Council Worksession, 3/12/98

>> Mayor Watson: Welcome, everybody. Our first proclamation today, if you will come up, be it known that I Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin do hereby proclaim March 8 through 14, 1998, as Older Workers Week in Austin and I call on all citizens to join me in recognizing the experience, capabilities and commitment of older workers in recognizing that age should never be considered a detriment to one's effectiveness or potential; in recognizing the mature employees bring dedication, skill, insight and patience to the workplace and share these invaluable qualities with others, in recognizing the senior age program for highlighting this important social issue, and in honoring older workers for their contribution to the economy, the workforce and the entire Austin community and it's signed by Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin. Thank you very much.

>> Thank you. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: and I apologize because as I was reading I was distracted and I kept looking for the Mayor Pro Tem because I thought it was particularly appropriate for him to be out here as we declare older workers week. [Laughter].

>> Would you like me to say something?

>> Mayor Watson: please.

>> First of all, I would like to ask the rest of the senior aides to come up, please.

>> Mayor Watson: oh, please do.

>> Please.

>> Mayor Watson: please have them come up. How are you, sir?

>> Okay. My name is Kenyu and I would like to take this time to thank the City of Austin and the parks and recreation -- parks and recreation department because they sponsor the senior aide program. The national Senior Citizens Education and Research Center is also a sponsor of ours, and I would like to say what the program has meant to me. It's an excellent, excellent program. For those who are 50 and over. And all I can say is that I would appreciate it if the City of Austin would make definitely sure that we don't get dropped and that we are sponsored again by them. Thank you, and Mable Rivers is next.

>> I would just like to thank the City of Austin for helping us out and as you can see, we are no spring chickens, so don't put us in our rocking chairs too early. Please hire the old workers. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: Mayor Pro Tem? Thank you all very much. We really appreciate what you are doing.

>> And thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you very much. Is Mr. Alfredo Garcia here? or somebody from Image?

>> There he is.

>> Mayor Watson: There he is. Be it known by these present I Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin do hereby proclaim March 12, 1998, as Image Day Tejas Day and call on all citizens to join me in recognizing that the challenges of leadership today are numerous and varied. And that training and preparation can vastly improve the quality of that leadership in welcoming everyone attending the 22nd annual Image Day Tejas state leader ship conference with the motto of image leaders focusing on the challenges and opportunities of the new millennium. And in recognizing that this conference and training program will provide useful information on legislative and administrative issues to assist those with the responsibility of governing and meeting the challenges faced in the multiracial, multicultural diversity of the workplace, signed by me, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin. Thank you very much, sir.

>> Thank you, Mayor. May I say a word?

>> Mayor Watson: please do. [Applause].

>> Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and City Council members, we certainly appreciate this proclamation. We will treasure it. I would like to say that on behalf of our membership at the local level, the chapter level, at the state level and our national organization, we appreciate the support that City of Austin has provided to our organization over a period of years. And just real briefly to tell you what we're about, in earlier times we were concentrating on issues of discrimination. Those issues are still with us and we still devote quite a bit of our attention to them. We've been with any agencies in the private sector of the community to encourage diversity in the workplace and I think we've met with some success there. In recent years we have focused on the education of our young people. This community, as many of you are aware, perhaps all are aware, we have an excess I feel high dropout rate and what we're trying to do through this conference, we're having approximately 300 high school youngsters tomorrow at the Holiday Inn South where we put them through an all-day program of activities. We have adult role models who are successful in their careers, panels of college students that come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds that can make contact and relate to these youngsters and personnel of the area colleges and universities that point out financial assistance programs and other support programs available in the colleges and universities. I hope that we all in this community live to see the day where we can take care of our own students to encourage them to see that they graduate and maybe some of these high-tech companies in town won't have to bring in foreign engineers or engineers from foreign countries. Thank you, Mayor, very much. [Applause].

>> I would like to acknowledge the persons who -- several of our members, but in particular the person that has been our right hand person. There she is. Please give her a hand of applause. Thank you very much. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: is Carolyn Major here? We are always pleased when we have volunteers that serve our community so well on different boards and commissions. It's a lot of work. It takes a lot of time and a lot of headaches. And so one of our presentations today is to give a distinguished service award and in acknowledgement and appreciate for her untiring efforts and service to our community during her four years as a dedicated member of the chair of the Austin and -- and chair of the Austin Music Commission, Carolyn Major is deserving of public acclaim and recognition and it's on behalf of the City Council of Austin, Texas, and signed by me on behalf of the City Council.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Mayor Watson: Thank you. [Applause].

>> I would like to thank the members of the music commission who have been very, very supportive over the last four years. I would like to thank the City Council, especially Jackie Goodman for appointing me, and I would like to thank the music industry who is tremendously supportive of our efforts, and I just want to say that it's always a privilege and an honor to serve the arts. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Garcia: Dr. Sanchez, is he here? [applause].

>> Garcia: just a few -- I'm Gus Garcia. Just a few short years ago, we had the distinct privilege of welcoming a young doctor to our health department to be the medical authority. He has brought much in the way of service, in the way of quality, in the way of excellence to the department and I think the private sector noticed that. Because I think in seeing him they saw somebody that they wanted in the private sector. We like sometimes for our people to move up and benefit from the work that they have done. In this particular case, I for one am sad to see him go, but I wish him the best and I think that goes for the whole Council. We wish you the best. So we're presenting him today a distinguished service award acknowledging and appreciating his untiring efforts and unselfish service to our community as health authority and chief medical officer, and incidentally one that actually went and practiced in the clinics, for Austin-Travis County Health and Human Services Department and public health officer for Austin. And this is for Dr. Edwardo Sanchez, MD, and MPH and he is deserving of public acclaim and recognition from the City Council of Austin and for that matter from Austin and Travis County. Let's give Dr. Sanchez a big hand. [Applause].

>> Several years ago I had to address a group of concerned citizens in East Austin after there had been a fire at the Holly Street Power Plant, and I opened by saying exactly these words. I am a lot more comfortable talking to people in exam rooms than I am in crowds. So if I sound a little nervous it's because I am. [Laughter]. But there are some things I want to say before I go. First, thank you, Mayor, thank you Mayor Pro Tem, City Council, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Betty, thank you City of Austin. I'm going to be going on vacation soon and will be coming back when baseball season starts so it's appropriate that I quote a famous philosopher named Yogi Berra who said "the future ain't what it used to be." How true the words are for me and they will be even truer in the future. I leave this honorable post I've held for four years with some misgivings. A major misgiving is one I believe the public is confused about what public health is. Public health is public safety. Public health is responding to invasive Group A strep, which our department in collaboration with the Texas Department of Health has been doing. Public health is making it more difficult for the tobacco industry to profit from the creation of tobacco addicts, and I'm reminded every time I leave Austin of the effective smoking ordinance that we have as I have to breathe polluted air in other cities. Public health is safe food in our restaurants. Public health is halting the spread of HIV. Public health is bicycle helmet promotion, and I have to say I think City Council voted in error to allow adults to ride bicycles without helmets. Public health is the discipline that provides population-based services for the benefit of everyone everywhere every day. That's to borrow from the Texas Department of Health motto. Public health is a biological science that requires public health leadership for sound policy development and credibility. Public health is epidemiology. The power of knowledge of what is happening in a population. It has been a great honor and privilege to have served as your public health officer. Your health authority. And I am grateful for that opportunity. I have grown professionally and personally during my tenure and I thank you for that. I am a firm believer in the importance of public health. I will be an advocate in the community from April on ward for public health. And truly if I can be of assistance in the future, please call on me. Thank you very much. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: doctor, thank you very much to all your service to our City and good luck to you.

>> Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: if you are smart you probably already know about the Rockers Reckless Kelly. The group has been gigging nonstop seven days a week sometimes twice nightly for at least 16 months around Austin and on tours of west coast and the pacific northwest. Their die baugh cd on cold springs record has been on the Texas top 10 for 18 weeks and counting and it's get a lot of air play. Right now Reckless Kelly is gearing up for its sxsw show case at 9 p.m. Friday, March 20th, down the street here at liberty lunch. And so I am proud to proclaim March 12th, 1998 as Reckless Kelly day in Austin and I call on all citizens to join me in recognizing the many outstanding contributions by the local music community toward the development of Austin's social, economic and cultural diversity and recognizing the dedicated efforts of artists which further Austin's status as the live music capital of the world and signed by me, Mayor, Kirk Watson. Thank you all so much for being here. [Applause]. Why don't you say a few words.

>> We would just like to say thank you all very much, thank you, Mr. Mayor and thanks to the City of Austin for being such a wonderful support of live music. It's been a great place since we moved down here about a year and a half ago and we really like it and I'm sorry we're not going to be able to play this afternoon because some of the guys in the band have got the flu. So we --.

>> Mayor Watson: have to be at Liberty Lunch.

>> We'll be at Stubbs also this Saturday.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. I'm sorry we won't be able to hear you today. Thank you. Good luck to you. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: at this time I would ask that you please rise and join us in our invocation which will be delivered today by Reverend Sam Williams, doesn't look like it. I may be wrong here, but --

>> My name is Monica smith and I'm the intern at University Presbyterian and I got the delegated job.

>> Mayor Watson: well, thank you for being here and leading us in the invocation.

>> Let us pray. Dear lord, we thank you for your authority over all of us and over the world. We ask for your guidance of the City Council this afternoon in making decisions that will be pleasing to you and that will further peace and justice in this City and in all the earth. We pray these things in your name. Amen.

>> Mayor Watson: Amen. Thank you very much for being here. At this time I will call to order the City Council of Austin, Texas, for our regular scheduled meeting, March 12, 1998. Before we get to the items on the agenda let me read the changes and corrections to the agenda. Item no. Sp should read: approve an ordinance setting out conditions for development of approximately will 4 acres of land located -- 84 acres of land lobtd off 360 south known as the brodie tract and amending chapter 13-7 article 1, division 5 of the City code the save our springs initiative. Item no. 32, Set a public hearing on an ordinance amending the Austin Bergstrom international airport compatible land use ordinance should read: suggested date and time April 16th, 1998 at 6 clone 30 p.m. Item 3 4, adoption of members requirements of the central City entertainment center board is sponsored by Councilmember Willie Lewis and Mayor pro tem Gus Garcia. Item 35 should read: approve a resolution approving the parks and recreation department to immediate with the old Enfield neighborhood representatives and event organizers to allow eeyor's birthday party to be held at pease park April 25th, 1998 and approve the appointment of a working group representing various interests to discuss future ee I don't remember's birthday party events. Stomachs set for a time certain: 3:00, item 35, the resolution on Eeyore's birthday party. Item no. 13, At 4:00, conditions for development of Brodie tract. Item no. 31, At 5:30, zoning case c 14970079 related to regeny village and at 4:30 will be the zoning hearings and at 6:00 p.m. A public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission decision to with conditions for the proposed dell Jewish community center. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes for the regular meetings of January 14th, 15th, February 26th and March 5th, 1998. Do I marry a motion? motion made by Councilmember Lewis. Seconded by the maurp. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. The next item is item no. 57. Item no. 57 On the agenda today is the action item is item no. 58 In the amount of $275,000. I'll entertain a motion. Motion made by the maurp. Seconded by Councilmember Slusher. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Councilmember good man off the dais and abstaining. Next item on the agenda is citizens communication jurnl . The first speaker will be Richard Knowlton followed by Greg Ericson and Kevin Macdonald. Mr. Knowlton? welcome, sir. Thank you for being here.

