETTING READY TO OPEN AND TOLD THEM THAT THEY NEEDED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. PULLED THEIR ELECTRIC METER. AND THEY BASICALLY WERE SORT OF STOPPED DEAD IN THE WATER. UNFORTUNATELY, AT THAT POINT HAVING RECEIVED THOSE TWO APPROVALS FROM THE CITY, AND THEY HAD GONE FORWARD AND THEY BASICALLY ARE SITTING THERE WITH THE CENTER AND HAVE BEEN SINCE APRIL OR MAY THAT THEY ARE PAYING RENTS ON. WE DID SUBMIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THAT 1800 SQUARE FEET. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGH THOSE ISSUES WITH STAFF. I DID FILE THIS CASE TO ROLL BACK THE ZONING ADJACENT TO IT. THAT IS LEASED OUT RIGHT NOW AS A JOB TRAINING CENTER. THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO REASON FOR THAT TO BE ZONED CS 1. WE WILL BE GOING, SCHEDULED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION FOR NEXT TUESDAY NIGHT TO BE HEARD ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SAHARA CLUB. I HAVE TOLD THE NEIGHBORS THIS EVENING THAT I HAVE REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT FOR TWO WEEKS. MR. LEE DID MEET WITH US OUT AT THE FACILITY. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I'M TRYING TO WORK THROUGH TO SEE IF WE CAN'T POSSIBLY GET SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS PUT ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL BE SUCCESSFUL AT THAT OR NOT TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THE SAHARA TO OPERATE. IT'S BASICALLY IF YOU WENT IN IT, IT'S PAINTED LIGHT BLUE, CARD TABLES, NO SMOKING ALLOWED, IT'S NOT A BAR IN THE SENSE OF A -- THAT YOU THINK OF A BAR, ALTHOUGH IT DOES HAVE TO HAVE CS 1 AND DOES HAVE TO HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WE ARE TRYING TO FIND A MECHANISM WHEREBY IF THEY COULD OPEN AND OPERATE, THE ZONING WOULD CEASE WHEN THEIR USE CEASES, THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DO BECAUSE OF THE WAY OUR CODE IS WRITTEN. I WILL BE POSTPONING THE CASE NEXT WEEK TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THOSE ISSUES. HAD MY CLIENTS KNOWN WHAT THEY WERE GETTING INTO WHEN THEY DID THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT IN A NUTSHELL. THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY. ALL ON THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. MS. GLASGO, CAN WE FIND OUT WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A MIX-UP IN THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

WHAT MS. CROCKER DESCRIBED IS ACCURATE. THE BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED. THE ONLY ANSWER I CAN SAY THERE WAS LACK OF COORDINATION TO FIND IF THERE WAS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BEFORE THE SITE PLAN WAS ISSUED AND THE BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHEN WE DID THE DOCUMENTS THAT SAID THAT THEY WOULD ROLL BACK AFTER A WHILE, WAS THIS PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE ROLLBACK PROVISIONS-

THIS WAS PART OF -- YES. THIS WAS PART OF THE TRACT AND THE ADJOINING, THE REMAINDER OF THAT THIRD THAT ISN'T INCLUDED SHOULD HAVE. ALL THAT I CAN SAY HAD SOMEONE CHECKED THAT AND FOUND THE COVENANT, THEN THE APPROPRIATE THING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THAT TIME WAS TO CALL THE LAW DEPARTMENT, SAY WE HAVE A LITTLE DILEMMA HERE, WHAT DO WE DO. OBVIOUSLY THAT'S -- THE SITE PLAN HAS PROCEEDED THROUGH AND WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, Z.A.P. RATHER NEXT WEEK. AND -- THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FROM ANYBODY- SO THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OPEN IT UP UNTIL THEY GET THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THAT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY CAN EITHER APPROVE IT OR DENY IT. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE THERE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- DEPENDING ON WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES OR ZAP, THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO DECIDE IF THAT USE IS APPROPRIATE OR IF IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL COVENANT. TYPICALLY, MAYOR, WHAT HAPPENS ON RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, YOU ALL KNOW, IF THE USE CEASES, USUALLY WE ARE INFORMED OBVIOUSLY BY NEIGHBORS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY FOR US TO KNOW THAT THE USE ONE WAS NEVER INITIATED AT ALL. OBVIOUSLY THAT IS THE CASE HERE. THAT IT NEVER COMMENCED AS COUNCIL STIPULATED THAT WITHIN A YEAR IF NOTHING HAD BEEN FILED, THEN THE OWNER WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THE ROLLBACK, BUT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF IT. WE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT LATER. WITH DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS ISSUING DIFFERENT THINGS, OBVIOUSLY THIS ONE JUST FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FURTHER QUESTIONS-

WYNN: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN-

WYNN: MS. GLASGO, THE THIRD OF THE ORIGINAL TRACT THAT'S NOT BEING PROPOSED TO ROLL BACK THIS EVENING, IS THAT SOLELY THIS ONE USE WE HAVE DESCRIBED, THE -- THE CLUB THAT NEEDS THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY-

ACTUALLY, THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY AT ALL. THE CASE THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU IS NOT THE PROPERTY THAT HAD THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

WYNN: I UNDERSTAND. BUT THERE WAS A TRACT THAT ORIGINALLY WAS INTENDED TO BE ROLLED BACK. BUT WE ARE ROLLING BACK APPROXIMATELY TWO THIRD OF THAT TRACT THIS AFTERNOON.

CORRECT.

WYNN: THE ONE THIRD THAT WE ARE NOT ROLLING BACK IS ESSENTIALLY THE ENTIRE ONE THIRD IS THAT SINGLE USE IN QUESTION.

YES, SIR.

WYNN: THERE'S NOT ADDITIONAL STOREFRONTS OR SQUARE FOOTAGE --

GLASGO: CORRECT.

WYNN: SIMPLY THE USE THAT WE WILL HEAR ABOUT IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.

GLASGO: THAT'S CORRECT.

WYNN: THE RATIONALE TO BEGIN WITH WAS IN PART TO TRY TO APPEASE AND CLEAN UP THE MESS THAT'S OCCURRED WITH THIS OTHER USE-

GLASGO: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE IS WHAT THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED ON WITHOUT 7 CATCHING THAT ISSUE OF THE COVENANT.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF- IS THERE A MOTION ON Z-8-

WYNN: MAYOR I WILL MOVE APPROVAL. SEEMS TO ME WE ARE CLEARLY IN FAVOR OF ROLLING BACK AT LEAST THIS MUCH. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIX THE MESS FOR THE REST OF IT. I SEE NO KNOWING TO DO -- WE ARE ONLY POSTED FOR THIS MUCH OF THE TRACT. POSTED FOR TWO-THIRDS OF IT NOW. I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ROLLBACK AND THEN SEE HOW WE FIX THE REMAINING PART OF IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO APPROVE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY. DISCUSSION- ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. LET ME BACK OFF. COUNCILMEMBER --

GOODMAN: I CAN DO IT AFTER THE FACT. I JUST LIKE FOR SOME FOLKS WHO KNOW THAT I DON'T VOTE AGAINST VALID PETITIONS TO UNDERSTAND IN THIS CASE IT WAS A MECHANISM TO BE USED. IF YOU LISTEN TO MR. LEE, THIS IS NOT REALLY WHAT WAS OPPOSED BUT AS I HAVE SAID SO MANY TIMES THE VALID PETITION IS VIRTUALLY THE ONLY LEGAL HAMMER THAT SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE, SO I'M STILL IN TOTAL SUPPORT OF THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THOSE IF FAVOR OF THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO- MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0.

THREE READINGS-

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THREE READINGS. IT IS NOW 5:28. AND I WAS WONDERING IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ADVISORY BOARD OF THE SOUTH AUSTIN SENIOR CENTER IS HERE- DO YOU KNOW- ANYBODY KNOW- WE COULD RECOGNIZE HIM FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES OF COMMENTS. THANK HIM OR HER FOR ALLOWING US TO VISIT. AFTER THAT THE COUNCIL WILL RECESS FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR TO HAVE DINNER. AND THE MAYOR WILL -- WILL BE PRESENTING SOME PROCLAMATION, WE WILL BE HAVING SOME MUSIC. WHATEVER ELSE WE DO DURING THIS ONE HOUR RECESS. DID WE FIND HIM, GEORGE- THEY ARE NOT HERE- THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER IS NOT HERE- HE IS NOT HERE. ALICE YOU CAN'T LEAVE BECAUSE WE HAVE Z-10. GREG IS GOING TO HANDLE IT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO CALL THIS Z-10 UNTIL AFTER -- AFTER THE BREAK. YOU ARE THE DIRECTOR- WE WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR INVITING US TO BE HERE. WE APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING TO THE COUNCIL-

I JUST WAS HAPPY TO HOST IT'S. HAD A GOOD TIME, MET A LOT OF WONDERFUL PEOPLE, HOPE EVERYTHING WAS TO YOUR SATISFACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT WAS. [ APPLAUSE ] WE ARE GOING TO RECESS, COUNCILMEMBERS I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY FOOD FOR YOU. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A -- A MEETING WITHOUT FOOD. YOU CAN GO GET SOME CRACKERS SOMEPLACE, WE WILL EAT THEM AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE MEETING. BUT AT THIS TIME WE WILL -- WE ARE GOING TO GO FOR A RECESS AND THAT WILL LAST I GUESS UNTIL I FINISH WITH THE PROCLAMATIONS AND THE MUSIC, CORRECT- OKAY. WE ARE IN RECESS. THIS USUALLY TAKES ABOUT HALF AN HOUR- HOW MANY PROCS DO WE HAVE- FOUR. YEAH. WE SHOULD BE BACK HERE BY ABOUT 6:00 TO 6:15. CAN YOU BRING THEM UP. I'M GOING TO DO IT FROM UP HERE BECAUSE THAT WAY I CAN FACE -- FACE THE AUDIENCE.

[MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS]

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE ROOM, I'M GOING TO CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, OCTOBER 10TH, 2002, BACK TO ORDER. AND WE -- THE WAY WE WILL BE PROCEEDING IS WE WILL PICK UP THE LAST ITEM ON THE ZONING HEARINGS, WE'VE -- WE'VE ADDRESSED ITEMS Z-1 THROUGH Z-9. AND THE LAST ITEM IS Z-10. AND WE'LL GO TO THAT ONE FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GO TO ITEM 13. WHICH IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. AND THAT WILL BE ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE TONIGHT. LET ME RECOGNIZE AT THIS TIME MR. GURNSEY ON ITEM NO. 10.

GURNSEY: MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THANK YOU. GREG GUERNSEY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. ITEM NO. Z-10 IS A REZONING CASE, C14-02-76, AT 12008 AND 120010 POLLYANNA AVENUE, FROM S.F. 1 TO S.F. 3. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED SF-3-CO, LIMITING IT TO ONE DUPLEX UNIT ON EACH LOT WITH NO MORE THAN FOUR DWELLING UNITS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WAIT JUST A SECOND UNTIL WE GET THAT FEEDBACK TAKEN CARE OF. .

