Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 11/21/02

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.

THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, I'M GOING TO CALL BACK TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL FOR NOVEMBER THE 21st, THE COUNCIL HAS CONCLUDED THIS EXECUTIVE SESSION, TWO OF THE ITEMS, ITEM NO. 4 AND ITEM NO. 5 WERE NOT DISCUSSED TODAY BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY DID NOT RECOMMEND DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME. AND SO -- SO WE HAVE CONCLUDED THE OTHER ITEMS. LIKE I INDICATED EARLIER, NO DECISIONS WERE MADE. AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO BACK TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. AND FIRST ITEM IS THE 1:30 TIME CERTAIN. AND THAT'S THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION GENERAL. JIMMY CASTRO. MR. CASTRO, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBERS AND MS. FUTRELL, I DO HAVE SLIDES TO SHOW YOU THIS AFTERNOON, I'M HERE ON SPEAK ON MY OBEY OWN BEHALF, ALSO AS A FORMER BOARD MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUNDATION. THIS FIRST SLIDE SHOWS THANKSGIVING IS A TIME TO GIVE THANKS TO WHAT WE HAVE, PERHAPS EVEN A BIT OF REFLEX ON WHAT WE HAVE TO BE THANKFUL FOR. EVERY YEAR THOUSANDS THROUGHOUT THE NATION AS WELL AS IN CENTRAL TEXAS BENEFIT FROM ORGAN AND TISSUE TRANSPLANTS. ACCORDING TO THE UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING, THERE WERE 08,000 PATIENTS WAITING FOR A TRANSPLANT -- 80,000 PATIENTS WAITING FOR A TRANSPLANT NATIONWIDE. THE DEMAND CONTINUES TO INCREASE AT A PROGRESSIVELY RAPID RATE. THESE DONATED ORGANS HAVE A PROFOUND IMPACT ON THE RECIPIENTS. DONATIONS OF VITAL ORGANS LITERALLY SAVES PEOPLE'S LIVES. THE TRAGIC OUTCOME OF THIS DISPARITY OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND IS A STEADILY INCREASING NUMBER OF WAITING LIST FATALITIES. IN 1996, U.S. CITIZENS SPENT ONE TRILLION FOR HEALTH CARE. TRANSPLANT PAYMENT SOURCES, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S MEDICARE PROGRAM PAYS NEARLY 60% OF KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS AND 26% OF LIVER TRANSPLANTS. THERE ARE 272 TRANSPLANT CENTERS IN THE COUNTRY. THERE ARE CURRENTLY NOT ENOUGH DONATED ORGANS TO MEET THE NEEDS. THE MOST IMPORTANT STEPS IS TO DISCUSS YOUR WISH TO DONATE WITH YOUR FAMILY. DISCUSSING THIS CHOICE IS VERY IMPORTANT. BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU SIGNED A DONOR CARD, YOUR NEXT OF KIN'S PERMISSION MUST BE GIVEN BEFORE A DONATION CAN TAKE PLACE. RECENT STUDIES SHOW A KIDNEY TRANSPLANT HAS SUCCESSFULLY LASTED 37 YEARS. A LIVER TRANSPLANT, 26 YEARS, AND A HEART TRANSPLANT OVER 22 YEARS. TRANSPLANTED CORNEAS HELP PERSONS WHO ARE VISUALLY IMPAIRED TO SEE. DONATED BONE MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN AND ADULTS TO WALK APPEARED SKIN GRAFTS HELP SEVERELY BURNED PATIENTS TO FIGHT INFECTION. ORGAN DONATION IS THE GREATEST GIFT OF LIFE. ONE HUMAN BEING CAN GIVE TO ANOTHER. HAVING SPENT TIME ON A DIALYSIS OVER A YEAR AND NOW BEING A KIDNEY TRANSPLANT RECIPIENT FROM BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL SINCE MARCH 10th, 1990, ESPECIALLY WITH THE HELP OF THE DOCTORS AND NURSES FROM BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL AND THE AUSTIN DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC, I ALONG WITH MY FAMILY, KNOW THE TRUE MEANING OF THE GIFT OF LIFE. THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA.

THANK YOU, JIMMY. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SUSANA ALMANZA, FOLLOWING MS. ALMANZA IS DR. SYLVIA HERRERA.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M SUSANA ALMANZA, WITH PODER, EAST AUSTIN DOESN'T WANT TO BE THE NEXT CLARKSVILLE. THE POOR AND WORKING POOR AND PEOPLE OF COLOR HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE WITHIN THE URBAN CORE MUCH WE ALSO WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THE TASK FORCE THAT LOOKED AT HISTORY ZONING AND ITS IMPACTS IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT COMMISSION ACTUALLY SAID THAT HISTORIC ZONING WAS BRINGING ABOUT GENTRIFICATION IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND HOPEFULLY SOMETHING WILL BE DONE PRETTY SOON TO STOP THAT DISPLACEMENT. AS WE BEGIN TO COME TO THE FINAL END OF THE JOHNSTON-GOVALLE PLAN, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ALL OF THE COUNCIL AWARE OF SOME OF THE ISSUES. THE JOHNSON-GOVALLE IS LIKE NO OTHER PLAN IN THE WHOLE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE CLOSE TO 600 PARCELS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REZONED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THIS IS HISTORICAL IN ITSELF. THIS CAN OCCUR IN NO OTHER PART OF THE CITY. AS YOU KNOW, 90% OF THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING IS IN EAST AUSTIN, 30, 35% OF COMMERCIAL SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL SERVICE C.S. 1 IS ALSO IN OUR COMMUNITIES, THAT INCLUDES PAWN SHOPS AND LIQUOR STORES. AS WE BEGIN TO WIND DOWN ON THE JOHNSON-GOVALLE PLAN, ONE THING THAT WE ARE FINDING IS THAT WE ARE FINDING THAT A LOT OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO DON'T LIVE THERE, BUT DO HAVE BUSINESSES, DON'T WANT TO LOSE THEIR INDUSTRIAL ZONING OR THEIR COMMERCIAL SERVICE ZONING. SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE A BIGGER EFFORT TO CHANGE THE DYNAMIC THAT HAS ASSISTED IN OUR COMMUNITIES FOR DECADES. AND WE HONESTLY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT INCENTIVES. JUST AS WE GIVE MASS TRANS NATIONAL CORPORATIONS TAX ABATEMENTS AND OTHER INCENTIVES, WHETHER IT'S ELECTRICELECTRICITY AND SO FORTH, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO START OFFERING THESE BUSINESS INCENTIVES TO RELOCATE OUR COMMUNITIES OR GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES IF THEY AGREE TO DOWN ZONE AND -- DOWN ZONE AND MAKE THOSE MULTI-FAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE ANOTHER PLAN BECAUSE YOU ARE BOUND TO SEE FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK WHO DON'T MIND EXPOSING YOUNG CHILDREN AT BROOK ELEMENTARY TO HAZARDOUS PAINT FUMES AND GASOLINE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR INDUSTRIAL ZONING WHEN WE KNOW THAT THAT IS WRONG. SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO AS A COUNCIL LOOK OUT OF THE BOX AT THE JOHNSON-GO HEAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. IT IS LIKE NO OTHER PLAN IN THE WHOLE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE HAVE CLOSE TO I THINK 200 PARCELS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN MISZONED FOR DECADES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SERVICE WHO HAVE NOT QUALIFIED FOR REHABILITATION, FEDERAL LOANS, WHO HAVE NOT APPLIED FOR -- WHO DON'T QUALIFY FOR EQUITY LOANS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HOMES. THEY ARE ZONED INDUSTRIAL, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE NEXT ISSUE IS WE COMMENCE TO TRY TO ZONE PROPERTY CS-MU, WILL PEOPLE QUALIFY UNDER EQUITY LOANS [BUZZER SOUNDING] AND WHAT KIND OF MORTGAGES AND INSURANCES WOULD THEY HAVE TO SEEK. SO PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU, MS. ALMANZA. DOCTOR SYLVIA HERRERA, FOLLOWING DR. HERRERA IS MR. JOSE QUINT TARA -- QUINN TARA.

SYLVIA HERRERA, PODER, PART OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE GOVALLE JOHNSON TERRACE AND SPRINGDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE HAVE DRAFTED AND ARE FINALIZING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT AND RESTATE SOME OF THOSE GOALS UNDER LAND USE THAT WERE ACTUALLY PART OF THE SECTOR PLAN IN PREVIOUS NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS THAT WE HAVE PARTICIPATED IN AND SO WE HAVE INCLUDED A LOT OF THE SECTOR PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS INTO OUR PLAN BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO START THE PROCESS OF ONCE AGAIN, SO WE ARE RESTATING THAT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. BUT IT DEALS WITH ADJACENT LAND USE AND COMPATIBILITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT -- IT LOOKS AT HOUSING TO MAINTAIN AFFORDABLE AND STABLE HOUSING STOCK IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. AND FOSTERING AND PROTECTING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS AND -- AND CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN THE AREA. ALTHOUGH THE -- THE DOWN ZONING OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE PRESENTLY USED AS SINGLE FAMILY IS IN OUR PLAN, WE ALSO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE LISTED IN HERE THAT ARE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. AND ARE GOING TO COMMERCIAL SERVICES. REALLY, WE JUST SEE THAT TRANSITION, AGAIN IT'S HOW MUCH OF A PROTECTION ARE WE REALLY PROVIDING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN IT'S JUST MERELY A CHANGE OF PURPLE, WHICH IS INDUSTRIAL, TO COMMERCIAL SERVICES, AS WAS STATED, A LOT OF THAT MIGHT BE THE CS 1 LIQUOR SALES. AGAIN, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING FROM L.I. TO C.S. OR ACTUAL SINGLE FAMILY USE, SO WE ARE GOING TO BE LOSING HOUSING STOCK. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE MAIN TINGLING HOUSING STOCK BECAUSE THESE PROPERTIES ARE GOING FROM CL TO LS. THOSE EXISTING HOMES ARE GOING TO BE LOST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AGAIN THE CONCERN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN ON THE OVER ABUNDANCE OF CS 1. AND WE HAVE A LIST OF ALL OF THE EXISTING PERMITS AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THAT'S A -- WAY TOO MANY LISTINGS UNDER THAT CATEGORY, WE WERE ALSO WARRANTING TO ASSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT A C.S.M.U. DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE -- THE RESIDENTIAL PART. IT RECOGNIZES THE COMMERCIAL PART FIRST. AND THEN THE POSSIBILITIES OF RESIDENTIAL USE. [BUZZER SOUNDING] SO WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ON THOSE -- ON THOSE ISSUES. JOSE QUINTERO, WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MEMBERS OF EAST AUSTIN CITIZENS. MY NAME IS JOSE QUINTERO, GREATER EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS REGARDING CAPITAL METRO AND THE MEETING THAT WE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE -- WE ABOUT A FEW -- THREE WEEKS AGO, WE HAD MANY SUCCESSFUL MEETINGS IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS BY A BUSINESS OWNER WHO HAS COMMITTED IN LOAN TERMS TO PROVIDE NEEDS FOR THE COMMUNITY, ALSO SUPPORTS IN AREAS THAT OTHER COMMERCIAL SERVICES MIGHT NEED IN THE FUTURE. THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THE ECC, EAST CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, I LIVE, JUST HAPPENED TO DROP INTO ONE OF THE MEETINGS THAT I HAD BEEN NOTIFIED THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE MEMBERS TO MEET WITH CAPITAL METRO. I WANT TO THANK JOHN TREVINO, DIANA MENDOZA AND SAM ARCHER FOR PARTICIPATING, BEING PROFESSIONAL AS FAR AS ME BEING THERE. THE REASON THAT I WAS THERE WAS TO FIND OUT WHAT THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE ALL ABOUT. BUT UNFORTUNATELY THEY HAVE ACCUSED ME THAT I DON'T LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEN AT THE SAME TIME THEY ASKED THAT ONLY BOARD MEMBERS MEET THERE. AND I SAID, WELL, I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT I HAVE BEEN HERE ALL OF MY LIFE, MOST OF MY LIFE, THEN YOU HAVE A NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR FROM FORT WORTH TEXAS ONLY BEEN THERE A YEAR, SHE HAS A VOTE OF ALL OF THOSE HISPANIC OR THE MAJORITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT IS A CONCERN FOR ME. AND BECAUSE THE CITY HAS ADOPTED THIS PLAN IT'S DIVIDED THE NEIGHBORHOODS INTO ISSUES THAT -- THAT NOT NECESSARILY WE CHARACTERIZE AS FIGHTING OVER, BUT HOPEFULLY COMING TO CONSENSUS THAT WE CAN AS PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, WHO HAVE BEEN UNJUSTLY BEEN DENIED FOR MANY YEARS AS REGARD TO ANYTHING THAT -- HOUSING, DISCRIMINATION, GENTRIFICATION, RECENTLY THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN HAD AN ARTICLE IN THE PAPER, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST RACIST CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AS FAR AS DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING FOR MINORITIES AND PEOPLE OF COLOR. YET TWO DAYS AGO WE WERE NAMED 8th IN THE NATION BY MONEY MAKER MAGAZINE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE MOVING INTO THIS AREA. SO THAT IS A CONCERN FOR ME BECAUSE THE APPRAISALS AND THE TAXES AFTER THIS DISTRICT PLAN WAS PASSED HAS SKYROCKETED. I HAD A PROPERTY ON 1500 CANTEBERRY, I SOLD IT, IT WAS APPRAISED AT 12,000. IT WAS APPRAISED AT 16,000 AFTER THEY BOUGHT IT. THEY BUILT A HOUSE, LESS THAN -- 12 HUB 12 -- 1200 SQUARE FEET, THE APPRAISAL AT 195,000. THAT'S WHAT THE DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN HAS DONE TO US. APPLIED TO GENTRIFICATION. PROBABLY THE ONLY HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WILL APPEAR RACE THAT HIGH. ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY THAT WAS BOUGHT FROM ME, SHE WENT TO A FORMAL HEARING, THEY BROUGHT IT DOWN TO 117,000. THEN SHE HAD TO GET A LAWYER TO GO TO THE FORMAL HEARING, IT CAME DOWN TO 98,000. THAT IS A CONCERN FOR ME. HELP US OUT.

THANK YOU, MR. QUINTERO. AGAIN IF HER GALE. JENNIFER GALE. JENNIFER GALE. THAT'S ALL, COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE UNDER CITIZENS COMMUNICATION GENERAL. WE WILL NOW GO TO CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS. MS. BROWN?

Clerk Brown: ITEM 13, PLEASE DELETE THE WORDS "A RESTRESOLUTION AUTHORIZING, IT WILL JUST READ SETTLEMENT. ITEM NO. 16 I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN REPLACED BY THE ADDENDUM ITEM NO. 73, SO 16 WILL HAVE NO ACTION TAKEN ON IT TODAY.

ACTUALLY, IT GOES BACK, 16 WILL BE THE ITEM, 73 IS NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED.

OKAY.

Clerk Brown: ITEM 17 APPROVE A RESOLUTION, PLEASE INSERT THE WORDS A RESOLUTION FOR THE. IT WILL READ APPROVE A RESOLUTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF TOM. ITEM 22 CHANGE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FROM 86,200 TO 86 -- EXCUSE ME, $82,096 AND DELETE THE WORDS AND A FIVE PERCENT CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,104.80. ON ITEM NO. 23, DELETE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, 60,432 AND INSERT, 57,544. AND DELETE THE WORDS AND A 5% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,888 $2,888 ON NUMBER 46, DELETE HARRIS BRANCH PARKWAY AND INSERT WINTERBORN DRIVE. ON 58, PLEASE NOTE THAT IT'S FIRST READING ONLY. ON 61, I'M JUST GOING TO READ IT BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE A LITTLE IT EASIER. AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A COST REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH LIVE OAK DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 36-INCH WATER MAIN AND APPURTENANCES TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE TO THE PIERCE LANE TRACT LOCATED ON PIERCE LANE AT ROSS ROAD, WITH CITY COST REIMBURSEMENT FOR ACTUAL HARD CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,211,800 AND CITY COSTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT NOT TO EXCEED 15% OF THE HARD CONSTRUCTION COSTS; OR $401,475, WHICHEVER IS LESS, FOR A TOTAL COST REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 3,613 -- 613,275. ITEM 64, PLEASE CHANGE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT TO READ 6,200,000. ITEM 67, THIS WILL NOT BE A NINE MEMBER TASK FORCE, BUT RATHER A NINE MEMBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE. ITEM NO. 70, SHOULD READ: APPROVE AN ORDINANCE WAIVING AND REIMBURSING. INSERTING THE WORDS AND REIMBURSING CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT FEES. ITEM 73 IS FOR SECOND READING ONLY.

Mayor Garcia: THAT ONE IS THE ONE THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER BECAUSE WE ARE CONSIDERING 16.

Clerk Brown: OH, YES.

Mayor Garcia: ITEM NO. 67 IS BEING POSTPONED UNTIL DECEMBER THE 5th.

Slusher: MAYOR, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. 67 I PULLED IT BECAUSE I HADN'T SEEN ANYTHING IN WRITING ON IT. I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE POSTPONED FOR A WEEK?

Mayor Garcia: CORRECT, ACTUALLY FOR TWO WEEKS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING YET. THERE'S STILL SOME NEGOTIATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS GOING ON.

WELL, I WILL PUT IT BACK ON IF -- TO BE POSTPONED AFTER A WEEK.

WE WILL CONSIDER IT AS ON AND HE OWE AS A CONSENT ITEM FOR POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER THE 5th, THE YEAR 2002.

THEN WOULD SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME THE ORIGIN OF ITEM 73, WAS THAT INTENDED TO BE THREE READINGS? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE TWO ITEMS BASICALLY SAYING THE SAME THING, ONE OF THEM BY --

I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN EXPLAIN THAT.

THE REASON WHY THERE IS TWO ITEMS WAS THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THE SOUTHERN UNION GAS ITEM WOULD BE DONE ON MORE THAN ONE READING. WE WANTED TO PRESERVE ALL OPTIONS OF COUNCIL WITHOUT CHANGING THE LEGAL ADVICE THAT WE HAVE GIVEN. THAT'S THE REASON WHY 73 REPLACES NUMBER 16. CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS IT'S NOW FOR SECOND READING ONLY.

Slusher: YOUR OFFICE PUT ON THERE THAT IT DIDN'T COME FROM THE COUNCIL OFFICE.

CORRECT.

Mayor Garcia: THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS DURING THE WEEK ABOUT IT, SO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THAT ONE FOR -- TO GIVE THE COUNCIL THE OPTIONS, BUT AFTER WE LOOKED AT EVERYTHING, THE CITY ATTORNEY ADVISED US THAT 16 WAS OKAY, WE COULD DO IT, IT WOULD BE ON SECOND READING ONLY.

OKAY, YEAH, I WAS IN FAVOR OF JUST PUTTING IT ON SECOND READING AS WE HAVE DONE ON OTHER SIMILAR CASES. AND THEN ON 22, I HAD A QUESTION BASED ON THE -- IS ANYBODY HERE FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT?

Futrell: COUNCILMEMBER, THEY ARE GOING TO CHECK RIGHT NOW.

OKAY.

Mayor Garcia: WHILE THEY ARE DOING THAT, LET ME EXPLAIN AGAIN, ITEM 73 READS -- REPLACES ITEM NO. 16. BUT ACTUALLY WE ARE NOT -- WE ANNOUNCED THAT ITEM 73 WILL NOT BE NECESSARY BECAUSE ITEM 16 IS POSTED AND -- IN A CONNECT WAY.

Slusher: SO THEN SHOULD I PULL 73, MAYOR?

73 IS -- IS THE LEADER FROM THE AGENDA -- IS DELETED FROM THE AGENDA.

Slusher: OKAY. YOUR QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH ITEM 22.

Slusher: IT'S A FAIRLY SMALL THING, I THINK, BUT I GOT SOME CONFLICTING INFORMATION ON THE QUESTION AND ANSWERS THAT I WANTED TO STRAIGHTEN OUT. I GUESS WE COULD JUST HOLD THAT UNTIL SOMEBODY GETS HERE. IT MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO BE DONE OVER THE PHONE, I SUPPOSE.

LET ME USE THIS TIME TO ANNOUNCE IF ANYBODY IS HERE, FOR THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN MOBILITY PLAN, THE CITY MANAGER MAY WANT TO MAKE A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT ON THAT ONE. ALTHOUGH WE PUT THIS INFORMATION OUT IN THE NEWSPAPER, TRIED TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THOSE WE SIGNED UP LAST TIME AROUND, I JUST WANT TO BE SURE, THIS ITEM IS NOW ON FOR DECEMBER 5th, AND WE ARE PROPOSING THAT IT BE A TIME CERTAIN THE FIRST OF THE EVENING, PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE TIME CERTAIN DISCUSSIONS AT 5:00 P.M. SO DECEMBER 5th, 5:00 P.M., WE WILL MAKE AN EFFORT TO BE SURE THIS IS THE FIRST ITEM TAKEN BECAUSE OF THE LONG WAIT OF THE PEOPLE WHO WAITED AT OUR LAST MEETING.

Mayor Garcia: ALSO, I MAY ANNOUNCE THAT -- THAT ON ITEM 21, THIS -- THIS ITEM IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SECOND READING. THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THIS ITEM IS CLOSED. WE USUALLY DO NOT TAKE SPEAKERS ON SECOND AND THIRD READING. WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT SECOND READING. HOWEVER, I AM BE RECOGNIZING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR MS. SANTIZ, I SUSPECT, MAC, THAT MAY BE YOU, TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUES THAT WE BROUGHT UP WITH A MEETING THAT WE CALLED WITH ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS, WE WILL -- WE WILL BE DOING IT -- PROBABLY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THEM WE WANT TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT KIND OF RESOLUTION YOU ALL REACHED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, WHAT YOU ALL EXPECT CAN BE DONE BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME WE DO THIRD READING, SHOULD BE PROBABLY NEXT WEEK. WE WILL POST IT AGAIN FOR THE FIFTH OF DECEMBER AND IF -- IF THAT -- IF THAT ACTION IS NOT TAKEN AT THAT TIME, WE WILL POST IT AGAIN FOR DECEMBER 12th. BUT I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME BETWEEN NOW AND DECEMBER 5th TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE ALL OF THE CONTENDS THAT WITH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

MAYOR, MY QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED ON 22, WE CAN PROCEED ON THAT ONE AS WELL.

OKAY. THE ITEMS FOR TIME CERTAIN ARE 1:30 P.M., CITIZEN COMMUNICATION, AT 4:00 P.M., ZONINGS, Z-1 THROUGH Z-14, STAFF IS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT ON Z-4 TO DECEMBER 5th, AND ON 13, RIVER PLACE BOULEVARD TO DECEMBER 12th, 2002. AT 5:30 WE HAVE LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS AND AT 6:00 P.M. WE HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WE ONLY HAVE ONE OF THOSE, ITEM 72. THE ITEMS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION ARE 13, WHICH WE CONSIDERED SINCE WE ALREADY HAD THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE WILL BE RECOGNIZING COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER FOR A COMMENT. ITEM NO. 19 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. AND ITEM 67 IS -- IS POSTED AS -- LISTED AS AN ITEM PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. ACTUALLY THAT ITEM IS BEING POSTPONED UNTIL DECEMBER THE 5th, SO WE WILL NOT BE DISCUSSING THAT ITEM. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS AND TIME CERTAINS? AND WE READ ONE OF THE PREVIEWS OF ITEMS FROM THE NEXT -- THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETINGS, MS. CITY MANAGER, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE COMING UP FOR US ON THE 5th.

AS MR. QUINTERO MENTIONED THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSIONS GOING ON BETWEEN CAPITAL METRO AND THE NEIGHBORS WITH REGARD TO -- TO REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FOURTH AND 5th STREET CORRIDOR. ON DECEMBER THE 5th I WILL SPONSOR A COUNCIL RESOLUTION TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY JOINS CAPITAL METRO RESIDENTS AND LEADERSHIP IN A PARTNERSHIP THAT WILL DIRECT THE PLANNING AND REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS OF THE EAST FOURTH AND FIFTH STREET CORRIDOR. THERE IS MONEY IN THE BUDGET FOR THIS PARTICULAR ACTIVITY. AND WE WILL WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, MR. LIBRACH'S OFFICE TO CRAFT THE RESOLUTION IN A WAY THAT AUTHORIZES THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS. THIS IS A VERY EXCITING PROJECT. THIS IS THE THIRD LEG OF A STOOL THAT PROMISES TO REDEVELOP THESE COSTS VERY EFFECTIVELY. THE BIGGEST ONE BEING OF COURSE MUELLER THE AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE A.R.A. WHICH IS PROCEEDING WELL, THE EAST FOURTH APPEARED FIFTH STREET CORRIDOR PROMISES TO BE A VERY EXCITED PROJECT. AS YOU MAY HAVE READ IN THE PAPER, I ALSO HAVE ASKED MY STAFF TO BEGIN DISCUSSIONS ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE SMOKING ORDINANCE. WE WILL BE HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY. I GOT ALL THREE. AND WITH THE RESTAURANT OWNERS. THE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION TO -- TO LOOK AT OUR ORDINANCE AND COMPARE IT SIDE BY SIDE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER ORDINANCES, PARTICULARLY THE ONE THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR THIRD READING BY ROUND ROCK. THE IDEA THAT I'M PROPOSING IS THAT WE HAVE A TOTAL BAN ON SMOKING IN OUR RESTAURANTS AND STRENGTHEN THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, WHICH HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 1993. WHEN WE PASSED IT. SO THE ORDINANCE IS NOW NINE YEARS OLD. THERE'S NO LITERATURE ON THE HAZARDS OF SECONDHAND SMOKE, AND SO I -- SO I AM PROPOSING TO THE COUNCIL THAT WE BEGIN A PROCESS THAT HOPEFULLY WILL -- WILL GET -- CULL MINIMUM MAKE IT IN US STRENGTH -- CULMINATE IN US STRENGTHENING OUR ORDINANCE. ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT WILL BE COMING UP TO THE COUNCIL? COUNCILMEMBERS? FIB? -- ANYBODY? WE DETAILED YOUR NAME, YOU WEREN'T HERE. I WILL GO AHEAD AND RECOGNIZE YOU AT THIS TIME.