>> Thank you Mayor, thank you Council, City Manager. I didn't plan quite as well as I had hoped to today so I brought a few props. Maybe that will help get nigh point across. It's been quite a while since I have spoken to you all and I regret that because I have way too much to say today and I am Richard Knowlton, vice president with the Austin firefighters association. I'm also a longterm resident of the City. I've been living in the City longer than I've been with the fire department and that's been quite a while and I intend to live in the City after my career is done with the fire department. My concerns are firefighting concerns and also neighborhood safety concerns. It's a two-fold thing. We have a desperate need of more people on the fire trucks City budget last year, the fire department did some adjustments, was going to do some redeploying and make due with what we had in terms of afford ability and all that. We knew the City was growing, but we -- we said, well, we're going to do the best we can with what we've got, and then the City grew even faster as an astounding rate of 5% in one day after the annexations took hold. And what -- I would like to compliment the fire department on one item there, moving some vehicles around in north Austin to try to service the newly annexed areas in far northwest and one of the plans they have in place is to essentially double -- well, increase their bang for their buck. They are going to have a new unit at parmer lane and mopac. It's going to be a combination of a ladder truck pumper and they are going to have to put five people on board this unit to fully staff it, but -- enforce that they have realized it would be best to have a couple or three people responding on our first call, medical calls, and leave the big unit in service. Now, that's great. Unfortunately, another ladder truck will be taken out of service to staff this new unit the vehicle will be gone. The people that got annexed in North Park Estates over there by north Lamar and Braker Lane will not have their neighborhood truck company anymore like they had when they are annexed over a year ago. The crew from that station will be shuffled off to our newest fire station which will be in northwest Austin. My particular neighborhood association is going to suffer with the truck redeployments in south Austin t truck companies from south Congress avenue station and the truck company over there by Barton creek mall and the thousand oaks neighborhood will be shuffled further south to try to service the newly annexed areas. Unfortunately the existing citizens -- rather the old citizens, the ones prior to annexation will be suffering. They will never have a neighborhood truck company again.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you for being here, Mr. Knowlton. Yes, Mayor pro tem.

>> Garcia: have all these issues been brought up to management and to the meet and confer group so this can go through the process?

>> this is not a meet and confer issue. We were told during the meet and confer negotiations, and correct me if I am wrong, but they said staffing and the placement of fire trucks would not be -- the chief's hands would not be tied down by the meet and confer process.

>> Garcia: my understand is that meet and confer is about all kinds of things including working conditions. And what you describe here seems to affect in one way or another working conditions of our firefighters. And that's one of the reasons that I -- I'm just recommending, I'm not asking you --

>> sir, we are not a some osha enforced area. Osha recently mandated we have two in four out. We would have to all four people on the fire trucks. I have brought up this issue before. This is an issue for the citizens of Austin. This is akin to Hide Park losing their station. If the Hide Park station is out of service permanently or temporarily, there is fire trucks that can respond within a mile, a mile and a half whchlt the truck company goes out of service on manchaca road, the response time to my house in my neighborhood, and we've -- the neighborhood has been in 15 years, it will go from -- I don't know the times but it's 1.8 miles away right now, which Hyde Park would not stand for and it's going to go to three miles away.

>> Garcia: I understand.

>> Not only my neighborhood, Barton Hills, Travis Heights, all the apartments off of spy glass and Mopac, they will all suffer. Thank you. That have you, sir. I'm sorry, Councilmember good man.

>> I had earlier asked to be kept abreast about how the redeployment would happen and as far as I know I didn't get any information about that because it was an issue for some south Austin neighborhoods and even if it is a meet and confer issue, since meet and confer is over, I don't know that it's able to address understand that venue.

>> I'll get chief warren to visit with you so we can line out what Mr. Knowlton was talking about and what he believes we have done does not compromise the safety.

>> I think the neighborhoods would benefit from some visits from the fire department.

>> Mayor Watson: Mr. Air son followed by Kevin Macdonald and Keith Kinnard. Greg irk son? greg ericson? Kevin Macdonald? Kevin Macdonald? please come forward, sir.

>> Mr. Mayor, members of Council, I'm Kevin Macdonald with Travis County esd no. 4. We provide fire and EMS protection to large areas of northern Travis County including Harris branch. When Harris ranch was changed from full to limited and next says the City of Austin vacated the fire station it built near 290. The deed of trust the City of Austin accepted when given that site says, and I quote, the property shall only be used as a fire station and emergency medical service site. The station is now used for storage only. And it was once rented to a movie film view crew. You are violating the deed of trust. We have made a proposal for the use of that station that would benefit area residents in and near Harris branch, the City of Austin and its citizens, area businesses including MAD, as well as the 30,000 vehicles at 60,000 people who travel highway 290 each day. There are no nearby City of Austin emergency facilities. The traffic includes Austin taxpayers, their relatives, Austin businesses and tourists. More is at stake than the 300 some odd homes at Harris branch. But when I visited with your assistant City Manager he said I didn't see the big picture. He told me how bitter he was toward the residents of Harris branch, how they did not understand things, how the state legislature was ignorant of the legal issues involved, and how as a matter of high principal the City of Austin does not provide services to those who do not pay taxes. That's his big picture. My big picture encompasses the health and safety of tens of thousands of folks who work, live or travel near that site. My picture is bigger than his picture. Your assistant City Manager clearly presents himself as the chief policy maker on this matter. Rather than the Mayor or the City Council. Petty grudges define his misguided policy and when that assistant City Manager claims the City of Austin does not provide services to those who do not pay taxes, it is a lie. The wealthiest residents in all of central Texas pay no City of Austin taxes, but they do get both City of Austin fire and EMS protection for free. These are the people who live along the shores of lake Austin below the 504 foot elevation much hundreds of thousands of tax paying Austin residents work hard and pay their taxes so that the rich get the service free. We are not even asking the City of Austin to provide any kind of service. We provide the service. We simply propose a plan that utilizes a and I abandon City of Austin building in a beneficial wachlt the only thing in the way is a childish grudge. You and I are sworn to uphold the health and safety code. Do not uphold codes that do not exist. There is no petty grudges code no film crew code, no storage code, no rob from the poor to give to the rich code. There is a health and safety code. Highway 290 is one of the four main roadways in and out of Austin. To abandon the only emergency facility along one of those roadways in violation of deed of trust is wrong and I call upon you to do the right thing.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, sir Keith Kinnard?

>> good afternoon, Mayor, City Council. City staff. I am senior deputy Keith Kinnard with Travis County sheriff's offices, community oriented policing services. I have come before you today in an effort to ask for your help in working together as fellow governmental agencies. With the sheriff's office along with the Travis County fire control and Austin em sr. S or Travis County EMS system. We could working together to develop a new community resource co-op. This consists of sharing office space and rural fire stations. By implementing this new concept, the residents of the area have direct access to all public safety entities in one location. Currently we are operating one resource center at hunter's bend and fm 9699. We are also under notions with Hudson bend fire district for a fire station at 71 and fm 620. By utilizing these fatsz we believe tags fairs and area residents benefit by maximizing the available resources with minimum amount of revenue. As an example, when we started the00er's bend cooperate, I personally experience ted arrow-people would drop by and share information whether it was law enforcement rementd or just until and fire inquiries. We are also developing public safety seminars together rather than separate. The facility of Austin -- the Austin fire department has in harris branch is an ideal location to expand this new concept as a fellow governmental employee, I understand the complications of working through an inner local agreement between all parties involved. However, I -- we do believe if you decide to assist us with this concept, it would be -- do two things. First, it could improve relations between the City staff and other area residents. Second, the community benefits from the improved services. I have passed you some photos of a facility that we are inquiring about at harris branch. I also showed you two other photos, it was the current resource center we have at hunter's bend and fm 969 and the second one with negotiations with the hunter's bend fire department on 71 and 620. Currently this facility is just being used for storage at harris branch and we would like to utilize it as a complete public safety resource facility. And it would house our community officers and also dare officers. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you.

>> Is the county willing to pay the debt service on that building?

>> I'm sorry? pay the debt service?

>> that's the offer we laid out. If you were willing to cover the cost of debt service we would be willing to enter into some kind of reasonable agreement. We were told you weren't interested in doing that.

>> Yes, sir. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: Gus pena. Gus pena. Mr. Pena. Don smith. Welcome, sir.

>> Morning, Mayor.

>> Mayor Watson: or afternoon now.

>> I'll have to take that down for just a moment. Mayor and Councilmembers, some of you recognize me from the annexation meets last year. I am currently the fire chief for Travis County fire control. I'm retired 28 and a half year veteran of the Austin fire department where I worked in the fire marshal's office she got to deal with a lot of communities around Austin. We were going -- who were going to be annexed, were annexed and we didn't have real good services there. So I've had plenty of chances to meet with community groups. In '97 I thought we worked real well together to annexations to provide a smooth transition for emergency services and was proud to work through that process. The assistant City Manager who worked on that I thought was a very good facilitator and worked with us closely to make sure that happened. More recently I worked with another sexual assault manager on a concept I believe is a win-win to use a vacant City build. I found the assistant City manager to be not very workable, did not like to look at thins that were win win, in fact I was told that he took it as a personal grudge that the people in harris branch actually had asked to be deannexed. I think the citizens probably were deserving to get out of that. And did that legally. I have provided you with copies of the win-win request, maps that show the Austin fire station locations at this time and the one in harris branch. So that if you had questions about travel distance, I could answer those. What we're looking for their is something that would help the City and the citizens. I was told that if we wanted to pay the debt services on that building for $11,000 per month or $200,000 per year that would be the only way we could get in there. I would remind you that if we were to occupy that station and provide services for seven and a half years, the City would be safing about $100,000 a year in salary alone, plus a contract fee if we happen to enter into a contract which we suggested we not do about another $25,000 to $50,000 per year. As you can see, there is plenty of savings that the City would get from us occupying that building for the next seven and a half years. At which time that Austin is plan og reannexing that area. So we would just ask that you as the Councilmembers look at this, the proposal as individuals to see if you actually agree with the assistant City moger who told us that you were holding a petty grudge against those persons out there and be willing to work with us to provide emergency services. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, sir Councilmember Slusher and then Councilmember Lewis.