GURENSEY: THERE'S A VALID PETITION ON THE PROPERTY THAT STANDS CURRENTLY AT 33.35%. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN BEFORE YOU. THE APPLICANT HAD ORIGINALLY REQUESTED ONE POSTPONEMENT. THE COUNCIL GRANTED A POSTPONEMENT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS REQUESTED AND BEEN GRANTED A POSTPONEMENT. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SEVERAL SPEAKERS HERE TO SPEAK ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS ISSUE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO GO -- WE HAVE 12 SPEAKERS. AND MR. JAMES WALDEN IS HERE REPRESENTING MR. MIKE BURNS, WHO IS THE OWNER. MR. WALDEN, ARE YOU HERE- YOU ARE GOING TO BE RECOGNIZED FIRST, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD EVENING. MR. MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND HONORABLE COUNCIL, I'M JAMES WALDEN, I HAVE OWNED THESE LOTS FOR 30 YEARS OR MORE. AND MY DAD IS J.V. WALDEN, WHO BUILT MUCH OF EUBANK ACRES, IF NOT MOST OF IT AND MY ORIGINAL PLANS WHEN I BOUGHT THESE LOTS WERE TO BUILD DUPLEX ON THEM. BUT THE LACK OF WASTEWATER WAS PROHIBITIVE TO FINISH THAT PLAN. THEY HAVE BEEN TAXED AS DUPLEX LOTS FOR MANY YEARS. WHEN I WAS APPROACHED BY MR. BURNS TO BUY THE LOTS, THEN I CALLED MR. TOBIAS AND HIS WIFE AND ASKED TO MEET WITH HIM AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DID SO MEET WITH THEM AT A -- AT A RESTAURANT ON NORTH LAMAR THERE. AND EXPLAINED WHAT MY INTENTIONS WERE, MY PLANS AND MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. BURNS. AND AT THAT TIME MR. TOBIAS SAID HE DIDN'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO I LEFT THERE AND VISITED WITH A FEW OF THE HOMEOWNERS OUT THERE, KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND INTRODUCED MYSELF. PRIOR TO FILING THE APPLICATION AND JUST TELL THEM WHAT I WAS PLANNING TO DO. AND AFTER FILING THE APPLICATION, THEN ALONG WITH MR. BURNS WENT TO A FEW OF THE NEIGHBORS AND TALKED WITH THEM. AND -- AND THEN MR. BURNS HIRED AN ARCHITECT TO -- TO LOOK AT THE LAYOUT OF THE LOTS AND THE DRAWINGS THAT WE HAVE TO SHOW YOU SHOWS THE -- THE PLOT PLAN AND -- AND HOW THAT WOULD FIT ON THE LOTS. AND THE PARK -- EXCUSE ME, THE PARKING IN THE REAR OF THE LOTS. AND SO THAT ARCHITECT HAD MET WITH -- WITH MIKE BURNS OUT AT THE PROPERTY. WE INVITED MR. TOBIAS AND THE DIRECTORS AND ANY NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD WANT TO COME THERE AND SEE WHAT WE HAD IN MIND AND ALSO ANSWER CONCERNS. AND SO THAT WAS DONE AND THEN -- AFTER WE TALKED WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, THEN AT LEAST TWO OF THE NEIGHBORS SAW THAT WE WERE NOT DOING APARTMENTS BUT WE WERE DOING DUPLEXES AND THAT WE WERE LIMITING THE NUMBER AND THEN THEY WITHDREW FROM THE VALID PETITION. AND THEN SAW THE REASONABLENESS WHAT WAS WE WERE TRYING TO DO. THEN THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS, ONE ON THE LOWER STREET THERE, AND ONE ON THE HIGHER STREET THAT'S AT 300 -- DISTANCE OF THE PROPERTY -- ASKED THEIR NEXT DOOR MAYBES AND ACROSS THE STREET TO JOIN WITH US AND BE REASONABLE ABOUT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO HERE. AND SO THERE WAS AN EFFORT FOR -- FOR MYSELF, MR. BURNS, THE ARCHITECT, THE NEIGHBORS, ALL OF US TO -- TO TALK TO NEIGHBORS AND TRY TO COME UP TO A CONSENSUS OUT THERE. AND ALSO TO LISTEN TO THEIR CONCERNS. AND TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT. SO THAT'S THE -- THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH. AND MY -- MY REQUEST IS THAT YOU ALL WOULD CONSIDER THIS AND LOOK AT THE REASONABLENESS OF WHAT WE ARE ASKING AND WORK WITH US. I APPRECIATE IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WALDEN. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MARY HOUSEMAN. INCIDENTALLY, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES WHEN WE GO THROUGH ALL OF THE SPEAKERS FOR REBUTTAL. MARY HOUSEMAN-

[INAUDIBLE]

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, I HAVE THE CARDS FROM THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP THE LAST TIME.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: UH-HUH.

MR. MAYOR, WOULD YOU CARE TO HEAR A -- A BRIEF PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE- I JUST FILLED OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD IN CASE YOU NEEDED IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHY DON'T YOU GIVE ME THE CARD AND I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU. THAT WAS FIVE MINUTES FOR THE APPLICANT RIGHT THERE.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AS YOUR CARD COMES IN.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MARY HOUSEMAN.

SHE'S NOT HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SHE'S NOT HERE, OKAY. SHE IS REGISTERED AGAINST. BERNADETTE ZIMMER-

NOT HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SHE IS REGISTERED AGAINST. MIKE BURN IS NOT -- DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. WAYNE TOBIAS. MR. TOBIAS, MARGARET C. JOYNER HAS GIVEN YOU HER THREE MINUTES. SO YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES. WELCOME, SIR.

FOR EXPEDIENCY, I WOULD TRY TO KEEP IT TO THREE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU ARE GOING TO REFERENCE THE MAP, THERE'S A MIC OVER HERE. JUST PULL IT OUT OF THAT -- THERE YOU ARE, THEN YOU CAN --

I HAVE A PREPARED TALK. AND I WILL READ FROM THAT. BUT BEFORE I GET STARTED, I WANT TO PRESENT A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION. FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO BE REFERENCING A CORNER, THIS CORNER RIGHT HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT, THIS IS A VERY STEEP CORNER. AS WE APPROACH THE CORNER, THE STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET WIDE. AS WE GET INTO THE CORNER, IT NARROWS DOWN TO 19. IT GETS AS NARROW AS 17 FEET. THEN STAYS BETWEEN 17 AND 19 FEET HERE. THERE ARE NO CURBS, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO LOTS, VERY LARGE LOT HERE, SLIGHTLY SMALLER LOT HERE. I WANT TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT BEHIND THE LOT THERE IS A CREEK, THE PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY WHERE HE'S GOT THIS -- THE BACK OF THIS BUILDING DROPS OFF VERY RAPIDLY INTO THE CREEK. WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO READ MY -- MY PREPARED STATEMENT. MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBER, I'M WAYNE TOBIAS. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE WALNUT CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING WAS PRESENTED BY MR. WALDEN TO OUR ASSOCIATION BOARD IN JUNE, FOUR MONTHS AGO. IT WAS DETERMINED AT THAT MEETING THAT THIS CHANGE WOULD BE COUNTER TO THE NORTH LAMAR STUDY. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS CHANGED TO MERIT DEVIATION FROM THAT PLAN. A PRELIMINARY VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED THIS REQUEST. NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY WERE CONTACTED AND INTERVIEWED ABOUT THE CHANGE. SEVERAL ASPECTS WERE CONSIDERED FOR AND AGAINST IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE. IN THE END, THE NEIGHBORS INDICATED THAT THEY WERE AGAINST A ZONING CHANGE. A PETITION WAS DRAWN UP AND SIGNED BY NEIGHBORS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. THE PETITION READS AS FOLLOWS -- THE REASON THAT I'M GOING TO READ THIS IS LAST TIME WE WERE TOLD THIS, YOU ARE CURRENTLY IN A RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS WERE NOT PROPERLY INFORMED. ON THE PETITION IT SAYS: REASON OF PROTEST, INADEQUATE SPACE TO ALLOW OFF STREET PARKING. APARTMENTS CURRENTLY TO THE SOUTH OF SAID PROPERTY ARE CONTINUOUSLY PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF A VERY NARROW STREET, CREATING A SAFETY HAZARD. THESE LOTS SIT VERY CLOSE TO WALNUT CREEK WITH INADEQUATE SPACE TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WITH DETENTION POND TO CATCH RUNOFF WATER. THESE LOTS WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR DUPLEXES AS THE AREA IS CURRENTLY A LEACH FIELD FOR THE FOUR UNITS TO THE SOUTH. SINCE THE PETITION WAS SIGNED, ONE NEIGHBOR HAS WITHDRAWN THEIR SIGNATURE. THAT NEIGHBOR HAS JUST BUILT A HOUSE ON A LOT ON THE INSIDE OF THE CORNER OVERLOOKING THE CORNER. THEY HAD NOT MOVED INTO THE HOUSE AND HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED LIFE, WEATHER OR TRAFFIC ON THIS CORNER. AFTER BOARD MEMBERS REVIEWED ALL ASPECTS OF THE REQUEST, WHICH INCLUDED INPUT FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, A VISIT WITH MR. BURN AND HIS ARCHITECT, WHICH WE DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THEY DID, A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL LOCATION, AND A DISCUSSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SAFETY, THE INFORMATION WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE BOARD AND DISCUSSED FURTHER. THE BOARD UPHELD THE VOTE AGAINST THE CHANGE. IF ZONING WERE TO GO THROUGH, IT WOULD ALLOW A TOTAL OF SEVEN DUPLEXES AT OR NEAR THIS CORNER, FOUR EXISTING, ONE NEW ON THE EXISTING S.F. 3 LOT, AND THE ADDITIONAL TWO ON THE CORNER THAT WOULD BE BUILT AS A RESULT OF THIS ACTION. THE POTENTIAL OF 28 OR MORE CARS LOCATED ON A SECTION OF STREET THAT IS LESS THAN 20 FEET WIDE, 17 FEET AT THE CORNER AND A LITTLE OVER 100 YARDS LONG. GRANTED EACH DUPLEX WILL HAVE PARKING FOR FOUR CARS, TWO PER APARTMENT. HOWEVER IF THE TENANTS ATTEMPTED TO PARK IN FRONT OF THEIR RESIDENCES, SUCH AS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SWITCHING CARS IN THE MORNING, THIS WOULD CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD AND POSSIBLY PREVENT EMERGENCY VEHICLES FROM BEING ABLE TO NEGOTIATE THE CORNER. IF THIS ZONING CHANGE IS APPROVED AND THE PARKING PROBLEM IS RESOLVED, WHICH WE DON'T FEEL IS POSSIBLE, THERE WOULD BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE TO OPOSSUM CREEK AND WALNUT CREEK BELOW THE LOTS. ONLY ABOUT HALF THE LOT IS USABLE FOR BUILDING. ON THE BACK HALF OF THESE LOTS ARE STEEP INCLINES, SUCH AS SPRING FED OPOSSUM CREEK AND WALNUT CREEK. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE PARKING MUCH OF THE USABLE LOT WOULD HAVE TO BE IMPERVIOUS COVER. THIS WOULD INCREASE STORM WATER RUNOFF, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION INTO NEARBY BIG WALNUT CREEK. IF FOR SOME REASON YOU DO DECIDE TO GO WITH THIS REQUEST, WE REQUEST THAT YOU REQUIRE OR RECOMMEND A DETENTION POND WITH SEDIMENTATION FILTRATION. THE OWNERS AROUND THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST HAVE PRESENTED A VALID PETITION STATING THEIR DESIRES AGAINST THIS CHANGE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD HAS VOTED TWICE AGAINST THIS CHANGE. LAST MONTH, WHEN THIS REQUEST WAS PRESENTED TO THIS COUNCIL, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS MADE AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE. WE ARE BACK AGAIN NOW FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THAT VOTE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT FELT THE NEIGHBORS WERE MISINFORMED WHEN THEY SIGNED THE PETITION. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN. WHEN THE NORTH LAMAR STUDY WAS DEVELOPED, THERE WAS A REASON THESE TWO LOTS WERE NOT ZONED S.F. 3. WHILE THE OTHER UNDEVELOPED LOT, JUST TO THE SOUTH, NOT ON THE CORNER, WAS ALLOWED THE ZONING. ALLOWING THE S.F. 3 ZONING JUST BECAUSE DUPLEXES ARE ALREADY THERE IS NOT A VALID REASON FOR THESE TWO LOTS TO BE REZONE. THIS IS NOT A VALID REASON TO CHANGE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN. THE MAJORITY OF ADJOINING NEIGHBORS TO THESE LOTS AS REPRESENTED BY A VALID PETITION [BUZZER SOUNDING] AND THE WALNUT CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE COUNCIL VOTE WITH STAFF POSITION AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU MR. TOBIAS.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. TOBIAS, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER HAS A QUESTION.

SLUSHER: YOU SAID, WAS IT FOUR DUPLEXES -- HOW MANY DUPLEXES DO YOU SAY YOU THOUGHT COULD BE BUILT AS A RESULT OF THIS IF THIS WERE APPROVED.