YOU ARE VERY KIND, MAURO MAURO -- MAYOR GARCIA. I'M JENNIFER GALE FOR MAYOR. I'M ASKING THAT -- THAT CHIEF STANLEY KNEE MOVE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION TO A DOWNTOWN LOCATION. I HAVE ASKED THIS FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW, EVER SINCE BEFORE HE ARRIVED HERE FROM CALIFORNIA. I'M ASKING THEY MOVE IT DOWNTOWN TO PEOPLE AREN'T MAKING A DAY OF IT JUST TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER. THERE'S A LOT OF ANIMOSITY TOWARD THE MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. I THINK WE CAN ALLEVIATE THAT ANGER IF PEOPLE HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THOSE COMPLAINTS KNOWN TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY ARE UNABLE TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S -- IT'S HIDDEN BEHIND CAP PLAZA. I'M ASKING WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE MOVE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOWNTOWN AND SHOULD HE NOT, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ASK HIM TO RESIGN. AND -- AT A FUTURE DATE SO WE CAN FIND A NEW CHIEF OF POLICE TO REPLACE HIM. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT CAN BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PUBLIC SAFETY. OTHER THAN YOUR HEALTH. SO I'M ASKING THAT WE GO AHEAD AND -- AND INDIVIDUALLY ASK THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO MOVE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION DOWNTOWN AND HELP MAKE AUSTIN MORE LIKE AUSTIN, TEXAS INSTEAD OF NEW YORK CITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME SPEAK, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MS. GALE. THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE UNDER CITIZENS COMMUNICATION GENERAL. WE WILL NOW READ INTO THE RECORD THE CONSENT AGENDA. MS. BROWN.

Clerk Brown: THE CONSENT AGENDA AS I KNOW IT, ITEM NO. 12 IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE WORK SESSION OF NOVEMBER 6th AND THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7th. ITEM 13 --

Mayor Garcia: ITEM 13, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER? DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER ITEM 13 OPERATELY OR DO YOU WANT TO HAVE IT, MAKE YOUR -- SEPARATELY OR MAKE YOUR COMMENTS --

Slusher: JUST BRING THAT UP RIGHT AFTER.

Mayor Garcia: 13 WILL BE TAKEN UP RIGHT AFTER.

Clerk Brown: ITEM 12, 14, 16 FOR SECOND READING ONLY, 15 -- EXCUSE ME, I'M -- I GOT OUT OF ORDER HERE. ITEM 12, 14, 15, THEN 16 FOR SECOND READING ONLY, 17 ACCORDING TO THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, 18, 20 SECOND AND THIRD READING, 21 SECOND READING ONLY, 22 THE -- ACCORDING TO THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, 23 ACCORDING TO THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 ACCORDING TO CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 FIRST READING ONLY, 52, 53 FIRST READING ONLY, 54 FIRST READING, 55, 56, 57 --

55 IS FOR ALL READINGS?

Clerk Brown: I BELIEVE SO. YOU SAID 53 FIRST READING ONLY.

YES, 54 FIRST READING. 55 I BELIEVE IS FOR ALL THREE.

Mayor Garcia: OKAY, IF YOU DON'T SAY FIRST READING, THAT MEANS ALL THREE.

Clerk Brown: YES, SIR.

Mayor Garcia: WHEN WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE, OKAY. 56, 57, 58, FOR THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS AND THAT IS FIRST READING ONLY. 59, 60, 61, FOR CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, 62, 63, 64, FOR CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, 65, 66, IS THE BOARD APPEARED COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS AS FOLLOWS -- BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS AS FOLLOWS, BUILDING AND STANDARD COMMISSION, ELLIE KATA, CONSENSUS APPOINTMENT. CHILD CARE COUNCIL, JUNE SMITH, CONSENSUS APPOINTMENT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, HORACE CARINGTON CONSENSUS REAPPOINTMENT. SHAMA --

Mayor Garcia: GOMTART.

IS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S REAPPOINTMENT. [ LAUGHTER ]

Mayor Garcia: DID I READ IT CORRECTLY IN CHIP ROSENTHAL, CONSENSUS APPOINTMENT. 67 IS ON CONSENSUS BUT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 5th DECEMBER 5TH. 68, 69, 70 PER CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS. 71, 72, AND THEN AS YOU NOTED, MAYOR, 73 HAS BEEN DELETED FROM THE AGENDA.

Mayor Garcia: 72 IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE TAKEN UP AT 6:00, CORRECT? BROUP YES, SIR.

Mayor Garcia: FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT MAY BE MAKING THE FIRST MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, LET ME EXPLAIN HOW THE CONSENT AGENDA WORKS. THIS AGENDA IS PRINTED THE FRIDAY BEFORE THIS COUNCIL MEETING. IS MADE PUBLIC TO EVERYBODY. THE COUNCIL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, ASK QUESTIONS IF NECESSARY AND FOR THOSE THAT HAVE SPECIFIC COMMENTS, ON THE -- ON THE AGENDA ITSELF, THEY CAN SIGN A CARD AND I WILL RECOGNIZE THEM. I WILL BE RECOGNIZING MR. MIKE RAY HERNANDEZ TO ADDRESS ITEM NO. 21. WE HAVE -- ON ITEM 19 THAT ITEM HAS BEEN PULLED, SO THAT WILL NOT BE PART OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. TELL ME AGAIN, MS. BROWN, ITEM 32, IS THAT -- IS THAT FOR THE FIRST READING ONLY?

NO, SIR.

READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS?

YES. WE HAVE FOUR SPEAKERS THAT I WILL RECOGNIZE BEFORE WE GO INTO DISCUSSION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. 62 --, I HAVE A CARD SIGNED BY RICHARD SUTTLE, HE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. HE HAS A NOTE THAT I GUESS HE WANTS ME TO READ INTO THE RECORD. HE'S HAPPY TO BE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE SOUTH AUSTIN OUTFALL ISSUE WITH BRIGID, FINALLY. I EXPECT THAT'S BRIGID SHEA. OKAY. I'M JUST READING WHAT HE WROTE INTO THE CARD, SO -- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER. ITEM 67, IS BEING POSTPONED, SO MR. PEDRO MARTINEZ AND JOE M. PEREZ, THIS -- THESE CARDS WILL BE KEPT UNTIL THE ITEM COMES BACK ON THE 5th OF DECEMBER, SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE RECOGNIZING YOU TODAY. OKAY. ITEM NO. 21, MR. HERNANDEZ? MAYOR GARCIA, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. APPROXIMATELY A WEEK AGO, WE WERE HERE ON -- ON THE REQUEST FOR THE ZONING CHANGE APPLICATION FOR 5100 EAST SEVENTH STREET. AS YOU WILL RECALL, THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION. AND CONCERNS WERE RAISED. THIS PAST WEEK, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, THROUGH HIS STAFF, CALLED A MEETING AND MS. SANTIZ, HER ARCHITECT AND I APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESENT, INCLUDING DR. HERRERA AND SUSANA ALMANZA FROM PODER. THE -- ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION WERE SENT TO EVERYONE IN AN E-MAIL, INCLUDING MS. ALMANZA, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THESE FULLY SATISFY THE CONCERNS THAT MS. ALMANZA AND DR. HERRERA RAISED, BUT I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM AND I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT THEIR SILENCE MEANS THAT A LOT OF THEIR ISSUES AND CONCERNS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. FIRST, ISSUE ONE, WITH REGARD TO THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN, THE PROJECT IS A TWO-PHASE PROJECT. ONE IS A SMALL RESTAURANT WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY 27. THE -- THE PHASE THAT EVOKED THE MOST PROTEST WAS THE BANQUET HALL. AND THE BANQUET HALL IS CURRENTLY ENVISIONED AS HAVING AN OCCUPANCY LIMIT OF 370 PEOPLE. THE -- THE NEIGHBORS INDICATED A CONCERN, WHAT WOULD WE DO IF WE HAD A MUSICAL EVENT THAT WOULD ATTRACT SUCH NUMBERS THAT -- THAT THE FACILITY WOULD BE INADEQUATE TO HANDLE IT. AND WITH REGARD TO SPILLOVER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ANSWER IS THAT THE -- THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DOES HAVE OVERSIGHT OF THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS OF BUILDINGS IN AUSTIN. AND WE ARE PREPARED TO -- TO ADVISE THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT EACH TIME AN EVENT WILL BE HELD SO THAT IF AN IMPROMPTU VISIT IS DESIRED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL, THEY CAN COME AND SEE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPRIETOR OF THE BUSINESS IS COMPLYING WITH THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THE -- THAT THE PROJECT OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN. FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE -- THE EVENTS THAT WOULD BE HELD AT THE BANQUET HALL WOULD BE RESTRICTED SO THAT NONE OF THE EVENTS WHERE THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IS THE MAJOR COMPONENTS WOULD EVER BE HELD DURING -- DURING NORMAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HOURS, THAT BEING FROM 7:00 A.M. TO -- TO 4:00 P.M. [BUZZER SOUNDING]

Mayor Garcia: HOLD IT JUST A SECOND. YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN SOME TIME, SINCE YOU ARE RESPONDING TO ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, I'M GOING TO ALLOW THAT YOU HAVE -- LET'S JUST -- LET'S JUST NOT RUN THE CLOCK. ABOUT HOW MUCH LONGER DO YOU THINK THAT YOU HAVE?

I DON'T KNOW IF -- IF THE MAYOR HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW MY RESPONSE IN THE E-MAIL, BUT -- BUT I'M ESSENTIALLY GOING DOWN THAT E-MAIL. I CAN BE AS BRIEF OR AS --

IF YOU COULD BE BRIEF, I THINK THAT -- THAT THE POINT THAT PERHAPS IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED THESE RESPONSES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP.

YES, SIR, WE HAVE.

AND YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED THE RESPONSE?

WE HAVE NOT.

SOME OF THESE ISSUES WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. SOME WILL BE IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. I THINK THAT PERHAPS THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THIS IS TO HAVE YOU -- HAVE YOU DISCUSS WITH -- WITH GREG GUERNSEY, MR. GREG GUERNSEY OR SOMEBODY IN THE LEGAL STAFF, MS. MARTY TERRY HOW THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE HANDLED SO THEY CAN BE BROUGHT TO US AT THE TIME WE DO THIRD READING. IF YOU COULD JUST IN SUMMARY --

IN SUMMARY PROCEDURES WOULD BE PUT INTO PLACE TO SAFEGUARD THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN. ADDITIONALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS INFORMED ME THAT SHE'S WILLING TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS OVER AND BEYOND THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED OR ASKED OF HER. NUMBER ONE, SHE WOULD BEAR THE COST OF IF THE CITY SHOULD DECIDE TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE PARKING ON SHADY LANE, SHE WOULD ERECT THE SIGNS OR HAVE THEM ERECTED AT HER EXPENSE. WITH REGARD TO THE SCHOOL, WE WILL MAKE OUR FACILITY AVAILABLE ONE EVENING PER MONTH AT NO COST TO THE SCHOOL FOR ANY SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES. IN ADDITION THE PROPERTY OWNER INDICATES THAT SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE AS A SPONSOR IN THE ADOPT A SCHOOL PROGRAM AND ADOPT ALLEN ELEMENTARY. THE INFRASTRUCTURE, TRAFFIC, INVOLVEMENT OF COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PLACE FOR THE COMMUNITY, ALL OF THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN MY RESPONSE AND I INVITE ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTING IN HEARING WHAT -- WHAT OUR POSITION IS TO -- TO REVIEW THAT E-MAIL. I WILL BE HAPPY TO -- I HAVE SENT IT TO MR. SALDANA FROM YOUR STAFF.

THANK YOU, YOU MAY WANT TO TALK TO MR. GUERNSEY. IS MARTY HERE, MS. TERRY? YOU MAY -- MR. HERNANDEZ YOU MAY TAKE SOME TIME TO VISIT WITH MR. LLOYD TO MAKE SURE THAT HAVING IS TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE WE DO THIRD READING. I'M GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. AS I INDICATED WEON'T RECOGNIZE SPEAKERS FOR SECOND AND THIRD READINGS, BUT I WILL READ THEM INTO THE RECORD. MIKE McGORIK, REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. CARLOS [INAUDIBLE] REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. RUDY MORENO, NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, IN FAVOR OF. PAUL SUBURO, I THINK, NOT WISHING TO SPEAK AND REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. JESSE GALVAN, NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. JOSE RUIZ MONSANO, NOT REGISTERED TO SPEAK -- NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, REGISTER UNDERSTAND FAVOR OF ... JAVIER VASQUEZ, NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, NOT EXPRESSING A PREFERENCE. ARE THERE ANY REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE, SYLVIA HERRERA, STYLE SYLVIA -- SUSANA ALMANZA ALL SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I SAW BOTH DR. HERRERA AND MS. ALMANZA LEAVE. IS MS. DESMEDA HERE? THEY ARE REGISTERED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK AND AGAINST THE ZONING. IN THE CASE OF MS. ALMANZA, HER COMMENT SAID WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE LIQUOR AND ALCOHOL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO THOSE ARE ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SPEAKING SPEAKING ON THIS ONE. THE LISTING, MS. GLASGO OR MR. GUERNSEY, THE WAY IT'S POSTED ON THE AGENDA. IT'S CS 1 COMMERCIAL FOR TRACT 1 AND CSCO FOR TRACT TWO. I THINK THAT WHEN WE DID FIRST READING, WE MAY HAVE DONE CS 1 FOR EVERYTHING. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHETHER THAT'S -- WHETHER THAT'S THE WAY, DO YOU REMEMBER? HOW WE DID IT ON THE FIRST READING?

HOLD ON, MAYOR, LET ME SEE. TRACT 1 IS WHICH TRACT? THAT WHERE THE BIG BANQUET HALL IS GOING TO BE?

I AM GOING TO LOOK THROUGH MY MAP HERE. TRACT 1 IS THE LITTLE ONE IN THE MIDDLE, TRACT 2 IS THE BIG ONE.

TRACT 2 IS THE BIG ONE?

CORRECT.

OKAY. I DHI THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS -- THAT WAS MADE TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY -- BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND LET ME REFER TO HIM AND SEE IF HE REMEMBERS WHAT IT WAS THAT WE PASSED ON FIRST RIDING. I THOUGHT IT WAS CS 1-CO ON BOTH OF THEM, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

Slusher: MAYOR, I HAVE TO LOOK BACK AND SEE EXACTLY THE DESIGNATIONS, I DO RECALL THAT WE PUT A -- LET'S SEE. WE I THINK --

PUT IT IN A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY SAYING NO COCKTAIL -- NO COCKTAIL LOUNGES, THAT WAS A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. AND I THINK WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO GO TO CS 1-CO BECAUSE THAT PLACED THE RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE DRAM SHOP LAW ON THE OWNER AS OPPOSED TO.

Slusher: THAT'S RIGHT, WE DID DO THAT. THAT WAS THE INTENT.

THAT WAS ON BOTH TRACKS, IS THAT CORRECT.

I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE WHICH IS TRACT ONE, A LITTLE TRACT, YOU GRANTED CS 1-CO. OF COURSE THERE'S A PROHIBITION OF COCKTAIL LOUNGE UNDER THAT ONE. THEN FOR TRACT -- THE SAME THING FOR TRACT 2, YOU CAN -- YOU PUT IT CS-CO WITH THE SAME PROHIBITION, COCKTAIL LOUNGE. SO, YOU KNOW, FOR YOUR CS 1, THE LITTLE TRACT, YOU CANNOT HAVE A BAR -- VIA THE PROHIBITION OF A COCKTAIL LOUNGE. THAT'S WHAT YOU DID.

ALL RIGHT. THAT DOES GET TO THE INTENT. I'M NOT ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD ABOUT THE DESIGNATIONS.

WHAT WE MAY DO, MS. GLASGO, IS GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT FOR -- FOR THE MEETING OF THE FIRST READING AND MAKE SURE THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE THIRD READING THAT THE POSTING COINCIDES WITH THAT PARTICULAR -- THAT'S WHAT WE HAD THE LARGE DISCUSSION. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT WE HAD DONE CS 1-CO. BECAUSE OF THE DRAM SHOP LAW.

OKAY. WELL, WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE CORRECT IT BASED ON --

THE VOTE TODAY WILL BE AS POSTED, CS 1-CO FOR TRACT 1, CS-CO FOR TRACT 2.

CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR. ON ITEM NO. 32, WE HAVE -- WE HAVE MUNOZ, NOT SWISHING TO SPEAK -- WISHING TO SPEAK, DONATING THE TIME TO BRAD BAILIFF. [INAUDIBLE] NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, DONATING TIME TO MR. BRAD BAILIFF. MR. BRAD BAILIFF? AND THEN MR. HENRY FLORES, AFTER THAT. WELCOME, SIR. YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MANAGER FUTRELL. MY NAME IS BRAD BAILIFF, AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF CASEY AND GINTZ. I REPRESENT A NUMBER OF CLECS, COMPETITIVE CHANGE CARRIER, TIME WARNER TELECOM OF TEXAS, XO TEXAS, AND OTHERS. THE CITY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THIS CITY CODE CHAPTER IN THE SPRING, FIRST ROUND OF COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED IN MAY. CITY MADE LIMITED REVISIONS TO ITS INITIAL DRAFT. THE SECOND ROUND OF COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED IN JUNE. STAKEHOLDERS MET WITH THE CITY STAFF ON TWO OCCASIONS. AND IN JULY THE CITY ADVISED STAKEHOLDERS THAT IT WOULD GO FURTHER WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE NEXT 60 TO 90 DAYS. DURING THAT TIME, IN THE LAST FOUR MONTHS, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED CONTACTS FROM STAFF REGARDING ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. DURING THAT TIME, THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE HAS -- HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS PASSED A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THIS -- TO THE ORDINANCE. WE HAVE THREE PRIMARY CONCERNS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TO THIS PROPOSED CHANGE. THE PROJECT COORDINATION ZONE AND ITS STRUCTURE GIVES US SOME TROUBLES. [INAUDIBLE] RELOCATION VIOLATES STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AND THE DAMAGE MITT MITIGATION PLAN ALSO VIOLATES STATE LAW. THE PROJECT COORDINATION ZONE -- [INAUDIBLE] -- REQUIRES NEW ENTRANCE PICK ONE OF TWO WINDOWS, EITHER JANUARY FIRST OR JULY FIRST BY WHICH TIME THEY WILL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW BY THE CITY AND FOR DETERMINATION OF WHEN THAT PROJECT CAN BE BUILT. IT'S A -- IF A NEW CUSTOMER COMES TO ONE OF OUR CLIENTS AND ASKS FOR NEW FACILITIES TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON JANUARY 10th, UNDER THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS PROPOSED, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO START BUILDING ANY FACILITIES FOR THAT CUSTOMER UNTIL AFTER THE REVIEW PERIOD HAS ENDED IN -- LATE JULY PERIOD, AT WHICH TIME WE GET A FORECAST OF WHEN WE CAN START TRENCHING AND START BUILDING. WE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF BEING ABLE TO FORECAST WHAT OUR CUSTOMER DEMAND WILL BE. IF WE CAN'T WE BILLED TO MEET THE CUSTOMER DEMAND, WE CAN'T COMPETE. THIS RESTRICTS CUSTOMER CHOICE BY KEEPING NEW COMPETITIVE [INAUDIBLE] OUT OF THE MARKET, ALSO DELAYS THE PROVISION OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS. IF A NEW COMPANY COMES INTO THIS CITY AND WANTS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OR TO BE ABLE TO LEASE A LARGE AMOUNT OF OFFICE SPACE, WANTS A COMPETITIVE PROVIDER TO BE PROVIDING ITS SERVICES TO IT, THE PROVIDER DOES NOT HAVE THE FACILITIES AVAILABLE, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO MEET THE NEED OF THAT CUSTOMER. WE BELIEVE THIS MAKES IT A POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS TELECOM ACT AND STATE LAW AS A -- AS A BARRIER TO ENTRY FOR THE COMPETITIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS TO BE ABLE TO ENTER THE MARKET. THE EXCEPTION FOR PROJECTS OF 300 FEET IS TOO NARROW. IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED ABOUT WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES WE HAVE FOR BEING ABLE TO -- TO DO FEARED LANES OR LATERALS. IT'S OUR CLIENT'S FEELING THAT THIS IS STILL TOO NARROW AND TOO SHORT OF A PERIOD AND THIS HAS COME UP QUICKLY AND WE HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE OTHER PROVISION THAT'S HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ABOUT ADDING LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE EXEMPTION FOR MEETING CUSTOMER DEMAND. IN TERMS OF THE FACILITY RELOCATION, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS VIOLATES THE STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES -- DOES REQUIRE FACILITIES OWNERS TO PAY FOR RELOCATION IN THE INSTANCES OF STREET WIDENING OR STREET STRAIGHTENING. THOSE ARE THE ONLY INSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE STATE LAW ALLOW THE' THE STATE TO RECOOP COST FROM THE FACILITIES OPENER AND TO -- IN THE ORDINANCE THAT'S PROPOSED, BEARS COSTS OF THE RELOCATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINED BY THE CITY. THE DAMAGE MITIGATION PLAN ALSO IS PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW. HOUSE BILL 1777 SEVERAL YEARS AGO RESULTED IN CHAPTER 283 OF THE STATE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THAT ADDRESSES HOW THE CITY IS ABLE TO OBTAIN ITS FUNDS FROM THE TELECOM PROVIDERS, REPLACE THE OLD FRANCHISE FEE SYSTEM AND THAT ALLOWS ONLY THOSE FEES, THIS DAMAGE MITIGATION PLAN, IS A FEE THAT IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE LAW. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, IS REVISIONS TO THIS AMENDMENT AND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE ABILITY TO MEET CUSTOMER DEMAND AND EXEMPTIONS FOR THOSE SITUATIONS. WE'VE NOT HAD THE ABILITY IN THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS TO BE ABLE TO TALK WITH STAFF ABOUT THIS. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE IT WAS NOT BEING BROUGHT UP AGAIN AND WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS NOT BEING PUSHED FORWARD. BECAUSE OF THOSE CONCERNS, THERE ARE OTHER PROVIDERS, AT&T AND -- INCLUDED THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS. AND WE THINK THAT MOVING FORWARD ON ALL THREE READINGS TODAY WOULD BE PREMATURE AND SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO WORK WITH STAFF AND TO GET SOME LANGUAGE WORKED OUT. I'M WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSS ISSUES FURTHER IF YOU HAVE ANY.

Slusher: MAYOR?

Mayor Garcia: QUESTIONS -- COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

Slusher: I'M SORRY, I MISSED AT THE FIRST OF YOUR SPEECH, WHO DO YOU REPRESENT?

I REPRESENT THE CELEC COALITION OF LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, McLOUD U.S.A., QUEST, TIME WARNER TELECOM AND XO TEXAS.

Slusher: THANK YOU.

SOUTHWESTERN BELL, ALSO, YIELDED SOME OF THEIR TIME TO ME, BUT I'M NOT REPRESENTING THEM.

Slusher: THANK YOU, SIR.

Mayor Garcia: WHEN YOU SIGN YOUR CARD I'M GOING TO SEND IT BACK TO YOU, THERE'S A LINE AT THE BOTTOM THAT SAYS IF YOU ARE A LOBBYIST IDENTIFY YOUR CLIENTS. IF YOU COULD DO THAT.

YES, SIR.

Mayor Garcia: SOMEBODY, IF YOU COULD TAKE THIS CARD BACK. DO WE HAVE MORE SPEAKERS.

Mayor Garcia: WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER. AND THEN MR. HOOD IS GOING TO REPLY TO -- REPLY TO THE ISSUE OF CUSTOMER DEMAND.

Slusher: OKAY. WELL, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK.

Wynn: MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER. YOU NOTE YOU CAN INTUITIVELY GUESS THAT SOME PROVIDERS HAVE SOME HART BURN ABOUT THIS ISSUE -- HEART BURN ABOUT THIS ISSUE. YOU MENTIONED I GUESS PRIVATE BUILDING OPENERS HAVE ALSO SHOWN SOME OPPOSITION, THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE AND OTHERS, WHAT WOULD BE THEIR ISSUE HERE?

DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE IN ITS RESOLUTION WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LENGTH OF TIME INVOLVED IN -- IN BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN THE APPLICATIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATIONS. THEY ALSO WANTED TO MAKE -- MAKE THE AROUND EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL PARTS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THEY DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE -- THAT THE CONCENTRATING ONLY ON THE DOWNTOWN AREA BROADER THAN WHAT MOST PEOPLE CONSIDER DOWNTOWN, THEY WERE CONSIDERED ON FOCUSING ON THAT BY ITSELF, THEY WERE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE SHORTCUTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONNECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY SERVICE.