>> Slusher: I'm having a difficult time figuring out how this is a win-win and this -- would you just in -- briefly tell me what is the win for the City if the debt service isn't taken care of so we would be renting a building at a loss?

>> actually you wouldn't be renting the building. We would be signing some type of mutual aid contract where we would actually use the building at no cost. What you get back from that is we provide those first respond fire and medical services to those areas still in Austin City limits along 290, ie, applied materials right now. Your current response times or travel distances come from station 18 on berkman and station 26 on loyola and decker lane. Those times are probably reflected more at about 7 to 8 minutes from berkman and probably 7 to 10 minutes on decker lake. By us utilizing that facility, those travel times or response times would be down to 2 minutes.

>> Slusher: is anyone from applied materials down here to support this?

>> I have talked with them in the past. In fact, we are in the process right now of -- they asked us to submit them a program of some emergency services training, and we are going to be doing that for them hopefully this year.

>> Slusher: so they are not support this request?

>> I don't have anybody down here but I'm sure we could probably get that request. They would like to have somebody back in the neighborhood again, yes, sir.

>> Slusher: well, I haven't heard that from them. And we're providing service to them and they are in the City while this area that you are asking the City to now give the building to and not want to pay the debt service --

>> I would disagree on give, but allow us to use slirk I try to rent it on the no cost and you didn't agree with that.

>> I don't believe it's a loss. You have a losses today. It's sitting there vacant and you are paying those dollars so right now it's in a loss. Slurk and that's because -- give something back, but that's because the City built that facility in earlier years to serve an area that then got themselves disand next frd the City and didn't want our services.

>> And they did that legally and I would hope that the City Council would not hold grudges just as you would hope those people out on 183 west annexation areas don't hold grudges also.

>> Slusher: I'm not sure those are connected, sir, but this is a more matter of whether the City is grg to subsidize service to areas that are not in the City.

>> You currently do --.

>> Slusher: sir, could I finish please?

>> go ahead.

>> Slusher: thank you very much. What I said was this was an issue of whether we're going to subsidize areas outside the City when we have a lot of cost burdens on our current citizens, and to have this when we're not getting the debt service paid on the building to call that -- to not provide that service for you at below cost, free, whatever you want to call it, is very questionable benefit to the tax paying citizens of the City and I don't think it's appropriate to call it a petty grudge or to make these charges against our staechbt City Manager who is carrying out the poll cysts of the City.

>> I'm not sure if -- and again, that's why I say I would ask each of you to think about that whether or not when he says that you do hold a petty grudge if that in fact is the case.

>> I doubt Mr. Smith said the Council hodz a petty grudge much I think you guys are not representing that accurately and you know that.

>> I'm sorry, sir, he did. Councilmember Slusher rirktsd now you do provide services to areas -- to people who do not pay City taxes. In fact, most recently you are probably aware of the house fire on lake Austin. Where you sent six fire trucks out to that building below the 504 moor.

>> Slusher: absolutely that we would dom the aid of anyone whose aid or property was in danger, that's not the -- quite the same issue as what to do with this building in which the City is absorbing the debt service much we've got a lot of items today and I would like to just cut this off right now.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you for being here. Councilmember Lewis?

>> Lewis: let me ask you a question. Where are you located now at the present time that serves that area?

>> I have a trailer house in aut-tex acres which ask one block off harris branch park way. Are you familiar with that area where the county store is we're good -- we're about two blocks behind the county store. Probably four blocks from where the actual station is right now.

>> Lewis: okay, sir, you basically -- you wouldn't improve the response time to that area if you was in that station?

>> we have a real good response time to harris brarchg right now. The problem that we have is that any of the City of Austin property, and that would be applied materials or the highway or that, we don't get notified of it so we don't respond, although we're sitting right beside those areas and could very easily provide that service from that location. Again, I would make you aware that if we're in there, the City does get a return from that in that they are not paying those dollars to operate that station. We would be.

>> Lewis: all right. Thank you, sir.

>> You are welcome.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you very much.

>> Thank you Councilmembers. Cynthia Martinez. Cynthia Martinez. Cynthia Martinez. Marie gonzales. Marie gonzales. Marie gonzales. Sherry kidd. Sherry kidd. Sherry kidd. Mary rivers. Raer rivers. Hare rivers. Council, the stomachs on the consent agenda are items 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 27, 29, on second and third reading, 30 on second and third reading, 32, by consent would be changed to the suggested date would be april 9th, and item no. 33, Item no. 36, That would be the consent agenda unless there are other items that need to be pulled.

>> Lewis: 35.

>> Mayor Watson: 35 was set for a time certain at 3:00 p.m. L. P.m. I'm sorry?

>> Lewis: I was trying to find 34 and 35. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: all right. Consent agenda and I'll entertain a motion, item no. 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 25, 26, 27, 29, On second and third reading, 30 on second and third reading, 32 to april 9th, 33, 36. Yes.

>> Lewis: who pulled 34?

>> Mayor Watson: I did.

>> Lewis: all right.

>> Sir, you can also take item 5 4 if you like. That's the one that didn't need the executive session on.

>> Mayor Watson: it was pulled. There's no discussion in executive session on that item let me go to Councilmember Goodman goom I just need to do make a quick not on item 36. There are some businesses that want to make sure along south Congress they are in fact part of this initiative. This is a outgrowth of the initial south Congress corridor improvements endeavor that have involved neighborhood sorkz and businesses, and so it is not the intent of this item to in any way stop the public involvement, including business owners that has been part of everything up until now. Nothing will be done without public input. This is just an issue of additional resources for support and that will continue to include input and recommendations from all the stake owners on Congress.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. Is there a motion with regard to the consent agenda? I'm sorry, Councilmember Spelman intoel it be appropriate to add item 5 5 at this time?

>> that would be appropriate although I understand the Mayor has --.

>> Mayor Watson: I would like for that to be handled by the Mayor pro tem on motion where I have recused myself.

>> Spelman: fair enough. How about item 56? do you want to add that.

>> Mayor Watson: there's a question that has to be cleared up. I have a list of all the appointments, but that's why I didn't call it out snel that case I move approval of the consent agenda.

>> Mayor Watson: Councilmember Spelman approves the consent agenda as read. Seconded. Is there any discussion? okay. With that, there being no further discussion, all those in favor of the approval of the consent agenda? opposeded? motion carries. Tilt I'll entertain a motion to recess to go into executive session. We will be in executive session for approximately 30 minutes so that I would ask for the motion to recess until 3:00 to discuss personnel matters purn t to 551.074 of the Texas government cold to discuss a evaluate candidates for municipal court judge and appropriate compensation. Is there a motion? motion made by the Mayor pro tem to recess until 3:00 to go into executive session. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? motion carries. We're in recess until 3:00 p.m.

recess until 3:00

>> Mayor Watson: I call the city Council back to order. If I can have your attention. [Murmuring/mumbling].

>> Mayor Watson: welcome, everyone. If this were the ballet or symphony or opera we will -- we would be blinking the lights. Please be seated. [Murmuring/mumbling].

>> Mayor Watson: thank you all, I call the City Council back to order. The order in which we will proceed is I am going to ask those items that the Council has pulled for questions, that we address those and find out whether or not we can pass those on consent. Then there are two items in which I must recuse myself, so I will ask the Mayor pro tem to take those items up. One is item no. 55. And the other one is item no. 35. And so we will go to those items and item no. 35 Was the one set for the 3:00 time certain. Councilmember Slusher, on items no. 14, 16 And 17, can those items be passed by consent?

>> Slusher: yes, Mayor. I would point out that I pulled these to make sure about the pedestrian and bicycle amenities that were going to be added, sidewalks where there aren't any and bike lanes along 12th street, we are happy about that, so I move approval.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, motion made on items 14, 16, 17 to pass by consent. Is there a second?

>> Spelman: second.

>> Mayor Watson: any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye., opposed say no., motion carries on items 14, 16, 17. Mayor pro tem on Garcia, on item no. 18 Were your questions answered?

>> Garcia: yes, Mayor, I move approval I have one quick comment.

>> Mayor Watson: is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman. I will recognize the Mayor pro tem.

>> Garcia: thank you, peter, one of the firms that -- that's listed, jack h.holt, ph.d. & Associates is a prime and also appears as a subcontractors and -- in three others. Were we just that sort of firms?

>> the -- the short answer is no. On these rotation contracts, the project managers very often include the aggregate goals as you saw in this one of 18.2 and 8.6. And very often we find that the primes will bring in as subs other firms that also submit as prims. And so -- as primes. So very, very often they will end up giving work to these consultants that they very well could have done themselves, which is the case for the particular one that you pointed out.

>> Garcia: that's all of the questions that I have, Mayor.

>> Mayor Watson: I'm sorry, what did you say?

>> ?

>> Garcia: that's all of the questions that I have.

>> Lewis: I have a question of I guess Public Works.

>> Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis.

>> Lewis: on item no. 14, I am flying to find out --

>> we are on 18.

>> Mayor Watson: item no. 14 Has been passed.

>> Lewis: I'm sorry, I am looking at the wrong sheet anyway.

>> Mayor Watson: any further discussion with regard to item no. 18? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no., motion carries on item no. 18. Item no. 53. The resolution would that be the City Council appoint the following persons as judges in the municipal court for the 1998-1999 term, castro, elizabeth aerial, cary key, evelyn mckey, rornd meyerson, John vasquez, Charles wood and penny willcov. And designate penny wilcov to serve as residing judge. The following persons as relief judges if and when the presiding judge deems necessary, sue burning kel, joe clifton. The compensation would be as follows: the salary of providing judge would be $2,693 per pay period. Associate judge, $2,308 per pay period and relief judges 28.84 per hour. The benefits for providing and associate judges could be participation in the employment retirement City, choice of medical and dental plans currently offered to city employees with the City subpoenaed see equivalent to that provided City employees, 20,000 dollar group term life insurance, additional group term life insurance available for purchase, long-term disability insurance available for purchase, 8 hour sick leave accrual per month, 8 hours vacation leave accrual per month and paid holiday as designated by the City Council. Relief judges will receive no benefits. Is there a motion?

>> Garcia: so move, Mr. Mayor.

>> Mayor Watson: made by Councilmember Spelman, seconded by the Mayor pro tem, any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no., motion carries. Mayor pro tem if you will please take up item no. 55 And our 3:00 time certain, item no. 35. I will recuse myself.

>> Garcia: thank you, Mayor. Item no. 55 Is to consider settlement proposal in the roque lira, iii and medical lies lira in the Travis County district court of Texas, in the settlement for $75,000. The City Council has received information from our attorney in connective session and I will now entertain a motion for -- to accept this.

>> Slusher: so move.