THERE IS CURRENTLY AN S.F. 3 LOT ALREADY THERE TO THE SOUTH OF -- NOT SHOWING ON THIS MAP, BUT SOUTH OF EXISTING DUPLEXES, IT'S S.F. 3, AN EMPTY LOT, CURRENTLY THE LEACH FIELD FOR THE DUPLEXES THAT THERE ARE. IN TWO YEARS, POSSIBLY MORE, WE SHOULD HAVE SEPTIC SYSTEM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AT THAT TIME I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THE EXISTING DUPLEXES WILL HOOK UP TO THE SEWER SYSTEM AND AT THAT TIME THAT S.F. 3 LOT CAN IN FACT BE BUILT WITH ANOTHER DUPLEX ON IT. THEN THEY ARE ASKING FOR THIS REZONING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW TWO MORE DUPLEXES. ULTIMATELY IN LET'S SAY FIVE YEARS WE WILL HAVE SIX MORE DUPLEXES RIGHT THERE ON THAT CORNER.

SLUSHER: THAT WOULDN'T BE AS A RESULT OF ANY ACTION THAT WE WOULD TAKE TONIGHT.

TONIGHT THE ACTION WOULD BE ADDING -- THE POSSIBILITY OF FOUR MORE DUPLEXES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. WHICH TWO --

TWO MORE DUPLEXES, FOUR MORE UNITS.

OKAY. BECAUSE OF -- IF THEY BUILT IT ON BOTH THESE --

IF THEY BUILT IT ON BOTH LOTS.

THEY ARE ONLY ASKING FOR ONE NOW, AREN'T THEY-

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD YET OFFICIALLY.

OKAY. AND THEN WHERE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHERE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES, NOT BEING ABLE TO NEGOTIATE --

ON THE CORNER ITSELF.

SLUSHER: I-35 --

RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF RAND AND I-35 --

NO.

SLUSHER: [MULTIPLE VOICES]

INSTEAD OF A 90-DEGREE CORNER, IT'S KIND OF A SWEEPING CURVE MUCH.

SLUSHER: I WILL ASK STAFF ABOUT THAT LATER.

ON THE INSIDE OF THAT CURVE IS A FIVE FOOT -- [MULTIPLE VOICES]

RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE TWO SUBJECT PROPERTIES. THANK YOU, I WILL ASK STAFF ABOUT THAT LATER, THANK YOU.

IS THERE SOMETHING MISSING, THOUGH, IN TERMS OF THE PETITION TO REQUEST ONLY ONE OF TWO- OF THE LOTS- I --

SLUSHER: I THINK YOU MIGHT BE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD BY MY OFFICE A COUPLE OF DAYS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GO FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON ONE OF THE LOTS AND A DUPLEX ON THE OTHER. [INAUDIBLE] WILL PROBABLY ADDRESS THAT WHEN HE GETS UP.

IN REGARD TO THAT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION STILL STAND BEHIND THE NORTH LAMAR STUDY WHICH IS WE ARE NOT WILLING TO CHANGE BECAUSE NOTHING HAS EFFECTIVELY CHANGED IN THIS SECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. TOBIAS. MS. LILLIAN DIS-- FUHOS-

THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE, ACTUALLY. MY NAME IS LILLIAN [INAUDIBLE], I LIVE AT 700 RAND AVENUE RIGHT NEXT TO THE TWO EMPTY LOTS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING FOR THIS S.F. 3. I WILL JUST GO AHEAD AND READ THE LETTER THAT I E-MAILED YOU. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE BEEN HERE, SO BEAR WITH ME. BUT -- THAT I E-MAILED TO YOU ABOUT A MONTH AGO. I WAS INFORMED THAT MIKE BURN WANTS TO BUILD TWO DUPLEXES ON HIS LOTS LOCATED AT 1208, 120008 AND 120010 POLLYANNA AVENUE, THESE LOTS SIT ADJACENT TO MY RESIDENCE AT 700 RAND. I PURCHASED MY HOME WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE LOTS WERE ZONED S.F. 1. I DO NOT -- I DON'T FEEL THAT THESE DUPLEXES FITS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DEVELOPED IN NORTH LAMAR STUDY OF THE -- OF '84. THE CURRENT LOCATIONS ADJOINING THIS PROPERTY ARE CURRENTLY A SOURCE OF A PARKING PROBLEM IN THIS AREA. ACTUALLY, I EXPERIENCE THAT FIRSTHAND AS I DRIVE THROUGH. THERE ARE -- YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE TWO OR THREE DUPLEXES THERE. AND THE CARS PARK ON ONE SIDE AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THEY PARK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. SO THERE'S TWO CARS -- THERE'S TWO FULL AREAS, SO WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH, IT'S A TOTAL BLIND SPOT WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD. ADDING MORE DUPLEXES WILL ONLY AGGRAVATE THE SITUATION. LET ME GO AHEAD AND DESCRIBE, WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE DOWN POLLYANNA, YOU WILL SEE -- YOU WILL SEE LIKE A DEAD END SIGN SAYING -- I DON'T WANT TO -- I DON'T RECALL WHAT IT SAYS, BUT IT'S A SIGN TURNING SHARPLY TO THE RIGHT. OKAY- YOU DRIVE DOWN AND YOU TURN RIGHT. AND IT'S A COMPLETE BLIND SPOT WHEN YOU DRIVE RIGHT. THERE'S CARS PARKED ON THIS SIDE AND ON THIS SIDE. BASICALLY, YOU HAVE TO GO REALLY SLOW TO LOOK TO SEE WHICH CARS ARE COMING IN FROM THE FREEWAY. BECAUSE NOT ONLY IS THIS STREET USED FOR -- FOR JUST THE NEIGHBORHOODS, IT IS USED ALSO FOR A -- FOR A SHORTCUT FOR THE PEOPLE, FOR THE DRIVERS ON THE I-35 FREEWAY CUTTING THROUGH TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DRIVERS ON BRAKER CUTTING THROUGH TO GET ON I-35. SO -- SO THEY CUT IN, YOU KNOW, THAT AREA AND THEY GO VERY, VERY FAST. JUST TRYING TO CUT IN THROUGH THE SHORTCUT. THIS IS A CONSTANT SOURCE OF A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND WE SEE THIS ALL THE TIME. I HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVEN YEARS. I LOVE IT. I CARE FOR IT VERY MUCH. THAT'S WHY I FELT VERY STRONGLY ABOUT COMING HERE. I BOUGHT MY HOUSE IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD TWO YEARS AGO. AND CHILDREN COME DOWN -- [BUZZER SOUNDING] OKAY. CHILDREN COME DOWN, I WILL GO AHEAD AND END THIS, IN ADDITION, ALSO -- WELL, MY MAIN CONCERN IS CHILDREN GO DOWN AND WALK EVERY DAY DOWN THAT CORNER. MY MAIN CONCERN IS IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO CHILDREN, WALKING AROUND THIS CORNER, IT IS A COMPLETE BLIND SPOT. AND MY FEAR IS -- IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHILDREN, THE TRAFFIC, THE -- THE EMERGENCY CARS GOING THROUGH, AND SO FORTH. IN CONCLUSION THE STORM WATER COMING DOWN THE STREET TRAVELLING TO THE NORTH PASSES VERY CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY. I'VE HAD FLOODING CLOSE TO THE HOUSE ALREADY, INSTALLATION OF THESE DUPLEXES WILL DIRECT RAIN WATER TOWARD MY PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ANNEXATION OF OUR AREA AND THE UPGRADE IN SERVICES DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PROVISION FOR STORM WATER CONTROL. BASICALLY, MAIN CONCERN, THE STORM WATER IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CHILDREN ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY COME DOWN, I HAVE A NEPHEW THAT COMES -- COMES A LOT TO MY HOME. MY SISTER AND HUSBAND, MY NEPHEW COMES DOWN TO SEE ME WITH HIS FRIENDS. CHILDREN COME DOWN FROM THE SCHOOL, COMING EVERY DAY FROM THAT ROAD. NO SIDEWALKS LIKE MR. TOBIAS WHO EXPLAINED.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

WYNN: MA'AM, COULD YOU JUST POINT --

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. BURN -- I MEAN MS. --

SORRY.

WYNN: JUST POINT TO YOUR PROPERTY ON THE MAP.

YES. MY PROPERTY IS -- IS [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

WHERE IS YOUR HOUSE-

MY HOUSE IS RIGHT HERE.

WYNN: OKAY, THANK YOU, YES, MA'AM.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

WYNN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: JULIE BURN. FOLLOWING MS. BURN, MARK PATTERSON, REGISTERED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK AND IN FAVOR. FRED BERNARD, REGISTERED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, AND IN FAVOR OF. AND THEN MR. FRANCISCO ALLEJO WILL FOLLOW MS. BURN, WELCOME.

THANK YOU. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME, I WILL BE VERY SHORT HERE. I HAVE TWO CHILDREN AND MY CHILDREN EVERY DAY WALK DOWN THIS -- THIS LOCATION AROUND THE CURVE AND I'M SCARED ALMOST EVERY DAY BECAUSE CARS DO COME FROM THE ACCESS ROAD THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION OF RAND AVENUE AND COME UP POLLYANNA AND ALSO THE VEHICLES FROM BRAKER LANE COME DOWN FROM POLLYANNA TO GET TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON THE ACCESS ROAD OF 35 ON BRAKER LANE. EVERY DAY WHEN I DO GO THROUGH THERE, THERE ARE NUMEROUS VEHICLES PARKED ON THE ROAD OF POLLYANNA AS THE CORNERS AND WE DO HAVE EMERGENCY VEHICLES THAT DO COME THROUGH FROM AFTER -- FROM AFTER THE FIRE TRUCKS AND E.M.S. VEHICLES TRYING TO COME OUT AND I FEEL THAT WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR -- FOR ADDING ON TWO MORE DUPLEXES BECAUSE OF THE PARKING. NOT BEING ACCESSIBLE. THAT'S ALL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. BURN. FRANCISCO ALFERRO. AND FOLLOWING HIM IS MARIA ALFERRO. WELCOME, SIR.

MY NAME IS FRANCISCO ALFERRO AND WE ARE MOVING INTO THAT HOUSE. AS YOU NOTICE, MY WIFE JUST STOPPED BY TO PICK ME UP BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY. IT IS TRUE THAT WE HAVEN'T MOVED THERE YET. I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THAT HOUSE SINCE JULY. AND I RECENTLY RETIRED FOR THE SECOND TIME. ON THE 19TH OF SEPTEMBER. SO I HAVE BEEN WORKING THERE ALMOST EVERY DAY. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID AS FAR AS PARKING IS -- IT IS TRUE. A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, I TRIED TO PULL INTO MY PLACE TO GO TO WORK BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING, I'M BUILDING THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE, AND I COULDN'T FIND A SPOT TO PARK THERE. SO I LOOKED AROUND AND THE VEHICLES THAT WERE THERE DIDN'T BELONG TO THE -- THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE THAT WERE WORKING ON THE HOUSE, JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MY HOUSE, WHERE THE HOUSE IS BEING BUILT -- [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU COULD GET THAT MIC, PULL IT OUT, THEN YOU CAN SPEAK INTO THE MIC.

AND I NOTICED THE PEOPLE WHO PARK ON MY SIDE -- MY HOUSE IS ACTUALLY RIGHT HERE ON THIS SIDE. AND AS I WAS TRYING TO PARK ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET, THESE TWO VEHICLES THAT WERE ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET, AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE, I NOTICED THAT WERE WORKING ON THIS HOUSE. AS FAR AS EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND WHAT HAVE YOU, I DID NOTICE A -- A VEHICLE FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT I -- LIKE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS DOING, BUT APPARENTLY HE WASN'T TOO CONCERNED AS FAR AS SAFETY BECAUSE HE PARKED ACROSS THE STREET RIGHT HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AND IT WAS FACING DOWN TOWARDS THE -- TOWARDS THE WASHOFF. IT HAPPENED TO BE RAINING A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO AND WHEN I SAW HIM PARK THERE, I WENT OVER AND SAW, OR I ASKED HIM, I SAID, "ARE YOU HAVING SOME PROBLEMS-" BECAUSE HE WAS ACTUALLY PARKED ACROSS THE STREET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. SO APPARENTLY HE WASN'T TOO CONCERNED AS FAR AS SAFETY OR WHETHER IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM AS FAR AS VEHICLES COMING FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET, EITHER FROM POLLYANNA, FROM -- IF HE WAS GOING TO BE RAN OVER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I STOPPED, I CAME OUT OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE I NOTICED WHAT HE WAS DOING, I ASKED, "ARE YOU HAVING SOME PROBLEMS-" HE SAID, "NO, I'M JUST LOOKING DOWN HERE." I GUESS THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT THE WATER RUNNING DOWN THE STREET. AND I REALLY DON'T SEE, AS FAR AS -- COMING HERE TALKING FOR MIKE AND I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS. I -- I NOTICE WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO. AND JUST LIKE WE WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD THE HOUSE THERE, I THINK HE SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED TO DO THE SAME. AND THAT'S IT, THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. ALFERRO. MARIA ALFERRO.