Wynn: SO AS AN EXAMPLE OF SAY -- IF SAY AN OFFICE BUILDING DOWNTOWN WAS TRYING TO ATTACK A TENANT, FOR VACANT SPACE, PRESUMABLY THEY ARE COMPETING AGAINST VACANT OFFICE BUILDING IN NORTHWEST AUSTIN, THEIR CONCERN MIGHT BE THAT THEY COULD LOSE THAT TENANT BASED ON JUST A TIMING ISSUE OF WHEN THAT TENANT'S PHONE SERVICE OR TELECOM SERVICE COULD BE DELIVERED VERSUS HOW SOON IT COULD HAPPEN IN NORTHWEST AUSTIN.

THAT'S CORRECT. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK THAT'S THEIR CONCERN, BUT IT'S A VALID CONCERN, ONE THAT'S DISCUSSED IN THEIR RESOLUTION, AND THE ABILITY FOR -- FOR A COMPETITIVE PROVIDER TO BE ABLE TO FORECAST IT AND UNTIL THEY GET A CONTRACT AND ONCE THEY HAVE A CONTRACT, TO RESPOND QUICKLY BECAUSE, USUALLY WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY MOVING IN, THEY WANT SERVICE WITHIN A PERIOD OF -- OF -- THEY WOULD LIKE IT NEXT WEEK, BUT USUALLY YOU CAN WORK IN THE TWO TO THREE MONTH PERIOD BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY BEGIN TO PROVIDE SERVICE. THAT'S ONE OF THOSE SORTS OF ISSUES THAT I THINK IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE STAFF ON LANGUAGE ABOUT MEETING CUSTOMER DEMAND OR OTHER INSTANCES THAT-- THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH THAT. I THINK WE WOULD BE IN GOOD SHAPE. THE EMERGENCY PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THE ORDINANCE, THOUGH, I THINK DON'T EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A TELECOM PROVIDER. I THINK EMERGENCY IS TOO BROAD. TOO BROAD AND TOO NARROW. NOT WELL DEFINED AS TO WHEN YOU CAN DO THIS. DOES ALLOW THE DIRECTOR FOR A GOOD CAUSE TO GRANT EXCEPTIONS. BUT THAT ALSO LEADS TO INTERPRETATION AND INABILITY TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO A CUSTOMER THAT YOU CAN ISSUE THAT CONTRACT AND PROVIDE THE BROADBAND SERVICE THAT'S THEY ARE GOING TO NEED. IT'S NOT JUST TELEPHONE AND VOICE LINES, OFTEN THESE ARE GOING TO BE THE HIGH BROADBAND LINES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE USING FOR THEIR BUSINESS. CHANGE CHANGE

CONSUMERS WILL NOT CONSIDER IT A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME WHEN THEY CALL US FOR TELEPHONE SERVICE THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM THAT IN ORDER TO GET SERVICE TO THEIR BUILDING WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL EITHER JANUARY FIRST OR JULY FIRST TO 57 BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION -- TO EVEN BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AS PROVIDED IN THIS ORDINANCE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION AND AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPOKESPERSON THAT IT IS IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW WHICH PROVIDED THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC MECHANISM DEFINED UNDER STATE LAW THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS HAS ABIDED BY PREVIOUSLY, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY COLLECTED BY THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO HELP THE CITY RECOMPETENCE FOR DAMAGES TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ANY BURDEN ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS DOING IS PLACING OBSTACLES IN HOW TO GET TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTO THE CITY QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY FOR CONSUMERS. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE FOR CONSUMERS -- WHEN THEY CALL YOU, THEY WANT THEIR FIBER-OPTIC CABLE IN THEIR BUILDING ON A SPECIFIC TARGET DATE. CONSUMERS WAIT UNTIL THE LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT TO LET YOU KNOW AND THEN WE'RE PLACED BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL IN TRYING TO PROVIDE SERVICES. IT'S NOT FAIR, IT'S AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN. AND AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, IT HAS A LOT OF CON NOTATIONS OF AN ARTIFICIAL BARRIER TO COMPETITORS. AND I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THAT IT NOT BEEN PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY BECAUSE IT PUTS US IN AN AWKWARD POSITION, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE LACK OF ANY EFFORT OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS OF THE CITY STAFF TO ADDRESS LEGITIMATE AND WELL DOCUMENTED CONCERNS BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU, MR. FLORES. THE ISSUES OF CONSUMER DEMAND, CUSTOMER DEMAND, TIMETABLE AND COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.

YES. THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY ARE NOT ISSUES THAT WERE NOT FULLY DISCUSSED DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE ON THESE PROPOSALS EARLIER THIS SUMMER. I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME CONSIDERABLE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN ZONE, THE COORDINATION ZONE AND THE IMPACT THAT THE PLANNING PROCESS THIS ZONING WOULD HAVE ON THE DELIVERY OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS. FIRST OF ALL, THE COORDINATION PROCESS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE EXCAVATION PROJECTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 300 FEET IN LENGTH. MOST PROJECTS, OUR RECORDS SHOW, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED TO THE COORDINATION PROCESS. WHEN MOST PEOPLE CALL AND NEED SERVICE AND NEED IT IMMEDIATELY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXCAVATE MORE THAN A CITY BLOCK IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH A SERVICE, AND THAT WAS THE INTENT OF CITY STAFF, INCLUDING THIS EXCEPTION TO THE -- TO THE COORDINATION PROCESS IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. THE SECOND FAIL-SAFE THAT WE HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY PROVIDER WHO FALLS OUTSIDE THE PLANNING WINDOW WHO DISCOVERED THAT NECESSITY NEED TO EXCAVATE MORE THAN 300 FEET IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO OFFER SERVICE MAY IDENTIFY ANYONE WHO IS EXCAVATING IN THE AREA AND MAY IMMEDIATELY FALL INTO THE SAME TRENCH, SO TO SPEAK AS THE PERSON WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND IS ALREADY ON THE COORDINATION AND THE -- THE COORDINATION PLANNING SCHEDULE THAT WILL BE PUT OUT BY PUBLIC WORKS. SO THAT'S THE SECOND FAIL-SAFE. THE THIRD FAIL-SAFE IS THAT IF ALL ELSE FAILS AND THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING THAT WOULD LAW SOMEONE TO EXCAVATE MORE THAN 300 FEET IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO A NEW CUSTOMER, THEY CAN TAKE THAT TO THE DIRECTOR OF BLIRK WORKS WHO IN THIS ORDINANCE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GRANTING AN EXCEPTION TO THE COORDINATING PROCESS FOR JUST CAUSE. IF FOR SOME REASON THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DENIES THAT REQUEST, THEN THE ORDINANCE -- THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN THE BASIC ORDINANCE ALLOWS THAT RULING TO BE APPEALED TO THE CITY MANAGER. SO WE BELIEVE THERE ARE SUFFICIENT FAIL-SAFES IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT WILL ALLOW TELECOMMUNICATION AND CABLE PROVIDERS TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE TIMELY SERVICE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO DO AND CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD THAT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IS BEING ROLLED OUT. NOW, REFERENCING SOME OF THE PROVISIONS THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF PROVIDING A BARRIER TO ENTRY, FEDERAL LAW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES CITIES WITH THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. IT'S REFERRED TO IN THE INDUSTRY AS THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISION IN THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT. AS LONG AS THOSE REGULATIONS ARE REASONABLE AND THAT THEY ARE GEARED TOWARD PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY, THAT IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE BARRIER FOR PROVISIONS THAT ARE BEING DECIDED HERE TODAY. WITH REFERENCE TO TWO OTHER PROVISIONS THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT, BOTH THE DAMAGE -- THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE PROVISION AND THE RELOCATION OF FACILITIES PROVISION, THOSE ARE NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. THEY ARE NOT CHANGES TO CURRENT CITY POLICY. WITH REFERENCE TO THE RELOCATION PROVISION, ALL WE ARE DOING IS MOVING THE CURRENT ORDINANCE PROVISION FROM ONE CHAPTER IN THE CODE AND PUTTING IT INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE WHERE IT BELONGED ALL ALONG. WITH RESPECT TO THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROPOSAL, ALL WE'VE DONE HAS BEEN TO CHANGE A COUPLE OF THE WORDS TO AN EXISTING POLICY. TO BETTER CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT WITH RESPECT TO THIS FEE. THIS FEE IS ONLY -- THESE DAMAGES ARE ONLY IMPOSED WHENEVER A TELECOMMUNICATION PROVIDER OR OTHER UTILITY IS SEEKING TO CUT A NEW OR WHAT HAS BEEN A RESERVE STREETS, EITHER A RIGHT COMFORT INDEX OR THAT HAS BEEN RESURFACED OR REDONE WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS. IT'S ONLY IN THOSE CASES DO THESE DAMAGES COME INTO EFFECT. AND THE REASON WHY WE BELIEVE THEY ARE DAMAGES AND NOT A FEE IS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE TO GO DOWN TO A CAR RENTAL AGENCY AND RENT AN AUTOMOBILE AND BLIG BRING IT BACK ALL BANGED UP, YOU COULDN'T TELL THEM THAT THE MONEY YOU PAID TO RENT THE CAR WAS SUPPOSED TO COVER THE DAMAGES THAT WERE INFLECTED TO THE CAR. THE SAME ANALOGY IS TRUE HERE. THE MONEY THAT WE RECEIVE UNDER CHAPTER 283 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, HOUSE BILL 1777, IS MONEY FOR THE RENTAL OF THE RIGHTS OF WAY, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. THE DAMAGES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE ALL THESE YEARS AND THAT WE ARE MAKING A SLIGHT MODIFICATION TO TODAY ARE EXACTLY THAT, THERE ARE DAMAGES THAT COST -- THAT LIMITS DAMAGES TO THE NEW STREETS THAT A REDUCTION IS IN THE LIFE OF THAT STREET THAT'S CAUSED WHEN SOMEONE CUTS A STREET THAT'S ALREADY BEEN RESURFACED OR REDONE IN THE LAST FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS. ARE THERE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OR QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO ADDRESS?

Mayor Garcia: ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF STATE LAW. THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES COMPLIES WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW?

YES. OUR OPINION IN THE LAW DEPARTMENT IS THAT IT DOES COMPLY FULLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

Mayor Garcia: FURTHER QUESTIONS?

Dunkerley: I HAVE ONE QUESTION. MR. HOOD, COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT YOU THINK THE TIME DIFFERENCE WOULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN AN APPLICATION THAT WAS UNDER THAT 300 FEET AND ONE THAT WAS OVER THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ALTERNATE PROCESS?

I THINK FOR THAT I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO BILL GARDENER FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

HELLO, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, CITY MANAGER, BILL GARDEN, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU. YOUR QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH LONGER WOULD IT TAKE TO DO AN OVER 300-FOOT PROJECT VERSUS HOW MUCH QUICKER WOULD AN UNDER 300-FOOT PROJECT GO, IN ORDER TO PERFORM ANY PROJECT IN THE DOWNTOWN RIGHT-OF-WAY, UTILITY COORDINATION IS REQUIRED. IT'S GENERALLY A 14 TO 28-DAY PROCESS. ADDITIONALLY IF THERE ARE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS AS WELL AS TRAFFIC SCHEDULING. THOSE TEND TO BE THE MAJOR TIME USERS OF THE TIME LINE BETWEEN MAKING THE SERVICE SCW REQUEST AND ACTUALLY MAKING THE PROJECT. IT USUALLY TAKES ABOUT 90 DAYS TO GET SCHEDULES INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA FOR AN EXCAVATION PROJECT. THESE WOULD BE NON-EMERGENCY PROJECTS, JUST ROUTINE WORK UNDER 300 FEET. IN LOOKING AT PROJECTS OVER 300 FEET, A MORE DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL SUBMITTAL, CALLED A GENERAL PERMIT REQUEST, IS NEEDED, AS WELL AS PERHAPS MORE EXTENSIVE UTILITY COORDINATION BECAUSE OF THE GREATER AMOUNT OF CONFLICT AND A LITTLE MORE COORDINATION TIME FOR TRAFFIC BECAUSE MANY MORE INTERSECTIONS AND STREETS WOULD BE AFFECTED. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE AVERAGE UP FRONT PLANNING TIME FOR A PROJECT RIGHT NOW OVER 300 FEET IS PROBABLY CLOSER TO A FOUR TO FIVE-MONTH WINDOW INSTEAD OF THE 90 DAYS FOR ONE THAT WOULD BE BASICALLY --

Dunkerley: HOW LONG?

FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS.

Dunkerley: CAN YOU GIVE US SOME IDEA OF HOW MANY OF YOUR REQUESTS FALL INTO THAT OVER 300 IN A PERIOD OF THE LAST 24 MONTHS?

APPROXIMATELY FOUR TO FIVE PERCENT TOTAL, AND THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED THE CITY'S OWN PROJECTS, WATER LINE UPGRADES, WASTEWATER.

Dunkerley: IF YOU'VE GOT THE INFORMATION, PRIOR MARYLY THE TELECOM PROVIDERS, THAT SEEMS THAT BE THE ISSUE BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CUSTOMERS.

I HAVE THE EXACT STATISTICS FOR SOUTHWESTERN BELL AND TIME WARNER. AND JUST BY CHANCE FOR SOUTHERN UNION GAS. I DON'T HAVE THEM FOR THE OTHER TELEDOMS, BUT IN GENERAL WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT PERHAPS ONE PERCENT. DUNK AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT ONE TO TWO MONTHS LONGER IF THEY'RE OVER #- HUNDRED FEET?

THAT'S CORRECT. PRESENTLY WE HANDLE ABOUT 500 PERMITS A MONTH. AND TO GIVE AN IDEA, THE AVERAGE TIME WARNER, SOUTHERN BELL PERMIT VOLUME FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR FOR OVER 300 FIGHT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA IS USUALLY BETWEEN THREE AND SIX. THAT'S THREE AND SIX A YEAR. AND WE HANDLE 500 A MONTH. SO IT'S A VERY SMALL AMOUNT.

Dunkerley: DID YOU ALL HAVE ANY INTENTION OF LOOKING AT THIS AGAIN IN, SAY, SIX MONTHS TO SEE HOW THIS IS WORKING? MR. HOOD OR WHOEVER COULD ADDRESS THAT.

I'LL PROBABLY BE DOING THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF IT DURING THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD. OF COURSE, WE WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN. I WISH I HAD HAD THE STATISTICS AVAILABLE OF THE AMOUNT OF CUTS FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, TIME WARNER AND SOUTHWESTERN BELL, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, THEY GAVE US THE OPINION THAT THEY THOUGHT THERE WERE MANY MORE PROJECTS AND WE DIDN'T HAVE STATISTICAL INFORMATION TO COUNTER THAT. PROBABLY IF I HAD IT TO DO OVER AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO SHORTEN THE THRESHOLD TO MAYBE 100. BUT WE'VE PUT THE 300 IN OUR PROPOSAL WHEN WE MAILED IT TO THEM AT THE END OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, WHICH WAS ABOUT THE FIRST OF AUGUST. WE DID INDICATE TO THEM THAT THAT WAS THE PROPOSAL WE WERE CARRYING FORWARD, WHICH IN ESSENCE WAS THE ONE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. WE SAID WE'D DO IT IN 60 TO 90 DAYS. I'M AFRAID WE'RE ABOUT THREE WEEKS LATE, BUT WE CAME CLOSE TO THE TIME FRAME THAT WE IDENTIFIED TO ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS AND WE ALSO PROVIDED THEM A COPY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT COMPLETELY ANSWERS THE QUESTION. DUPG DUNK THANK YOU.

Mayor Garcia: DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE?

I THOUGHT I HEARD MY NAME FOR A QUESTION. THAT'S WHY I CAME BACK UP.

Dunkerley: THAT'S FINE.

THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO ADD, MAYOR, IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT TO PART 6 ON PAGE 5 OF 8, THE OLD LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING AMENDED CLEARLY PROVIDED, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LERM DETERMINING THE LANGUAGE PROVISION. AND THE NEW LANGUAGE SAYS THEY MUST PAY LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. SO IT'S CLEAR THE TAKE HOLDERS TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE FEES AND THE USE OF THOSE FEES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

Thomas: MAYOR?

Mayor Garcia: WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

Thomas: YES. ON THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, HOW LONG WAS THAT PROCESS?

WE MET WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS, WE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL IN APRIL, AND I GUESS IN JUNE WE STARTED THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, AND WE MET WITH THEM TWO OR THREE TIMES. I ALSO MET PERSONALLY WITH TIME WARNER REPRESENTATIVES AND SOUTHERN BELL REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT THE ORDINANCE. AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, COUNCIL, THAT IN THE SIX-MONTH WINDOW IF THERE'S AN APPROVED PERMIT LIKE THE CITY HAS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF A PERMIT, THAT WOULD BE APPROVED IN THE SCHEDULE, THEN THAT PERSON OR THAT COMPANY REQUESTING A PERMIT CAN JUMP IN THE TREMPLG WITH TRENCH. SO THEY ACTUALLY SPEED UP THEIR TIME AS OPPOSED TO IF THEY WERE IN THE NORMAL QUEU ON GETTING APPLICATIONS GOING. ON IF THERE'S AN APPROVED SCHEDULE AND SAY THE CITY IS DOING A TRENCH FOR ANOTHER COMPANY AND THEY SAY WE HAVE A PERSON WHO WANTS TO HOOK UP TODAY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET INTO THAT PROCESS MUCH FASTER THAN THE CURRENT PROCESS. AND THEN SECONDLY, ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE DOING THIS IS BECAUSE WITH THE CURRENT PROCESS, YOU COULD HAVE SOME OF THE STREETS WHERE THERE'S MAJOR CONNECTIONS BEING DUG UP EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR. AND WE HAD OVER 800 CITIZENS THAT ALSO PARTICIPATED THROUGH SURVEY, AND IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THEY GAVE AN INDICATION THAT PLANNING WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE EAR PEOPLE ARE TRAVELLING ON THESE ROADS. AND I THINK THE STATISTICS WE HAD WERE 300 FEET IS A CITY BLOCK, AND MOST FELL WITHIN TWO TO FOUR IN THE LAST 12 MONTH. SO WE MET EXTENSIVELY AND WE ALSO ASKED TIME WARNER TO GIVE US BACK SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE, AND NONE WAS FORTHCOMING.

Thomas: ONE MORE QUESTION, MAYOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

Mayor Garcia: SURE.

Thomas: IN THE STAKEHOLDERS MEETING, WAS PRETTY WELL EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE THAT'S HERE TODAY?

YES, COUNCILMEMBER. THERE WERE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE COALITION, DIANE BAR LOW WHO IS AFFILIATED WITH THE LAW FIRM OF THE GENTLEMAN WHO FIRST SPOKE, CAME TO EACH OF THOSE MEETINGS. AND I BELIEVE OTHERS WERE THERE AS WELL. BUT EACH OF THE MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS HAD A REPRESENTATIVE THERE ALONG WITH SOUTHERN UNION GAS AND TIME WARNER CABLE AND GRAND DAY COMMUNICATIONS AS WELL. SO THOSE WERE THE MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS IN TERMS OF THE TIMENTS AND EACH OF THEM HAD A REPRESENTATIVE AT EACH OF THOSE MEETINGS.

SONNY, I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY EARLIER THAT WE HAD DROPPED IT, THAT WE WEREN'T BRINGING IT FORWARD. HOW DID WE NOTICE STAKEHOLDERS THAT THIS WAS INDEED MOVING FORWARD?

I THINK I'LL TURN THAT OVER TO BILL. IF If

YES. THE QUESTION WAS HOW DID WE NOTIFY THE STAKEHOLDERS WE INTENDED TO TAKE THIS FORWARD? I MAILED A LETTER TO EACH OF THEM PERSONALLY INDICATE INDICATING WHAT OUR TIME FRAME WAS. AND AS I MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO, WE FELL BEYOND OUR TIME FRAME BY A FEW WEEKS. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING ON COUNCIL'S CALENDAR, BUT WE LET THEM KNOW WE WERE GOING FORWARD. WE HAD CLOSED THE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN US AS MUCH AS WE COULD AND THIS WAS OUR PROPOSAL, AND WE SENT EACH OF THEM A COPY.

THANK YOU.

Thomas: IF YOU DON'T MIND, MAYOR, THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS -- THE ATTORNEY, COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION? I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T REMEMBER YOUR NAME.

BRAD BAILIFF.

Thomas: YOU WERE SAYING YOU WERE SURPRISED ABOUT THE ITEM WAS COMING FORWARD. IS THAT --

I SHOW A LETTER IN JULY THAT I BELIEVE WAS AFTER THE FIRST MEETING, AND MY FILE THAT I RECEIVE FROM OUR OFFICE DOESN'T HAVE THE CONSENT SUBSEQUENT LETTER. I'M HEARING THINGS BEHIND ME FROM SOUTHERN BELL THAT THEY ALSO WERE SURPRISED BY IT. THEY HAD A STAFF PERSON WHO WAS TALKING TO SOMEBODY LAST WEEK, AND THAT WAS THE WAY THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT. I'M SORRY, I CAN'T ANSWER A LOT MORE OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS THROUGH THAT PROCESS --

Thomas: THE REASON WHY I ASK YOU THE QUESTION IS WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH AND I'M HEARING TWO CONFLICTING STORIES HERE. ARE WE -- IS THERE A MISCOMMUNICATION OR WHAT'S GOING ON?

MAYBE ONE WAY WOULD BE --

Thomas: LET ME FINISH. BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT AS CITY STAFF, WE WANT TO -- [ INAUDIBLE ]

DO YOU HAVE A DRAFT OF THE LETTER WITH YOU? MAYBE JUST WHAT THE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAID WHAT YOUR TIME FRAME WAS. THIS LETTER WOULD HAVE GONE OUT END OF JULY, EARLY AUGUST?

IT WAS A MASS MAILING. WE BEGAN IT ON JULY THE 23rd 23RD. WE HAD PRETTY MUCH ALL THE COPIES IN THE MAIL BECAUSE WE WERE ATTACHING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TOO. SO IT WAS A PRETTY TALL STACK OF OUTGOING MAIL, AND WE COMPLETED IT BY THE FIRST OF A AUGUST.

AND THEN THE RELEVANT LANGUAGE IN THE LETTER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN, IF THERE IS, A STRONG SIGNAL OR A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE THAT THIS WAS COMING FORWARD TO COUNCIL.

THE DIALOGUE PROVIDED DURING THE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS PROVIDED MANY THOUGHTFUL SUGGESTIONS TOWARDS IMPROVING THE PROPOSAL. THESE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, WHILE STILL IMPROVING THE PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS THE CITY IS SEEKING. THE DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR CITY COUNCIL IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR INFORMATION. BARRING ANY NEW MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS, THIS PROPOSAL WILL BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL WITHIN THE NEXT 60 TO 90 DAYS.

Mayor Garcia: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

Alvarez: I GUESS ALONG THE SAME LINES, GOING THROUGH THIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, AND I GUESS I'M TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE APRIL ORDINANCE AND THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US AFTER GOING THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS? BECAUSE I THINK AT LEAST THE 300-FOOT NUMBER SOUNDS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WERE CONSIDERING BACK IN APRIL. SO IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT. AND THEN IF THERE WERE OTHER CHANGES THAT WERE MADE AND SEE HOW THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AFFECTED IT.

ACTUALLY, WHAT WE BROUGHT TO YOU IN APRIL WAS A CONCEPT PAPER THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER BY THE CITY MANAGER'S PROJECT TEAM. AND WE SET FORTH SOME VERY BROAD GOALS THAT STAFF FELT NEEDED TO BE PURSUED. AND WE WANTED TO GET -- WE WANTED TO GET THE COUNCIL'S -- SORT OF GET THE COUNCIL'S FEELING ON THE DIRECTION THAT THE PROJECT TEAM WAS TAKING. I BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE HAD SET FORTH AT THAT PRESENTATION WERE SOME VERY BROAD GOALS. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CHANGES THAT WERE MADE DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, THE ADDITION OF THE 300-FOOT EXEMPTION WAS ONE OF THEM. THERE WAS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE. WE CONSIDERED CHANGING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE TO REQUIRE -- TO REQUIRE A STAGGERED BONDING, THE STAGGERED BONDING AMOUNT, TIE THAT TO THE LENGTH OF THE PROJECT. WE DECIDED BASED ON COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, NOT TO DO THAT, SO WE BASICALLY WENT AHEAD AND WE CHANGED A FEW WORDS IN THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOND THAT WE DO GET IS ABLE TO BE EXERCISED UPON, BUT WE DID NOT DRESS INCREASE THE BONDING REQUIREMENT AND THAT WAS BASED IN LARGE PART ON THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES, HOWEVER, THAT WE JUST SIMPLY HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT -- WHETHER OR NOT THE GOALS OF THE CITY CAN BE MET IN TERMS OF PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE WAYS IN WHICH WE TRY TO MANAGE WHAT IS BECOMING A VERY SCARCE RESOURCE IN TERMS OF OUR RIGHTS OF WAY. AGAIN, THE ITEMS WITH RESPECT TO THE DAMAGES AND TO THE RELOCATION, THOSE ARE EXISTING POLICIES THAT WERE IN EFFECT AND ADOPTED BY COUNCIL BACK IN 1999 THAT WERE MERELY -- WE'RE MAKING A FEW WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO.