>> Garcia: motion made by Councilmember Slusher, seconded by Councilmember Lewis. All in favor, opposed say no., motion carries on a vote of 6 to zero with the Mayor recused on this particular issue. We now will go to the 3:00 time certain, which is item no. 35, Which reads as follows: approve a resolution directing the parks and recreation department to approximate meet with the old enfield representatives and Eeyore's birthday party event organizers to coordinator this year's Eeyore's birthday party to be held at pease park, I will recognize Councilmember Goodman.

>> Goodman: the reason this is on the agenda is because last year there was going to be a task force, working group --

>> wait.

>> Goodman: what?

>> Garcia: can we have more volume on Councilmember Goodman's mike?

>> is it on.

>> Goodman: this is better. A task force was put together, really a working group, to try to come together and address the issues that the neighborhood has to deal with each time Eeyore's birthday party is held in pease park and also the issues for the organizers and the celebraters of Eeyore's who have been coming there many years and traditionally our attached -- they think that other venues don't answer the needs of location, accessible, so on, so forth. The makeup of the task force, though, was not appointed by the Council so there was an appearance on occasion of deliberations that really weren't moving in the direction of the charge we thought we had given them. And the recommendations weren't -- they didn't come out with recommendations for alternatives if pease was no longer suitable. There was really no discussion and recommendations, per se, other than a no on occasion and -- the appearance was that it was a stacked deck. So the credibility was in question. Now, I think in order to find the answers to issues that really need to be resolved we as the Council can appoint the various interests that need to be represented to a working group of and they can report to us and we can follow the deliberations and the issues, make sure all of the issues are raised and resolved that need to be. So that hopefully an answer will be come to as there was not one this pastime.

>> Garcia: any questions of staff or of Councilmember Goodman? Councilmember Griffith?

>> Griffith: yes, sir, I do have a question of our parks director. Would you please -- I know that you have been very much involved with this very fine program for a number of years. Do you have some information to offer to us and a recommendation in terms of this year and going forward?

>> Mayor, members of the Council, last year we came before you with a recommendation that we felt that this program, this event needed to be moved from pease park, this is not the sole recommendation of your current staff, this has been a recommendation that has been made by various department directors that preceded me. The neighborhood has been constantly pressuring the department that this event should be moved. We noticed the event kept getting bigger and bigger every year. We feel that the event that outgrown the site. We felt that the event would be better served in another area in the City, at one of the areas that is a venue that has the activities set out for this type of event. We felt that the event was just too big for pease park. And so -- solely on that rebrought the recommendation forward to the Mayor and members of the Council. Very similar to what recommendation that's had been made before by previous directors ever the department and staff.

>> Griffith: I understand that in tefrms of your standard --.

>> Garcia: can you put the mike on or give her more volume? gift I'm sorry, Mayor pro tem, let's correct that. Is that better?

>> Garcia: that's better.

>> Griffith: I apologize, Mr. Oliveras I know that there's a system whereby you analyze and determine what the appropriate size of a particular event is for a particular property. I also understand that the Eeyore's birthday has measured outside the parameters of pease park; is that correct?

>> that's correct. It's a very well attended activity. It's a good program. It's just outgrown the park, just like it outgrew the other park where it started. We feel it needs to move into an area that will be more suitable and possibly expand even more because it's a program that's going to continue to grow.

>> Griffith: this is one of my favorite things, which is why I am so interested in this, I started going when I was a student. When it was at east woods park, so I have tracked it from location to location. For a long time. And continue to go and enjoy it every year. What I am hearing is that you are recommend -- your recommended property, which is waterloo park is smaller even than pease park; is that right? if so, why are we recommending that waterloo might be the right place?

>> as far as academicage, it's smaller, but it's an area that bring acreage, but it's an area that brings other pluses to the arena. Plenty of parking. Right now they shuttle people to pease park, normally you would just walk across the street. There is no neighborhoods that would be impacted. Some of the streets could also be blocked off and utilized as part of the program, possibly for vendors and those type of things. There is additional room for growth in the area. We do have large events at waterloo that are very well handled there. That was one of the recommendations that we made. I think the task force report that came before Council included that.

>> Griffith: did the parks board have a recommendation on that, also?

>> there was a parks board members on the task force. The parks board also supported that.

>> Griffith: the move?

>> the move.

>> Griffith: thank you.

>> Lewis: I have a question. Mayor pro tem Councilmember Lewis.

>> Lewis: let me ask you, with this -- you know, you said you expected it to continue to grow. What -- where would you, other than waterloo, what other recommendations was it?

>> if the opportunity ever came up to move this particular event to auditorium shores, it would be considered. But I think the event organizers do not wish to go to auditorium -- audio storm showers, but that -- auditorium shores, but that would be the only site that could facilitate a group of 15,000 people.

>> Lewis: what time hours are we talking about for this?

>> it's a program that starts in the morning and goes until sundown.

>> Lewis: thank you.

>> Goodman: Mayor pro tem? can I follow up on that.

>> Garcia: sure.

>> Goodman: since there's not even opportunity to grandfather spamorama in at auditorium shores, an event that time and -- that type of venue that's appreciated by the neighborhoods nearby, as opposed to some of the other events, I think even saying audio storm showers is a little misleading in -- auditorium shores is misleading, even some events cannot be grandfathered, let alone talk about as if Eeyore's could be relocated there.

>> Garcia: questions, comments? we have speakers, we have 11 speakers signed up on this particular issue. I am going to call them in the order in which they signed up. I will call three of them at the same time, if you could make your way to the podium. Jim ellinger first, jim christianson is second, mac mahone is third. Jim ellinger.

>> Garcia: he's registered in favor of. Jim christianson. Following Mr. Christianson is mike mahone. If you could move over, yes, sir.

>> Yes.

>> Garcia: what is your jail name,.

>> Jim christianson.

>> Garcia: welcome, sir.

>> I am president of the old enfield homeowners association and a member of the task force that you referred to. I guess Council, I knew this would happen. Last year when the issue came up, I got up and spoke with when you all were getting ready to form a task force and I asked at that time can this task force get the report to you by a certain date and it was recommended that it happen in october. The report came to you in november. And because I knew what was going to happen is that if it came out negative, then there would be some -- some feeling of maybe somebody didn't get a fair shot in terms of saying what they needed to say. You have it in time, the report got to you in november. You had time to appoint another task force, but nothing has happened. We are now here in March again dealing with the same issue. I know there are going to people -- be people who say staff should not have voted on the task force, people who say that people who have a vested interest in -- I will ask you to look at the people who didn't have a direct or an indirect interest in any of this event that were on this task force and all of those people voted to move it. I ask you, also, to consider what your parks board did. Your appointed parks board. We didn't even know it was going to come to the parks board until I heard it on tv that they had voted to move it. I guess Council, you know, I saw -- to change the subject a bit, but last saturday I saw tv a bunch of neighbors getting together to draft a neighborhood plan. And they were all excited about having input into a neighborhood plan. Old enfield developed -- developed a neighborhood plan in 1986. It did what you told them to do as part of the Austin plan and the sector program. The poll of the people in old enfield was to say we need to reduce the size of events at pease park and we ask you as part of our plan to honor those provisions of that plan. We -- I don't know what message this is saying to neighbors who are going to spend hours developing a neighborhood plan and come up with some sort of recommendation, what does that mean? Council, old enfield is a viable central City neighborhood. People could have left that neighborhood and fled to west lake hills or some other neighborhood, but they have stayed. We have young families moving in to the neighborhood. There are scores of them who are coming to that neighborhood. And I hope, I hope that you supported the central City neighborhood who have concerns about this event. One day out of the year is something someone says. Why can't you do with it for one day of the year? I asked the Council, did -- the environmental Council to consider the damage that 10,000 people do to a pease park, please, give pease park the consideration that you give other areas of the City. Thank you.

>> Garcia: thank you, Mr. Christianson. Following Mr. Mahone is dean harrison and following Mr. Harrison is laurie vistas. I think that I am pronouncing that. She is doptsing her time to charlie smith. Donating her time to charlie smith.

>> I haven't seen her.

>> She's not here. So --

>> she is here.

>> Okay.

>> Garcia: did you sign?

>> I sign up.

>> Garcia: you are the last one.

>> Welcome,.

>> Thank you Mayor pro tem, members of the Council, I am mike mchone, the vice-president of the university area partners. I also was on your task force and rather than to belabor an issue that all of you know about, I would prefer to move forward. This event has been at pease park for over 20 years. The things that define a community often are its celebrations. As a university community, we are a neighbor and share our boundary ies, include pease park or at least half of it, the east half, the half on Shoal creek, that's our boundary line consistent with the census line, has been since the early -- since the late or mid 70's. We see Eeyore's birthday party as an opportunity to celebrate the university community as it always has been, as many of you have seen it through the years. It would not be a university celebration if it were located elsewhere. Just as if we moved the capital 10,000 to round rock, because it congests the streets too much of Austin and it is an inconvenience of Austin who don't run, it would not be the capital 10,000. Those are the kinds of celebrations that are very precious to a community. This one, because it's organized by non-profit groups, benning non-profit groups, doesn't have corporate sponsors and has just a local celebration of the university community and the people that want to celebrated the arrival of spring and it's been going on for 35 years, we think that it deserves special consideration. We will as a group, university area partners, since the task force recommendation has agreed to co-sponsors this event. Many of you are aware of our organization, we will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the celebration is -- has a little detrimental effect to the neighborhood and remains a positive experience that is recognized throughout the country as one of the premier celebrations and the -- one of the celebrations that defines Austin as Austin. I hope that you will work with us, work with the other neighborhood in the area, let us utilize our park for our one day a year celebration, and vote to support the resolution that Councilmember Goodman has brought forward. I thank you. I look forward to seeing you there. Mayor pro tem.

>> Garcia: thank you, Councilmember Spelman.

>> Spelman: I would like to direct a question if I could to the speaker.

>> Yes, Councilmember?

>> Spelman: this is a question in your new roel as co-sponsor of Eeyore's. The director of the park and recreation department sent a letter to stacy suits, a couple of years ago, talking about issuing recommendations for what he thought ought to be done, his first recommendation is the same as the one he gave us just now toys relocate it. If we can't, we do keep it at pease park, he says this would require a certain number of conditions, for example, putting fencing around the perimeter, closing some roads, enforcing some no parking areas in the neighborhood adjacent to pease park. Are you familiar with these recommendations?

>> some of those recommendations we are, sir. I would perhaps be better off if I defered to the people who the direct letter was directed to and I am -- I understand that constable elfant is here to speak to some of those issues and they have provided security forever, so I think they are better qualified to answer those questions than I am, sir, I would be happy to answer them as they do not.

>> As somebody who is familiar with Eeyore, has been for many years, do you see enforcement of those recommendations as being a problem for the party itself?