I HAVE ADDRESSED YOU BEFORE. I'M MARIA ALFERRO. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU 10 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD ALLOW HIM, OKAY. NO, MIKE IS NOT A MILLIONAIRE BUILDING A DUPLEX IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. HE'S LIKE ME WORKING FOR THE STATE APPEARED HE ALSO LIVES THERE. NUMBER 9, NEIGHBORS DON'T HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE VALUES OF THEIR HOME COMING DOWN. BUT MY NEW HOME HAS ALREADY DONE THAT FOR THEM. NUMBER 8 THE PLAN DOES SHOW ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE NEW TENANTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE YOU DOING A DAVID LETTERMAN ON ME-

YES, SIR. [ LAUGHTER ]

NUMBER 7, THE PLANS THAT THE BUILDER SHOWED US IS CERTAINLY GOING TO ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NUMBER 6, PEOPLE LIVING NEARBY WILL ADD TO KEEPING AN EYE ON OUR PROPERTY WHEN WE GO ON OUR TRIPS TO UTAH TO SKI. NUMBER 5, ONLY A COUPLE OF UNITS BEING BUILT, THAN A HUGE APARTMENT COMPLEX LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU ALLOWED TO BE BUILT IN THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH HAS THE SAME AMOUNT OF LAND THAT HE DOES, AND WHERE YOU ALLOWED 48 UNITS TO BE BUILT. ONLY FOUR UNITS HERE. NUMBER 4, NO LONGER AN EMPTY LOT WHERE HOMELESS HIDE. THERE ARE HOMELESS PEOPLE THERE. I HAVE SEEN MATTRESSES DOWN THERE. I WALK DOWN THE CREEK. MY DAUGHTER AND I. MY DAUGHTER IS RIGHT HERE. OKAY. WE BOTH WENT DOWN THE CREEK TO CHECK IT OUT. SEE WHAT WAS AVAILABLE. WE SAW FISH IN THE CREEK, BUT WE ALSO SAW HOMELESS HANGING AROUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THE EMPTY LOTS. OKAY. NOT IN HIS LOTS, BUT NEAR THE CREEK. NUMBER 3, HIGHER TAX BASE FOR THE CITY TO COLLECT MORE TAXES. IF YOU BUILD A SINGLE HOME, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO COLLECT AS MANY TAXES AS ON A DUPLEX. NUMBER 2, KNOWING WHAT THE PLANS LOOK LIKE, WE KNOW WHAT IS BEING BUILT. THEN IF MIKE WAS TO SELL TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND WE WOULD HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WAS BEING BUILT THERE. AND NUMBER 1, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT I ATTENDED AND THE BARTON SPRINGS CONFERENCES DID VOTE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE DUPLEXES TO BE BUILT. AND I WAS THERE AT THAT MEETING. AND THAT'S -- I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO SAY THAT I'M RIGHT ADJACENT TO HIM. I WILL BE RIGHT ACROSS, LIKE ME LOOKING AT YOU, MAYOR GARCIA. THAT'S WHERE HIS PROPERTY WILL BE AT. HE HAS -- HE HAS AMENDED IT. HE'S NOT BUILDING TWO DUPLEXES, HE'S BUILDING ONLY ONE, I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS. I MOVED FROM THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE TOO MANY UNITS WERE BUILT RIGHT THERE IN OUR EXIT AREA TO RIVERSIDE. OKAY- THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A BURDEN TO US. OKAY- THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. ALFERRO. JIM BENNETT- WELCOME, MR. BENNETT.

THANK YOU, SIR. MAYOR APPEARED COUNCIL, I'M JIM BENNETT HERE TONIGHT AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD IN DISCUSSING THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAD, INCLUDING THE LADY WHO LIVES IN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, AS YOU CAN SEE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PLAN, WE WOULD WISH TO -- COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE ZONING ONLY ON THIS LOT, WHICH IS LOT 5. AND WE WILL BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THIS LOT ADJACENT TO THIS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. SO YOU WOULD HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, A DUPLEX AND THE OTHER DUPLEXES ON THE ROAD THAT EXISTS. SO IN YOUR CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE ELECTED TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HERE SO WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT A DUPLEX. ONE DUPLEX ON THIS 30,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. RELATIVE TO THE PARKING, THIS PLAN MEETS YOUR CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING AND IT HAS -- IT HAS AMPLE CUING SPACE FOR ANY VISITORS THAT SHOULD BE COMING TO VISIT. WE HAVE A -- WE HAVE A PARKING GARAGE HERE FOR THE DUPLEX AND A CARPORT HERE, WHICH GIVES US FOUR SPACES AND THIS CUING SPACE HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE, SHOULD TAKE CARE OF ACCOMMODATING ANY TRAFFIC, VISITORS THAT SHOULD BE COMING TO OUR SITE. RELATIVE TO THE PETITION, IT IS STILL A VALID PETITION. I THINK THAT MR. GUERNSEY WILL REPORT TO YOU LATER THAT IT -- EVEN THOUGH IT IS STILL VALID, IT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL PETITION. TWO PETITIONERS HAVE WITHDRAWN. AND IN ADDITION, I HAVE -- I HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE PEOPLE OUTLINED IN THESE -- IF YOU WILL NOTE, WHEN YOU GET THOSE COUNCILMEMBERS, THAT THOSE PEOPLE IDENTIFIED IN YELLOW, WE HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THIS REQUEST WHICH ARE THE PEOPLE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. THERE ARE STILL PETITIONERS, IT IS STILL A VALID PETITION. I'M NOT TRYING TO IMPLY THAT IT'S NOT. IT HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM ITS ORIGINAL PETITION. I THINK THE EXACT FIGURE NOW IS 24 INSTEAD OF THE 35 AS ORIGINALLY REPORTED TO YOU. TWO PEOPLE DID WITHDRAW THEIR NAME FROM THE PETITION. WE ARE NOT BUILDING MULTI-FAMILY, WE ARE BUILDING ONE DUPLEX ON THAT LOT 5 IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD. WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF THE CITY PUTTING A NO PARKING SIGN IN FRONT OF OUR TWO BUILDINGS ON THIS CURVE OF THIS STREET IF THAT SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE CARS THAT ARE IN THE AREA ARE COMING FROM THE AREA FROM THEIR INTERNAL TRAFFIC, FROM WHAT I'VE UNDERSTOOD. [BUZZER SOUNDING] RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES -- [BUZZER SOUNDING] -- THE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND EVERYTHING IS THE SAME. WITH THE S.F. 1 I THINK IT'S 40 AND 45. THIS PLAN THAT YOU SEE HERE REPRESENTS A 25 TO 30% IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO WE DON'T THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE ANY MORE IMPACT THAN A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WOULD HAVE ON THAT 30,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. I WILL BE AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. MR. WALDEN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

BECAUSE OF THE -- BECAUSE OF THOSE CONCERNS WE'VE MADE THIS CHANGE HERE AND THAT DRY CREEK BED THAT'S BEHIND THIS AREA, I DIDN'T KNOW IT TO EVER HAVE A NAME. OPOSSUM CREEK I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT NAME CAME FROM. IT'S BEEN A DRY CREEK BED FOR ALL THE DECADES THAT I HAVE KNOWN IT. AND THERE'S WATER THERE JUST WHEN IT RAINS. AND IT PRETTY WELL GOES ON. AND THE FELLOW BEHIND THIS PROPERTY, WHERE THE -- WHERE THE CITY HAS AN 18-MONTH LEASE ON THE LAND WHERE THE PAPER IS COVERING THAT LOT, TO PARK THEIR EQUIPMENT THERE WHILE THE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON FOR THE WASTEWATER IN THE SUBDIVISION AND TO ALSO INSTALL THE WASTEWATER LINE ACROSS THE EDGE OF THE LOT, 15-FOOT DOWN TO THE CREEK, IT HAS TO GO ACROSS ONE MORE MAN'S LAND, WHICH IS THE GLASSMAN OWNER, JACK PILAFF ON THE SERVICE ROAD. SO HE HAS WORKED OUT WITH THE CITY AN AGREEMENT TO BRING IT ACROSS HIS LAND TO GET TO WALNUT CREEK. THAT'S THE OTHER PIECE OF HOW ALL THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE. AND WE JUST FEEL LIKE THAT WITH -- WITH THE BUFFER WE ARE GIVING THERE, THAT DUPLEX, JUST ONE DUPLEX ON THAT BIG OF A LOT WILL -- WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM AND WE JUST APPRECIATE YOUR HELP IN -- IN HELPING US GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WALDEN. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, IS THERE A SECOND- SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF-

WYNN: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN-

WYNN: MR. GUERNSEY, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM, SO WHAT IS THE ZONING APPLICATION HERE BEFORE US NOW-

GURENSEY: WELL, OFFICIALLY, NOW IT'S BEEN ACTUALLY SAID ON THE RECORD, THE REQUEST IS ONLY FOR THE WESTERN PROPERTY. AND THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS KNOWN AS LOT 5, IS THE ONE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED FOR S.F. 3 ZONING AND S.F. -- OR LOT NUMBER 6 IS ONLY BEING REQUESTED FOR S.F. 1 AT THIS TIME.

WYNN: WHICH IS ITS CURRENT ZONING, CORRECT-

WHICH IS ITS CURRENT ZONING.

WYNN: SO THIS HAS BEEN AMENDED TO BE A SINGLE LOT REZONING, NOT A DUAL LOT REZONING.

GURNSEY: THAT'S CORRECT. WITH THAT CHANGE I HAVE ALSO BEEN GIVEN AN INDICATION THAT TWO OF THE NAMES HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE PETITION. AND I WILL -- AS WELL AS FRANCIS AND MARIA ACROSS THE STREET, ANOTHER PROPERTY OPENER TO THE REAR THAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL PETITION HAS WITHDRAWN THEIR NAME, IT'S NOW APPROXIMATELY 24.7%. IT'S STILL VALID, BUT IT HAS BEEN REDUCED.

WYNN: OKAY. AND IF YOU CAN -- REMIND ME WHAT WOULD BE THE -- THE PROCESS AT THIS -- IF THIS WAS REZONED, THE ISSUE IS APPARENTLY ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD AND PERHAPS EVEN THE TURNING RADII OF THE STREET ITSELF, NOT THE LOTS. IN ADDITION TO ZONING, ARE THERE OTHER SORT OF SITE PLAN APPROVALS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT -- THAT ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT, TRAFFIC, PARKING CONCERNS, WHERE DOES ALL OF THAT TAKE PLACE, IF AT ALL-

GURNSEY: WELL, THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY SUBDIVIDED. THERE'S NO SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR A DUPLEX. THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO PROCEED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. AT THE TIME THE BUILDING PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR, WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS ADEQUATE PARKING ON THE PROPERTY, THERE BE A NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH. TYPICALLY THERE'S A SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT ON MOST OF THE SUBDIVISIONS, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS ONE ACTUALLY HAD THAT REQUIREMENT OR NOT. WE WOULD ENSURE THAT IT MEETS IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION, WHICH FOR S.F. 3 WOULD BE 45% ON THE ADJACENT LOT THAT'S NOT BEING REZONED, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER IS 40. I THINK MR. BENNETT INDICATED IT WOULD BE LESS THAN EVEN 40 EVEN FOR THIS DUPLEX LOT. WE CHECK THE SETBACKS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, BUT THERE WOULD NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE REQUIRED OF THE PROPERTY OPENER TO THE ROADWAY ITSELF. NOR WOULD THERE BE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR A DETENTION POND OR FILTRATION POND WITH THE DUPLEX LOT, JUST LIKE THERE WOULD NOT BE FOR ANY OTHER DUPLEX OR SINGLE FAMILY LOT IN THE CITY WHEN IT'S RESUBDIVIDED AT THIS TIME.