Alvarez: I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WAS -- WHAT I WANTED TO BE ADDRESSED. BECAUSE I HADN'T HEARD TOO MANY SPECIFICS IN TERMS OF HOW WE MIGHT CHANGE THE THINGS TO ACCOMMODATE THINGS LIKE THIS. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF OPPOSITION IN GENERAL TO THE IDEA, BUT I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET AN IDEA --

COULD COUNCILMEMBER, WHEN WE WENT INTO THIS PROCESS, WE ASKED THEM TO GIVE US WHAT IS THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF EXCAVATION THAT IS REQUIRED FOR PROVIDING SERVICE TO A TYPICAL CUSTOMER, AND WE ASKED THAT TO BE PROVIDED BOTH AT THE FIRST AND THE SECOND MEETING. WHEN THAT WAS NOT FORTHCOMING, WE WENT AHEAD AND WENT BACK INTO OUR OWN ARCHIVES TO DIG UP OUR OWN PERMITS TO FIND OUT WHAT THE INFORMATION IS. AND I THINK WE WERE ALL SURPRISED BY THE OUTCOME, BUT AS MR. GARDENER JUST SAID, WE HAD COMMITTED DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO ABIDE BY A #- HUNDRED FOOT EXEMPTION. WE MAY HAVE STATISTICS THAT WOULD SUPPORT A SMALLER EXEMPTION, BUT WE SUBMIT COMITED AT THAT TIME THAT THAT WAS WHAT WAS GOING TO BE IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO STICK WITH. WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE DOING THIS IN ADVANCE. WHILE THERE MAY BE A LULL IN ACTIVITY RIGHT NOW, WE DO FEEL LIKE WE'RE PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE. I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM HOPES AND BELIEVES THAT THE ECONOMY WILL SOON PICK UP AND WE WILL SEE AN INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY IN THIS SECTOR.

Mayor Garcia: WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER, MR. THOMAS BUTLER. WELCOME. YOU SIGNED UP ON ITEM NUMBER 32.

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M ON THE STAFF OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE. AND BECAUSE THIS ISSUE AFFECTS BOTH DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC FLOW AND DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES' ABILITY TO COMPETE WITH OTHERS, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO THE ALLIANCE. THE CITY STAFF SPOKE TO OUR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS AND BOTH PRESENTED VALID ARGUMENTS TO BACK UP THEIR POSITIONS. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, THE BOARD OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE PASSED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION. THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE SUPPORTS THE CITY'S EFFORTS TO COORDINATE STREET CUTS WITH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHEDULING AND PERFORM; HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT NOT BE IMPEDED BY UNREASONABLE REGULATIONS, NOR SHOULD DOWNTOWN BE SINGLED OUT FOR REGULATION AND THUS DISADVANTAGED RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE REGION. ACCESS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT IN DOWNTOWN'S ABILITY TO COMPETE WITH OTHER LOCATIONS. FURTHER, IMPOSING SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS ON INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION IN DOWNTOWN IS CONTRARY TO THE CITY'S STATED POLICY OF PROMOTING DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN. THEREFORE THE DAA URGES THE CITY IN CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 15-12 TO REDUCE THE PROPOSED SIX-MONTH APPLICATION REQUIREMENT AND CONSIDER AN APPLICATION METHOD THAT WOULD ENSURE TIMELY REVIEW OF ALL APPLICATIONS AND CLARIFY THAT SHUT CUTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONNECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY SERVICE TO THE UTILITY IN QUESTION ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE, AND TO MAKE ALL PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL PARTS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK WE'VE DONE ALL THOSE THINGS. THE IDEA BEING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE UNNECESSARY AND LONG PERIODS OF CUTS AND THAT WE COORDINATE ALL THOSE THINGS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I HAVE ONE MORE POINT. I MAY HAVE MISSED IT EARLIER. ONE THING THAT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION AS YOU WERE READING THE FINAL LANGUAGE. IN CLARIFYING THE SHORTCUTS AND BE EXEMPT, THE WORD MAY WAS IN THE LAST COPY THAT I READ, THAT THEY MAY BE EXEMPTED. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT LANGUAGE CHANGED TO THAT THEY WILL BE EXEMPTED.

Mayor Garcia: OKAY. JENNIFER GALE IS SIGNED UP ON ITEM NUMBER 24. JENNIFER GALE SIGNED ON ITEM NUMBER 24.

HI, AUSTIN COUNCIL, HAPPY THANKSGIVING. FAMILY VIOLENCE, EX-SASS REMEMBER BAITED BY THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN SMALL BUSINESSES CAUSING A DAY-BY-DAY INCREASINGLY GREAT ECONOMIC STRAIN AMONG OUR POOR AND MIDDLE CLASSES. I WOULD LIKE TO AUGMENT THIS GRANT OR ASK THAT THE PARTNERS OR SPOUSES THAT ARE INJURED BE ASKED TO HOLD OFF ON PAYING BAIL FOR THREE DAYS OR 72 HOURS. AND MAY MONEY GOES TOWARDS ASKING THE MAN OR WOMAN BATTERED BY THEIR SPOUSE TO NOT LET THEM OUT OF JAIL FOR AT LEAST THREE DAYS SO THAT THEY CAN GET THEIR HEAD TOGETHER AND THEIR MIND TOGETHER AND DECIDE WHERE THEY REALLY WANT TO GO WITH THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MONEY IS WELL SPENT, AND I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE A HOME FOR -- A PLACE FOR THOSE PRONE TO VIOLENCE. IT'S ONE OF MY INITIATIVES TO HAVE A PLACE TO TEACH PEOPLE TO STOP BEING VIOLENT, TO STOP THIS PROBLEM IN ITS TRACKS SO IT DOESN'T GO ANY FURTHER. SO WE HAVE THOSE TWO ITEMS WORKING TOGETHER. THIS COULD BE AN INCREDIBLE ASSET TO OUR CITY AND FOR THE NATION. AGAIN, HAVE A VERY HAPPY THANKSGIVING, EVERYBODY.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU, MS. GALE. MR. KIM YOUNG SIGNED UP NOT WISHING TO SPEAK AND IN FAVOR OF ITEM NUMBER 27. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. LET ME READ IT ONE MORE TIME INTO THE RECORD. THE SCEND AGENDA IS AS FOLLOWS, ITEM 12, THE APPROVAL OF THE WORK SESSION, ITEM 14, 15, 16 ON THE SECOND READING ONLY, 17, 18, 20, 21 FOR SECOND READING ONLY, 22, 23, 24, 25. I DON'T IF I DON'T INDICATE ON THE READ GD, IT'S ALL THREE READINGS. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 ON FIRST READING ONLY, 54 ON FIRST READING ONLY, 55, 56, 57, 58 ON FIRST READING ONLY, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 WITH THE APPOINTMENTS READ ALREADY INTO THE RECORD, 67 FOR POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER THE 5TH, 68, 69, 70, 71, AND 73 FOR DELETION FROM THE AGENDA. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. HELLO? MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY. IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

Mayor Garcia: DISCUSSION?

Alvarez: I'D LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS VOTING NO ON 21.

Mayor Garcia: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ WILL BE VOTING NO ON ITEM NUMBER 21. AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

Thomas: YES, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

Mayor Garcia: SO COUNCILMEMBERS AL ALVAREZ AND THOMAS ARE VOTING NO ON ITEM 21.

Wynn: MAYOR? ON ITEM NUMBER 32, PLEASE SHOW ME VOTING NO IN PART BECAUSE ON THE SAME ISSUE 18 OR 20 MONTHS AGO, FRANKLY, I ADMONISHED THE FOLKS INVOLVED FOR NOT WATCHING THE TELECOM SUBCOMMITTEE MORE CLOSELY AND THE FACT THIS THIS DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE TELECOM SUBCOMMITTEE I THINK MIGHT HAVE ALSO ADDED TO THE LACK -- SEEMINGLY LACK OF COMMUNICATION AS COORDINATION. PLEASE SHOW ME VOTING NO ON 32.

Mayor Garcia: CITY ATTORNEY, IF SOMEBODY MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THEN VOTING NO, THAT'S OKAY?

RIGHT.

Mayor Garcia: SO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS VOTING NO ON ITEM 32 AND COUNCILMEMBERS AL VA RESES AND THOMAS VOTING NO ON ITEM 21. LET ME SAY THAT THIS ITEM, 32, HAS BEEN ON THE RADAR SCREEN SINCE I WAS ON THE COUNCIL THE LAST TIME. WE HAD IT BEFORE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE MANY TIMES. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS HAVE AN ORDERLY PROCESS FOR STREET CUTS. I REMEMBER DURING THAT PROCESS I EVEN GOT A CALL FROM GOVERNOR RICHARDS BECAUSE THIS ISSUE RESURFACED AND BEFORE THAT WE WERE HAVING ANOTHER STREET CUT. SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN OBJECTION FROM DAY ONE. THERE WERE OBJECTIONS IN THE MID 90'S FROM THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE STREET CUTS. STRANGELY ENOUGH, THE PEOPLE THAT CUT THE STREETS THE MOST DID NOT COME AND COMPLAIN, AND THAT'S THE WATER AND WASTEWATER DIVISION. BUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE WE COORDINATE THE CUTS APPROPRIATELY, THAT WHEN THOSE CUTS ARE MADE THAT THE REPAIRS DO NOT DECREASE THE LIFE OF THE STREET. WE HAVE A BIG INVESTMENT IN THOSE STREETS. WE, TAXPAYERS. AND WHEN SOMEBODY COMES AND CUTS THAT STREET, IF THEY DON'T REPAIR IT PROPERLY, IT CUTS THE LIFE OF THAT PARTICULAR STREET. AND THAT MEANS THAT TAXPAYERS, ALL TAXPAYERS, HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE REPAIRS. SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS SAY IF YOU CUT THE STREET BECAUSE YOU HAD TO USE IT FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU PAY FOR IT. SO I THINK THAT THE STAFF HAS HANDLED THIS PROCESS VERY PATIENTLY AND OVER A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME, BECAUSE I THINK, SONNY, WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS IN THE MID 90'S WHEN I WAS ON THE COUNCIL. SO WE BACKED OFF AND COME BACK AND BACKED OFF AND COME BACK, AND I'M GLAD THIS THIS ITEM IS FINALLY ON THE AGENDA. I KNOW IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT -- AND I THINK THIS WAS NOT MENTIONED, BUT IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED. WE WILL REVISIT THIS ORDINANCE IN SIX MONTHS TO SEE HOW THINGS ARE WORKING SO THAT WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER TWEAKING IS NECESSARY. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS.

Futrell: MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT WATER AND WASTEWATER IS PAINFULLY STANDING IN THE ROOM QUIETLY KNOWING THIS WILL ALSO AFFECT THEM.

Mayor Garcia: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSIONS? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

AYE.

Mayor Garcia: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. NOW WE'LL GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 13, APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SMENT IN RALI BUCKNER AND JOE BUCKNER VERSUS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, D/B/A AUSTIN ENERGY AND DANIEL DALANDRAN, CAUSE NUMBER GN 201060 IN THE 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN TRAVIS COUNTY. THIS LAWSUIT ARISES OUT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION INVOLVING A CITY EMPLOYMENT AND THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IS $825,000, CORRECT, CITY MANAGER?

YES, AS PROPOSED, MAYOR.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MR. BEAVER HEARD THE AMOUNT AND AGREES? DID YOU HEAR THE AMOUNT READ INTO THE RECORD?

Mayor Garcia: 825,000, IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY WANT MR. BEAVER TO SUMMARIZE? THIS CASE, THIS PARTICULAR SETTLEMENT WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS PROVIDED BY LAW, BUT IF YOU WANT A BELIEF EXPLANATION, WE CAN DO IT. OTHERWISE I WOULD RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER FOR A COMMENT.

Slusher: MAYOR, I AM GOING TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING I NEVER HAVE BEFORE, AND HOPEFULLY I WON'T HAVE TO AGAIN ON THIS CASE, WHICH IS THAT WE GO ABOVE THE RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT OFFER. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE CITY IS SO CLEARLY AT FAULT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS SO TRAGIC THAT, FRANKLY, I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD NEGOTIATE THEM DOWN AS FAR AS WE DID. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE PAY A MILLION DOLLARS EVEN ON THIS, WITH AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO GO TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS RATHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS AND INSTRUCT THE CITY MANAGER TO TRY TO WORK THAT OUT ALONG THE LINES OF SOME SORT OF FUND TO HELP WITH THE CARE OF THE VICTIM IN THE ACCIDENT OR HER HUSBAND, WHO SHE WAS CARING FOR BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, BUT EVIDENTLY CAN'T ANY MORE. SO IF WE COULD WORK IT OUT THAT WAY, DO IT, OTHERWISE JUST PAY THE SUM OF A MILLION. AND WE'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS , BUT OUR RESTRICTIONS OR OUR PROGRAM OR POLICY FOR HOW TO DEAL WITH EMPLOYEES THAT GET INTO ACCIDENTS REALLY NEED TO BE STRENGTHEN, MADE STRICTER. I THINK THERE NEED TO BE ADDITIONAL PENALTIES WHEN A WRECK OCCURS, RATHER THAN JUST GIVING THE SAME PENALTY PER VIOLATION, THAT WHEN THERE'S NOT A WRECK, I THINK WE NEED CLEARER TRAINING. AND THIS CASE TO ME IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN EMPLOYEES DON'T DRIVE SAFELY. AND I THINK THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF OUR EMPLOYEES AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN DO DRIVE SAFELY, BUT, FRANKLY, TOO OFTEN WHEN I'M DRIVING AROUND THE CITY, SEE EMPLOYEES THAT AREN'T DRIVING SAFELY. NOW, THIS IS PRETTY INFREQUENT, BUT ANY EXAMPLES ARE TOO MANY. THERE'S REALLY NO EXCUSE. WE WANT MIGHT PRODUCTION OUT OF OUR EMPLOYEES, BUT WE DON'T WANT ANY SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY HAS TO HURRY WHILE THEY'RE DRIVING A CITY VEHICLE AND CREATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS. AND FOR SOME REASON A RED LIGHT WAS RUN IN THIS SITUATION AND RESULTED IN SEVERE INJURIES TO ONE OF OUR CITIZENS, AND THAT'S JUST UNACCEPTABLE SITUATION. AND WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE IN OUR POWER TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING. AND THE PRIMARY THING IS THE CITY EMPLOYEES NEED TO BE AWARE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AS CITY EMPLOYEES THAT WE DON'T CREATE ANY DANGER TO OUR CITIZENS AND THAT AS CITY EMPLOYEES WE HAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO SET AN EXAMPLE AND KEEP OUR CITIZENS SAFE. SO I MOVE FOR A MILLION DOLLARS.

Mayor Garcia: IS THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION.

Slusher: YES.

Mayor Garcia: IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION?

Wynn: MAYOR, I OFFER A POTENTIAL FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THIS ADDITIONAL SUM THAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IS PROPOSED, THE ADDITIONAL SUM ABOUT WHAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED, THAT CITY STAFF EXPLORE SOME FINANCIAL VEHICLES THAT MAY HAVE EVEN ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.

Slusher: I WOULD ACCEPT THAT.

Mayor Garcia: A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANYBODY? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

Mayor Garcia: OPPOSED NO? THE MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE. THE VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS WITH THE ANYWAY'S THAT I INDICATED ON 21, ALVAREZ AND THOMAS, AND ON 32 WITH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 19. THIS IS THE HARMON TRACT. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

Slusher: MAYOR, I WILL KEEP THIS SHORT. I THINK WE'VE VOTED ON THIS A FEW TIMES, BUT I AM OPPOSED TO THIS EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN LINE WITH THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE. AND AT FIRST I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT IS COMPLYING WITH THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE. IT DOES HAVE THE GROW GREEN, THE NATIVE PLANT RESTRICTIONS ON THERE. SO SINCE IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH S.O.S. BY DEFINITION OF THE CREATORS OF THAT ORDINANCE AND SAY THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T POLLUTE THE ACCUSE AQUIFER, BUT I THINK THERE ARE TOO MANY APARTMENTS IN THIS AREA ALREADY THAT THE TRAFFIC IS TOO HEAVY, AND AFTER VISITING THE AREA REPEATEDLY, LOOKING AT THIS TRACT IN PARTICULAR, I REALLY THINK THAT EITHER RR ZONING OR SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING WOULD WORK.

Mayor Garcia: IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

Wynn: MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

Mayor Garcia: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO APPROVE.

Thomas: SECOND.

Mayor Garcia: ON THIRD READING. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AND COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY. I MENTIONED THAT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A DIFFICULT CASE. IT'S NOT ONE THAT -- INCIDENTALLY, WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS AND WE WILL NOT BE RECOGNIZING YOU BECAUSE WE DON'T RECOGNIZE PEOPLE ON SECOND AND THIRD READING, BUT I'LL READ YOUR NAME INTO THE RECORD. JOHN HEARTMAN IN FAVOR OF. MICHAEL WEATHER IN FAVOR OF AND COLIN OF SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE REGISTERED AGAINST. YESTERDAY WE HEARD A PRESENTATION ON HOW THIS COUNTRY IS USING UP OUR RESOURCES. BUT THE GROWTH AND ACRES THAT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED FROM PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED LAND TO DEVELOPED LAND IS TWO AND A HALF TIMES GREATER THAN THE INCREASE OF THE POPULATION, WHICH MEANS, IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE URBAN SPRAWLING IN A BIG WAY. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS CONCERNED US FOR A LONG TIME IN THIS AREA, BUT CONTINUES TO GROW INTO URBAN SPRAWL. THIS PROJECT, THE DEVELOPERS WERE ASKED TO GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GO THERE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE COULD DO TO MAKE THIS PROJECT ACCEPTABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY DID THAT, THEY BUILT IN SOME SETBACKS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAME BACK AND TOLD US THAT THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF IT. IT COMPLIES WITH S.O.S., TRANSPORTATION HAS LOOKED AT IT AND AGREED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTABLE. SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN, YOU KNOW, JUST KEEP ON DENYING THIS BECAUSE IN THE MINDS OF SOME PEOPLE IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE AQUIFER. RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPERS CAN NOT DISTURB THE AQUIFER. AND I'M GLAD TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH S.O.S. AND MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE REQUESTED SETBACKS. FURTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

Alvarez: YEAH. I ECHO WHAT SOME OF COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SAID ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY AND THE INTENSITY, AND THE SURROUNDING -- WHAT IS HAPPENING AND ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING AROUND IT. AND THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT I'M USING TO MAKE MY DECISION BECAUSE I THINK 300 PLUS UNITS IS A IS A LOT: EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED TRACT THERE OF THE STRATUS DEAL, THE INTENSITY THERE WAS MUCH LESS THAN IT WOULD BE IN LESS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT NUMBER GO DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY. AND THAT'S SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT I WAS CONSIDERING IN THIS. THANK YOU.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

AYE.

Mayor Garcia: OPPOSED NO?

Slusher: NO.

Mayor Garcia: WHAT IS YOUR VOTE?

Slusher: NO.

Mayor Garcia: MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO TWO TO ONE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABSENT. SHOW COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ VOTING NO. COUNCIL, I THINK THAT'S ALL OF THE ITEMS WE HAVE BEFORE WE GET TO THE 4:00 O'CLOCK TIME CERTAIN. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECESS THIS MEETING UNTIL 3:15. MS. BROWN, DO WE HAVE EVERYTHING PRETTY WELL TAKEN CARE OF. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY TO RECESS FOR 45 MINUTES. THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. WE'LL BE BACK AT 4:00 O'CLOCK FOR THE ZONING HEARING. WE'RE IN RECESS. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS] [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS],

Mayor Garcia: IT'S NOW 4:00. AND AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL BACK TO ORDER. AND WE GO TO OUR 4:00 TIME CERTAIN. WHICH ARE ON PAGES 17, 18, 19, 20 AND 21 IN THE AGENDA. THESE ARE THE ZONING HEARINGS AND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCES AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. MISS GLASGO.

> GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M ALICE GLASGO, DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING CASES FOR TODAY AS FOLLOWS. Z-1 C 14-4-01-13 NAMELY THE METZ ZONING. THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A HISTORIC DESIGNATION. BOTH THE -- THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION AND THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF THIS TRACT AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. Z-2 C 14-02-101, THE WHITLEY KELTNER TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE MIXED USE HISTORIC. THAT ZONING CHANGE IS RECOMMENDED TO YOU BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION AND THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, THE CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY.

Mayor Garcia: FIRST READING ONLY.

Glasgo: YES, MAYOR, FIRST ONLY. Z-3, C 814 S-86-30, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1407 WEST STASSNEY LANE. THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM P.U.D., TO THE -- TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH SOME NEW CHANGES. BASICALLY THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE IN THE TYPES OF USES RECOMMENDED ON THIS PROPERTY BY MODIFYING TO ALLOW AN ADJUSTMENT IN USES. THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION, AND IS READY FOR FIRST READING. ITEM NO. Z-4, C 814-88-1, RCA, A CASE AT 2800 WAYMAKER WAY, STAFF IS REQUESTING A POSTPONE TO DECEMBER THE 5th 5TH. ITEM NO. Z-5, C14-02-74, DR TO SINGLE FAMILY 4 A. THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION IS TO GRANT S.F.-4 A. MAYOR, ON THIS CASE RICHARD SUTTLE WOULD LIKE TO IN A FEW COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, TO STRESS SOME POINTS, SOME COMMITMENTS THAT HE MADE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE YOU VOTE. THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. I WILL JUST LET HIM MAKE HIM COMMENTS NOW, WE CAN PROCEED AFTER HE MAKES HIS COMMENTS.

DON'T WE HAVE A POLICY IF THE APPLICANT SPEAKS, WE OUGHT TO MAKE HIM PULL HIS CASE.

Mayor Garcia: I THINK SO. BUT WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE RICHARD ANY MORE TIME THAN IS NECESSARY. [ LAUGHTER ]

MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS RICHARD SUTTLE, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ON Z-7. THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE IS PREDICATED ON THE CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT THAT IS IN YOUR BACKUP, IT'S KNOWN AT CONCEPTUAL PLAN NUMBER 4, 141 LOT LAYOUT. WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT STREET LAYOUT SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC. WE CAN'T DO IT AS PART OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT THE APPLICANT IS COMMITTING TO THAT OR SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THAT SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS IN THE RECORD, IF SOMETHING COMES BACK LATER, I DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT, WE ARE GOING TO BE HERE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT IT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR?

COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

Slusher: MR. SUTTLE, CAME BACK UP HERE. THIS ZONED AREA DITTMAR, WHERE WE NEED SIDEWALKS, I DIDN'T NOTICE SIDEWALKS BEING ON THE SCHEMATIC THAT I SAW.

SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND THEY WILL BE -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ON DITTMAR?

UH-HUH.

THERE WILL BE SIDEWALKS THERE.

Slusher: OKAY, THANKS.

THANK YOU.

Glasgo: MAYOR, THAT TAKE US TO ITEM NO. Z-6, C14-02-102, LOCATED AT 3415 WEST SLAUGHTER LANE. THE AGENT FOR THIS CASE HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER THE 5th. SHE HAD A DEATH IN HER FAMILY, HAD TO TRAVEL OUT OF UP TO, WILL BE HERE ON THE 5 5th, WE RECOMMEND THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST, FIRST --

POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER THE 5th.

YES.

Mayor Garcia: OKAY. MR. MICHAEL DOOR SIGNED UP NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION. WE WILL KEEP THIS CARD FOR WHEN THE ITEM COMES BACK. IS HE -- IS MR. DOER HERE? OKAY.

> ITEM NO. Z-7, C14-02-103, THIS CASE IS LOCATED AT 1700 TO 1800 BLOCK OF DITTMAR ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS BEING REZONED FROM D.R., DEVELOPMENT RESERVE TO SINGLE FAMILY 4 A. AND I'M SORRY, THAT'S THE ONE THAT RICHARD SUTTLE JUST SPOKE TO. ITEM NO. Z-8, C14-02-132, LOCATED AT --

Mayor Garcia: PLEDGE ASK YOU A QUESTION, MS. GLASGO. Z-7, DOES IT HAVE A VALID PETITION?

Z-7 HAD A PETITION AGAINST SINGLE FAMILY -- AGAINST DUPLEXES, THIS IS THE CASE MR. SUTTLE JUST SPOKE TO. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS WRITTEN ANOTHER LETTER AFTER THEY MET WITH MR. SUTTLE ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY 4. WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW DUPLEXES, YOU HAVE SMALLER LOTS. SO THEIR PETITION IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE. IT SPEAKS TO A DIFFERENT -- A REQUEST THAT RICHARD SUTTLE SUBMITTED EARLIER. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

Mayor Garcia: SO 7 IS CONSENT FOR --

FOR ALL THREE READINGS.

ALL THREE. YES, MAYOR.

ON Z-8, CONCEPT, CASE C14-02-132 LOCATED AT POND SPRINGS ROAD AT SAN PHILIPE PAY, FROM THE ... ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT GR-CO, THIS CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING. ITEM NO. Z-9 WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM. Z-10, C14-02-146 LOCATED AT 4101 CHURCHHILL DOWNS DRIVE, THE CASE IS -- THE OLYMPIC IS REQUESTING A CHANGE FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO SINGLE FAMILY 1. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE SINGLE FAMILY 1 ZONING CHANGES CHANGE AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-11, C14-02-148, LOCATED AT 6500 BURLESON ROAD, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM DEVELOPMENT RESERVE TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND AN NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OVERLAY. THE -- THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THIS CHANGE IN ZONING AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-12, C14-02-152, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7800 U.S. HIGHWAY 290 WEST, THE APPLICANTS IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM GR-CO, WHICH STANDS FOR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, COMBINING DISTRICT, TO GR-CO, THE -- THE INTENT OF THE REQUEST OF THESE -- OF THIS IS TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO ALLOW FINANCIAL SERVICES USE, WHICH WAS PROHIBITED UNDER THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO AGREED TO -- TO IPM AND GROW GREEN STANDARDS, SO THIS CASE WILL BE READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. WILL COME BACK WITH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND GROW GREEN STANDARDS. ITEM NO. Z-13, C14-02-156, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE, AND -- AND -- AND MILKY WAY DRIVE, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM S.F. 5 TO S.F. 6, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER THE 12th BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DELAYED ITS ACTION. AND MAYOR, THAT CONCLUDES OUR -- MY PRESENTATION. EXCEPT FOR ITEM NO. 2, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THAT FOR ALL THREE READINGS, MAYOR.