>> the only one that I would take issue with is the fence because the fencing itself because of the terrain, the fact that you are on a creek, that can create a -- more of a hazard than it would solve and because it's a come and go event and there are no really -- it's not like there's a place where you are going -- there's no direct entrance into pease park. Most of the people who come from the neighborhood come down mlk, 24th street, enter it from all different directions, fencing would tend to -- since there's no admission, we don't stop people from doing other activities in the park. So it would -- could create a problem, but it doesn't exist now. But all of the other recommendations, I think, have been dealt with, but like -- I would like to defer to the experts.

>> You are thinking of it as a traffic problem, but it would not spoil the nature of the party itself. We are not changing the event if we had a fence around it?

>> I think it becomes a hazard to the people who come, I think that's a safety issue that Mr. Elfant can speak to better.

>> Garcia: other questions? thank you, harrison. Ms. Hair son.

>> I have relinquished my time to charlotte smith.

>> Okay. Laurie, also, you donate your time to Dr. Smith. Stacy suits.

>> I'm charlotte smith.

>> Could you wait until you get called. You will get called at the end.

>> I apologize. Uh-huh.

>> You will have nine minutes.

>> Oh, I misunderstood, thank you.

>> Garcia: okay.

>> Stacy suits? and following Mr. Suits is Bruce constable Bruce elfant.

>> Council members, I am stacy suits, the chairperson of the university of Texas, ymca, the co-sponsor eveb. To follow-up on Councilmember Spelman's questions, we met and exceeded our all of those conditions last year. The exception is that -- we came to the Council on the -- we did not put the fence up, we still believe the fence is unneeded. It's a free event. The fencing is an unnecessary experience, creates security problems for us and we have no -- expense, we have no problems meeting all of those conditions in that letter as stated except for the fencing issue. One particular note, last year I doubled the number of buses. I'm going to double the number of buses this year. One thing that wasn't mention understand that memo is on the -- mention understand that memo, at our experience we printed up no parking yard signs, as you all know that I have the capacity to do a lot of those. We posted about 2 or 300 up in the neighborhood, no parking, they were quite effective in solving the illegal parking problem in the neighborhood. Where neighborhood members identified past parking problems, with doctors being unable to get out of their driveways, we got portable aluminum barricades, put them in front of those driveways, in front of those particular doctors so they could get out if they got an emergency call. The constable had security go around and patrol to be sure that -- that there was no parking problem, at any of those doctor's houses, as I have been with this events since 1983, bring me a problem, I will solve it, I will work with you. I will work with the neighborhood and get it fixed. It's indicated before what we are trying to do here in working our partnership with the university area partners, we will work with the neighborhoods that will work with us and we want to be a good neighbor and, you know, put -- you know, our efforts back into the community, this is a non-profit event that's very important to a bunch of the groups that are out there. Thank you.

>> Garcia: there's a nasty rumor out there that says that you have a website advertising that you are going to have the party there this year.

>> I haven't seen the website.

>> Garcia: okay. I wanted to ask you so we could eliminate that rumor. There is no website announcing that?

>> there's a website, but I haven't seen it.

>> Yes, there is.

>> Garcia: whose website is it? somebody on that side of the room said --

>> by somebody named sexton/Eeyore.

>> Sexton is here.

>> Okay.

>> Garcia: so is Mr. Sexton here to answer that question?

>> what's the question?

>> what was the question?

>> do you have a website that advertises that the party will be there this year?

>> I have taken last year's public service announcement and I have -- I have removed the dates and I was waiting to see what happened before I publicized it. I believe it does -- it does say pease park, but that's something that I can change as soon as -- we are ready to change that and confirm what happens.

>> Garcia: for those of you that may have visited that website, that is pending the decision of the Council, correct?

>> yes.

>> Garcia: okay, thank you very much.

>> I am available for any more questions?

>> Garcia: more questions of Mr. Suits?

>> Griffith: yes, sir. As one who has been an Eeyore's attendee and an enthusiastic one for a very long time, since the eastwood parks days, I have seen it move from here to there successfully. It's been suggested that because waterloo park is close to u.t., as piece is, that that might be a more appropriate venue, what's your comment on that idea?

>> it's a smaller park. We've -- we have a lot of people that walk to have party. And I am kind of, you know, I don't want to sound too flippant about it, but this is the largest non-capital metro event in the City. We use our own shuttle buses and they are full. It's -- it's all of the time, we run them. The buses are just flat packed. I think that it's -- the idea of the community, waterloo is out in the middle of a bunch of parking lots. It's next to brackenridge hospital. It's next to rornld mcDonald house. There's a creek running through, it's a smaller park, creek running through the middle of it. The space -- the park isn't level. There's -- I think we will have more security problems at waterloo than what we have at pease, there's a question there's no open containers in that neighborhood. It's -- the idea of traffic blocking -- if the traffic is really that bad, do you want that much traffic around the entrance to the brackenridge emergency room?

>> Griffith: could the place for the -- is the place for those shuttle buses to unload at waterloo as well as at pease?

>> I imagine that you could -- I imagine that you could do it along san jacinto sin to. But pease is our prefered site, we will do what we need to do to mitigate any impact on the neighborhood.

>> Griffith: thank you.

>> Garcia: further questions for face see suits? thank you. Bruce elfant. Thank you, stacy, following constable elfant is jean veer and then kathy norman.

>> Good afternoon, I am Bruce elfant, precinct 5 constable. For many years my office has donated the security for this event as required by the City. I want to assure you that if we thought that this event was not safe or was dangerous in some way that we wouldn't participate in it, we wouldn't recommend that it stay there. And that's why last year, before Eeyore's, I really welcomed the opportunity to have the first planning session that I had ever been invited to where all of the folks sat down together to work through the issues and their recommendations. And I thought that that organization of people came up with a lot of very good suggestions that we incorporated last year. They did increase the shuttle buses, so we are not bringing quite as many vehicles into that area. We turned some roads into one-way road, we put up all of the no park signs, barriers up around the driveways that we had problems with previously. We had some concerns about lamar along the creek. And we had crossing guards there to help people cross so we didn't have the dangers of going through the traffic and we patrolled along the creek to try to limit the people who were crossing there. I asked the parks folks that -- to give me feedback after last year's Eeyore's event, so if there are any issues that came up that we can address them, today is the first that I have heard that there are still concerns, the feedback that I got from neighbors was very positive. They appreciated the -- the traffic flow that we put in. And they certainly appreciated the barricades so people weren't blocking their driveways and I really thought that the Eeyore's folks went a long way to meeting the neighbor's concerns. I have yet to hear any specific concerns that we have yet to address beside this general, way, it's getting too large and it may be, but I haven't heard how that's having the impact. So I thought that it was a very good session. Last year I'm sorry that to this point we haven't had that same enlt tee coming together. I was not invited to participate on the task force. I hope -- I don't see any problem with Eeyore's staying where it is. But in the future I hope that we can have these planning sessions, include all of the participants that are involved and have responsibilities there. So I will answer any questions?

>> con stanley elfant. Jeanie jeer. Jeer jeer following her is chris sanders. Welcome.

>> Thank you, my name is jeanie veer, I live at the top of pease park in the area of marshal lane and windsor road. I have lived in that neighborhood for 13 years. Of course have every year experienced what happens to our neighborhood when it is overrun by parking. I have a fire hydrant directly in front of my house. On the corner there. Every year it is parked in both sides -- the small streets, I know if you drive through that neighborhood, you will realize that windsor road is very small. When there is parking on both sides of it, you can barely get one car down it. Now, they have in the past years put up no parking signs along the right or the south side, maybe it the north side. Of windsor road there. But still they have parking on the other side of the street. It is impossible for cars to pass each other. A few years ago, I had a real shocking and very upsetting thing happen to me. It was about 6:00 in the evening. I was returning to my home after being gone most of the day. Most of the time we feel like hostages that day in that neighborhood. Because of all of the people that crowd in and are walking the streets. I was attempting to turn into my driveway and people, of course, were walking and my car door was kicked in by one of the people returning home. From that event. I drove into my driveway, I didn't know at first what had happened. I looked at my car door to realize what it was that I thought he had hit it with his hand. I then got my in car and followed this individual back to his car and so that I could get his license plate number and turn it in and it did -- we did get reimbursed for it. I had to fill out police reports. And it was very disturbing. There's trash left in the neighborhood every year and I know that Eeyore's attempts to clean up and deal with all of this and I think that it probably is a nice event, but it needs to be someplace where it does not impact the neighborhood. The way this does. That is a lovely little park down there. At the end of it the grass is gone and it just needs to be in an area that would better suit them and just not have the impact on our neighborhood, so I think this is the year that you need to move it someplace. It's moved before, it will be a good event in another place. But not where you are hurting a neighborhood. Thank you.

>> Is it my turn? okay. My name is kathy norman, I am the president of the university area partners and I know Eeyore's has been in pease park longer than 20 years, because I helped give it when I was a sore more, I am afraid that was longer than 20 years ago. Sophomore. The party, being in pease park, for me as a student it was part of a community -- a university community neighborhood oriented activity and I think the reason that the university area partners is interested in co-sponsoring the event is to bring that university community sense back to the party and, you know, in an even stronger way. Pease park borders our neighborhood, too, and although my back yard doesn't bored other that park, you know, we consider it part of our neighborhood. I think the answer to neighborhood problems for a neighborhood festival is greater involvement from the neighborhood in actually planning and execution of the event. I think that if Council decides that the event needs to be moved to waterloo, it wouldn't make any sense for university area partners to co-sponsor it. It won't be close to us. Those are our motives, we are doing other festival programming like in the fall as a lot of you know, we want neighborhood and community events that help build a sense of community, I guess that's a motivation or sense of community of keeping it at pease, where it does kind of remind you of the 100 acre wood, that's all that I have to say in questions?

>> chris sounders and then charlotte smith. I believe that since ms. Hair son and another gave their time, that you are our last two speakers.

>> Mayor pro tem, Councilmembers, one thing that I would like to mention is that maintain really been addressed is pease park to me ace district park that is there for people other than just one neighborhood. I live on wins son -- windsor road myself, farther west, I think of pease park that I go to whenever I want to be in a park, that's something we take for granted. We have people that we vice-president discussed on the north side of the park, south side of the park and also on the west side of the park. Which we just heard from. Now impact to one neighborhood does not necessarily mean that we should have all of these other people miss out a party that has been there for 20 years much one thing that I would like to address about the environmental damage that was mentioned earlier is that pease park is a part that has not been irrigated since the late '80, if you don't water a park, regardless of how many people you have coming to it, even if you do have 10,000 on one day, it is -- grass is not going to grow in a park that does not get watered. I know at times passed the Eeyore's birthday party has donated money to have it aerated after the event which will be continued. It's important to make sure those processes will takes place if a want to -- park to stay maintained. One other thing about Eeyore -- about moving to waterloo park is we are going to have an impact on the emergency services of this City. If you have people crowd thank place for one day. Just the main thing, every person in this town has a right to enjoy pease park. It's in central Austin. We all have the right to affect what goes on there. If people want to have a party, I think taking into considering the tradition of it being there for 20 years is important. I understand that there is an impact on the local neighborhood, but steps have been made to lessen those impact at all steps of the way and will continue to be doing so. The main thing was about pease park is a public park, not a private neighborhood park. Thank you.