WYNN: OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF- MR. BENNETT-

MR. MAYOR, I FAILED TO POINT OUT TO YOU. I THINK GREG SAID TO YOU, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF LOTS. THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT NO RESUBDIVISION OCCURRED. WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT TO GIVE THAT ASSURANCE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

WYNN: SORRY, MAYOR, ANOTHER QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN-

WYNN: MR. BENNETT, WHILE YOU ARE UP, PLEASE, SIR. SO WHAT WAS PASSED OUT TO US EARLIER, WHAT WE SEE ARE THE OPPOSING OR PETITION TRACTS ADJACENT TO THE TRACT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND WHAT -- WHAT WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, THIS SHOWS HERE IT RELATES NO OPPOSITION, IS IT REPRESENTS NO OPPOSITION OR THE APPLICANT HAS -- HAS ACTUAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT --

WE HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THOSE PEOPLE IDENTIFIED IN THE SHADED YELLOW AREA.

WYNN: SO THEY RESPONDED EITHER SUPPORTED OR NO OPPOSITION.

AFTER HAVING -- MEETING WITH US ABOUT WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, WE HAVE LETTERS FROM THEM SAYING THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST THAT WE ARE PROPOSING.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR, COUNCIL, I NEED TO CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT PUT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON RE-- PROHIBITING RESUBDIVISION BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADVISED THAT IT COULD NOT DO THAT. OR RATHER ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. WHAT THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION DID WAS THAT -- THERE WAS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT TO ONE DUPLEX ON EACH LOT AND NO MORE THAN FOUR TOTAL LIVING UNITS ON THE 1.095 ACRES.

GURENSEY: AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT IS NOW WILLING TO AGREE THAT THERE WOULD BE ONE DUPLEX OR TWO UNITS ON THAT WESTERN LOT OR LOT 5.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS, FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF-

SLUSHER: I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE TURNING RADIUS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

I'M NOT AWARE OF A PROBLEM GETTING EMERGENCY VEHICLES THROUGH THIS AREA. THE CONDITIONS WOULD NOT CHANGE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE TWO TRACTS. I SEE RIGHT NOW THAT THE FIRE TRUCKS OR POLICE CARS OR WHATEVER ARE MAKING IT THROUGH. WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THE ISSUE OF PROHIBITING PARKING, ON STREET PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FRONT OF THESE TWO LOTS TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT PROBLEM AS THE AGENT SUGGESTED.

SLUSHER: WELL, YEAH, I WOULD ONLY WANT TO DO THAT IF -- IF OUR EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENTS THOUGHT THAT WAS A PROBLEM. I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IT JUST BECAUSE WE THINK IT MIGHT BE. SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

GURNSEY: WHAT WE CAN DO, THIS IS ONLY FIRST READING. SHOULD YOU ACT FAVORABLY ON IT, STAFF BETWEEN NOW AND SECOND AND THIRD READING CAN CONTACT OUR EMERGENCY SERVICES AND INQUIRE ABOUT THE ACCESS TO THAT ROADWAY AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THEY HAVE FOR -- FOR IMPROVEMENTS OR PROHIBITING PARKING IN THAT AREA THAT MIGHT MAKE THEIR JOB A LITTLE EASIER TO GET THROUGH THERE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THAT WILL WORK.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR, I HAD ONE QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ-

ALVAREZ: THERE WAS ONE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT HAS TO DO MORE WITH THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. I GUESS THERE'S NO CENTRALIZED SEWER AT THIS TIME THERE- SO IS IT -- IS THIS LOT BIG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR THE --

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WON'T OCCUR ON THIS LOT UNTIL THE SEWER IS ACTUALLY IN PLACE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM ON THIS LOT TO HOUSE THE SEPTIC FIELD.

ALVAREZ: OKAY, THANKS.

COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, IF I CAN FOLLOW UP, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE GRANTED AN EASEMENT FOR THE CITY TO START INSTALLING SEWER TO THIS AREA BY COMING THAT ONE LOT THAT WE IDENTIFIED WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BUILD THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. WE CAN'T BUILD ON OUR LOTS UNTIL THE CITY SEWER IS AVAILABLE. WE ARE GOING TO CONNECT TO THE CITY SEWER WHEN IT IS INSTALLED AND IT'S IN THE PROGRESS OF BEING DONE NOW. SO WE WON'T HAVE A SEPTIC TANK I THINK IS THE FINAL ANSWER.

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

WYNN: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN-

WYNN: FIRST AND FOREMOST, BASED ON THE FACT THIS IS ONLY READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY, I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF THE S.F. 3 ZONING ON THE WESTERN TRACT ONLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN FOR FIRST READING APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND-

SLUSHER: I WILL SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS THAT YOU WANT TO ISSUE TO THE STAFF WHO WILL WORK BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THIRD READINGS-

WYNN: WELL, SEVERAL THINGS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S AN EXISTING ISSUE ON JUST THAT -- THAT TURN IN THE STREET THERE. AND IF WE COULD CLARIFY IMPERVIOUS COVER ISSUES BETWEEN S.F. 1 AND S.F. 3 AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT HAS ENOUGH PRELIMINARY WORK -- PLANNING WORK DONE, BUT IT COULD BE THAT WE END UP EVEN -- YOU KNOW, TO CONFIRM AND LIMIT THE -- THE S.F. 3 IMPERVIOUS COVER LEVEL TO BE NO MORE THAN S.F. 1. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ANALYSIS BEFORE THAT MOTION PERHAPS IS MADE ON THE SECOND READING, IF THERE'S STILL SUPPORT.

THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION OF S.F. 1 IS 40%. AND FOR S.F. 3 IT'S 45. THAT'S WHAT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION WOULD BE. THE -- MAYOR, IF I MAY, I WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION THAT THE OWNER, I THINK, AGREED TO HAVE ONE DUPLEX WITH TWO UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY AND -- AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS PART OF THE MOTION OR NOT.

WYNN: FRANKLY I WOULD BE PREPARED TO DO THAT AT THE SECOND AND/OR THIRD READING IF THIS GETS THAT FAR, BUT MIGHT AS WELL GIVE THE APPLICANT TWO WEEKS OR HOWEVER LONG TO DO THAT QUICK ANALYSIS AND MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH -- FRANKLY WHAT I WOULD RATHER SEE TO MAKE SURE THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING BACK BEHIND THE STRUCTURE. I WOULD HATE TO JUST IN A SHORT SIGHTED WAY SORT OF ARBITRARILY LIMIT IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THEN HIM NOT BE ABLE TO PARK AS MANY CARS BEHIND THE STRUCTURE AS HE THINKS HE CAN NOW.

I WAS MORE SPEAKING TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS, NOT NECESSARILY --

SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER- THAT WAS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE Z.A.P. RECOMMENDATION --

GURNSEY: ACTUALLY BOTH LOTS, BUT ONE DUPLEX PER LOT, MORE THAN TWO UNITS WOULD EQUATE TO THIS ON EACH LOT.

IT DOES NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER. IT SIMPLY LIMITS THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE PROPERTY, COUNCILMEMBER.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AS THE SECONDER, I PREFER THAT THAT BE IN THERE.

WYNN: I WILL ACCEPT THAT.

GURENSEY: MR. BENNETT JUST INTERJECTED OVER MY SHOULDER THAT HIS CLIENT WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO LIMIT THIS PROPERTY TO 40%. THE SAME AS S.F. 1.

WYNN: I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE THAT, TOO, IF THE SECOND WOULD --

SLUSHER: I WILL ACCEPT THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND, AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE PARTIES.

GOODMAN: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM-

GOODMAN: I JUST WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT I KNOW WHAT THE MOTION IS, WHICH I THINK IS NO LONGER TWO LOTS WITH A DUPLEX EACH, BUT TWO LOTS TOGETHER WITH ONE UNIT, BUT A DUPLEX. RIGHT- SO WE ARE LIMITING THE UNITS TO ONE-

GURNSEY: THE ONLY LOT THAT I UNDERSTAND IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING IS LOT 6, WHICH WOULD BE FOR A DUPLEX. THEN LOT -- WHICH WOULD BE FOR A DUPLEX. EXCUSE ME LOT 5. LOT 6 TO THE EAST WOULD REMAIN S.F. 1, THAT WOULD PERMIT THEM TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. BUT I UNDERSTOOD THAT MR. BENNETT HAS WITHDRAWN THAT LOT FOR CONSIDERATION FOR S.F. 3 ZONING. SO YOU ARE JUST LEFT WITH THE ONE LOT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. GOOD THAT I ASKED. THE NEXT TIME THAT WE HAVE AN ISSUE COME UP RELATIVE TO EASE OR DIFFICULTY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, CAN WE RUN THAT BY FIRE AND E.M.S. SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THEIR INPUT AS WELL-

GURNSEY: YES, MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION- THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR FIRST READING. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO-

NO, NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 2, TO BE ABLE TO PASS THIS THERE WILL HAVE TO BE SIX VOTES AT THIRD READING. SO -- OR IF PEOPLE CAN WORK WITH THE FOLKS THAT HAVE FILED THE VALID PETITION, THEY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT BETWEEN FIRST AND THIRD READING -- FIRST AND SECOND AND THIRD READING. OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES THE TIME CERTAIN ITEMS FOR ZONING HEARINGS AND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCES AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. NOW WE GO TO ITEM NO. 13. MR. GUERNSEY.

I BELIEVE THIS IS YOUR LAST ITEM. ITEM NO. 13 TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 020404-13 TO CORRECT THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE VILLAS ON GUADALUPE LOCATED AT 2701 TO 2717 GUADALUPE STREET, 2804 THROUGH 2816 HEMPHILL PARK. ON APRIL 4TH THE CITY COUNCIL -- OF THIS YEAR -- COUNCIL APPROVED AN ORDINANCE FOR THE ABOVE -- FOR THIS PROPERTY ON THIRD READINGS WITH SEVERAL CONDITIONS. BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS THAT TOOK PLACE AT THAT THIRD READING, IT APPEARS IT WAS COUNCIL'S INTENT TO ALLOW A DENSITY OF UP TO 150 UNITS. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL LAND AREA WAS USED FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS, THIS WOULD BE THE -- THE AREA REQUIRED PER EACH UNIT TYPE, NOT NECESSARILY THE SIZE OF THE UNIT, BUT HOW MUCH LAND AREA YOU ACTUALLY NEED FOR A ONE BEDROOM UNIT OR HOW MUCH LAND AREA YOU NEED FOR A TWO BEDROOM UNIT. IF YOU WERE TO DO THOSE CALCULATIONS, THEY COULD NEVER ACHIEVE THE 150 UNITS. SO THIS -- THIS CORRECTION WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT UP TO BUT NO MORE THAN 150 UNITS IN SOME COMBINATION OF ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE HERE ON THIS ITEM. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM FOR YOU AT THIS TIME. STAFF DID INCLUDE THE -- SEVERAL PAGES, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PAGES EXACTLY, TRANSCRIPT FROM THE LAST MEETING. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS OF MR. GUERNSEY-

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR I DO HAVE ONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM-

GOODMAN: I AM NOT TOTALLY CLEAR WHAT WE ARE DOING. IS THIS IN ESSENCE OUR FIRST VOTE OVER AGAIN OR IS THIS MERELY A VOTE ON CORRECTING --

MAYOR GARCIA: I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION. APPARENTLY IT'S A LITTLE OF BOTH. THEY ARE CHANGING SOMETHING HERE AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE ERROR WAS MADE. AND WHO MADE THE ERROR. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT -- WHAT YOU ARE ASKING IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

GOODMAN: WELL AND THAT RELATIVE TO VALID PETITION AND ALL OF THAT KIND OF THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: ABSOLUTELY.

GURENSEY: THE NUMBERS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU, THAT SPEAKS TO THE MINIMUM LAND REQUIRED FOR UNIT TYPE, EITHER ONE BEDROOM OR TWO BEDROOM. WHEN THE NUMBERS WERE CREATED THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY COULD UTILIZE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, THE LAND IN WHICH THEY OWN. IN REALITY THOSE NUMBERS ONLY APPLY TO THE AREA BEING REZONED, WHICH WAS SMALLER THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN. SO WHEN YOU CALCULATE THOSE NUMBERS, IF YOU TRY TO CALCULATE THE NUMBERS BASED ON TOTAL PROPERTY AREA, THEN THEY COULD ACHIEVE THE 150 GIVEN THOSE NUMBERS. IF YOU CALCULATE AREA JUST BEING REZONED, YOU COULD NOT ACHIEVE 150 UNITS. AND THAT'S WHAT STAFF UNDERSTANDS THAT COUNCIL WAS DISCUSSING, SOME MEMBERS VOTED TO DENY, SOME MEMBERS VOTED FOR.