Mayor Garcia: Z-2 FOR ALL THREE READINGS.

YES, MAYOR, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON THAT ITEM.

Mayor Garcia: I THOUGHT WE HAD A -- OH, YEAH. Z-9 IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.

YES, IT IS.

Glasgo: OKAY. SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS -- ONE IS -- 1 FOR ALL THREE READINGS ON CONSENT, 2 FOR ALL THREE READINGS ON CONSENT. 3 IS FOR FIRST READING ON CONSENT. 4 IS CONSENT TO POSTPONE UNTIL DECEMBER THE 5th. 5 IS CONSENT FOR ALL THREE READINGS. 6 IS CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER THE 5th. 7 IS CONSENT ON ALL THREE READINGS WITH THE EXPLANATIONS THAT WERE GIVEN BY MR. SUTTLE. 8 IS CONSENT ON THE FIRST READING. 9 IS A DISCUSSION ITEM, 10 IS CONSENT ON ALL THREE. 11 IS CONSENT ON ALL THREE. AND 12 IS CONSENT ON THE FIRST READING AND 13 IS CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER THE 12th. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

Slusher: YEAH, MAYOR.

Mayor Garcia: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

Slusher: Z-12 MS. GLASGO I HEARD YOU HAVE THE GROW GREEN STANDARDS ON THERE, I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THAT TRACT IS SUBJECT TO THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE?

Glasgo: YES, IT IS.

Slusher: WOULD YOU -- WOULD YOU COME UP A MINUTE, TELL ME IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT, MS. MEAD.

COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS NIKELLE MEADE, I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THE TRACT. YES, WE DO AGREE WITH COM PLIEPS WITH THE GROW GREEN PROGRAM AND TO IMPLEMENT AN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN.

THE TRACT S.O.S. TO S.O.S., NO GRANDFATHERING ON IT.

CORRECT, IT IS, YES, IT IS SUBJECT TO S.O.S.

Slusher: OKAY, THANK YOU.

SURE.

Mayor Garcia: FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THOSE ITEMS AND -- WELL, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE -- ABOUT THE ACTION ON -- I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SO MOVE.

Mayor Garcia: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. LET'S SEE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON --

Wynn: SECOND.

Mayor Garcia: MOTION TO RECONSIDER BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. SHE WILL DON PICATTI. SHELDON PICATTI ON Z-3. THIS IS A CONSENT ITEM.

HI, I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO SAY.

Mayor Garcia: WAIT JUST A SECOND, MR. PICATTI. BEFORE YOU SPEAK, I HAVE TO -- WELL, THE STAFF MADE THEIR PRESENTATION. WE NEED TO HAVE THE APPLICANT FIRST. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT? ON Z-3?

Glasgo: THE APPLICANT IS HERE, MAYOR, DO YOU WANT ME TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW.

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, Z-3 C 814 S-86-030, LOCATED AT 1407 WEST STASSNEY LANE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED PUD UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PART OF THE BROWN SCHOOL SYSTEM. THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS REALLY TO MODIFY THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW SOCCER FIELDS TO BE INCLUDED ON THE SITE. SO THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT. WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE ZONING, BUT OTHER THAN TO MODIFY THE LAND PLAN FOR THE AREA TO ALLOW FOR SOCCER FIELDS ON THE SITE THAT WAS NOT DESIGNATED FOR SOCCER FIELDS IN THE PAST. I WILL PAUSE THERE AND RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AFTER YOU HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE SPEAKER.

Mayor > THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M JOHN CARLTON WITH AM BURST AND BROWN, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE SUMMARY THAT YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED. IT'S A NICE TRACT THAT WE INTEND TO KEEP EVERYTHING AS GREEN AND PRETTY AS WE CAN. PUT SOME FIELDS IN TO ALLOW YOUTH PLAYERS TO ENJOY THE SORT OF SOCCER IN THE CENTRAL AUSTIN AREA. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

Mayor Garcia: I INTEND TO -- QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. PICATTI, WELCOME, SIR.

I HAD A FEW THOUGHTS, BUT I GUESS I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION FROM HIM. MY MAIN CONCERN, I HAVE A -- I LIVE IN A HOUSE THAT BORDERS THE PROPERTY WITH THE SOCCER -- WHERE THE SOCCER FIELDS WOULD GO UP. THERE'S A STUB STREET THAT I BELIEVE, FROM HEARSAY FROM NEIGHBORS, NOT HAVING RECEIVED THE FULL BRIEFING ON WHAT THE CHANGES ARE GOING TO BE ON THE PROPERTY, THAT THE STREET MAY BE CONNECTED TO A PARKING LOT ON THEIR PROPERTY. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHO ARE THE PLANS FOR [INAUDIBLE] TRAFFIC PATTERN IN THE AREA?

ACCESS TO THE --

Mayor Garcia: CAN YOU LIFT THAT MIC A LITTLE BIT?

SORRY. OR HOP DOWN. ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE TAKEN OFF OF STASSNEY LANE, THERE WILL BE NO ACCESS TO THE STUB OUT STREET BACK IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT A SCHEMATIC, BUT IT'S IN THE BACKUP MATERIALS IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT IT.

Mayor Garcia: OKAY. THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. LIKE I INDICATED EARLIER, THERE'S ONE OTHER SPEAKER THAT SIGN UP, MICHAEL DOER, HE DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK ON Z-6, Z-6 IS BEING POSTPONED FROM DECEMBER 5th. ONCE AGAIN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO MOVE.

Mayor Garcia: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE ACTION ITEM. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

DISCUSSION?

Wynn: MAYOR? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT ITEM Z-1, WHICH IS THE HISTORIC ZONING FOR 706 CONGRESS AVENUE. THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. THIS IS ACTUALLY A COMPLETE REINSTRUCTION OF AN OLD -- RECONSTRUCTION OF AN OLD HISTORIC BUILDING. BACK LAST YEAR THE OWNERS DEMOLISHED A 1970'S OR '80'S ERA FACADE, TECHNICALLY, VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON THAT BUILDING IS NEW AND NOT HISTORIC. HOWEVER THE -- THE OWNER WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO RECONSTRUCT USING LOAD BEARING LIMESTONE AS ORM NEAL DONE IN THE 19th -- ORIGINALLY DONE IN THE 19th CENTURY. ALSO AGREED TO STEP BACK THE THIRD FLOOR ADDITION 40 OR 60 FEET OFF OF CONGRESS AVENUE AS SUGGESTED BY FOLKS HERE IN THE CITY. AND SO -- SO -- IN FACT HAVE ALSO ASKED, WE HAVE DONE THIS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, THIS DOES NOT SET A PRECEDENT OF GRANTING HISTORIC ZONING TO ACTUALLY A NEW CONSTRUCTION. BUT ACTUALLY I WANT TO COMMEND THE -- THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE PAINSTAKING EFFORT THEY DID TO RECREATE THAT HISTORIC FACADE, EVEN DOWN TO THE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES THEMSELVES. AND I THINK THIS IS A -- AN -- A VERY APPROPRIATE THING FOR US TO DO. ALSO NOTE BETWEEN THE Z.A.P. AND HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, THIS WAS APPROVED 18 TO 0. THANK YOU.

Mayor Garcia: IS THAT THE ONE WHERE THE INK AND PAPER -- THAT IS VERY WELL DONE. VERY WELL DONE. FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 0 TO 2 WITH COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM -- THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABSENT. LET ME EXPLAIN THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS ATTENDING A HOUSING CONFERENCE IN SANTA FE. AND COMUPG IS ITEM -- AND COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY IS TEMPORARILY OFF THE DAIS. ITEM Z-9.

ITEM NO. Z-9 IS CASE C14-01-134 LOCATED AT -- CHANGE IN ZONING FROM DR, DEVELOPMENT RESERVE TO CS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES ZONING. SEVERAL MONTHS AGO COUNCIL WE BROUGHT THIS CASE TO YOU AND THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFF WERE HERE TO GIV YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE ACCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED ALONG THAT STRETCH OF 290 EAST. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT HEARING, COUNCIL MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THIS CASE, REFER IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION TO HAVE THEM CONSIDER OTHER USES THAT OUGHT TO BE PROHIBITED IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF VEHICULAR TRIPS TO THIS SITE. WELL, WE TOOK THIS CASE TO THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION AND THEY REAFFIRMED THEIR PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION, THEY DID NOT ADD OR MODIFY THEIR RECOMMENDATION AT ALL. WHAT THEY INDICATED THAT BASED ON THE -- THEIR LIMITATION OF 2,000 TRIPS PER DAY, AND THE USES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTED WHICH TOTAL 13, THAT INCLUDE THE PROHIBITION OF AGRICULTURAL SALES AND SERVICES, COCKTAIL LOUNGE, CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICES, DROPOFF RECYCLING COLLECTION FACILITY, EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICES, EQUIPMENT SALES, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT WHICH IS THE CONCERN THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD DRAW, YOU KNOW, A BANQUET HALL THAT WOULD DRAW PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE -- BRING ALCOHOL WITH THEM TO DRINK, THAT WAS THE CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION, LIQUOR SALES, ALTHOUGH LIQUOR SALES IS NOT PERMITTED IN C.S. ZONING, BUT THEY HAVE INCLUDED THIS AS A LIST OF PROHIBITED ITEMS, PAWN SHOPS, SERVICES, RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT, SCRAP AND SALVAGE SERVICES AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. ALSO TO INCLUDE A SITE DETENTION TO HANDLE REGIONOFF WAS A -- TO REGIONAL RUNOFF WAS -- RUN OFFWAS A REQUEST FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. -- THE REASON THEY DID NOT ADD OTHER USES WAS BECAUSE THEY ASKED THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF TO GIVE THEM AN ANALYSIS OF ALL USE THAT'S GENERATE TRAFFIC, THOSE THAT RANGE BETWEEN A THOUSAND TRIPS TO 2,000 AND THEN THOSE THAT EXCEED 2,000 TRIPS PER DAY AND HAVING GIVEN THAT LIST, THEY FELT LIKE ANYTHING THAT EXCEEDS 2,000 TRIPS A DAY IS ALREADY PROHIBITED ANYWAY BECAUSE THE -- THEIR CONDITIONAL OVERLAY PUTS A CAP ON TRIPS TO TWO THOUSAND, THEY FELT LIKE THE USES THAT ARE PROHIBITED COVER A LOT OF THOSE ASPECTS, THEY FELT THERE ARE ADEQUATE MEASURES HERE TO PREVENTS ANY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. THAT WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO YOU. I WILL PAUSE HERE AND RESPOND TO QUESTIONS AFTER YOU HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE. THANK YOU.

Mayor Garcia: IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, I'M MARK COMES CASTANEDA, REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE TWO ISSUES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT THEY BROUGHT UP, WAS MAINLY THE NUMBER OF -- THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC TO BE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE CONCERN ABOUT THE NUMBER OF ALCOHOL-RELATED TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. IF -- IF YOU WILL REMEMBER, I THINK IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR BACKUP INFORMATION, THE REPORT THAT -- THAT THE POLICE CHIEF HAD GIVEN YOU ALL AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING STATED THAT 7.9% OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN THAT AREA WERE ALCOHOL RELATED. COMPARED WITH THE REST OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS ARE CLOSER TO 40 AND 50%. SO AS FAR AS ALCOHOL RELATED TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, WE FELT THAT THIS AREA DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THAT ISSUE. THAT GOES DOWN -- BACK TO THEN THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS TOTAL. THAT'S WHERE WE FALL BACK ON -- ON -- WE HAVE AGREED TO LIMIT OUR TRIPS PER DAY TO LESS THAN 2,000. EVEN LESS THAN THAT IF NECESSARY. I SPOKE WITH AMY LINK, WHO WAS ONE OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEWERS AT THE CITY. WHO -- WHO DID A SYNOPSIS OF WHAT OUR PROPOSED USE WOULD BE AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF TRIPS PER DAY THAT IT WOULD GENERATE. THEY ESTIMATED FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND OUR USE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 755 THRIPS PER DAY. TRIPS PER DAY. THAT IS FAR BELOW THE 2,000 LIMIT THAT WE ARE AGREEING TO. SO -- SO I FEEL AS FAR AS THE SHEER NUMBER OF TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION, THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE IS -- I BELIEVE WE HAVE ADDRESSED THAT AS WELL. I WOULD BE OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

Mayor Garcia: QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, TREK ENGLISH.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I BELIEVE THAT THE POLICE MADE A CASE AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING EXPLAINING TO YOU THAT THIS AREA OF TOWN IS VERY, VERY DANGEROUS. WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS ACCIDENTS SINCE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING AT THE SAME LOCATION IT WAS -- WITH A COUPLE MORE FATALITIES. EVERY WEEKEND THAT'S ALL WE HEAR ARE SIRENS. AND THE TRIPS THAT THE APPLICANT IS TALKING ABOUT ARE PERHAPS FOR HIS OTHER BUSINESS, WHICH ARE THE LITTLE DISTRIBUTION CENTER THAT HE PLANS ON HAVING DURING THE WEEK. AS FAR AS THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, I DON'T THINK HE CAN CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF TRIPS THIS WILL GENERATE BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL ATTEND THESE -- THESE CATERING EVENTS OR WEDDINGS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM. SO THE TRIPS WILL BE MUCH MORE THAN 755. AND THE AREA IS VERY DANGEROUS BECAUSE THE VEHICLES THAT TRAVEL THAT AREA ARE FULL OF TANKERS, FUEL TANKERS, FULL FUEL TANKERS GOING DOWNHILL. AS THE POLICE EXPLAINED TO YOU, THERE'S A BLIND SPOT WHERE YOU CANNOT SEE THEM COMING. THERE'S ALSO THOUSANDS OF GARBAGE TRUCKS COMING FROM ALL DIRECTIONS OF TEXAS BECAUSE THEY COME FROM 22 COUNTIES AND DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON. AND USE THE TWO LANDFILLS TO UNLOAD THEIR WASTE. SO I BEG YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND TO -- TO GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE -- OF THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION AND NOT ALLOW INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. THANK YOU.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU, MS. ENGLISH. THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING -- WAIT JUST A SECOND. REBUTTAL? MR. CASTENADA.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC] STEP ABOVE, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING, WHICH IS COMPARISON. MOVIE THEATER CAME OUT AS 2300 TRIPS PER DAY. ALSO, JUST TO -- TO GET A -- A SCOPE OF WHAT [INAUDIBLE], GIVEN CONSTRAINTS AS FAR AS LOT SIZE, THE BUILDING SIZE AND THE PARKING AREA, LANDSCAPING AND DETENTION AND EVERYTHING [INAUDIBLE], THE BUILDING ITSELF WILL ONLY HAVE A CAPACITY OF ABOUT 650 PEOPLE. AT LEAST AFTER THE EVENTS ONLY [INAUDIBLE] PER DAY, SO -- SO 75 A TRIPS PER DAY AS QUOTED IS VERY REALISTIC. FOR [INAUDIBLE] USES ON THE PROPERTY.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU, THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE FOR REBUTTAL. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVE.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLY I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF, SO IF YOU SAID THIS WHEN I WAS OFF THE DAIS.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR CSCO WITHOUT THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF THE TRIP LIMITATION OF 2,000 TRIPS PER DAY. SO WE HAVE -- OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS JUST STRAIGHT CS ZONING, WITH A TRIP LIMITATION THAT WAS -- THAT WAS OURS -- DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? [INAUDIBLE]

Slusher: MAYOR? TELL ME AGAIN, I'M SORRY IF I MISSED THIS, MS. GLASGO, THIS Z.A.P., WHEN WE SENT IT BACK TO THEM, WHAT DID THEY DO?

Glasgo: THEY SIMPLY REAFFIRMED THEIR PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION, THEY JUST SENT YOU BACK THE SAME RECOMMENDATION THEY HAD SENT YOU BEFORE IN FEBRUARY. IN YOUR BACKUP AT THE FIRST PAGE AT THE BOTTOM, WHERE WE HAVE 10-22-0 02 AS A DATE. THEY SAY TO REAFFIRM RECOMMENDATION ON FEBRUARY 5 February 5th OF 2000 TO APPROVE CSCO BY LIMITING THE VEHICLE TRIPS TO 2,000 TRIPS PER DAY, PROHIBIT CONVENIENCE STORAGE AND AUTOMOTIVE STORAGE AND ALSO INCLUDE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFERED AS A LIST OF PROHIBIT ACTIVE USES, WHICH I -- PROHIBITIVE USES WHICH I LISTED ON YOUR BACKUP, ALSO. THEY FELT THAT BY LIMITING THEIR TRIPS TO 2,000, AND ALSO PROHIBITING THE USES THAT ARE LISTED, THAT PROVIDES SAFEGUARDS.

Slusher: SO PROHIBITS THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT.

Mayor Garcia: YES, PROHIBITS THE USE THAT THE APPLICANT WANTS IS PROHIBITED UNDER THEIR RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. MS. ENGLISH SAID THERE'S BEEN TWO MORE FATALITIES SINCE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. IS THAT ACCURATE?

Glasgo: WE HAVE NOT -- I CAN'T -- I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT OR -- OR DENY IT. WE HAVEN'T CHECKED WITH A.P.D. WE DIDN'T GET A REPORT BACK SINCE THEN, SO IF SHE'S AWARE OF IT AND THEN SHE'S PROBABLY --

Slusher: WOULD YOU COME UP AGAIN FOR A SECOND.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

COME TO THE MIC, PLEASE.

IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A.P.D. WAS NOT EVEN CONSULTED WHEN Z.A.P. HEARD THE CASE. SO Z.A.P. WAS KIND OF -- KIND OF SURPRISED THAT THE CASE WAS GOING BACK TO THEN AND DOESN'T HAVE ANY BACKUP INFORMATION FROM STAFF TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT EXACTLY IT IS THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. BUT I -- I APOLOGIZE, MS. BEST WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, SHE WAS AT THAT MEETING AND WAS SURPRISED THAT NO BACKUP OR NO POLICE REPORT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO Z.A.P. AT LEAST THIS IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND HAPPENED.

Slusher: NOW YOU -- WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IS --

THE FATALITIES?

Slusher: YES.

I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T BRING ANYTHING BECAUSE THIS WAS ON THE NEWS WHEN WE HEARD IT. I DIDN'T BRING THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I DO HAVE THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. BUT I CAN RESEARCH IT. ALL I KNOW IS THAT THERE ARE CONSTANT, CONSTANT SIRENS EVERY WEEKEND, WITH FIRE TRUCKS GOING TO THAT LOCATION. NOT THEIR PARTICULAR SITE BUT RIGHT NEXT TO IT AT THE FLEA MARKET.

OKAY.

Slusher:

COUPLE, WE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH A REPORT OF ANY ACCIDENTS AT THAT LOCATION, WE CAN CHECK WITH A.P.D., WITH THEIR DISPATCH, FIND OUT IF THERE'S ANY REPORTS, BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO -- WE CAN VERIFY THAT INFORMATION IF THAT'S NECESSARY.

COUNCIL, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD IN THE PACKUP THAT WAS SENT TO THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION, WE HAVE A SUMMARY OF THE MEMORANDUM THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFF GAVE US REGARDING THE ACCIDENT AND IN THE AREA, SO THEY HAVE INFORMATION THAT SUMMARIZED THE ACCIDENTS AND THE INFORMATION FROM YOUR MEETING PREVIOUSLY. SO THEY HAVE ALL OF THAT, THEY HAD THE DATA IN THEIR BACK UP. JUST NOT THE -- JUST NEED TO HAVE THE POLICE OFFICER PRESENT IT TO YOU AT THE Z.A.P. MEETING --

UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO STEP UP, I'M GOING TO MOVE FOR THE Z.A.P. RECOMMENDATION. I REALIZE THIS IS ON 290, A MAJOR HIGHWAY. SO -- SO TO THIS A HIGH TRAFFIC USE THERE WOULD BE UNDER A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD MAKE SENSE. BUT WITH THE SAFETY SITUATION, THIS STRETCH OF ROAD IS JUST HORRIBLE. PUT AN INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY ON THERE REALLY BOTHERS ME. WE HAVE KICKED THIS AROUND A LOT ALREADY. I WOULD -- I WOULD SAY JUST GO WITH THE ZAP RECOMMENDIZATION.

Mayor Garcia: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO GO WITH THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. FOR FIRST READING ONLY?

UH-HUH.

IS THERE A SECOND?

I WILL SECOND FOR FIRST READING.

FIRST READING ONLY.

YES. DISCUSSION, LET ME START OUT BY SAYING LIVING IN THAT AREA AND LISTENING TO ALL OF THE SIRENS THAT MS. ENGLISH REFERS TO, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT HOUR OF THE DAY OR NIGHT I'M THERE, IT'S -- IT'S GOING ON ALL THE TIME AND, YOU KNOW, I DRIVE OUT THERE, I SEE WHAT HAPPENS, SO -- SO I CAN'T SUPPORT ANY MORE -- UNTIL THEY PUT ACCESS ROADS ON HIGHWAY 290, THOSE -- THOSE CARS WILL COME IN RIGHT INTO THE HIGHWAY, AND IT'S -- IT'S JUST A -- YOU KNOW, IT'S A RECIPE FOR DISASTER, IN MY ESTIMATION, TO PUT MORE CARS ON THAT HIGHWAY INSPECTING OUT INTO THE -- EMPTYING OUT INTO THE HIGHWAY ITSELF. THERE'S NO ACCESS ROAD UP THERE.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

Mayor Garcia: I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN VOTE FOR IT. I'M SAYING I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT.

Slusher: I'M TRYING TO GET THE LOWEST TRAFFIC USE POSSIBLE ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S DEVELOPMENT RESERVE RIGHT NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN JUST LEAVE IT LIKE THAT INDEFINITELY. WE CAN SAY, YEAH, COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ELSE. BUT THEY WERE PROPOSING AN INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY AND THE MOTION THAT I'VE PUT ON THE TABLE WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT.

Mayor Garcia: WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT. BUT STILL YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME -- SOME FUNCTIONS THERE THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE 6 OR 700 CARS ALL LEAVING AT THE SAME TIME. WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY ALLOW 2,000 TRIPS PER DAY. IF THEY WOULD BE SCATTERED OUT OVER 16, 18 HOURS OF DAYLIGHT, 12 HOURS OF DAYLIGHT AT THIS TIME OF YEAR. BUT THEY COME IN FUNCTION, ALL AT ONE TIME, LEAVE ALL AT ONE TIME. EMPTYING THAT NUMBER OF CARS INTO HIGHWAY 290, GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ACCESS ROAD. IF IT HAD AN ACCESS ROAD AND CONTROLLED ACCESS INTO 290, THAT WOULD BE ONE THING, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE IT. THE ACCESS ROAD BASICALLY ENDS AT 183 AND EVERYTHING EAST OF 183 HAS NO ACCESS ROAD.

IS THAT RIGHT, UNDER THIS THERE COULD STILL BE EVENTS WITH 600 TO 800 CARS AT A TIME?

Glasgo: NO. I THINK THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION PROHIBITS THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR -- FOR USE THAT WOULD HAVE PEOPLE LEAVING ABOUT THE SAME TIME FOR AN EVENT. SO THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDIZATION PROHIBITS THAT TYPE OF A USE. OFFENSELY WITH THE --

Mayor Garcia: BUT IT WOULD BE OTHER USES THAT WOULD HAVE THAT KIND OF CHARACTERISTIC WHERE A LOT OF CARS WOULD BE LEAVING --

Glasgo: THEY ARE PROHIBITED. INDOORS SPORTS AND RECREATION, WHICH WOULD BE SIMILAR, EVERYBODY IN AND OUT AT THE SAME TIME, PROHIBITED. ALL OF YOUR HIGH TRIP GENERATION USES ARE PRETTY MUCH PROHIBITED.

Mayor Garcia: YOU COULD HAVE A WEDDING RECEPTION THERE WITH 5 OR 600 PEOPLE. YOU COULD HAVE A LOT OF FUNCTIONS IN THERE THAT WOULD HAVE A LOT OF CARS COMING OUT AT THE SAME TIME. THAT'S MY CONCERN. YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT AREA, KNOWING THE NUMBER OF SIRENS THAT WAKE ME UP EVERY MORNING AND ARE THERE AT NIGHT, KNOWING THAT TRACT OF LAND, THAT STRETCH OF ROAD, I JUST HAVE DIFFICULTY APPROVING ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE THAT MANY CARS COMING DIRECTLY INTO HIGHWAY 290. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT HIGHWAY 290 AT THAT LEVEL SPEED LIMIT IS WHAT, 70? 65? SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I MEAN, THESE CARS EMPTY OUT RIGHT INTO IT. MY PARTICULAR CASE, I LIVE FURTHER WEST FROM THAT. WE HAVE AN ACCESS ROAD. FROM HIGHWAY 183 WEST, THERE IS AN ACCESS ROAD. BUT HIGHWAY 183 EAST OF HIGHWAY 183 WE DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS ROAD. THAT'S WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

Slusher: I WOULD YIELD TO YOU IF YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION. MY INTENT WAS I THOUGHT THEY HAD STRUCK A LOT OF USES THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT KIND OF HEAVY TRAFFIC COMING ON TO 290.