>> Thank you. I think it was wrong about being close to end because there's scott sexton and rose marry castle berry as well. I am not sure where the nine minutes come in.

>> Garcia: these two have given their time to Dr. Smith, Dr. Smith is next. Nine minutes.

>> Goodman: okay, Dr. Charlotte smith who have nine minutes. And after herment be scott sexton, final speaker, that I have is rose marry castlebear.

>> Thank you. Charlotte smith again. Speaking really on two personal points of view here. One, I am one of the neighbors who lives right across from pease park. My land abutts on it. I have been there about six years now. I have a job as well as my husband that we both are required frequently to go to different facilities emergency throughout the weekend. We are still having problems, not just the bird kaidz, but public rooted. If anybody has walked through the border of pease park, rainbow bend, some of those streets are, they are very circuit to us, they are not easy logical turn around. We have had a lot of traffic problems. We had to put recently barricades up, stop signs just along parkway to keep traffic flowing without accidents. That's been a big ongoing neighborhood issue for over two years, that's one problem with the layout of it. I am very supportive of Eeyore's birthday, I have attended more than a few, certainly want the event to continue and certainly carry on the spirit and tradition that's have happened. I actually remember when it was at east woods as well. I want to offer another opportunity. The other hat that I am is the executive medical director for health south, an 80 bed facility right across from the waterloo park. I also am the network rehab director for the seton system. I work at brackenridge and children's hospital of Austin. One initiative that we are looking at putting together is trying to develop a park that would be available to the people at brackenridge and children's and other folks over there at waterloo that would be accessible to all sorts of folks, children, geriatric patients, people who are disabled that cannot use wheelchairs that have like water could willing and shading features to help keep it comfortable. This is an issue that's been going quite a quite. You are are very aware of the revitalization effort. One thought that I have is we have done a lot of big events across the street at waterloo, and with us being across the street from the erwin center, I am always impressed with how well things are handled. Entire bus loads will be coming, but it doesn't have impact on the emergency room. I actually park by there, I enter the parking garbage every day, I work there, I walk it, there's always adequate police security, staffing, it's well set up. Especially on weekends, many state buildings have parking garages that are very nice, it's not a real urban environment, so if you actually go into the park, there are tremendous levels of trees. When you actually look at the usable space in terms of laying out, we have actually done a top graphiccal survey of this as we have looked at different park plans, there are a lot of central places that make for a large area to work with and you can separate children, adults, have groups doing different types of activities. A little part that we are trying to do, actually open up an access, a walkway that would be accessible so there would be more of an opportunity for people to attend this event. As we try and rebuild that whole or door of town it's a real opportunity because waterloo has been an under used park, there are four lanes on both sides of the street, easy to park at. A very logical place to drop people off. One cove that what about 20 parking spots, very logical for buses to pull in. It's protected. No cross traffic because it's sort of a little side street that's neglected. But I would like to, rather than just putting this off on someone, you know, seeing who suffers the most, I get it one way or the other probably, I would like to see this dopplered as an opportunity, a big plus, something that would draw people to Austin, really focus on the positive things that we have in our City, many of the opportunities and help build our City up. I think someone ought to at least consider doing this once as a trial and work the problems out. I have worked as a trial with the other situation for at least five years now, I haven't seen a lot of improvement, despite a lot of people's really good efforts and best intentions, that's the main thing, I don't know if that answers some of the questions that you all had previously. I have a top graphiccal layout and sort ever a -- visualization of the park, not approved yet, in the early planning stages, but we would love to have input and see how this works before it's built, before we do something that might cause problems later on or potentially be in conflict. That's.

>> .

>> Garcia: thank you, Dr. Smith.

>> Goodman: could I ask a question.

>> Garcia: Councilmember Goodman has a question for you.

>> Goodman: can I ask about some of the attempts that have been made to keep everybody contained so to speak. What do you see as the failures? what was supposed to work that didn't and what happened in spite of it.

>> Well, for example, putting a barricade around the park participants was of no help whatsoever because, for example, the biggest problems we have were people coming into our yard and urinating doing other thing, vomiting or leaving cans or sitting down and camping out. And that's a real problem, we ended up putting a large 8 foot fence around our property because of that problem and some others, which has helped, but we have a -- approximately an 8 foot right-of-way that still becomes very stacked. People will pass out there, it's unsettling, we have a gate that blocks our driveway, there were orange barricade put up, they were knocked over, it's a steep hill and curves, dangerous anyway. I don't think people are intentionally trying to cause problems, they can't tell if it's a driveway even though it's a totally different color, they fall down, roll down the hill people just parked in front of our driveway anyway, we had to call e.m.s., they couldn't -- the fire department to try and get fought for emergency. And they couldn't get through the street because people double parking in those areas, last year they did put more of the barricade up, I was able to get out of my house, but I couldn't go more than half a block because there's like four roads that come together, going down any one of those streets there's not room in the middle for me to get to windsor or any other cross street liken field, it couldn't be done. That happened to both myself and my husband it was a concern. I worry also about people walking through, people walk through, it's a very steep hill, people fall, when they are intoxicated that happens, I feel sort of an ethical responsibility to do something. You know, when I see people coming down having a very difficult time. I think that it is -- there are people that get and he angry, there are altercations, I am fearful, I won't let my son go outside while this I was happening, he's two and a half, there is no way we will get on the streets or on the yard, people are throwing beer bottles over the fence it's not safe.

>> Goodman: the streets, are those streets where the no parking signs or are there streets that people go park on because there are no sign goes or anybody telling them not to go there?

>> both. The problem is on rain boy bend, parkway at the bottom, I am dealing with those two streets, also a lane feeds into that, windsor feeds in one other street. So you basically have a rain boy with a bunch of spokes feeding into it. The whole thing is clogged up. Even though technically parkway which is at the bottom is no park, everyone one of those little streets are. I can't get out of those, it's not possible, that's the issue.

>> Thank you.

>> Scott sexton and the last speaker after him is rose marry castlebear. Rosemary castleberry.

>> I am scott sex ton, I have a couple of very brief points that I would like to make. In the past, I've been involved with Eeyore's for about five or six years now, I am now on the board of directors, we have been making very serious attempts to appease and resolve any of the issues that are coming up and becoming a problem. We are putting no parking signs everywhere. To my knowledge the no parking is being taken care of. We have doubled the buses this year, we are going to double them again this year. One of the issues that I have heard quite often is the fact that having 10,000 people in the park kills the park, kills off the grass and it makes the park an unusable event for the rest of the year. Last year the morning before Eeyore's, as we were setting up, I stood on top of the stage that I conduct the eggs to and costume contest from and I took a picture of the park. There was no grass in the middle of the park the morning before the event. If there's no grass the morning before the event, how can we kill grass because it's not there? we need to get some airiation and some consequenceant watering if we want this park to come back and be useful, have a nice, clean, green area. That -- oh. I just lost it. Laugh. But --.

>> Garcia: has happens to all of us at times.

>> I hate it when that happens. Also in reference to the total area of usable space that I have seen at -- that I have heard about waterloo having, and pease park having, being involved with it I heard at the beginning of the talks last year I heard that we must move out of pease park to waterloo park because waterloo park is bigger. Our response is no, waterloo was not. We went back and forth several times. Then we were presented with a map that shows the usable area of pease park and the usable area of perry look park. I found it very interesting in the usable area of waterloo they included the parking lot, a bridge across the creek and a separated area away from the rest of the park as area that are all usable and part of the park. That gave both parks I believe almost exactly an even acreage. And when we looked at the maps we also found that our usable area thatter actually use in this pease park was a couple of acres larger than what they had Written down on the map. That's all that I have got.

>> Garcia: this is the web page that I was talk back.

>> That's me.

>> Garcia: it says that there is going to be a party on saturday april 25th, 1998, from 11:00 until dark.

>> That would have been my mistake. [Laughter]. Sometime in January or February, I noticed that it was getting close to Eeyore's time, so I went and pulled last year's public service notice, changed the dates, took out the names of the bands and slapped it back up. I should have waited until we heard final verification, that's something that can be change understand a matter of seconds.

>> Garcia: okay. Thank you.

>> Certainly.

>> Garcia: thank you very much. Rosemary castleberry.

>> Yes, Mayor pro tem. Council. There I am. I usually hit that one there. I snuck in the back door, hi to walk four blocks to find a place to park. I am rosemary castlebarry, chairman of the parks board, also chair of this task force. I would like to say that I do not believe that this committee was stacked. I think that's an opinion. We did bend over backwards to try to get all of the issues, the university area people were there, the Eeyore's people were there, the neighborhood people were well represented. There were a couple of members of the parks board, two to three attended each one of these meetings. The park police were there and well represented, staff was there to help us guide through. We looked at many, many areas besides pease park as trying to find someplace. Waterloo fit better than any. Zilker did not fit because of the ambience that you, issues that you have with Eeyore's is not a big wide open space kind of party. It is a party that should be intimate. I don't know if you can call 10,000 people intimate, but I certainly think that it is overloading. What I find interesting is that if we have a party in a building in Austin, there are certain things called fire codes and the firemen will tell you you cannot use this building any longer. The parks board, the xhirt tee, most of those on the committee felt that this was a -- too much of an overuse of a very used park, a very beautiful park. I grant you: I can talk about the damage, the need to continue with irrigation projects for that park. You give us the money, we will be more than happy to adhere those things. But I think we need to be very careful. Warren struess and I went to ronald mcDonald house, specifically to ask if it would be a problem. And the woman that was there was absolutely delighted that something like Eeyore's could possibly be held and that their families and people could participate, which speaks to Dr. Smith's suggestion about what's -- I have seen those plans, I think that it's exciting. I think that even if you decide to go on with Eeyore's at pease park for this year, because I know it's getting late, close to the time for the project, we have got to very seriously discuss what is overuse of pease park, but not only overuse for other parks in the City of Austin, there are parks that are overused and perhaps misused with, we need to are more specific about that. Waterloo does have the ambience, I think it has parking and all of those other things that are available. It doesn't impact neighborhoods the same way that it impacts the neighborhoods around there it not just the people on the hill. It is those people that are trying to come and go through that area during that time.

>> Mayor pro tem.

>> Garcia: questions for the chair?

>> Goodman: can I talk to rosemary a second. I am glad to hear you say that other parks are in the same position, overused or perhaps something that outgrown the area that's traditionally used. Especially the newest draft of the events -- the special events policy, hasn't been around that long, things like the clarksville jazz fest, aquafest certainly is grant farthered. Southern neighborhoods. Grandfathered, the 4th of july, all of that still happens. Which is why on that task force or working group I had asked that a representative from the southern neighborhood that has to deal with those kind of very large multi --.