GOODMAN: WELL, THAT PART I UNDERSTAND. BUT WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHAT THE VOTE WE ARE TAKING TONIGHT IS. IS IT AS IF WE HAD NEVER VOTED AT ALL AND WE ARE VOTING ON THE CASE AS A WHOLE AS IF IT WERE JUST NOW COMING TO US AND IN FACT THE VALID PETITION STANDS FOR THIS VOTE- OR IS THAT PART ALL OVER AND WHAT WE ARE DOING IS VOTING TO CORRECT A CODIFICATION ERROR-

WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU COUNCILMEMBER IS A CORRECTED ORDINANCE, IT IS AN ORDINANCE THAT IS DRAFTED TO CORRECT THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE SO THAT YOUR INTENT WAS ACHIEVED CONCERNING THE 150 UNITS. IT IS -- IT IS NOT A REZONING. IT IS NOT -- IT IS NOT UNDOING WHAT YOU HAVE DONE BEFORE OR DOING IT ALL OVER AGAIN. IT IS MERELY CORRECTING THAT ORDINANCE TO ACHIEVE YOUR INTENT BECAUSE IT WAS THE STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE INTENT OF COUNCIL WAS TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP UP TO 150 -- TO DEVELOP THE 150 UNITS.

GOODMAN: SO WHAT YOU NEED IS A MAJORITY VOTE-

YOU WILL NEED -- IF YOU WANT TO PASS THIS ON ALL THREE READINGS, YOU WILL NEED A VOTE OF FIVE TONIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I GUESS -- LET ME ADD TO THAT, LET ME TAG ON TO YOUR QUESTION, MAYOR PRO TEM. WHEN WE VOTED TO PUT 150 APARTMENTS THERE, I VOTED FOR THAT AND I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I STILL SUPPORT, IF WE HAD THE RIGHT PORTION OF THE LAND IN THAT APPLICATION, WOULD THAT HAVE ALLOWED NUNA TO HAVE A VALID PETITION- THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE.

NO.

YES.

YES.

BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CALCULATIONS ARE BEING DONE. I WILL LET GREG EXPLAIN HOW THOSE CALCULATIONS WOULD WORK.

GURENSEY: WELL, IF ALL OF THE LAND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNED WERE INCLUDED IN THE ZONING APPLICATION, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A VALID PETITION IF YOU INCLUDED ALL OF THE LAND THAT THEY OWN. BUT THEY ONLY -- THE ONLY ITEM THAT WAS BEFORE COUNCIL WAS THE AREA TO BE REZONED WHICH IS A SMALLER PORTION OF THAT LAND AREA. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION OR NOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT WITH THIS ORDINANCE ARE WE EXPANDING THAT -- THE FOOTPRINT OF THE LAND THAT WE APPROVED-

GURNSEY: NO. THIS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE AREA BEING REZONED, THAT REMAINS THE SAME. NOR WOULD IT CHANGE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS THAT COULD BE CONSTRUCTED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT IS IT CHANGING THEM.

IT ALLOWS THEM TO ACHIEVE A MIX OF ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS, BUT NOT TO EXCEED 150 UNITS. CURRENTLY THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, THEY COULD NEVER BUILD UNDER OUR ORDINANCE UP TO 150 UNITS. I THINK THEY COULD BUILD UP TO 138 ONE BEDROOMS, THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY COULD BUILD UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THIS -- THE WAY IT'S POSTED IS TO CORRECT THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING. WHAT CONDITIONS OF ZONING ARE WE CORRECTING-

GURNSEY: THE CONDITIONS OF THE ZONING HAVE TO DO WITH THE MINIMUM LAND AREA OR SITE AREA REQUIRED FOR EACH BEDROOM UNIT TYPE. AND OUR CODE DEFINES THAT YOU NEED SO MUCH LAND AREA FOR A ONE BEDROOM AND SO MUCH LAND AREA FOR A TWO BEDROOM. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE REFLECTS, THE COUNCIL -- THE COUNCIL APPROVED TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS, ONE SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THE OTHER, DEPENDING ON THE BEDROOM TYPE. IF YOU RUN THE NUMBERS AND CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE ALLOWED, THEY CANNOT ACHIEVE THE 150 UNITS ON THE AREA THAT WAS REZONE. SO THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REDUCE THE MINIMUM LAND AREA REQUIRED FOR EACH ONE BEDROOM UNIT AND THE MINIMUM LAND AREA REQUIRED FOR EACH TWO OR MORE BEDROOM UNITS ON THE SAME TRACT OF LAND THAT WAS REZONED BY COUNCIL IN APRIL. THE BOUNDARIES DON'T CHANGE. BUT IT WOULD ALLOW THEM ACTUALLY TO ACHIEVE THAT NUMBER OF 150 UNITS, WHICH THEY COULD NOT DO TODAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THE ZONING CATEGORY REMAINS THE SAME.

ZONING CATEGORIES REMAIN THE SAME, HEIGHT LIMITATIONS REMAIN THE SAME, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS REMAIN THE SAME. BUT IT WOULD ALLOW THEM THE ADDITIONAL UNITS THEY WOULD NEED TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE 150 UNITS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS, COUNCILMEMBERS. LET ME ASK MR. JAMES CRESSWELL ARE YOU HERE- MR. CRESSWELL AND PATRICE CRESSWELL, SHOW THEY -- THEY HAVE -- THEY HAVE INDICATED IN THEIR CARD THAT THEY DON'T WISH TO SPEAK, BUT THEY ARE DONATING THE TIME TO NUNA. YOU ARE -- AND IN YOUR CARD YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE REPRESENTING NUNA. ACTUALLY YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES GIVEN TO YOU ALREADY. AND I SUSPECT THAT -- THAT IF WE -- USUALLY THE PEOPLE THAT DONATE TIME TO YOU NEED TO BE HERE TO SAY YES, BUT THEY ARE NOT HERE.

[INAUDIBLE]

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE ALLOW ANYBODY TO SPEAK IS 15 MINUTES. IF RICK AND I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME, SIR-

[INAUDIBLE] JACKSON.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T HAVE YOUR CARD. COULD YOU GO OUTSIDE AND SIGN A CARD FOR ME-

[INAUDIBLE]

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I WANT TO -- I'M GOING TO PUT NANCY IVERSON GIVING YOU TIME.

THAT'S FINE. I DON'T THINK THAT I WILL NEED ALL OF THE TIME. JUST TOOK IT JUST IN CASE.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH, JUST IN CASE. AND THAT WAY, RICK, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

FOR THE RECORD, I'M ROCHELLE RAWLINGS, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I WANT TO JUST START OFF WITH WHAT THE -- WHAT I BELIEVE THE QUESTION IS THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING TONIGHT. THE QUESTION IS WHAT DID THE COUNCIL DO- THAT IS IS THERE ANY MISTAKE THAT APPEARS IN THE RECORD THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED AT THIS TIME- THE QUESTION IS NOT DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO CHANGE WHAT THEY DID BEFORE, BECAUSE A CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE A REZONING, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK FOR NOTICE, BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION, BACK TO COUNCIL, BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS. THE COUNCIL CAN'T GO BACK SEVERAL MONTHS BACK AND, YOU KNOW, RETRIEVE ORDINANCES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PASSED AND CHANGE THEM. SO THE QUESTION IS IS THERE SOMETHING THAT APPEARS ON THE RECORD, IS THERE SORT OF SCRIBNER'S ERROR, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF DIDN'T CORRECTLY TAKE AND WRITE DOWN- AND THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED IS THE VERY SAME ORDINANCE THAT APPEARED AT FIRST READING. IT WAS THERE AT FIRST READING, IT WAS THERE AT SECOND READING, IT WAS THERE AT THIRD READING. IT NEVER CHANGED. IN FACT IT IS THE VERY ORDINANCE THAT THE DEVELOPER REQUESTED THAT YOU ALL PASS. I STILL HAVE THE -- THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FROM THE DEVELOPER ON JANUARY 10TH, '02, WHICH HAS THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS IN THEM AS THEY APPEAR TODAY. THE ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN TODAY DOES ALLOW FOR 150 UNITS. IT'S JUST THAT IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE MIX OF UNITS THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD PREFER BECAUSE AS YOU WILL SEE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE, THERE'S NO LIMIT ON EFFICIENCIES. SO IF -- IF THE DEVELOPER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT UP TO 150 UNITS, HE CAN DO THAT. THE ORDINANCE IS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH COUNCIL'S INTENT ON ALLOWING 150 UNITS. IT SAYS THERE MAY BE NO MORE THAN 150 UNITS, AND IT DOES HAVE A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS, BASED ON THE SITE AREA. BUT THERE'S NO LIMIT ON THE EFFICIENCIES, THEY CAN FILL OUT THAT NUMBER UP TO 150 BY BUILDING EFFICIENCY UNITS. WHICH WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD THING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE. LET ME SAY THAT THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION FROM THE DAIS AS TO THE APPROPRIATE MIX OF UNITS. THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, AS TO THE SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THIS CORRECTION TODAY, THEY DON'T APPEAR EVER. THEY DON'T APPEAR FIRST READING, SECOND READING, THIRD READING, THEY ARE BRAND NEW. NOW, IT'S TRUE, AS I SAID, THE COUNCIL DID PASS THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER. THE DEVELOPER ESSENTIALLY WON THIS CASE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE DEVELOPER PREPARED THAT REQUEST BEFORE HE FINISHED GERRYMANDERING HIS BOUNDARIES. THE BOUNDARIES IN THIS CASE WERE CHANGED IN ORDER TO SHRINK THE AREA OF THE VALID PETITION. AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE VALID PETITION AREA EXTENDS 200 FEET OUT FROM THE REZONING BOUNDARIES. SO WHAT THEY DID HERE WAS THEY CUT OFF THE FRONT 10 FEET OF THE PROPERTY, SINCE THEY CAN'T BUILD IN THE SET BACK ANYWAY AND DECIDED TO LEAVE THAT IN THE OLD ZONING CATEGORY. THEN THEY CUT OFF A LITTLE ON THE TOP OF THE TRIANGLE WHERE THEY ARE JUST GOING TO PARK CARS, DECIDED TO LEAVE THAT IN THE OLD ZONING CATEGORY. WHAT WE HAVE IS IRRATIONALLY DRAWN ZONING BOUNDARIES WHERE THE ONLY PURPOSE OF DRAWING THE BOUNDARIES WAS TO DEFEAT THE VALID PETITION. WHICH THEY DID DO. AND VERY NEARLY THE PETITION CAME IN AT 19.75%. AND THE LAST MOVE ON SHRINKING THE BOUNDARIES CAME THE DAY BEFORE FIRST READING, HAVE -- HAVE THE -- I HAVE THE REQUESTS RIGHT HERE, IT CAME ON JANUARY 9TH, 2002. THE BOUNDARIES REMAIN STABLE FROM FIRST READING THROUGH SECOND READING THROUGH THIRD READING. FIRST READING WAS IN JANUARY. SORRY-

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, I'M CALLING ADAM OVER HERE.