Mayor> Glasgo: THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE ZONED DEVELOPMENT RESERVE, REQUIRED PRETTY MUCH A HOUSE. YOU NEED TO HAVE 10 ACRES, WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE. IT'S CURRENTLY ONE ACRE. SO THEY CAN'T BE REALLY USED FOR, EVEN UNDER D.R. IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACREAGE.

Slusher: WHAT COULD THEY GET THERE UNDER THE Z.A.P. RECOMMENDIZATION? UNDER THE ZAP RECOMMENDATION, UNDER CS, PRETTY MUCH -- YOU COULD STILL HAVE A RESTAURANT USE, YOU KNOW, SMALL RESTAURANT, THE SITE, FAST FOOD SIT DOWN RESTAURANT, OFFICE USE. OTHER USES, MEDICAL OFFICE. YOU COULD HAVE JUST -- JUST OTHER USES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, IN THE RETAIL AREA, UNDER L.R. AND G.R.

Mayor Garcia: SO THAT THE TRAFFIC IN APPEARED OUT WOULD BE SPREAD -- IN AND OUT WOULD BE SPREAD OUT OVER THE DAY. IF IT'S OFFICES I CAN UNDERSTAND GOING ALONG WITH IT. BUT WHAT KIND OF FACILITIES ARE THEY PROPOSING? MAYBE I NEED TO ASK THE QUESTION --

PLUS THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT.

Mayor Garcia: I UNDERSTAND. THAT INCLUDES WEDDINGS, BANQUET HALLS.

HE'S NOT GETTING THAT UNDER THERE.

Mayor Garcia: THAT'S RIGHT, HE AIN'T GETTING THAT. I THOUGHT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT ENTERTAINMENT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, MUSIC OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WHAT KIND OF BUILDING ARE YOU PROPOSING AT THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY?

YES, IT WOULD BE MAINLY FOR WEDDING RECEPTIONS, PERSONAL TYPE EVENTS. QUINCENERAS --

Mayor Garcia: YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION FROM Z.A.P.

RIGHT, RIGHT. ONCE THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, IF THAT IS KEPT IN THERE AS A PROHIBITED USE, THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO DO THAT. BEYOND THAT, WE WOULD KIND OF HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, SEE WHAT WE COULD USE THERE. THE OTHER USE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ON THE PROPERTY IS AS -- AS MS. BEST SAID, IS THE -- THE MOBILE [INAUDIBLE] DISTRIBUTION CENTER WITH A SMALL FLEET OF MOBILE VENDOR TRUCKS. THE TRIP GENERATION ON THAT IS RESTRICTED TO THE FLEET SIZE, WHICH IS ABOUT 10 TRUCKS RIGHT NOW. SO AS FAR AS TRIP GENERATION ON THAT USE IT ISN'T SIGNIFICANT AT ALL. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT -- I KNOW THAT YOUR CONCERN WAS LARGE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT AT ONE PARTICULAR TIME. AS FAR AS HAVING CONFLICT WITH THE TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT WITH THE FLEA MARKET, WOULD BE VERY MINIMAL. PEOPLE LEAVING OUR ESTABLISHMENT WOULD BE LONG AFTER THE FLEA MARKET IS CLOSED AND THEIR TRAFFIC IS ALREADY DIED DOWN. AND THAT WOULD BE THE MAIN CONCERN IF ANYONE LEAVING, GOING STRAIGHT ON TO 290 HAD ANY CONFLICT. BUT I DO RECOGNIZE YOUR CONCERN WITH THE TRAFFIC ISSUES AND SO WE -- WE TRIED TO DEAL WITH KEEPING THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC DOWN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BY COMING UP WITH THE TRIPS PER DAY FIGURES.

Slusher: WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT UP FOR FIRST READING. ONE USE THAT YOU -- I DON'T WA TO WHITTLE EVERYTHING OFF OF THERE, BUT THE FAST FOOD, I THINK IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A DRIVE THROUGH, SO I WOULD ADD NO DRIVE THROUGH ON THIS.

Glasgo: FOR FAST FOOD DRIVE THROUGH?

Slusher: NO DRIVE THROUGH ANYWAY. I DON'T CARE IF THEY COOK THE FOOD FAST OR WHATEVER. BUT -- [ LAUGHTER ] NOT HAVING A DRIVE THROUGH.

OKAY. THAT'S FIRST READING ONLY, BECAUSE, MAYOR, LET'S CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS. I MEAN, I'M THE ONE THAT SEND IT BACK TO THE Z.A.P. AND THEY DECIDED NOT TO DO ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC SAFETY. I THINK WE DO HAVE TO LEAVE IT WHERE THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ON THE PROPERTY.

YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT -- WHAT THE APPLICANT CAN DO ABOUT -- ABOUT FINDING A WAY TO -- TO MITIGATE THE EFFECT OF PUTTING PEOPLE RIGHT INTO HIGHWAY 290. WITHOUT ACCESS ROAD CAPABILITY AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW -- SO I WAS HOPING THAT Z.A.P. WOULD COME BACK WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

ON THE ROADWAY, THE ENTIRE STRETCH AS WE DEMONSTRATED LAST TIME WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY ECHOED WHAT YOU INDICATED. THERE ARE NO FRONTAGE ROAD, SO THERE'S AN AREA THAT'S A LITTLE WIDER ON THE RODE THAT YOU CAN TELL FROM THE AERIAL MAP THAT ENDS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THIS TRACT. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LITTLE SHOULDER ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE. BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF FRONTAGE ROADS TO THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, UNTIL THEY MODIFY THE ENTIRE STRETCH OF 290, THAT PROBABLY WILL CONTINUE TO BE THERE. EVEN IF THE APPLICANT WERE REQUIRED TO MITIGATE THERE ISN'T MUCH THAT YOU CAN MITIGATE TO ADDRESS THAT STRETCH.

Mayor Garcia: I THINK THIS PARTICULAR TRACT IS ON A PART WHERE -- WHERE EAST OF THERE IS THE TOP OF THE HILL, THEN STARTS GOING DOWN. SO CARS SPEED UP COMING DOWN THAT HILL. LIKE I SAID, UNTIL WE PUT SOME KIND OF CONTROLS, SOME KIND OF MITIGATION, SOME KIND OF ACCESS ROADS, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CARS, FACILITIES, INSTEAD OF INTO HIGHWAY 290.

CORRECT.

OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION IN. THIS IS FOR FIRST READING ONLY.

YES.

Mayor Garcia: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. SHOW ME VOTING NO ON THIS ONE. AND I HOPE THAT FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING WE CAN FIND SOME SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE THE FACT THAT ZONING AND PLATTING DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ON IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NOT DO SOMETHING. BECAUSE THERE IS A DANGER AND BY THE TIME THAT WE GET THE SECOND AND THIRD, MISS GORDON IS GOING TO HAVE INFORMATION FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR -- THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

WE WILL GET THAT UPDATE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. GLASGO.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 1. TO 0. WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABSENT. THAT GETS US TO 14, IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, ITEMS 14 AND 15 ARE RELATED I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THEM TOGETHER OR ONE AFTER THE OTHER. Z-14 IS NPA-02-005.01, AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTOPOLIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. THE REQUEST IS RELATED TO THE STEINER TRACT WHICH HAS THE COMPANION ZONING CASE UNDER Z-15. THE REQUEST OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO SHOW RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION AS OPPOSED TO OFFICE. THE ADOPTED PLAN FOR THIS TRACT SHOWS OFFICE USE. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THAT PLAN TO SHOW RESIDENTIAL TO -- TO MATCH THE PROPOSED REZONING CASE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS UNABLE TO REACH A QUORUM RECOMMENDATION -- VOTE TO FORWARD -- TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO REACH A QUORUM VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THE PLAN AMENDMENT. THEY ALL AGREED TO FORWARD THE PLAN AMENDMENT TO YOU WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION. HOWEVER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL. GOING TO ITEM NO. Z-15, CASE C14-01-10, THE STANDARD TRACT REZONING CASE -- STEINER TRACT REZONING CASE, 7300 TO 7320 RIVERSIDE DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 2 AND SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO MULTI-FAMILY WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OVERLAY. THE -- THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION HEARD THIS CASE, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CASE THAT THE APPLICANT FILED PREVIOUSLY WAS BEFORE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WAS INITIATED, SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHEREAS THE ZONING CHANGE WENT TO THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO GRANT MULTI-FAMILY -- MULTI-FAMILY ZONING FOR TRACTS ONE AND TWO AND CS-NP FOR TRACT 3, WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS THAT ARE SET OUT CONDITIONS ON -- ON THE TRACT TO -- TO INCLUDE A LIMITATION OF 2,000 TRIPS PER DAY. THE -- THE OTHER RECOMMENDATION INCLUDE -- INCLUDE THAT -- THAT THE APPLICANT LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THIS TRACT TO SINGLE FAMILY UNITS FOR -- FOR THE FIRST 170 FEET OF THE WESTERN MOST PROPERTY AND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY WOULD REMAIN WITH MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR A TOTAL OF 1200 UNITS. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE TO YOU IS THAT SINCE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES THAT OCCURRED ON SITE. THERE USED TO BE A PIPELINE OWNED BY CITGO. THEY HAVE SINCE ABANDONED THE PIPELINE, WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THEM CONFIRMING THAT, THAT PIPELINE HAS BEEN RENDERED UNUSE I DON'T BELIEVE AND IT HAS BEEN VACATED, ALSO. WE GOT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION RECENTLY. AND GIVEN THOSE FACTS, WE HAVE THEN MODIFIED OUR RECOMMENDATION, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO SPLIT THE TRACT INTO TWO. I WILL GO OVER TO THIS MAP. YOU HAVE SOME -- A YELLOW MAP, TWO YELLOW MAPS IN FRONTS OF YOU THAT SHOW THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TRACT. THE -- THE TRACT HERE NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE ZONED SINGLE FAMILY 6. WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY NP WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS. TRACT 2 IS GOING TO BE ZONED MULTI-FAMILY 3. THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY NP. THE APPLICANT AGREES WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. THE ONLY THING THAT WE DO NOT AGREE ON WITH THE APPLICANT IS THAT THE -- THERE IS AN ELECTRIC EASEMENT HERE SHOWN BY THIS RED LINE. THAT IS A 138 KV ELECTRICAL EASEMENT OVER HERE. THERE IS A 50-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTER LINE OFF THAT EASEMENT THAT GOES ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT EASEMENT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT YOU ADD AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK FROM THIS RED LINE, WHICH TOTALS 100 FEET, THAT'S THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS. WITH THE RECOMMEND INDICATION, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH SF 6 CONP FOR TRACT 1, [INAUDIBLE] FOR TRACT 2 WITH THE DISOAPTION ZONINGS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ITEMS -- ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OVERLAY ITEMS. SECONDLY THE SETBACK FROM THE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT IS THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE APPLICANT AS FAR AS HOW FAR THEY SHOULD SET BACK. CURRENTLY THERE IS A 100-FOOT SETBACK. 50 FEET ON THE CENTER LINE OF THE EASEMENT. THE STAFF IS ONLY ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 100 FEET, WHICH SHOWS HERE AS THE GREEN LINE AND WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR THAT JUST TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SETBACK AND BUFFER AND -- FROM THEIR EASEMENT FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WOULD -- THEY PREFER TO MAINTAIN THE SETBACK THAT CURRENTLY IS THERE. THE OTHER ITEM THAT THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE ASKING FOR IS THAT THE TRAFFIC LIMITATION OF 2,000 TRIPS PER DAY, CREATES A CONFLICT WITH A NUMBER OF TRIPS, NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING. SO -- SO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS -- HAS ASKED AND STAFF HAS CONCURRED IS THAT THEY WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU DELETE THE REQUIREMENT OF LIMITING THE VEHICLE TRIPS TO 2,000, ALLOW THEM TO DEFER A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF SUBDIVISIONS AND THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO US. THAT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY IS -- HAS SOME UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS YOU ALL RECALL, WE -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD -- HAD ASKED THAT THIS PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, WHEN THE APPLICANT HAD -- HAD A PREVIOUS REQUEST FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE [INAUDIBLE] TRACT. THE CITY OF AUSTIN EXPLORED THE POSSIBILITY OF ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY BUT WE DIDN'T ACQUIRE IT. SO WHILE THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BEING PLANNED AND REZONED, WE PUT THIS ONE IN AWAYENCE UNTIL -- AWAYENCE UNTIL WE SCPLOD THE OPPORTUNITIES -- EXPLORED THE OPPORTUNITIES WHETHER WE COULD BITE PROPERTY OR NOT. [INAUDIBLE] LATER STAGE WHICH WE TYPICALLY DON'T DO IS JUSTIFIABLE. WE WOULD RECOMMEND THE CURRENTMENT AND THE -- CURRENT AMENDMENT AND THE ZONING CHANGE TO LET YOU DISCUSS OR DECIDE WHETHER WE SHOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL 100-FOOT SETBACK FROM THAT EASEMENT. THAT IS THE ONLY ITEM OF DISCUSSION. THANK YOU, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME AT THIS POINT? [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

Mayor Garcia: QUESTIONS FOR MS. GLASGO?

Wynn: YES, MAYOR. COULD YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE FOR ME THE RATIONALE FOR THE 100 FEET? IS IT BASED ON SOME PRECEDENT ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY OR SOME, YOU KNOW, HEALTH STANDARD OR WHAT?

Glasgo: IT'S REALLY NOT BASED ON ANY SCIENTIFIC DATA OTHER THAN OTHER CASES -- WE FELT LIKE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE PIPELINE HAS BEEN ABANDONED, THERE WAS A SETBACK EASEMENT THERE AND THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT LAND AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THAT PROVIDES SOME LEEWAY, WE BELIEVE, TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK. JUST TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BUFFER BEYOND THE 100 FEET. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY THAT -- THAT -- THAT SUPPORTS THAT SETBACK OTHER THAN JUST AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER FOR THE [INAUDIBLE]

OKAY. THANK YOU,.

Dunkerly: MS. GLASGO, I'M NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THE DISTANCE. ARE YOU SAYING THERE'S 150 FEET SETBACK FROM THE LINE ON EITHER SIDE?

Glasgo: THERE'S A TOTAL OF 100 10050 ON EITHER SIDE. THIS IS THE -- 100, 50 ON EITHER SIDE. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LINE YOU HAVE A 50-FOOT SETBACK AND THIS OTHER SIDE YOU HAVE ANOTHER 50 FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 100.

Dunkerly: OVERALL HOW MUCH?

100. SO FAR --

Dunkerly: DOES THAT ADD UP?

WE HAVE A MAP IN FRONT MUCH YOU IN YELLOW THAT GIVES YOU THE LINES.

Dunkerly: JUST THINK OF THE LINE, HOW MUCH SETBACK DO YOU HAVE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LINE, HOW MUCH IN TOTAL, INCLUDING THE 50-FOOT EASEMENT AND THEN WHAT ADDITIONAL YOU ARE ASKING FOR, SO I CAN --

Glasgo: THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF -- FROM THE SUBJECT TRACT, THE MULTI-FAMILY A TOLL OF 150.

ON BOTH SIDES.

JUST ONE SIDE, THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.

THE OTHER SIDE JUST 50. A TOTAL OF 200 FEET.

CORRECT.

Glasgo: OKAY.

ON EITHER SIDE. NOT QUITE A FOOTBALL FIELD.

CORRECT.

50 FEET SHY.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

YES, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

Alvarez: SO THEN IT IS AN ADDITIONAL 100 FEET INTO THE PORTION THAT COULD BE RESIDENTIAL?

THAT'S CORRECT.

SO IT'S 50 THAT EXISTS, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 100 ON THE SIDE THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

Alvarez: NOW IN THE REVISED STAFF RECOMMENDATION ALSO, YOU MENTIONED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS, I KNOW THAT WAS PART OF THE OVERALL RECOMMENDATION, CERTAIN UNITS HAVING SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, IS THAT ADDRESSED IN STAFF'S CURRENT RECOMMENDATION?

THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN OUR RECOMMENDATION, OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD EMBRACE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDIZATION OF HAVING THE FIRST 170 FEET, THE PROPERTY FROM HERE TO BE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND THEN THE REMAINDER WOULD BE MULTI-FAMILY. SO THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION, YES.

SO THOSE PROVISIONS ARE PART OF THE CURRENTS OR AT LEAST WHAT STAFF IS CURRENTLY RECOMMENDING.

YES.

170 FEET REQUIREMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND REMAINDER MULTI-FAMILY.

A PROPORTION OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. SO YOU WOULD BE ADVOCATING THE NUMBERS PUT FORWARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

FOR THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION.

THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION WHICH WAS TOTAL OF 1200 UNITS, ON BOTH TRACTS?

Glasgo: CORRECT.

Alvarez: WITH A MAXIMUM OF 720 MULTI-FAMILY?

THAT'S CORRECT.

Glasgo: AND THE DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER.

Alvarez: IS THERE ANY WAY OF DETERMINING ON TRACT 2 WHAT -- HOW MANY UNITS COULD BE BUILT THERE? HOW MANY MULTI-FAMILY UNITS COULD BE BUILT THERE?

I DON'T THINK THAT -- WE DON'T HAVE THE --

SIZE AND -- WHAT THAT -- WHAT THAT -- WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS. IT COULD BE -- THAT COULD BE BUILT THERE.

WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER YET BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT COMPLETELY DESIGNED OR ENGINEERED THE PLANS. HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A ROUGH ESTIMATE WHEN HE MAKES HIS PRESENTATION, BUT WE DON'T HAVE COMPLETE INFORMATION TO GIVE YOU AN EXACT NUMBER OF UNITS.

Alvarez: OKAY, THANK YOU,.

Mayor Garcia: FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. GLASGO? IF NOT, MR. JOHN JOSEPH, JUNIOR IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT. AND MR. JOHN JOSEPH, SENIOR HAS GIVEN THREE MINUTES AND IS KENNY DRYDEN HERE, HE'S GIVEN HIM THREE MINUTES. SO YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES TO -- TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION, MR. JOSEPH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS JOHN JOSEPH, JR. WITH THE LAW FIRM OF MINUTER, JOSEPH AND THORN HILL. WE REPRESENT STEINER IN THE ZONING CASE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AS WELL AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE PLAN AMEND AS MS. GLASGO DISCUSSED. I'M NOT GOING TO NEED ALL OF THAT TIME. I -- MS. GLASGO DID A GOOD JOB. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF DEPOSITION THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. WHICH IS JUST THE REQUEST FOR REQUIREMENT BY CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF AN ADDITIONAL 100-FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE UTILITY LINE. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS THAT WE ARE -- A FEW REASONS THAT WE OPPOSE THIS. ONE OF THE REASONS IS, AS YOU KNOW, IF YOU REMEMBER BACK WHEN THE CITY WAS CONSIDERING PURCHASING AND DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED AND PRESENTED TO THIS COUNCIL BY PAUL HILGERS ESTABLISHED THAT -- THAT IT'S A PRECARIOUS BALANCE BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF ACRES, NUMBER OF UNITS IN ORDER TO MAKE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSFUL. EVERY SINGLE SQUARE FOOT IS NECESSARY, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT -- THAT MY CLIENT OR THE DEVELOPER IS CONSIDERING -- NOT CONSIDERING, IS PLANNING TO INCORPORATE SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO TO FURTHER TAKE THIS PROPERTY OFF THE TABLE, AS -- AS AREAS TO DEVELOP, I BELIEVE ACTUALLY WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S THE FIRST REASON. THE SECOND REASON IS JUST FROM -- FROM, YOU KNOW, A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT CRITERIA STAFF USED TO DETERMINE THIS 100-FOOT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE. THEY DEFINITELY HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE TO US THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE 150 OR EXCUSE ME THE 50-FOOT EASEMENT WOULD POSE SOME SORT OF A THREAT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY. LACKING THAT EVIDENCE OR ANY KIND OF INFORMATION SUPPORTING THAT, IT SEEMS ARBITRARY THAT THEY WOULD JUST COME UP WITH AN EXTRA 100 FEET. IF IT IS NECESSARY, FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY, CERTAINLY OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONTEMPT PLATES THAT. AND IT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF US. I DON'T THINK THAT JUST ARBITRARILILY PICKING A NUMBER OUT OF THE AIR MAKES SENSE. NOTWITHSTANDING ALL OF THE COOPERATION AND HELP THAT WE'VE HAD, SPECIFICALLY FROM MS. GLASGO COMING TO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. THE FACT THAT WE ARE SETTING BACK FROM WHAT WAS GOING TO BE A PIPELINE IF ONE EXISTED DOES NOT TO ME COMPEL ME TO GIVE 100 FEET BECAUSE I GAIN 200 FEET BECAUSE THE PIPELINE DOESN'T EXIST. YOU KNOW, I WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO SET BACK WHERE THE PIPELINE EXISTED AND ONE DOES NOT EXIST. THE THIRD REASON IS IF THE UTILITY, AUSTIN ENERGY WHO OWNS THIS UTILITY EASEMENT OR IS -- IS NEGOTIATING FOR THIS UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL EASEMENT, CERTAINLY THEY CAN NEGOTIATE WITH MY CLIENT FOR A GREATER EASEMENT. IF THEY DO NOT, THEN WHY WOULD WE JUST ARBITRARILY ESTABLISH 100-FOOT AND GIVE IT TO THEM? REQUIRING THIS NOW WOULD -- WOULD BE UNFAIR AND IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD POSE A HARDSHIP, JEOPARDIZE OUR DEVELOPMENT AND NOT GIVING -- NOT REQUIRING THIS 100-FOOT NOW DOES NOT PREINCLUDE AUSTIN ENERGY FROM COMING AND RENEGOTIATING THEIR EASEMENT, NOR DOES IT PRECLUDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO DRIFT AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A SETBACK IF THERE IS IN FACT A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE. SO IT'S FOR THOSE REASONS THAT WE HAVE TO OPPOSE STRONGLY AND VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE THIS PARTICULAR CONDITION. AND IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, WE WERE IN ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT WITH STAFF AT THIS POINT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

AND WE HAD THAT ONE FOR THE PRETTY LARGE -- PRETTY LARGE TRACT THAT WAS APPROVED FOR AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY. AND THEN OF COURSE WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS TRACT AND PURCHASING IT FROM THE STEINERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. AND WE CAN OPEN THE DOOR FOR THERE TO BE SOME MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING IT AFFORDABLE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE MORE UNITS YOU HAVE IT MAKES IT MORE FEASIBLE TO PROVIDE AT AN AFFORDABLE RATE. AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED, SOME SMART HOUSING OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

YES, IT IS. WE'RE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER RIGHT NOW AND THAT'S OUR PLAN.

Alvarez: SO THE NUMBER OF UNITS IS KEY IN BEING ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT AND THE MIX AND BALANCE.

ABSOLUTELY. THE MIX AND BALANCE, YES, SIR.

Alvarez: BUT I REALLY DO THINK -- I'M SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND WHAT THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED. AND I THINK YOU ALL HAVE WORKED WELL WITH PODER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND STAFF. AND I THINK IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS IT'S SOMETHING REALLY MORE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT NUMBER MAYBE COME DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN WORK ON BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND AND THIRD READING IN TERMS OF THE 1200 TOTAL.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN MIND?

Alvarez: I WAS LEANING MORE TOWARDS THE THOUSAND A MAXIMUM.

OUT OF WHAT, THOUGH, OUT OF MULTI-FAMILY NUMBER? REMEMBER, THERE'S A 1200 TOTAL UNITS. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING THE TOTAL NUMBER TO A THOUSAND?

Alvarez: TO A THOUSAND.

AND THAT REDUCTION OUT OF WHAT --

CAN YOU GET CLOSER TO THE MIC?

OUT OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY?

Alvarez: STILL REQUIRING THE 5050 OUT OF A THOUSAND, SO 500 UNITS. BUT I THINK THAT IS STILL GENEROUS GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF MULTI-FAMILY ALREADY IN THE MONTOPOLIS AREA.

WE'VE DONE SOME NUMBERS -- CAN I TALK TO --

Alvarez: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT WE APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND NEGOTIATE THAT ASPECT OF IT.

THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY, YES, SIR, THE NUMBER THAT COMES OUT OF THE MULTI-FAMILY.

Alvarez: WE HAVEN'T MEASURED THESE TRACTS THE WAY WE'RE DRAWING THEM AND CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNIT. WE NEED THAT INFORMATION AND THEN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE MIX OF SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY.

THERE IS FLEXIBILITY THERE.

Alvarez: BUT I DO THINK THE SETBACK ISSUE --

I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT YES, THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY WITH THE NUMBERS. I DON'T KNOW HOW -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SAY THAT THERE'S FLEXIBILITY KNOCKING IT DOWN AND -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES IT IS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ACREAGE IS? YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT OF DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY, SO --

Alvarez: I THINK THERE'S ROOM TO NEGOTIATE AND LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PLAN AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN DEBATING IN THAT AREA. BUT THAT'S REALLY KIND OF MY THINKING IS IF WE COULD KIND OF APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS A LOT CLOSER TO WHAT EVERYONE'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND THEN BETWEEN NOW AND SECOND AND THIRD READING KIND OF HASH OUT THESE ISSUES.

I'D BE HAPPY WITH THAT. I WOULD BE HAPPIER WITH NOT PASSING OR NOT BEING -- NOT CHANGING IT LATER ON. I KNOW THAT'S GOING TO HURT US, THE FLEXIBILITY ON THE NUMBERS MIGHT NOT.