>> Know there were people Jackie, two people from the bowled continue creek neighborhood.

>> I know, I am not saying they weren't there. I am saying I know they were. That's the reason that I thought they would be good resources to come on to that. But it is confusing to some people about why we grandfather aquafest, why we grandfather clarksville and why for Eeyore's, which is one day in a public park that also abutts a neighborhood, why that one is not and also why things like excuse me, spamorama are not able to find a place on auditorium shores. There are a lot of things that come up out of that public events policy and I would like to hear some more about what kind of thinking went into the overall policy because it seems really uneven.

>> There was a policy, we did make attempts at changing it. What has happened is -- we did revisit it. I think there were recommendation that's came out of it. I ca not speak specifically right now to those, I don't have the changes in front of me. But we do recognize that there was a need to really seriously look at the parks and say this kind of an event is not good for this particular park. We have 20,000 acres of parkland, people and we need to be addressing not just those downtown parks, but all of the rest of them. See whether or not an Eeyore's location could be found way south or up north or within the same kind of thing that doesn't have the same kind of impact that it does on the pease park. I'm not just talking about the neighborhood. I am saying on the park.

>> Garcia: Councilmember Griffith.

>> Griffith: is Mr. Olivera still in the room? I have a couple of follow-up questions for him. I know there are different classifications of parks with different appropriate uses for each one. As I understand it.

>> That he should.

>> Griffith: it's been suggested that pease park is a district park; is that correct?

>> we wouldn't consider pease park ace district park. It's more of a linear park, 80's small park in a sense it's in a neighborhood setting. More of a district park would be able to facilitate larger portion of the community because of the amenities that would be included in there. The amenities are limited. You only have a wading pool and a playscape in that area. So it is limited.

>> Griffith: it was my privilege to be able to see a copy of the holographic whereby governor pease and his wife gave pease park to the city in perpuity. And I understand from media coverage at the time that that was -- at the time that that gift was given it was pretty much of a joke because fiction was all wide open spaces. And ideal anybody give land to the public to use and enjoy in perpuity. It was really a hoot. Now we know how visionary that was. Or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Do we owe the pease family some respect and some honor in terms of taking care of the land that they gave for us to use? and, if so, what would be appropriate care of that land?

>> we do -- we do owe some thanks to the pease family that donated that piece of property. All efforts are made to maintain all of the parks within the park system as best as possible with resources that are available. Last year that park was under construction as most of you are aware, hate a brand new playscape that the moody foundation provided quite a bit of money for its construction as well as some of the City matches. But throughout the years, the event has just gotten very popular. It's a very popular event, just basically outgrown the size of the park to facilitate the amount of people that do act the parks. Those are the reasons why your staff has come forward with these type of recommendations and they are not new recommendations, we are just reinforcing what has been recommended in the past.

>> Griffith: it's been suggested that the damage that's admittedly done annually to the land is not such much, not really serious. What is the nature of the damage, if any, that happens? and what's necessary to straighten that out after the event?

>> just like any other park that gets utilized one day by 10 to 15,000 people, there's going to beware and tear. I don't think that so much as the -- is the concern that your parks department has because the wear and tear it's an issue, but it's something that will revegetate and basically come back with some maintenance and as much water that the City gets as rainfall, we are -- we are fortunate for that. But once again, it -- it's a -- it the size of the park that cannot facilitate the crowds anymore. It's too small. It's -- you just have a big event in a very small area, basically people coming from all directions and it is -- it is something that has been an impact for the neighborhood and otherwise your staff would not be bringing this forward to you.

>> Griffith: I know that pease park is linear. So is waterloo. Why is it that waterloo would be superior if both of them are long skinny parks?

>> as we mentioned earlier, you do have some additional options that come to waterloo as positive marks. You have all of the parking available through state parking lots that -- throughout other events, they have been able to have access to those parking lots. You also have the -- there is no neighborhood that is going to be impacted by traffic or the noise or the crowds coming from all different areas. That is a downtown area that is not fullly utilizesed during this time. Area where the ronald mcDonald house has already been cleared, working with other events in the area and making sure that the hospital also has to sign-off before there's any event at waterloo. They have always cooperated. All of the layout and the format that has been utilized by other events at waterloo seem to be appropriate for an event of this size. As I mentioned earlier, you do have an opportunity to expand and possibly utilize some of the side streets to utilize as area for vendors, those type of things, that can be very easily cleaned up afterward.

>> Griffith: thank you.

>> Garcia: other questions? thank you very much. Back to you,.

>> Goodman: Councilmember Goodman.

>> Goodman: I did want to mention one thing that jim said earlier, christianson, about the -- what was the report or the minutes? what I saw were minutes actually. I didn't see the report until real late in the game. But I saw minute of the work group and that was singularly unhelpful. I couldn't find the direction that anybody was working toward. In november, to get the report is good, but then if you are asking for staff responses and that takes you in through december, which it's tough to get anybody's attention because they have so much on their plate before the end of the year takes you into January. By the time you get into January, with a lot of things on our plate as well, you would then be at the point where the organizers have to know where it is they are going to go. Having tried look into what exactly the needs were and where in fact we have space that could accommodate them, waterloo had so many negatives for it in this context, maybe after all of the improvements it will work, I don't know, I haven't seen those proposes, but in the meantime, the only other potentially viable amount active was zilker or auditorium shores. As I said before, that's a name to say, not a viable alternative, because there is no more room. No other events are being allowed to happen at auditorium shores. Even if they suit the neighborhood and are more compatible and less I am impact -- impacting than those events that are there now. Look at the special events policy, the particular grandfathering is critical at this point, not just for piece, but for all of the parks in the City that are large enough to have events that are scheduled there for community attends dance. The issue about getting into January, February, so on, when Eeyore's organizers needed a place to go, is the reason why this item is on the agenda because I don't see a way to find a new spot this year. I had hoped that the work group would not only get into more than one amount active, but guidelines that we could borrow and use for other neighborhood, other parks, other event. That didn't happen. This is a particular place with particular need, so maybe that was wishful thinking. Maybe there couldn't be more that came out of the report than what was, but it was too simplistic, in my opinion. It had the appearance of a stacked deck, whether people thought it was truly objective or not. The appearance and the perception is that the results were challengeable. In order to unfortunately start that part back over, but have credible results where we track the proceedings and the issues, I thought was the only thing left to do for this year. Which is why the item is on the agenda. So -- that's my reason for putting it here. Thank you, Mayor pro tem.

>> Garcia: further questions or discussions on this item. Do you put a motion on the table?

>> Goodman: so my agenda item will be my motion.

>> Garcia: there's a motion to approve the item that -- as listed on the agenda, I will read it again: approve a resolution directing the parks and recreation department to meet with the old enfield neighborhood representatives and Eeyore's birthday party event organizers to coordinate this year's Eeyore's birthday party to be held at pease park. Is there a second?

>> second.

>> Seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Discussion?

>> Slusher: I have a question. I guess of ms. Connor. Ms. Connor, the security in the naked concerns me, I would like to see this continue here, but -- in the neighborhood concerns me, but the lady's door, the woman's door that got kicked in concerns me greatly. It's not the first time that I have heard something like that. Now would the constables who are providing the security for the event, would they have the authority to patrol in that area or to be station in that area of the neighborhood or would that have to be the A.P.D.?

>> I'm not sure. Whether it's the constable, I think it depends on if it's park property or private property. If it's private it will probably be A.P.D.?

>> do you know the answer to that?

>> the event organizers take care of any security that would affect or I object a spilloff from the event. We -- or be a spilloff from the event. Also from A.P.D. And from park place in the parameters, but any security that is a spilloff is the responsibility of the event organizers.

>> We may need Mr. Elfant up here in a second. But there are -- are there enough constables being provided to have someone stationed on the streets?

>> we always make an effort to estimate a recommendation to the event organizers and they always comply with that.

>> Slusher: what about, for instance, during aquafest there's -- there are barricades there at dawson and bowled continue and there are some people who live in the neighborhood are the only ones needing to get through, why couldn't we do that in this case?

>> that's something that could possibly be discussed with the event organizers, one of the things about pease park is the multitude of areas of access sinlt, also. And -- accessibility, also, whereas over at bowled continue creek, you might want to just -- you can have access male off of barton springs road. You can control it right there. You cannot control what's coming in from the back side. But you can at least control what goes in to the neighborhood. Through those barricades that we utilize during aquafest. It would be different at pease park simply because of the different avenues that are in excision tense out there.

>> Slusher: okay. Mr. Elfant, could you come up for a second.

>> He's left, I can answer the question. Stacy suits.

>> Garcia: let me read into the record the part that was in the addendum, changes and corrections. It says to allow Eeyore's birthday party to be held at pease park on april the 5th, 199, approve the appointment of a working group representing various interests to discuss future Eeyore's birthday party events. In the website that Mr. Sexton sent out or has on the web, it also talk abouts a rain date of saturday may the 2nd. Do you want to include that in the motion? so it will be on april the 25th, in parentheses, rain date, saturday may the 2nd, 1998.

>> Slusher: tell me what kind of security is provided.

>> Constables have area wide jurisdiction.

>> Is someone stationed there?

>> last year we had a road closure, in yesterday's work session I told you there was an issue in the work closure, but we did a road closure kind of like what was done for aquafest over in the boldin creek neighborhood. We closed the street, we issued residents immediately adjacent to the park permits the way we do in the bouldin creek so they could get in and out. We were real pleased with the control over parking and traffic that we h.we blocked off several streets, gave residents access in. Just like at bowled continue creek.

>> Were there constable stations there?

>> right, part of your road closure is you have to have a certified peace officer at these barricades. And we have those officers there.

>> Slusher: are you planning on doing that again?

>> yes.

>> Slusher: okay.

>> We also have a constable roving.

>> Slusher: through the neighborhood. Okay, thanks, Mr. Suits. I think that's all of the -- of my my questions, Mr. Olviras, can I ask you another question. Did that process that he just described, did that improve -- improve thing, did I cut down on the number of incidents in the neighborhood?

>> you would probably have to speak to the neighborhood residents themselves because they are the ones that are calling us and basically they are the ones that are feeling the impact. One of the things that your parks department does is makes a very strong effort to work with the event organizers to get as much security out at the day of the event to make sure that none of these issues do come up. Hoping that the residents are properly served and we -- we didn't hear anything back from the residents, the intention was that they were aware that there was a committee already working on it to relocate or to work on relocating the event. Otherwise you would probably -- I don't know of any other residents who were satisfied with the work that was done. It would have to come from them.

>> Slusher: well, the reason that I asked you, I was wondering if there were an increase or decrease in the official amount of incidents reported?