SORRY. FIRST READING WAS IN JANUARY. FINAL THIRD READING WAS IN APRIL. THERE WAS PLENTY OF TIME TO MAKE THE CHANGE TO INCREASE THE UNITS TO MAKE UP FOR THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY AREA HAD BEEN SHRUNK TO DEFEAT THE VALID PETITION. BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. THE DEVELOPER AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES NEVER ASKED YOU ALL TO DO THAT. I KNEW AND THE STAFF KNEW THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE. I HAD JUST ASSUMED AT THE TIME THAT THE DEVELOPER DIDN'T HAVE THE AUDACITY TO COME BACK TO YOU ALL, SAY BY THE WAY NOW THAT WE HAVE SHRUNK OUR BOUNDARIES TO DEFEAT THE VALID PETITION, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO UP OUR DENSITY TO GIVE US WHAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD WE NOT FINAGLED OUR WAY AROUND THE VALID PETITION PROCESS. I DIDN'T THINK THAT YOU ALL WOULD DO THAT. BUT EITHER WAY YOU WEREN'T ASKED. THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU PASSED IS CORRECT. IT IS THE ORDINANCE -- THE MOTION WAS MADE ON FIRST READING WITH THESE EXACT DENSITY LIMITATIONS IN THEM. IT WAS CARRIED FORWARD. THAT ORDINANCE WAS IN YOUR BACKUP, IT WAS THERE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD READING, IT'S WHAT YOU PASSED, IT'S CORRECT. NOW, I THINK CHANGING THE BOUNDARY -- I'M SORRY, CHANGING THE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE ORDINANCE ESSENTIALLY AT THIS POINT HAS TWO PROBLEMS. ONE IS LEGAL, THE ONE IS ETHICAL. I THINK IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO AN AMEND, I THINK THAT YOUR LAWYER WILL AGREE WITH ME THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS, BOTH STATE AND CITY LAW REQUIRE REZONING TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS NOTICE TO THE NEIGHBORS, BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION, BACK HERE TO COUNCIL, THREE READINGS, THE WHOLE BIT. IF YOU WANT TO REZONE PROPERTY THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO. A CHANGE IN DENSITY IS A REZONING. I THINK THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE. THE OTHER THING IS THAT THERE IS A PRINCIPLE AT ISSUE. THE PRINCIPLE HAS TO DO WITH THE STATE'S VALID PETITION PROCESS. I THINK IF YOU ESSENTIALLY GIVE THEM THE SAME DENSITY NOW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN HAD THEY NOT SHRUNK THEIR BOUNDARIES, WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS ASSISTING THEM IN THWARTING THE VALID PETITION PROCESS. ASSISTING THEM IN MANEUVERING THEIR WAY AROUND THE VALID PETITION LAW. AGAIN THE BOUNDARIES AS THEY ARE DRAWN TODAY SERVE NO RATIONAL PURPOSE. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE A POTENTIAL SPOT ZONING PROBLEM THERE. THIS IS NOT THE WAY THE CITY OF AUSTIN USUALLY DOES BUSINESS. IT DOES NOT LOP OFF THE FRONT 10 FEET OF PROPERTY, LEAVE THAT ZONED IN A DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORY, I MEAN EVERYBODY COULD DO THAT BECAUSE NO ONE USES THE 10-FOOT SET BACK ANYWAY. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE ZONE PROPERTY -- THE CODE SAYS THAT IF A ZONING BOUNDARY APPROXIMATELY FOLLOWS THE STREET LINE, THEN IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED TO COINCIDE WITH THE STREET LINE. SO IT'S A VERY UNUSUAL TECHNIQUE THAT WAS USED HERE, I THINK IT WAS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE. AT THIS POINT TO GO BACK AND INCREASE THE DENSITY TO GIVE HIM WHAT HE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN HAD HE NOT PLAYED AROUND LIKE THIS IS -- IT ADDS INSULT TO INJURE, VIOLATES THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT. I THINK THE LAW REQUIRES A NOTICE OF HEARING, FULL PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING IS WHAT'S REQUIRED HERE, THAT'S WHAT'S LEGAL, THAT'S WHAT'S FAIR. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. RAWLINGS. HOW MUCH TIME DID SHE TAKE- TWO MINUTES OF 12-

[INAUDIBLE]

MAYOR GARCIA: NINE. OKAY. RICK, YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES. RICK IVERSON.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M RICK IVERSON WITH THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE OF YOUR TIME. THIS IS THE APPROVED MAP OF THE REZONED PROPERTY FOR THE VILLAS. AND AS YOU ARE AWARE NOW, 1.864-ACRES WERE REZONED ON THIS TRACT, BUT THERE WAS .376 ACRES THAT WAS NOT REZONED. AND SO YOU END UP WITH A RATHER UNUSUAL LOOKING REZONED MAP. AND WE THINK THAT THE ONLY REASON THIS WAS DONE WAS TO INVALIDATE OUR PETITION. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE SUZANNE PRINGLE, SHE'S OUR VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHE'S GOING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE INVESTMENT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO SIGNED THE VALID PETITION.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE YOU GIVING THE REST OF YOUR TIME TO SUZANNE.

I SIGNED UP.

MAYOR GARCIA: I KNOW THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT HE HAS MORE TIME LEFT. SO -- GIVE HER 8 MINUTES, SUZANNE PRINGLE IF YOU NEED THAT MUCH.

I DON'T THINK THAT I WILL NEED THAT MUCH TIME. I'M SUZANNE PRINGLE, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS NEAR THE PROJECT. THE M.F. 6 ZONING CHANGE FOR THE VILLAS ON GUADALUPE PROJECT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE WE DID HAVE A VALID PETITION OPPOSING THE PROJECT. BUT CRAFTY GERRYMANDERING AND SHRINKING OF THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE PROJECT ALLOWED THE DEVELOPER TO INVALIDATE THE VALID PETITION AND CIRCUMVENT WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY'S BUILDING DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES. NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS STILL QUESTION THE LEGALITY OF THIS TACTIC WHICH NEGATES THE LEGAL PROCESS AND OPENS THE DOOR FOR POORLY PLANNED SPOT ZONING. IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT COUNCIL APPROVED, I WANTED TO JUST SHOW YOU. THIS -- THIS ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING OF THE APPROVED PROJECT, IT'S -- IT'S THREE BLOCKS LONG OF SOLID CONCRETE, FOUR TO SIX STORIES HIGH. WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S PRETTY HIDEOUS. SO YOU CAN SEE WHY THERE WAS SO MUCH OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT. DESPITE THE STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION OF THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE PROJECT WITH VERY SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS, SO THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME LIMITATIONS TO THE DENSITY OF THE M.F. 6 ZONING. THESE RESTRICTIONS WERE PUT IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST READING AND CONTINUE TO BE IN PLACE THROUGH THE THIRD READING WITHOUT ERROR. SINCE THAT TIME, THE DEVELOPER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY FILED A SITE PLAN INCONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING CHANGE AND RESTRICTIONS ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL. THE DEVELOPER ATTEMPTED TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN TO DEVELOP THE ENTIRE SITE, BEYOND THE SHRUNKEN BOUNDARIES, AND HOPED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BUSY CITY STAFF AND SLIDE IT THROUGH THE SYSTEM THIS SUMMER. FORTUNATELY THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS NOTICED THE SIGNIFICANT BOUNDARY LINE DISCREPANCY AND CITY LEGAL STAFF AGREED THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT ALLOWABLE BASED ON THE PROJECT RESTRICTIONS AND ZONING CHANGES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL. TODAY THE DEVELOPER IS ASKING TO AMEND THE ZONING AGAIN SO HE CAN INCREASE THE NUMBER OF APARTMENT UNITS AND HERE WE ARE TODAY ONCE AGAIN TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ANY FURTHER DEGRADATION OF OUR RIGHTS AS PROPERTY OWNERS. THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING CHANGE DOES NOT DESERVE YOUR CONSIDERATION. IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO RESUBMIT HIS ZONING REQUEST, THEN WE NEED TO GO BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED AT THE BEGINNING AND WE STILL HAVE A VALID PETITION IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PROJECT. THE DEVELOPER IS OBSESSED WITH BUILDING A BIGGER PROJECT WITH MORE UNITS AND MAKING MORE PROFIT. IN OUR OPINION, THE PROJECT IS ALREADY TOO LARGE FOR THE SITE, HAS TOO MANY UNITS AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING. AND AS I RECALL, ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT WAS TO -- WAS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR STUDENTS. THE EXISTING PLAN THAT THEY HAVE IN PLACE CONSISTING OF SMALL EFFICIENCY UNITS, PLUS LARGE FOUR AND FIVE BEDROOM UNITS WHERE STUDENTS CAN SHARE EXPENSES, DOES PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABILITY THAN ADDING ADDITIONAL TWO BEDROOM UNITS. I ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST TONIGHT TO AMEND THE ZONING AND PLEASE REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO ADHERE THE GENEROUS GUIDELINES ALREADY ESTABLISHED AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. PRINGLE. MIKE MAHONE, FOLLOWING MR. MAHONE, RICHARD SUTTLE.

SLUSHER: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THIS PROJECT IS NOT THREE BLOCKS LONG. THE MAP HERE STARTS SLIGHTLY SOUTH OF 28TH STREET AND GOES BACK TO 29TH STREET, THREE BLOCKS WOULD BE AT 26TH STREET, WHICH WOULD BE RIGHT BY THE -- WOULD INCLUDE THE FINANCIAL AID OFFICE TO THE UNIVERSITY AND EVERYTHING BETWEEN THERE AND 27TH STREET. OR 28TH STREET.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. MAHONE, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS MIKE MCHONE, HERE REPRESENTING THE VILLAS ON GUADALUPE, LIMITED, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. THIS REQUEST IS FROM THE STAFF TO CORRECT AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED. IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT CASE AND I'M SORRY AND I APOLOGIZE FOR BRINGING IT -- HAVING IT COME BACK TO YOU IN THIS FASHION. I WANTED TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE RAISED FROM THE DAIS. WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO HERE IS BUILD AFFORDABLE AND -- HOUSING AND A LOT OF HOUSING CLOSE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. AFTER THE FIRST READING, I WAS WORKING WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S STAFF TO WORK OUT A METHOD TO LIMIT THE DENSITY TO THE 150 UNITS AND I HAVE LEARNED SINCE THERE'S NO SUCH THINGS AS UNITS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, WE HAVE DWELLING UNITS. SO I WANTED TO LIMIT IT TO 150 DWELLING UNITS, LET ME CORRECT MYSELF, AND 500 PEOPLE. WORKING WITH THE -- WITH THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THERE WAS TALK OF MAYBE WE WOULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, MAYBE WE WOULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF BATHS, BUT THE IDEA ALWAYS WAS HOW DO WE GET 150 DWELLING UNITS AND 500 PEOPLE. WE LAID OUT THE SITE, TRIED TO WORK IN VARIOUS WAYS. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WE SUBMITTED HAD 100, .07 ACRES OF THIS TRACT WOULD BE ZONED M.F. 6, THE REST WOULD REMAIN CS. IN WORKING WITH THE STAFF AND COUNCIL, YOU SAID YOU WANTED US TO WRAP THE PARKING GARAGE. THAT REQUIRED US TO EXTEND THE ZONING REQUEST AT THAT TIME KNOWING THAT THERE WAS POTENTIALS FOR ZONING OPPOSITION. THE M.F. 6 HAS NO SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS. WE COULD BUILD ALL OF THE UNITS THAT WE WANT WITHIN THE M.F. 6 TRACT AS LONG AS WE DIDN'T HAVE TO WRAP IT TO BUFFER THE NORTH END. TO BUFFER THAT NORTH END, REQUIRE THAT WE PULLED THE PARKING GARAGE BACK INTO THE M.F. 6, DISPLACING SOME UNITS THAT WOULD BE THERE AND MEET THE HEIGHT AND AREA REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU WERE ALSO REQUIRING US, AGAIN, TO TRY TO BUFFER OUR NEIGHBORS. WHEN WE WORKED OUT THE NUMBERS, WE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD TRY TO FURTHER LIMIT BY DOING A COMBINATION OF -- COMBINING TRACTS 1 AND 2 AND COMING UP WITH -- WITH A WAY OF DOING THAT. IN DOING THAT WE CAME UP WITH THE WRONG NUMBER. WE DID IT THE WRONG NUMBER BECAUSE I USED THE FULL SITE AS DEFINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SITE MEANS THE CONTIGUOUS AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT. AND AFTER WE SUBMITTED OUR REQUEST [BUZZER SOUNDING] TO THE CITY, WE HAVE NEVER CHANGED OUR SITE PLAN. WE DISCOVERED THAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THE REVIEW DEPARTMENT SAID THIS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ONLY COVERED THE AREA THAT WAS REZONED. THEREFORE THOSE NUMBERS WERE WRONG THAT WE USED IN OUR ONE BEDROOM AND OUR TWO BEDROOM CALCULATIONS. IN FACT THEY WERE NEVER CORRECT BECAUSE WE HAD NEVER REQUESTED A ZONING CHANGE FOR THE 10 FEET AROUND THE PROPERTY. SO THEY WERE WRONG FROM THE BEGINNING. AND THAT WAS JUST AN ERROR THAT WAS MADE AND NEVER PICKED UP. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE REQUEST IS ABOUT TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: RICHARD SUTTLE. MR. SUTTLE, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS RICHARD SUTTLE, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE VILLAS OF GUADALUPE.