Alvarez: I'LL YIELD, MAYOR, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ASK QUESTIONS.

Mayor Garcia: QUESTIONS FOR MR. JOSEPH? THANK YOU, MR. JOSEPH. WE HAVE ONE PERSON THAT'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

Dunkerley: I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION. BEFORE I CAME ON THIS SIDE OF THE DAIS, I WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DAIS, AND I WORKED ON THIS PARTICULAR LAND AND I MOVED UNITS AROUND ONE WAY AND ANOTHER WAY TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT COULD CASH FLOW AND MAKE SENSE. AND I KNOW IT'S HARD TO DO THAT UP HERE, BUT I THINK WE REALLY DO NEED EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF LAND WE CAN GET. SO SOMEHOW BETWEEN COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE ECONOMICALLY. AND WE WANT TO MAKE A VIABLE PROJECT, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD RESPOND TO THAT.

I AGREE IT'S A DELICATE BALANCE, CERTAINLY. AND AS I THINK -- AND COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, CERTAINLY THE NUMBER OF IEWPTS WE CAN MIX AND MATCH BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT WE WILL NEED THAT TOTAL NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. SO I THINK THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE. THE DEVELOPABLE LAND, WE NEED EVERY SQUARE INCH OF IT, AS YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT LOOKS LIKE COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ IS SEEKING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS TO AN EXTRA HUNDRED UNITS, I THINK. YOU KNOW, THAT EATS UP MORE PROPERTY THAN WOULD A MULTI-FAMILY PRODUCT.

Dunkerley: I JUST KNOW IT'S HARD.

WE'RE SO CLOSE.

Dunkerley: IT'S HARD WHEN YOU'RE STANDING UP THERE TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK ECONOMICALLY. COUNCILMEMBER, YOU WANT TO DO THIS ON WHICH READING, ONE?

Alvarez: I THINK IT'S ONLY THE FIRST. IF WE DO IT ON ALL THREE READINGS, I MIGHT BE CHANGING IT, BUT THAT --

Dunkerley: I THINK THAT WILL GIVE US A CHANCE TO RUN THESE NUMBERS AND SEE WHAT WILL REALLY WORK ON THAT PROPERTY. GREAT.

Slusher: MAYOR? BUT WE'RE LEAVING IN THE EXTRA 100 FEET? I MEAN, WHY WOULD WE DO THAT IF WE ALL AGREE THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THERE? IF WE WANT A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, CAN'T WE JUST PUT A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS?

Mayor Garcia: I THINK COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ EXPLAINED THAT.

Slusher: I'M SORRY IF I LOOK CONFUSED.

Alvarez: I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I'M LEANING TOWARDS, BUT I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT CHANGING THE 1200 TO ONE THOUSAND AND KEEP THE 170.

Slusher: BUT CAN WE JUST DISCUSS THAT RATHER THAN LEAVE A BARGAINING CHIP IN THERE THAT WE'RE AGREEING THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE UP? I WOULD MAKE -- IS THERE A MOTION ON THE TABLE?

Mayor Garcia: NO. HE WENT CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING YET?

Slusher: I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING YET.

Mayor Garcia: NOT YET. WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER.

Slusher: OKAY. I WITHDRAW MY MOTION. [ LAUGHTER ]

Mayor Garcia: OKAY. HERE WE GO. SUS SAN IN A ALMANZA. SUSANNA ALMANZA. IS SHE HERE? I'LL READ INTO THE RECORD WHAT SHE WROTE. APPROVE TRACTS 1 AND 2 MULTI-FAMILY WITH 50% BEING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED. TRACT 3 CS-CO-NP. AND I THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THAT SECOND ONE, CS-CO-NP, IS THAT CORRECT?

FOR TRACT 3 THE RECOMMENDATION IS OFFERED AS CS-CO-NP; HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING 50% SINGLE-FAMILY.

Mayor Garcia: I UNDERSTAND. I WAS JUST REFERRING TO THE TRACT 3.

CORRECT.

Mayor Garcia: THAT'S CS?

> YES, SIR.

Mayor Garcia: AND IN TRACT 1 AND 2, TRACT 1 DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER LINE, RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

Mayor Garcia: SO TRACT 1 WOULD BE --

AT LEAST PART OF IT.

Mayor Garcia: ZONING, COME ON UP AND HELP US WITH THIS ONE. TRACT 2 HAS THE POWER LINE, RIGHT?

YES. AND NOT 1.

YES.

Mayor Garcia: SO WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION?

IT DIVIDES THE LOT -- TRACTS 3 AND 2.

Mayor Garcia: LET ME GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS YOU WANT TO REQUEST ANYTHING THAT --

I WANT TO SAY ONE THING REAL QUICK.

Mayor Garcia: YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

WITH RESPECT TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS, IF YOU'RE PUT PUTTING ON -- IS THAT THE KIND OF FINE POINT, I THINK WE'RE FINE WITH THAT. SO I WOULD JUST AS SOON AT THIS POINT, AS COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER IS SUGGESTING, WE CAN TIE THAT UP NOW AND GET THIS THING SORT OF PUT TO BED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HAVING THE METES AND BOUNDS FOR THAT LINE, THAT DELINEATION. SO WE CAN I THINK ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST ON THE REDUCTION IN UNITS.

Mayor Garcia: OKAY. THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AT THIS TIME.

Slusher: SO MOVE.

Dunkerley: SECOND.

Mayor Garcia: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

AYE.

Mayor Garcia: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. I WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE HAVE BACK FROM THE HOSPITAL STEWART HERSH THAT THE RUMORS HE WAS NOT GOING TO COME BACK ARE TOTALLY FALSE, AND IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK. AND I UNDERSTAND LOOKING AND FEELING PRETTY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I ALMOST CAME DOWN FOR THE EAST.

ARTIN LUTHER KING HEARING FROM THE HOSPITAL BED FOR INPUT, BUT THE DOCTOR ADVISED OTHERWISE.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU, STEWART. OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

Alvarez: OKAY, MAYOR.

Mayor Garcia: AND THEN AN AMENDMENT MAY COME FROM COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

Alvarez: I GUESS I WOULD MOVE THAT WE -- WORKING OFF OF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE STAFF'S CURRENT RECOMMENDATION, MAYBE IF YOU COULD LAY THAT OUT SO WE KNOW AND WHAT CHANGES YOU'RE GOING TO BE MAKING TO IT.

OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THAT. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT SF-6, CO-NP WHICH STANDS FOR TOWN HOME AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING COMBINING DISTRICT AND MS-3 MEDIUM DENSITY, CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT FOR TROOKTS 1 AND 2. THE SF-4 IS FOR ANOTHER PART OF THE COMBINED TRACTS ONE AND TWO, AND YOU HAVE A MAP IN FRONT OF YOU AND THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE COMBINED TRACTS ONE AND TWO. AND WE FINALLY RECOMMEND CS FOR -- CO FOR TRACT 3. A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WOULD LIMIT THE ENTIRE 108-POINT 82 ACRES TO NO MORE THAN 2,000 TRIPS A DAY AND THAT'S WHY THE APPLICANT IS ASKING THAT YOU DELETE THAT AND DEFER THE TRAFFIC TO THE SUBDIVISION AND THE SITE PLAN. AND WE ALSO ARE RECOMMENDING THAT A 100-FOOT BUILDING, PARKING AND DRIVEWAY SET BACK BE ESTABLISHED ON THE SOUTHERN 50-FOOT ELECTRICAL EASEMENT. WE WOULD ALSO ADD THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, WHICH HAS -- LIMITS THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 1200, LIMITS THE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS TO 720 OUT OF THE 1200 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS, AND ALSO REQUIRES THAT ON TRACT 3 THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY PROHIBIT ALL ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESS, AUTO RELATED USES, AUTOMOTIVE WASHING AND SALES AND PAWN SHOPS. FOR TRACT ONE, TWO AND THREE, LIMIT THE AREA 170 FEET EAST OF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO TRACT 3 WOULD HAVE THE SAME TRAFFIC LIMITMATIONS AND THE APPLICANT ASK IS ASKING THAT YOU DEFER THAT TOO. THAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND ZAP COMBINED.

> Mayor Garcia: LET ME FIRST INDICATE TO THE CITY CLERK THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS FOR 14 AND 15. AND ON ITEM 14, THIS IS THE AMENDMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT OR CAN WE TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT? MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. NO, THIS IS RECOMMENDED FOR -- THE AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED FOR FIRST READING ONLY.

WE'RE GOING TO DO FIRST READING FOR BOTH ITEMS.

Mayor Garcia: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

AYE.

Mayor Garcia: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE, WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABSENT. NOW, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ FOR A MOTION ON 15.

Alvarez: I WOULD MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, WE REMOVE THE 2,000 TRIPS A DAY LIMITATION AND WE REMOVE THE 100-FOOT ADDITIONAL BUFFER FROM THE ELECTRICAL EASEMENT AND THAT WE REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS TO A THOUSAND AND TOTAL NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS TO 500 OR 50% OF THAT.

Mayor Garcia: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY. DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

Slusher: I THINK I HEARD HIM MEET MY CONCERN IN THAT. I WOULD ASK THINKING ON REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNITS BECAUSE I'M -- THE THOUGHT THAT WENT INTO THAT, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT BECAUSE IT DOES MAKE IT HARDER TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHEN YOU HAVE LESS UNITS.

ONE CLARIFICATION ON THE PENDING MOTION. IF THEY DO MORE THAN 500 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS, WOULD THAT BE PERMISSIBLE TOWARDS THE 1,000 UNIT CAP? IN OTHER WORDS, AS I UNDERSTOOD THE MOTION, AND I WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THIS, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IS 500, AND THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TOTAL UNITS IS A THOUSAND. AND SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THOSE CONSTRAINTS, THEY WOULD BE CON THIS MOTION. IS THAT A MIX OF THE 50/50, 60/40?

Alvarez: I WOULD ENCOURAGE THERE TO BE MORE MULTI-FAMILY -- I MEAN, MORE SINGLE-FAMILY, BUT I THINK WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A REAL PROJECT RIGHT NOW, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POSSIBILITY IS OF HAVING GREATER THAN 50% OF SINGLE-FAMILY.

SO THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A MAXIMUM OF A THOUSAND UNITS WITH NO MORE THAN 500 UNITS BEING MULTI-FAMILY?

Mayor Garcia: THAT'S THE MOTION.

THANK YOU.

Slusher: AND I WAS WONDERING WHY CUT IT DOWN TO A THOUSAND?

Alvarez: WELL, BECAUSE -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS LAND IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF-2. AND THE REASON WE WERE EVEN TALKING ABOUT UP ZONING -- WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY, IT WAS SO WE COULD PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SO I THINK IN THAT INSTANCE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE IS GOING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ENOUGH ZONING TO HELP WITH THAT EFFORT. HERE WE'RE NOT TALKING NECESSARILY ABOUT A REAL PROJECT RIGHT NOW. CERTAINLY WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CITY BUYING IT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND I THINK IT'S ONE THING TO GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS AND THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES BEING LOOKED AT IN CONSIDERING CHANGING IN ZONING, BUT FOR ME I THINK WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED IN THIS TRACT, THIS ENTIRE TRACT IS SINGLE-FAMILY. AND WE KNOW THAT WE'RE ALREADY SEEING HALF OF THIS THAT ORIGINALLY I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED WAS SINGLE-FAMILY, WE'RE ALREADY SAYING THAT COULD BE MULTI-FAMILY, AND SO I DO THINK WE ARE SORT OF WORKING IN GOOD FAITH HERE WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE NEIGHBORS TOO SINCE THEY HAVE AGREED TO THIS, BUT FOR ME THE TROUBLE IS IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT COMING FORWARD, LOOKING FOR THE ZONING THEY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND CONSTRUCT, IT'S JUST GOING FROM SF-2 TO A HIGHER ZONING CLASSIFICATION, AND I HAVE A CONCERN --

Slusher: YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE IT UP, BUT ONLY SO FAR. OKAY.

Mayor Garcia: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR EITHER STEWART OR PAUL HILL GERSES. HILGERS. HOW FAR IS THIS LAND -- THAT TRACT OF LAND THAT WE PURCHASED?

PAUL HIGGERS, NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING. IT IS A STONE'S THROW AWAY. IT WAS ACROSS THE STREET OF FRONTIER VALLEY AND JUST DOWN. THE LAND WE BOUGHT IS JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM FRONTIER VALLEY. SO IT'S ALMOST DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, NOT QUITE, BUT ALMOST.

Mayor Garcia: ARE THERE ANY PLANS FOR THAT ONE?

YES, SIR. YES, SIR, WE DO HAVE -- WE HAVE PLANS TO BUILD SOME SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES THAT ARE IN STILL THE CONCEPTUAL PHASE. WE ARE GOING TO BUILD SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING ON THAT PRONL. PROPERTY.

Mayor Garcia: IS THERE SOME WAY TO COORDINATE SO THAT OUR SMALL TRACT OF LAND CAN BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THIS TRACT?

YES, SIR. WE'LL BE IN -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS BENEFICIAL ABOUT THE SMART HOUSING PROGRAM IS THE COMMUNICATION WE HAVE WITH THE HOME BUILDERS AS THEY'RE DEVELOPING THEIR PARTICULAR TRACTS. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING IN THE FUTURE AND WE CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT KIND OF COORDINATION.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU. THIS IS A MOTION FOR FIRST READING ONLY, AND THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS MADE BY ZAP WOULD ONLY APPLY TO TRACT ONE.

Mayor Garcia: CORRECT.

THANK YOU.

Mayor Garcia: FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

AYE.

Mayor Garcia: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. THAT VOTE IS SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABSENT. THAT'S ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE CAN TAKE UP AT THIS TIME. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECESS. AND THE RECESS IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST UNTIL 6:00 O'CLOCK, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LATER THAN THAT. I WILL COME BACK AT 5:30 FOR LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS, BUT AT THIS TIME I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECESS UNTIL 6:00 O'CLOCK. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE. WE'LL RECESS UNTIL 6:30 FOR OFFICIAL COUNCIL ACTIVITY. I WILL BE DOING THE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS WHICH IS PART OF THE AGENDA, BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY ACTION BY THE COUNCIL. I WANT TO WELCOME THE MAYOR JEFF FRIEDMAN TO THE MEETING.

Mayor Garcia: IT'S 5:30, AND AT THIS TIME IN OUR COUNCILMEMBER MEETINGS -- COUNCIL MEETINGS WE STOP FOR A LITTLE WHILE, TAKE A BREATH,, STRETCH OUR OLD BONES AND MUSCLES, WHATEVER IS LEFT, AND HAVE SOME MUSIC. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR MUSICIAN IS SOMEWHERE STUCK IN TRAFFIC, IS THAT CORRECT?

I DON'T THINK COUNCIL COUNCIL WANTS TO HEAR THAT AT THIS TIME. [ LAUGHTER ]

Mayor Garcia: WELL, I'M SURE IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT. TODAY WE'RE CELEBRATING AN ANNIVERSARY, AND WE HAVE OUR GOOD FRIEND TERRY AVLA HERE. T.M.E. TV STARTED IN 1982 AS A WAY TO BRING TEJANO AND LATINO MUSIC. THEY PREMOAT WITH LOCAL, SINGLE ARTISTS INTERVIEWS AND MUSIC. IT IS OWNED AA PRODUCER OF PRIME TIME TEJANO. JERRY HAS BEEN A FORCE IN THE COMMUNITY BY SERVING ON THE AUSTIN MUSIC COMMISSION, THE LATIN GRAMMIES, LATINO MUSIC ORGANIZATION AND A RADIO STATION. SO PLEASE JOIN ME IN CONGRATULATING T.M.E. TV ON THEIR 10th ANNIVERSARY AND ENJOY SOME OF THE LOCAL MUSIC THAT HAS MADE T.M.E. TV SO SPECIAL TO AUSTIN. JERRY, WELCOME AND I WANT TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU BEFORE I GIVE YOU THE MIC. THE PROCLAMATION READS AND FOLLOWS, BE IT KNOWN THAT THE LOCAL MUSIC COMMUNITY MAKES MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTIN'S SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND WHEREAS THE DEDICATED EFFORTS OF ARTISTS FURTHER AUSTIN'S STATUS AS THE LIVE MUSIC CAPITOL OF THE WORLD, NOW THEREFORE I, GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM NOVEMBER THE 21st, 2002 AS T.M.E. TV DAY IN AUSTIN. AND WITNESS I HAVE HERE ON SIGNED BY HAND AND CAUSED THE SEAL OF THE GREAT CITY OF AUSTIN TO BE AIF I CAN THIS HAD 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER IN THE YEAR 2002. SO JERRY, WELCOME. LET'S GIVE HIM A BIG HAND. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT. GOOD EVENING. AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THANKS TO ALL MY SUPPORTERS OUT THERE AND THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN US AND THE PRODUCT THAT WE BROUGHT TO THE AUSTIN HISPANIC COMMUNITY. THIS PROCLAMATION MEANS A LOT TO ME AS A TEJANO FAN. MY IDEA STARTED AS A DREAM. I THOUGHT THAT I COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE AUSTIN TEJANO MUSIC INDUSTRY AND TO THE COMMUNITY. IN 1992 WITH ALL MY IDEAS AND PLANNING, T.M.E. TV LAUNCHED ITS FIRST PROGRAM, WHICH AIRED ON ACTV'S 1992-'93 FALL PROGRAMMING LINEUP. FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS WE DEVELOPED RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR AUDIENCE, ARTISTS AND RECORD LABELS. T.M.E. TV HAS ESTABLISHED A LOYAL AUDIENCE AND BRINGS A VIOLENT SOURCE OF MUSIC INDUSTRY NEWS WITH COMMUNITY-RELATED INFORMATION FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS. I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PIONEERS WHO LAID DOWN THE FOUNDATION FOR MY JOURNEY. I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE MANY PEOPLE, ONE OF WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE GODFATHER OF TEJANO MUSIC. WITHOUT THESE PEOPLE WHO LAID DOWN THE FOUNDATION, I WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY. IN 1995 I HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO START A BUSINESS AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEN COUNCILMEMBER GUS GARCIA. NOW BACK THEN I HAD MORE HAIR, BUT AS YOU CAN TELL, WE'VE BOTH AGED. [ LAUGHTER ] YEAH, SOMEWHERE, INCLUDING PAUL BACK THERE. HE APPOINTED ME TO AUNT MUSIC COMMISSION IN 1998, THE AUSTIN MUSIC TASKFORCE IN 2000. WE HAVE WORKED ON PROJECTS SUCH AS (SPEAKING SPANISH, THE SING CINCO DE MAYO AND OTHER CELEBRATIONS. I HAD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK MAYOR GARCIA FOR HIS SUPPORT AND CONFIDENCE IN T.M.E. TV TO PRODUCE QUALITY TEJANO, LATINO ENTERTAINMENT HERE IN AUSTIN. BUT MOST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MY FAMILY FOR THEIR SUPPORT AND SACRIFICES AND ALSO THE HISPANIC -- THE AUSTIN HISPANIC LATINO COMMUNITY FOR THEIR LOVE AND SUPPORT. MUCHOS GRACIAS. AND I'VE GOT TO ASK YOU, WHAT TIME IS IT!!?? IT'S PRIME TIME! [ APPLAUSE ]

IS DR. SCOTT JENSON HERE? THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS OR SO I HAVE COME TO KNOW -- AND I DIDN'T KNOW IT WOULD HAPPEN TO ME, BUT I'M DEALING WITH IT AS BEST I KNOW HOW, AND THE WORK OF THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN THIS SITUATION. WE HAVE SO MANY OF OUR PEOPLE HERE IN AUSTIN SUFFERING FROM DIABETES. SO THIS PROCLAMATION IS BEING PRESENTED TO DR. SCOTT JIMSON. I THINK YOU'RE THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR FOR THE ASSOCIATION.

T READS AS FOLLOWS. BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS THIS MONTH IS SET ASIDE TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT DIABETES. THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME ACTIVITIES THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT. ESPECIALLY THE IMPACT THE DISEASE HAS ON CHILDREN AND OUR HISPANIC AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN CITIZENS. AND WHEREAS THE 11TH ANNUAL AMERICA'S WALK FOR DIABETES THIS SATURDAY RAISES FUNDS FOR AREA OUTREACH AND EDUCATION PROGRAM CAN HELP CHILDREN WITH DIABETES AS WELL AS WITH DIABETES RESEARCH FOR A CURE. AND WHEREAS I CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN IN THE WALK AND THE MINI EXPO AT 17 TEEN YELL PARK WHICH LIVES THE LIVE MUSIC, REFRESHMENTS, CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES AND DIABETES AWARENESS INFORMATION. NOW I THEREFORE, GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM NOVEMBER 2002 AS AMERICAN DIABETES MONTH IN AUSTIN. AND WITNESS HERE OF I HAVE SET MY HAND AND CAUSED THE SEAL OF THE GREAT CITY OF AUSTIN TO BE AFFIXED THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR 2002. AND I'M GOING TO BE THERE SATURDAY, DOCTOR, SO I GIVE THIS PROCLAMATION TO YOU. TELL US MORE ABOUT THIS.

ALL RIGHT. I ACCEPT THIS PROCLAMATION ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION. WE ARE A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION WITH CHAPTERS IN MOST OF THE MAJOR CITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY. WE'VE HAD A CHAPTER HERE IN AUSTIN FOR SOME TIME, AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IT'S HAD SOME UPS AND DOWNS. AND WE'RE TRYING TO REJUVENATE IT HERE OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS TO MAKE IT A BETTER ORGANIZATION. WE HAD SOME DWINDLING PARTICIPATION OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND WE'RE TRYING TO REV THINGS BACK UP. LAST YEAR WE RAISED ABOUT $75,000 IN THE WALK FOR DIABETES, AND WE'RE HAVING OUR ANNUAL WALK AGAIN THIS COMING SATURDAY MORNING. THIS GENTLEMAN HERE IS OUR HONORARY CHAIRPERSON, AND WE'RE HOPING TO DO BETTER THIS YEAR THAN LAST YEAR AND THEN BUILD ON THAT FOR THE FUTURE. DIABETES IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DISEASE ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY AND IN AUSTIN. PROBABLY FIVE TO SEVEN PERCENT OF THE POPULATION AT SOME TIME IN THEIR LIFE IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY DIABETES. PROBABLY A THIRD OF THOSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IT. THAT TRANSLATES TO ROUGHLY 50, 60,000 PEOPLE HERE IN OUR OWN COMMUNITY. IT'S A SIGNIFICANT DISEASE IN THAT IT AFFECTS MANY ORGANS, NOT JUST SIMPLY CONTROLLING YOUR BLOOD SUGAR. IF IT'S OUT OF CONTROL OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME, IT CAN AFFECT YOUR EYES, YOUR HEART, YOUR KIDNEYS, YOUR EXTREMITIES, ALL SORTS OF THINGS. IT'S A CHRONIC DISEASE THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO LIVE WITH FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. SO OUR MISSION IS TO CURE DIABETES AND TO SUPPORT THOSE THAT HAVE IT THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES. WE'RE A WAY AWAY FROM PREVENTION AND CURE. RIGHT NOW WE CAN TREAT AND SUPPORT, BUT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION IS TO RAISE MONEY FOR RESEARCH, FOR ADVOCACY AND FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS. SO THE MONEY WE RAISE ON SATURDAY AND THROUGH OUR ENDEAVORS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, PART OF IT WILL STAY IN AUSTIN AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES TO HELP FOLKS WITH DIABETES, HELP THEIR FAMILIES, ESPECIALLY EDUCATE, AND THE REST WILL GO TO RESEARCH TO HELP DEAL WITH THIS. SO I APPRECIATE IT, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I THINK THE FACT THAT YOU'RE OUR HONORARY CHAIRPERSON THIS YEAR IS GOING TO LEND CREDENCE AND A LOT OF SUPPORT. IF YOU CAN, COME ON OUT, EVERYONE. [ APPLAUSE ]

Mayor Garcia: WE'RE IN THE PERIOD OF THANKSGIVING, AND AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN FOCUSING ON THIS VERY SPECIAL HOLIDAY HAS BEEN OUR AUSTIN AREA INTERRELIGIOUS GROUP. AND I WANT TO PRESENT A PROCLAMATION TO THEM BASICALLY TO HONOR THE WORK THAT THEY DO AND TO SAY TO PEOPLE THAT IT'S THE SEASON OF THANKSGIVING AND WE ALL NEED TO BE THANKFUL FOR THE GIFTS THAT WE GET, AND WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, DO THE THINGS THAT MAKE OUR THANKS SIGNIFICANT TO THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. SO THIS PROCLAMATION READS AND FOLLOWS: BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS THIS ANNUAL THANKSGIVING SERVICE AND FESTIVE GATHERING GIVES EXPRESSION TO A WIDE VARIETY OF FAITH TRADITIONS AND PROMOTES RESPECT AND UNDERSTANDING AMONG ALL PEOPLE. AND WHEREAS A THEME OF THE GATHERING OF ONE WORLD, ONE FAMILY IN THIS YEAR HAS A FOCUS ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH AND WHEREAS WE CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN IN THIS COLORFUL AND JOYFUL EXPRESSION OF THANKS AND TO ENJOY A VOART OF ETHNIC FOODS AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AUSTINITES WITH DIFFERENT RELIGIONS, BLEFZ AND PRACTICES. NOW THEREFORE I GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM NOVEMBER THE 24TH, 2002 AS THE 18th ANNUAL AUSTIN AREA INTERRELIGIOUS MINISTRIES, INTERRELIGIOUS CELEBRATION IN AUSTIN. AND I CAUSE THE SEAL OF AUSTIN TO BE AFFIXED ON THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2002.