GUADALUPE.

GUADALUPE. TONIGHT WE ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE CORRECTIVE ORDINANCE. IN THIS ORDINANCE IS SIMPLY A CORRECTION BRINGING THE -- THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT YOU PASSED INTO -- CORRECT IT TO MAKE YOUR INTENT OR TO FURTHER YOUR INTENT ON WHAT YOU DID THE LAST TIME. THESE ARE JUST CHANGING TWO NUMBERS IN THIS ORDINANCE AND THEY WERE -- THEY ARE NUMBERS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW MANY SQUARE FEET OF SITE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE PER ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNIT. I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN A LOT OF CASES, YOU TAKE YOUR WHOLE SITE AND YOU FIGURE THE WHOLE SITE, WHATEVER IT'S ZONED, BECAUSE YOU CAN PARK ON ZONE -- ON PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED L.O., CS. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO DO UNITS ON THAT. BUT FORMALLY YOU CALCULATE ALL OF YOUR CALCULATIONS ON THE WHOLE SITE. ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE, WE DIDN'T DO THAT. AND THE NUMBERS WERE JUST OFF AND ALL YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO DO TONIGHT IS CORRECT THE ORDINANCE AND MAKE THOSE TWO NUMBERS CORRECT AND MAKE THOSE TWO NUMBERS RIGHT. NOTHING CHANGES, IN FACT THE SITE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU CORRECT IT SO THAT IT MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT THE INTENT WAS. NO MORE THAN 150 UNITS AND THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF- MAYOR PRO TEM-

GOODMAN: I DO. LET ME ASK GREG IF YOU RECALL, THE BACKUP INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS NOT COMPLETE. AND ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE LOOKING BACK TO TRY TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT COUNCIL ACTION WAS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE -- THE EXACT DETAILS OF WHAT WAS IN FIRST READING, SECOND READING AND THIRD READING ARE NOT BEFORE US. SIMPLY A RECORD OF THE ACTION TAKEN. IN FACT NOT EVEN -- I BET ROCHELLE HAS THOSE THINGS. ANYWAY, NOT EVEN A RECORD OF WHO MADE THE MOTION. NOW, JUST FOR ONE THING THAT MS. RAWLINGS SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR UP FOR MYSELF BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL IT THAT WAY. SHE SAID THAT THE CONTENT OF FIRST READING WAS THE SAME AS WAS SECOND READING AS WAS THE SAME AS THIRD. MY REMEMBRANCE WAS THAT FIRST READING WAS A VERY DIFFERENT ORDINANCE CONTENT HAVING READ SOME OF -- SOME OF THE LIMITATIONS OUT OF THE -- OUT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH I DON'T THINK WERE WHAT PASSED ON THIRD READING. DO YOU HAVE -- DO YOU HAVE --

I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THAT MATERIAL IN FRONT OF ME. BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS APPROVED ON FIRST READING DID NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT WHAT WAS IN THIRD READING AS WELL. IF IT'S DOWNED DESIRE TO ONLY DO FIRST READING, STAFF CAN BRING BACK THOSE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE FIRST AND SECOND READING HERE, INCLUDE THOSE FOR YOUR -- FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE TO -- TO GO BACK THROUGH THOSE THINGS.

YOU ARE TOO KIND. LET ME SAY, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THE NUMBERS GOT CRUNCHED, FOR MS. DUNKERLY, I SHOULD -- I SHOULD SAY THIS. WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO COME TO THE NUMBER 500 PEOPLE WAS BECAUSE I THINK IN THE FIRST HEARING OR POSSIBLY THE SECOND DISCUSSION I'M NOT SURE. WHEN THE PUBLIC SPOKE, THAT THE ONE THING THAT SEEMED TO BE -- TO BE A POINT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES WAS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COULD BE ACCOMMODATED. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD A SPEAKER THAT SAID 500 PEOPLE SEEMED A MORE REASONABLE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE THAT WAS NOT TIED TO A NUMBER OF UNITS. THE APPLICANT'S SIDE, ALSO, MENTIONED THE NUMBER 500 PEOPLE. SO -- SO MY STAFF AND I WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER HOW TO -- TO -- BOTH LIMIT AND CHANNEL THE UNITS SO THAT THE ACCOMMODATIONS WOULD BE FOR 500 PEOPLE. THAT'S WHERE WE GOT INTO ALL OF THE CRUNCHING OF NUMBERS FOR AREA OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE READ INTO THE RECORD. AIM NOT SURE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE BECAUSE IT GOT TORTUOUSLY CONFUSING. BUT I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY ALL MY FAULT. AND SO THAT PROBABLY CAME OUT OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO AT THE BEGINNING. AND THAT'S WHEN WE GOT INTO -- SINCE THERE IS NO REAL WAY TO LIMIT IN THE CODE, BY PEOPLE PRESENT -- BY PEOPLE PRESENT, WE WERE TRYING TO SEE IF YOU COULD BEYOND BEDROOMS, TRY TO LIMIT SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO COULD REASONABLY LIVE IN ONE PLACE. SINCE A LIVING ROOM COULD BE USED AS A BEDROOM IF SOMEBODY WAS SO INCLINED AND WE ALL AT OUR HOMES HAVE VARIOUS TIMES SAID YES PROBABLY SLEEPING IN THE LIVING ROOM OR THE DEN, BUT THEY ARE NOT TECHNICALLY BEDROOMS ON ANY KIND OF SITE PLAN. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, ANYBODY ELSE IF YOU ARE NOT REMEMBERING, HOW THESE NUMBERS STARTED BEING CRUNCHED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE WORKING ON. NOW, SINCE I -- SINCE I DID NOT VOTE FOR THE THIRD READING, MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT SECOND READING, WHICH I THINK WAS -- WELL, IT WAS ANOTHER -- OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M SURE MS. RAWLINGS HAS THE RECORD, WE CAN LOOK AT IT LATER -- WAS A DIFFERENT MOTION FROM THE FIRST. BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN SO DIFFICULT TO CRUNCH THOSE NUMBERS. AND AT THAT TIME, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH OFFERED I'M NOT SURE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR AN AMENDMENT. WHICH DIDN'T SEEM TO FIT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF WHERE WE WERE -- BOUNDARIES OF WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AT THAT MOMENT. SO -- SO THIRD READING THEN, SECOND READING, WAS DIFFERENT FROM FIRST READING. THAT AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTE MOTION I DON'T THINK PASSED. THIRD READING I THOUGHT WAS THE SAME CONTENT AS SECOND READING, BUT NOT AS FIRST READING. SO MAYBE WHAT IS CLEARING UP FOR ME IS THAT THE NUMBERS FROM -- FROM -- WHICH WERE A LOGICAL OUTGROWTH OF THE FIRST READING WERE PUT INTO THE THIRD READING-

I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND ACTUALLY CHECK THAT, MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE NUMBERS REALLY CAME FROM.

I CAN'T SAY, MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M NOT AWARE THAT THERE'S A REFERENCE THAT WAS MADE AT -- THAT STAFF WAS AWARE THAT THESE NUMBERS WOULD REFLECT 150 UNITS AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL. THAT'S NOT MY RECOLLECTION. WHEN THE MOTION WAS BEING MADE, I UNDERSTOOD THEY STRUCK SOME KIND OF COMBINATION OF 150 ONE BEDROOM AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT EFFICIENCY. AN EFFICIENCY IS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN BEING 400 SQUARE FEET, BEING A ROOM THAT'S CONTIGUOUS FOR EATING AND SLEEPING AND -- IN A CENTRAL AREA. SO I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY ANOTHER POINT. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CASES, I KNOW THERE WAS ONE VERY CONTENTIOUS CASE, ON WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE, WHERE THE APPLICANT PULLED BACK THEIR ENTIRE BOUNDARY 250 FEET TO CONSTRUCT AN APARTMENT PROJECT. AND THE REMAINDER WAS LEFT TO SINGLE FAMILY. SO THE CONCEPT OF I GUESS PULLING YOUR BOUNDARIES BACK TO LESSEN THE PETITION IS NOT SOMETHING NEW. IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. IT'S VERY CONTROVERSIAL, CERTAINLY. WE DON'T RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT GO THROUGH THAT PROCEDURE, BUT MANY TIMES THERE ARE A LOT OF AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ALSO WORKED OUT THROUGH THAT PROCESS BECAUSE IT DOES DEVELOP A BUFFER OF SOME SORT. THROUGH THAT PROCESS. IN THIS CASE IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY STILL CAN UTILIZE THAT COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

GOODMAN: WELL, I WILL SAY THAT I WOULD RATHER WE DIDN'T VIEW MOTIVES IN PUBLIC, EVEN IF WE FEEL SURE IN OUR OWN MIND THAT IT'S SO, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WE COULD PROVE SUCH A THING. SO I JUST ASSUME FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION, TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE MISNUMBERING HAPPENED. SO THAT WE DON'T DO IT AGAIN. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED. BUT I WOULD JUST AS SOON NOT TO HAVE SOMETHING AS WRENCHING AND CONTROVERSIAL AS THIS COME BACK MORE TIMES THAN IT NEEDS TO COME BACK. I KNOW NOBODY MEANT FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, BUT WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS A LOT LATELY WHERE WE HAVE LOOKED AT THINGS TWICE THAT ARE JUST REALLY HORRIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH ONCE, NOT TWICE. NOT THAT I AM ASKING YOU TO BE EASY ON ME, UNDERSTAND. BUT I THINK THAT WE COULD GET TO A POINT WHERE PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER IF THAT WAS THE ATMOSPHERE RATHER THAN OPPORTUNITIES TO FIGHT AND REFIGHT. IT'S JUST MY EDITORIAL COMMENT. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS- IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.

SLUSHER: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND-

WYNN: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION-

SLUSHER: MAY I JUST SAY I RECALL LIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABOUT THE DISCUSSION, ABOUT THE 500 PEOPLE WERE GOING TO BE LIVING THERE AND ALSO 150 UNITS, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT THAT I WAS VOTING ON AT THE TIME WE VOTED FOR THIS, SO I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TRY TO SHRINK THEM DOWN, MAKE THEM HAVE A BUNCH OF DUPLEXES NOW. THE IDEA IS THAT THE CITY HAS GROWN A LOT, IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW. THE AMOUNT OF STUDENTS ATTENDING THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HAS GROWN I THINK FASTER THAN THE CITY ITSELF HAS GROWN. AND TO HAVE STUDENTS LOCATED A COUPLE OF BLOCKS FROM THE UNIVERSITY WHERE THEY CAN WALK TO WORK, WALK TO SCHOOL, I MEAN, AND MAYBE TO WORK AS WELL, THAT MAKES SENSE. IT'S BETTER FOR TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE THE STUDENTS AREN'T OUT THERE DRIVING, BETTER FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY. IT JUST WORKS ON A NUMBER OF FRONTS. WE HAVE SEEN IN THE ENVISION CENTRAL TEXAS PROJECT, WHICH IS TAKING PLACE SINCE THE FIRST TIME WE APPROVED THIS PROJECT, WHERE -- WHERE THE FOLKS -- THIS IS THE KIND OF -- AN AREA WHERE PEOPLE WILL PUT DENSITY, IF THEY KNOW THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO GROW. LIKE I SAID IT'S ALREADY GROWN CONSIDERABLY. SO I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION-

ALVAREZ: MAYOR-

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ-

ALVAREZ: MAYOR, I VOTED AGAINST THIS WHEN -- THE LAST TIME AROUND AND PARTLY IT WAS BECAUSE OF DENSITY, PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ZONING TRACT WAS CONFIGURED, I'M STILL GOING TO -- I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS MOTION. TO BE CONSISTENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION- THIS MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, WAS FOR --

SLUSHER: ALL THREE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THREE READINGS. OKAY. THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO.

NO.

MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO TWO, PASSES ON ALL THREE READINGS. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS COUNCIL --

SLUSHER: MOVE TO ADJOURN.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOVE TO ADJOURN BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. 8:13 P.M.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log