MY NAME IS DONNA HOWARD AND I'M ON THE BOARD OF AUSTIN INTERRELIGIOUS MINISTRIES. AUSTIN INTERRELIGIOUS MIN CITIES, OR AIM, AND FORMERLY KNOWN AS AUSTIN METROPOLITAN MINISTRIES IS A GROUP OF 140 DIFFERENT CONGREGATIONS WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO BRING MEELG HOOELG AND HOPE TO BUILD COMMUNITIES. WE BUILD RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THOSE OF DIFFERING FAITHS BY WORKING TOGETHER TO HELP THOSE IN NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH SUCH EFFORTS AS HANDS ON HOUSING WHERE WE REHABILITATE SUB STANDARDS HOMES OF THE ELDERLY AND INDIGENT. COMMUNITY MENTORING NETWORKS WHERE WE MATCH MENTORS WITH FIRST TIME OFFENDERS AND REFUGEES SO THAT THEY CAN BECOME SELF-SUFFICIENT AND BUILD NEW LIVES IN FREEDOM HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. WE ARE HERE TODAY TO INVITE YOU TO OUR 18th ANNUAL INTERRELIGIOUS THANKSGIVING SERVICE AND CELEBRATION, AN EVENT THAT BRINGS TOGETHER PEOPLE OF DIVERSE FAITH AS ONE COMMUNITY, ONE FAMILY GIVING THANKS AT THIS SPECIAL TIME OF THE YEAR. SO AIM AT ONE TIME WAS PRIMARILY A CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION. IT EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THOSE OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY AND CONTINUED GROWING TO WHERE WE ARE NOW PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST INCLUSIVE INTERFAITH ORGANIZATIONS ANYWHERE. WE HAVE MUSLIMS AND HINDUS, SIGNTOLOGISTS AND CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS, UNITARIANS AND THOSE ATTENDING UNITY CHURCHES. WE ARE TRULY REFLECTIVE OF THE DIVERSE COMMUNITY THAT IS AUSTIN. THIS YEAR'S THANKSGIVING SERVICE HAD BEEN HELD THEY BEAUTIFUL HINDU TEMPLE JUST SOUTH OF AUSTIN ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 24TH AT 2:30 P.M. FOLLOWED BY FOOD AND FELLOWSHIP. IN KEEPING WITH OUR THEME OF ONE WORLD, ONE FAMILY, THIS YEAR'S SERVICE WILL FOCUS ON OUR CHILDREN AND YOUTH. AND SOME OF THE FAITH EXPRESSIONS THAT WILL BE A PART OF THE SERVICE INCLUDE A HINDU DANCE, A JEWISH CHILDREN'S CHOIR, A MUSLIM AFFIRMMATION, A BAHI DANCE, A GOSPEL CHILDREN'S CHOIR, A BUDDHIST CHILDREN'S PRAYER AND A CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S HAND BELL CHOIR. A SPECIAL EDITION THIS YEAR WILL BE A INTERRELIGIOUS CHILDREN'S AFFIRMATION OF HOPE FOR FUTURE AS WELL AS A PERFORMANCE OF AN INTERRELIGIOUS CHILDREN'S CHOIR OF THE SONGS WRITTEN ESPECIALLY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PERFORMANCE BY A LOCAL EXOASER. AIM WAS HERE TO HELP IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH. RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THOSE OF DIFFERING FAITHS WERE ALREADY ESTABLISHED, ALLOWING US TO IMMEDIATELY RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. AIM HELPED GUIDE MANY IN THE AUSTIN AREA TOWARD GREATER UNDERSTANDING AND RESPECT, PROVIDED HEALING DURING A TIME OF CRISIS AND HELPED PREVENT FURTHER TRAGEDY THAT MAY HAVE EYE RUPTED IN THOSE EARLY FRAGILE DAYS. WE CONTINUE TO BUILD THOSE RELATIONSHIPS AND HELP TO EXPAND THE VOICE OF LOVE, RESPECT AND HARMONY IN THIS WONDERFULLY DIVERSE COMMUNITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS. WE HOPE YOU'LL JOIN US AND THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO GIVE THANKS TO MAYOR GARCIA MAYOR GARCIA FOR SUPPORTING AUSTIN AREA INTERRELIGIOUS MINISTRIES. WHERE WE DO SOMETHING, THAT IS HOW WE PUT OUR FAITH INTO ACTION. AND MAYOR GARCIA, YOUR LEADERSHIP SHOWS THAT YOUR VALUES, YOUR INTEGRITY AND YOUR LOVE IN THIS COMMUNITY MAKES AUSTIN FLOURISH. IF MARTIN LUTHER KING HAD NEVER MET MA HAT MA GHANDHI, HE WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD. WHEN WE GET TO KNOW PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT FAITHS, OUR OWN FAITH IS ENRICHED, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES AUSTIN SO VERY SPECIAL. I DO HOPE THAT YOU COME OUT TO THE SERVICE ON SUNDAY AND THAT YOU PUT YOUR OWN FAITH JOURNEY INTO ACTION BY LOVING OUR NEIGHBORS. [ APPLAUSE ]

Mayor Garcia: GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM.

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM IS A GROWING INDUSTRY AROUND THE WORLD USED TO HELP SOLVE PROBLEMS IN AREAS LIKE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, HEALTH CARE, LAND USE, NATURAL RESOURCES, BUSINESS EFFICIENCY, EDUCATION, SOCIAL INEQUITIES, CRIME PREVENTION, YADA, YADA. BASICALLY GIS ASK THE FOUNDATION OF ALMOST ALL THE PLANNING AND PREVEPTION WORK WE DO IN THE CITY. AUSTIN, ALONG WITH OTHER CITIES IN MORE THAN 40 STATES AND 80 FOREIGN COUNTRIES EDGE INDICATES HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHIRNZ AND ADULTS ABOUT THE EXTRAORDINARY TECHNOLOGY. AND ARE AS GIS DAY PROMOTES, GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION AND RAISES AWARENESS ABOUT REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY, NOW THEREFORE THE MAYOR, GUS GARCIA, DOES HERE BY PROCLAIM NOVEMBER 22 November 22nd, CITY OF AUSTIN GIS DAY. SO FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY WE DON'T THINK OF VERY OFTEN THAT SAVES OUR WORLD -- [ APPLAUSE ] TALK ABOUT OUR CONSOLIDATION, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE CITY IS PULLING ALL OUR APPLICATIONS IN THIS TECHNOLOGY INTO A CENTRALIZED PLACE SO WE GET THE BIGGEST BANG FOR THE BUCK. AND OUR CAMERAMAN, PETE COLLINS, IS IN CHARGE OF THAT. PETE?

THANK YOU. WELL, I WANTED TO THANK THE COUNCIL. OBVIOUSLY IF THIS IS SUCH A BIG DEAL, THEN IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY. SO I WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL FOR SUPPORTING US OVER THE YEARS. AND AS TOBY JUST SAID, THERE'S A NEW CORPORATE GIS INITIATIVE GOING ON RIGHT NOW, SO WE'VE BEEN MEETING SINCE AUGUST AND INCORPORATES 13 DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY THAT ARE CREATING AND MAINTAINING GIS. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A MORE EFFICIENT, DISCIPLINED-ORIENTED GIS CORPORATION. THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY MANY PEOPLE USING GIS WITHIN THE CITY, AND I BROUGHT SOME WITH ME HERE. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT I WORK WITH EVERYDAY. AS I SAID, THERE'S 13 DEPARTMENTS THAT CREATE AND MAINTAIN THE INFORMATION. THERE'S 23 23 DEPARTMENTS, 10 OTHERS, THAT ARE USING THIS INFORMATION FOR JUST VIEWING, ANALYSIS AND MODELING AND THAT'S NOT EVEN TO MENTION HOW THE OUT OUTSIDE COMMUNITY IS USING THE INFORMATION, ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, THE NAVIGATION NATIONAL SYSTEMS IN YOUR CAR ARE ALL USING OUR DATA, AND THAT'S DATA THAT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SAY, THAT WE CREATE IN THE CITY AND GIVE AWAY. SO --

A REVENUE ITEM!

SO ANYWAY, THIS IS A BIG DEAL, AND I'M REALLY HAPPY THAT THIS GIS DAY IS BEING RECOGNIZED. WE'VE BEEN CELEBRATING ALL WEEK LONG. STEPHANIE REYNOLDS HERE HAS BEEN OUR POINT PERSON TO ORGANIZE THE CITY. WE'VE GOT EIGHT OR 10 DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS GOING OUT TO SCHOOLS IN THE AREA. WE WERE IN FRONT OF SOME SIX GRADERS, I BELIEVE, WHO KNEW AN AWFUL LOT ABOUT GIS, AND IT WAS ABOUT EIGHT OR 10 YEARS AGO WE WERE LUCKY WHEN WE FOUND PEOPLE THAT WERE IN COLLEGE THAT KNEW ABOUT IT. SO IT IS A GROWING TECHNOLOGY, AND AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

Mayor Garcia: AND INCIDENTALLY, WE DON'T GIVE IT AWAY. WE ACTUALLY RETURN IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT PAID FOR IT.

Mayor Garcia: THIS BEING A CAPITAL LIST STICK SOCIETY AND THIS BEING A TIME WHEN BUSINESSES ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY, AS EVIDENCED BY SOME OF THE FAILURES THAT WE HAVE SEEN, IT'S ENORMOUSLY SPORN THAT WE HAVE A SUCCESS CENTER FOR BUSINESS. WHAT WE WANT IN THIS COMMUNITY IS TO HAVE OUR BUSINESSES EXPERIENCE SUCCESS. AND THIS WEEK COUNCILMEMBERS WYNN, WILL WYNN -- IS HE HERE? MAYBE HE OUGHT TO BE THE GUY WHO INTRODUCES THESE FOLKS. IS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HERE? TELL HIM TO COME ON UP. THIS WEEK AT THE WEDNESDAY WORK SESSION, COUNCILMEMBERS WYNN -- I WANT YOU TO READ THIS ONE. COUNCILMEMBERS WYNN AND DUNKERLEY INTRODUCED A BUSINESS PLAN, AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY, THAT THE LOCAL PAPER DIDN'T GET QUITE RIGHT. THE HEADLINE SAID THAT THE BUSINESS PLAN IS TO KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD. WELL, THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN, BUT IT'S A VERY SMALL PART OF IT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE PLAN LOOKS AT LOCAL BUSINESSES AND EXPLORES A WAY FOR US TO USE THOSE BUSINESSES TO EXPAND OUR ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND MAKE AUSTIN MORE ECONOMICALLY SUCCESSFUL. AND IT'S MY PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TO READ THE PROCLAMATION, COUNCILMEMBER WILL WYNN, CO-AWE THUR OF THAT PLAN. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

> Wynn: THANK YOU. IT IS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COUNCILMEMBER DUNKERLEY AND I MADE AT THE WORK SESSION WAS ULTIMATELY TO DEVELOP MORE OF A RECOGNITION PROGRAM FOR SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES IN OUR CITY. AND THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE HELPING US GROW ECONOMICALLY OUR WAY OUT OF THE DOWN DOWNTURN THAT WE'VE HAD LATELY. I'M VERY PROUD TO READ THIS PROCLAMATION. BE IT KNOWN WHEREAS THE BUSINESS SUCCESS CENTER PROVIDES SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS THE COMPREHENSIVE AND SYSTEMATIC APPROACHES TO BUILDING THEIR BUSINESSES AND WHEREAS THEIR FORMAL TRAINING, MENTORING, NETWORKING SUPPORT, PEER INTERACTION AND CONSULTING SERVICES HAS HELPED MORE THAN 1500 COMPANIES THROUGHOUT TEXAS AND IN OTHER STATES THRIVE AND GROW AND WHEREAS FOUR OF THEIR MEMBER COMPANIES WERE HONORED RECENTLY FOR BEING MOANING THE 500 FASTEST GROWING PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES IN THE U.S. THIS YEAR ACCORDING TO INC. MAGAZINE. NOW THEREFORE, GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, DOES HERE BY CONGRATULATE BUSINESS SUCCESS CENTER ON ITS MANY SUCCESSES AND DO HERE BY PROCLAIM NOVEMBER 21 November 21st, 2002, AS BUSINESS SUCCESS CENTER'S 13TH ANNIVERSARY IN AUSTIN. AND IT'S WITNESSED AND SIGNED BY OUR MAYOR, GUS GARCIA. [ APPLAUSE ]

I JUST WANT TO SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT AUSTIN AND THE BUSINESS SUCCESS CENTER. WE ARE A GROUP THAT FERVENTLY BELIEVES IN SMALL BUSINESS AND PEOPLE STRIKING OUT ON THEIR OWN TO DO THEIR OWN THING. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHAT BRINGS FLAVOR AND INTEREST TO A COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THE ECONOMIC PART OF THE COMMUNITY. THE HOLIDAYS ARE COMING AND I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS IF YOU WANT TO HELP AUSTIN SMALL BUSINESS, GO OUT AND BUY SOMETHING FOR CHRISTMAS OR FOR THE HOLIDAYS FROM A LOCALLY OWNED SMALL BUSINESS BECAUSE THAT WAY THE MONEY STAYS HERE. THANK YOU.

Slusher: THIS SATURDAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL EVENT AT THE RENAISSANCE MARKET ON 23rd STREET. AND WE WANT TO TAKE THIS OCCASION TO NOTE THAT THIS YEAR MARKS THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE 23rd STREET RENAISSANCE MARKET. THE ONLY PUBLIC ARTS AND CRAFTS MARKET IN TEXAS THAT'S RESERVED FOR ARTISTS BEING REQUIRED TO MAKE EVERYTHING THAT THEY SELL THEMSELVES. AND I WANT TO ALSO NOTE THAT SOME OF US WHO HAVE BEEN ARPD HERE QUITE AWHILE KNOW THE RENAISSANCE MARKET AND THE ISSUES AND SORT OF THE POLITICS THAT LED TO THAT WERE A REAL BIG PART OF HAVING A CHANGE IN WAIT AUSTIN OF THE GOVERNED. AND PART OF THAT IS STANDING BEHIND ME, FORMER MAYOR JEFF FRIEDMAN, WHO WAS ELECTED IN 1975. I GOT THAT RIGHT, DIDN'T I? WELL, I SAID FORMER MAYOR. THAT'S TRUE. HE SAID HE WAS ELECTED MAYOR IN '75. HE WAS A COUNCILMEMBER BEFORE THAT. BUT ACCEPTING IS MIKE KLEIN AND A NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO I'LL LET HIM INTRODUCE. BUT 5:30 TO 6:30 WILL BE AN EVENT AT THE RENAISSANCE MARKET THERE AT 23rd STREET AND THE DRAG. AND LET ME READ THE PROCLAMATION AND THEN I'LL HAVE MIKE COME UP AND WHOEVER ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK AS WELL. BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS THE 23rd STREET RENAISSANCE ARTS AND CRAFTS MARKET WAS APPROVED 30 YEARS AGO BY A SPECIAL CITYWIDE REFERENDUM AND THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING IT WAS ENACTED ON DECEMBER 14TH, 1972. AND WHEREAS IT IS THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL AND TENUOUSLY OPERATED OPEN AIR ARTS AND CRAFTS MARKET IN THE STATE AND FEATURES THE WORK OF 90 LICENSED ARTISTS EACH YEAR AND WHEREAS BOOTHS FEATURES ONLY HANDMADE ARTICLES THAT ARE MANNED BY THE VERY ARTISTS AND CRAFTS MEN WHO CREATE THEM, NOW THEREFORE GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN HERE BY PRO CLAIMS NOVEMBER 23rd, 2002 AS 23rd STREET RENAISSANCE MARKETS APPRECIATION DAY. AND LET ME HAVE COME UP ONE OF THE CHIEF MEN BEHIND THE RENAISSANCE MARKET FOR ALL THREES YEARS, MIKE KLEIN. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK YOU, SO MUCH DARRYL. AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY AND PROUD TO BE HERE 30 YEARS AFTER THE FOWPDING OF THE MARKET. WE HAVE SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS WITH US, BOB EDGE COMB, LAURA WISDOM ARE HERE JOINING US. AND, OF COURSE, THE WONDERFUL AND GREAT MAYOR OF AUSTIN, EX-MAYOR OF AUSTIN, I GUESS, JEFF FRIEDMAN. OF COURSE, 30 YEARS IS A REALLY LONG TIME FOR THE MARKET TO HAVE BEEN BOTH CREATED AND EXISTED. I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO LET SOME OF THE OTHER FOLKS SAY SOME WORDS AND MAYBE WE SHOULD GEET MAYOR FREEDMAN TO SAY SOMETHING BECAUSE HE WAS SO INSTRUMENTAL IN CREATING THE MARKET. AND THEN SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WILL SAY A FEW WORDS AND THEN I'D LIKE TO SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS AT THE END. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MIKE. BASICALLY THE ONLY THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT THERE ARE MANY OF US IN AUSTIN NOW WHO KEEP TELLING THE NEWCOMERS WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO BE IN AUSTIN 30, 35 YEARS AGO. AND FOR ME THE BEST EXAMPLE WAS TO SEND PEOPLE DOWN TO THE RENAISSANCE MARKET BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE SOUL OF THE CITY STARTED. IT WAS INCLUSIVE, IT WAS DIRECTED FOR EVERYBODY TO PARTICIPATE AND GET A PLACE TO SHORE THINK ABILITIES AND THEIR TALENTS AND IT PROVED AFTER 30 YEARS THAT IT WASN'T A STRANGENESS THAT CAME TO AUSTIN, IT WAS A GOOD, PRODUCTIVE, CAPITAL LIST TICK IDEA AND AN ARTISTIC IDEA. AND WHILE ALL OF US ARE STRUGGLING WITH THE ECONOMY NOW, I THINK WE CAN SEE THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AUSTIN AS A CULTURAL CENTER TO EVOLVE, AND IT'S EVOLVING WITH ITS THEATER AND BALLET AND ITS SYMPHONY AND ITS ART SON SANS AND CRAFTS MEN. AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY, 23rd STREET IS THE PLACE WHERE IT STARTED. AND I'M JUST HAPPY TO BE HERE TODAY.

IN THE YEAR 1800, A MERE 20% OF AMERICANS WORKED FOR SOMEONE ELSE. THAT MEANS 80% OF AMERICANS WORKED FOR THEMSELVES IN THE 1800S. TODAY 90% OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE. THE 23rd STREET MARKET IS A TESTIMONY TO THE PRACTICE OF WORKING FOR YOURSELF AND THE SPIRIT AND DETERMINATION THAT REQUIRES THAT. DECEMBER 14TH, 1972 THE MARKET WAS FOUNDED AFTER A BITTER BATTLE OVER STREET VENDING. THE MARKET WAS CREATED BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN. CITY STAFF, TO SAY THE LEAST, WERE NOT INVOLVED IN CREATING OR SUPPORTING THE IDEA. AFTER THE INITIATIVE ELECTION, THE ARTIST WON, STAFF HAD NO CHOICE AND SUFFICE TO SAY AFTER 30 YEARS MUCH HAS CHANGED. BUT WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IS THE VITALITY AND THE BENEFITS THE MARKET CREATES FOR AUSTINITES EACH AND EVERYDAY. THE 23rd STREET MARKET IS THE ONLY INSTITUTION IN THE CITY THAT MAKES MONEY FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. NOT LAGUNA GLORIA, NOT THE DOUGHERTY, BUT THE 23rd STREET MARKET MAKES MONEY FOR THE CITY. I WOULD ASK THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO MAYBE CONSIDER THIS IDEA, THE ARTS AND CRAFTS MARKET ON 23rd STREET TO BE EXPANDED TO OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY, IE THE CONVENTION CENTER, THE AIRPORT, WHERE THE BENEFITS THAT THE MARKET HAS ACCRUED TO THE CITY CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO OTHER BENEFITS. SO HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD THANK YOU ALL, URGE YOU ALL TO COME DOWN AND ADVISE HE IT THE MARKET THIS CHRISTMAS. IT WILL BE FULL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS, AND THE ARTS AND CRAFTS PEOPLE OF COURSE, LOCAL AUSTINITES WHO MAKE THEIR OWN GOODS, WHO GIVE AND MAKE THESE GIFTS FOR US AND FOR THEMSELVES. THE MARKET IS A TESTIMONY TO SELF RELIANCE. AND WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT IT HAS SURVIVED THE 30 YEARS. THERE'S A LOT OF INSTITUTIONS IN THE TOWN THAT NO LONGER EXIST, BUT AFTER 30 YEARS THE MARKET DOES, AND IN ANOTHER 30 I'M SURE IT WILL TOO. IN CELEBRATION OF OUR 30 YEARS WE HAVE JUST RESTORED THE MURAL ON 23rd STREET, SO WE URMG YOU ALL TO COME DOWN, HAVE A GREAT TIME ON THE DRAG LIKE WE USED TO 30 YEARS AGO. WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT THIS SATURDAY BETWEEN 5:30 AND 6:30. THANK YOU ALL. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU DOWN ON THE DRAG AT THE MARKET. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL OUR PROCLAMATIONS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR OUR 6:00 O'CLOCK TIME CERTAIN? OKAY. YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO BRING THE COUNCIL BACK UP FOR OUR 6:00 O'CLOCK TIME CERTAIN, AND THEN WE'LL ADJOURN. SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYBODY FOR YOUR EFFORTS TO MAKE AUSTIN A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO CALL BACK TOO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, THE NOVEMBER 21st REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. AND WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 72. , WHICH IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE STRING WOODZ MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, APPROXIMATELY 468 ACRES WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF POND POND SPRINGS ROAD AND ANDERSON MILL ROAD. MR. LIEU WILL YOU KINS.

THIS IS THE SECOND OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE SPRINGWOODS MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ORDINANCE READING APPROVING THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ON DECEMBER THE FIFTH. THE M.U.D. HAS HAD BOTH THEIR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THEY'LL BE APPROVING THE SPA ON DECEMBER THE 2nd. THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE M.U.D. AREA. AS YOU REMEMBER, IN 1997 THE SPRINGWOODS AREA WAS INCLUDED IN THE U.S. 183 EAST ANNEXATION AREA. AT THE REQUEST OF THE RESIDENTS, SPRINGWOODS M.U.D. AND THE ADJACENT AREA WAS AMOVED FROM THE 1997 1997 ANNEXATION AREA. THE CITY AND THE M.U.D. AMENDED THE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR ANNEXATION FIVE YEARS LATER IN DECEMBER 2002. THIS YEAR IT WAS DETERMINED IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES, CONSTITUENT AND THE M.U.D., TO ENTER INTO A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND DEFER ANNEXATION FIVE MORE YEARS UNTIL DECEMBER 31, TWOWMP TWOWRCH. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE DISTRICT TO COMPLETE ONGOING PROJECTS AND CONVERT INTO A LIMITED DISTRICT AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION. THE LIMITED DISTRICT WILL OWN AND MAINTAIN ITS OWN PARKS, PROVIDE SOLID WASTE SERVICES AND ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS. THE AGREEMENT EN'VISIONED THAT IN FEBRUARY 2007, THE CITY AND THE MUD BOARD WILL NEGOTIATE THE CITY SERVICE PLAN AND IT'S ANTICIPATED TO BE DONE BY JULY OF 2007. AND THEN IN THE AUGUST-SEPTEMBER TIME PERIOD 2007 WE'LL HOLD THE ANNEXATION HEARINGS, A BRIEF PERIOD OF LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATION WILL TAKE PLACE AND START IN THE NOVEMBER PERIOD, AND FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION WILL TAKE PLACE ON DECEMBER 31, TWOWRCH TWOWRCH. SO THIS POINT THERE'S ONE OTHER LIMITED DISTRICT IN THE CITY, AND THAT'S THE FORMER TANGLEWOOD FOREST M.U.D. NOW, WE HAVE ONE OTHER SPA IN EFFECT WITH ANDERSON MILL M.U.D., AND OUR AREA IS NON-M.U.D. AREAS, AND AT THIS POINT WE ENVISION THESE NON-M.U.D. PORTION OF THE AREA BE INCLUDED IN THE CITY PROGRAM IN 2004 TO PROVIDE FOR ANNEXATION WITH THE M.U.D. IN 2007. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. BY THE WAY, THIS MAP -- THE GIS DAY AND PROCLAMATION, WE MADE THE MAP WITH OUR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO ADDRESS THEM. GREG, WHO IS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT, IS HERE, AND HE CAN FILL YOU IN ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE DISTRICT.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LUKENS? ARE YOU THE ATTORNEY? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO TELL THE COUNCIL?

JUST THAT THIS IS A FAR CRY FROM OUR LAST PUBLIC HEARING ALL THOSE YEARS AGO?

IT IS A LOT DIFFERENT. MY NAME IS GREG CRIMMEY AND I'M WITH ARM BRIEWFTER AND BROWN. I THINK THE PROCESS IS GREAT GOING THROUGH THE SPA. I WANT TO THANK THE CITY STAFF. I'VE BEEN HE OWE THE STAFF HAS HAD A LOT OF WORK ON IT. WE LOOK FORWARD TO GOING FORWARD WITH THIS RELATIONSHIP.

Mayor Garcia: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

AYE.

Mayor Garcia: WHEN ARE WE GOING TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT?

ACTION IS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 5TH.

Mayor Garcia: COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS WE HAVE ON THE NOVEMBER THE 21st, REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER MOVES TO ADJOURN. ISIS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

Mayor Garcia: OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. AND THE OTHER MOTION CARRIED ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABSENT. WE'RE ADJOURNED.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log