>> the visual occurrence that we saw is that a tremendous amount of traffic. There's a lot of people coming to the event. That is basically what your staff has been advising you that it's a very popular event, very large for the size of -- the access sibltd that that park -- access yiblt that that park has. That has been the recommendation that your staff has been bringing forward.

>> Slusher: you can't tell me if there was any less activity or traffic in the neighborhood are the of these changes last year.

>> Traffic in the neighborhood was high. There's a lot of traffic in the neighborhood. It's how you handle the traffic, people still go through the neighborhood because different areas that you can access the neighborhood. I don't know exactly who received those permits. I would have to speak to the individual residents that refused those -- received those permits to see if they were satisfied with that.

>> Slusher: thank you, sir. I am going to vote in favor of this, but I would really request that the qons stabls at the event pay even extra attention to going through the -- patrolling the neighborhood so we don't have any more incidents like the one kicking in the door. I realize that, you know, some people just get out of hand no matter what the events, but I take that very seriously, also I will talk to our department about, the police department about providing extra patrols through there. But I am going to vote in favor of this, it's been at pease park a long time. And this is going to put pressure on wherever we put it, I am going to support it staying there.

>> Garcia: further discussion or comments? Councilmember Griffith?

>> Griffith: my xwhent is through the years that it has outgrown this park and then this park and then this park, the present tend continues and apparently it's time to move on to a more appropriate space yet again. So I will be supporting the parks board and the parks staff on this. Having seen no positive change in terms of the quantifiable impacts for over the last several years.

>> Garcia: let me recognize Councilmember Spelman, then Councilmember Griffith.

>> Spelman: I am distressed to find that we aren't keeping track of complaints, we don't know where they are happening, what they are. When we are dealing with an event which has been a problem for a neighborhood for at least the last few years, I think it's really important that we keep track of what really are the complaints, the problems that the neighborhood are incurring. I would edge courage the constables office which is providing security to work closely with the parks department, neighborhood to anticipate what those problems are likely to be and to keep real careful track of what continuing problems there were, if we do this again, we can beef up security, what roads need to be closed, we can actually learning from our mistakes rather than than repeat them over and over again.

>> Goodman: I was going to say a couple of thing that bill just said for me. Yeah, part what was we have to do, if we are going to change the policies or improve the policies for every park in every City, when you talk about visual impact, it has to be more than traffic, we have to have specific so that areas where we do have an event continue to takes place, we know what the mitigation is that has to takes place, too, and what the levels of mitigation or the styles of mitigation are. Ism as I if I know no more this year than I did last year. I don't think that's acceptable. I think we went in with the expectation of working on this, finding out if pease park was not going to be okay to use anymore. We actually went into a pro active stance and found out where and how it could work for Eeyore's, so we are back in the same position. I apologize to the neighborhood because nobody expected to have to do this again. I know it's very painful for you all to have to even think about it. It's also painful for folks who go to Eeyore's for many many years to think about some kind of controversy and catharsis being associated with Eeyore's. The whole situation is unacceptable. We need to really focus, the parks board, the parks staff and whoever we appoint to this about to be very hard working group, so that we come up with answers, some justifiable, visually logical answers. Thanks, Mayor pro tem.

>> Garcia: anybody else? Councilmember Lewis, do you have anything to say?

>> Lewis: no.

>> Garcia: let me just say a couple of words. Number one, I think that Eeyore's, no question about it, is a tradition here in Austin, that's not the issue. But I agree with the parks board and the parks department. The party has gotten too big. I have never attended the party inside because when I drive through there, it's usually very crowded. I think the recommendation to move to waterloo is a good one. And I have difficulty every time this issue comes up every year, I have voted on this several times and I have been told several times that there's going to be a recommendation coming. And there usually is not. I think that the only recommendation that we can really look at is a recommendation of the parks board and the redge addition of the parks department and for that reason as painful as it is to me, you know, to go against an established organization like Eeyore's birthday party, beginning to vote to -- going to vote against this particular item hope that it comes back with a recommendation to go to waterloo. Further discussion?

>> Goodman: one last word. I'm sorry. Waterloo does not work. The way it is now. So although I understand perfectly we needed on look -- to look at something else besides waterloo.

>> Garcia: well, my understanding was waterloo, what I understand from Mr. Olivares that it is a better option. I agree that it probably has problems, but since it doesn't have a neighborhood adjoining it, probably, you know, it's -- I am not asking you to come up, you have been here several times. [Laughter]. I am sure you will be back on another item later on. Further discussion? if not, all in favor. Opposed say no. The motion passes on a vote of 4 to 2 to one with the Mayor recusing himself and absent from this vote. And he's back. Mayor passed 4 to 2 to 1.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, Mayor pro tem. Folk, I have lost my box. Folks you, I have lost my -- folks, I have lost my box. [Laughter]. Okay, folks, let me throw outlet an idea for you. -- Throw out an idea for you. On item no. 37, Which I know a whole lot of you -- wait wait wait wait before you start clapping, you haven't heard the idea.

>> Lewis: can we postpone that?

>> Mayor Watson: here's my proposal, item no. 37 Was not set for a time certain. We have other items that were set for a time certain and frankly ought to be going right now. Here's my proposal. I will tell you that 361 people have signed up to speak, which by the way is a record, including I think annexation hearings. [Applause]

>> Mayor Watson: in the past nine months.

>> Garcia: watch your language on that one. [Laughter].

>> Slusher: not since history began.

>> Mayor Watson: not since the memory, not to the contrary, but certainly in the past nine months. Here's my proposal: first of all, if we -- if we start we can go through 361 people, do the math, 3 minutes each. So here's my proposal: we will go 10 minutes -- 10 people basically per side. And if I can get an agreement that that's what we will do, we will take that item up now. [Applause] wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. If for the, we are going to to the other time certains, we will come back to this item. My question is do you think we can pull that off.

>> Yes!

>> yes!

>> Mayor Watson: how about over here on this side of the room? okay? all right, well we have agreement. [Applause] let's do that. Here's what I would request. What I am going to do purposes of allowing you all, I am assuming that there's been some thought given already to who is going to speak and what sort of presentations are going to be made. Is that true over here?

>> no.

>> Mayor Watson: okay, here's what I am going to suggest. We will go to -- we will take up item no. 56. While we are doing item no. 56, Which isn't going to take very long, if you all will work that out. I am assuming over here you all -- Mr. Bentsen? you know what order you are going to go in?

>> yes.

>> Let's go to item no. 56, Council. These are appointments.

>> Central City entertainment center board, james -- I do need everybody to be quiet, though. James barns,.

>> Mayor?

>> yes, Councilmember Lewis.

>> Don't we need to do item 34 first? mairlt yeah.

>> Mayor Watson:, I will recognize you, Councilmember Lewis.

>> Lewis: I move approval.

>> Mayor Watson: motion has been made to approve item no. 34 By Councilmember Lewis, there is a second? seconded by the Mayor pro tem. It is my understanding that what this would do would still allow for an -- an appointment of some other individuals; is that correct? for two other individuals?

>> Lewis: we have two others. Seven today, it's a nine member board.

>> Mayor Watson: wouldn't preclude anybody from being reappointed as part of those two? okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

>> Aye. Opposed say no., motion carries on item no. 34. That takes us back to item --.

>> Slusher: Mayor, I wanted to announce a visitor we are happy to have here in the office fred sanchez from the city of weslaco, also a cows-in-law of mine.

>> I have to go catch a flight it's been interested. [Laughter].

>> That last item was good. [Laughter].

>> Welcome to Austin. [Laughter]. [One moment please]

>> Mayor Watson: motion is made by the Mayor pro tem to approve item no. 56 As red. Seconded? seconded by Councilmember Lewis. Is there any discussion? hearing none, hearing none, all those in favor say aye.. Hearing none, motion carries. That takes us back to item no. 37. What I will do is I will first recognize those in favor of the resolution and then those opposed to the resolution. We will go for, as I said, 10 people per side. Do I have anybody -- the folks who are in opposition seem to have left.

>> They'll be right back.

>> I figured. I just wanted to make sure they were here before I start. There she is. All right.

>> Garcia: Mayor? I will be making some -- recommending some amendments and if my assistant would distribute what those amendments are, they're all highlighted and these are amendments that were bought brought by people who were interested in the moving of the community -- events to the coliseum. And if my assistant is anywhere within earshot, if he could bring those. He went out to make copies. So dwight, if you could tell him. Thank you, Mayor.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. Mayor pro tem. All right. You have your folks here so we can begin? okay. Good. What we're going to do is we're going to go with those in favor of the resolution first and then those in opposition. Let 10 people speak and 10 people speak and then we'll close that discussion. What I will also do for the record, which take a little bit of time in and of itself is read into the record those people that have signed up and whether they signed up for or against. Mr. Ben son.

>> I would like to announce the order of our speakers.

>> Why don't you come forward. Are they each going to speak for three minutes.

>> Each speaker will speak for three minutes. Charles dugan, matt thu bledsoe. Deferly sigh las, terri erian and myself.

>> Mayor Watson: okay. If you will come forward.

>> We've got one change.

>> We want to add somebody.

>> We've added one speaker. We will make sure she comes up in order.

>> Mayor Watson: I didn't count that, but that's no more than 10, right?

>> nine. Coming in under budget. [Laughter].

>> Mayor Watson: welcome. Ma'am.

>> Thank you. We are really delighted to be before Council today and to have you even consider this issue. We're really looking at the 21st century. We've lived through a century of -- I don't think that was three minutes.

>> Mayor Watson: I don't either. Usually I would say it was. [Laughter]. Can we start over?

>> okay.

>> Mayor Watson: slets see if the green light goes on. There you go.

>> The 21st century is what we are looking for is the heritage that we're going to give to the young people who exist with us today and who are going to be the adults of the 21st century. The question is what's it going to be like? I think it's going to be another century of change. We've lived through a century of change and we'll see even more change. And I want to suggest to you that the debate here today is not about little groups, big groups, users, arts groups, it's about what kind of change do we want because change is going to happen. And it really is up to you to be that forward looking visionary Council that we elected to make that decision with us, not for us. I want to tell you that more people in Austin, Texas now go to performing arts events than go to sports events. That includes u.t. Football. [Applause]. Many of those are the very same persons that now use palmer to do many other things. So we want to serve all these persons in many ways. Right now we face a crisis in terms of our facilities for performing arts. We have relied on the bass concert hall for our major groups, but let me say I represent the Austin circle of theaters. We have 70 producing members and for the most part we sit in followed be chairs. Folding chairs. We like art. We don't find sitting in folding chairs, but we would like the next generation to sit in something like that would be good. I want to tell you that the arts survey court did tell us that we are already at 79% capacity. Maybe that doesn't sound high to you, but generally theaters generally only function at night and only wednesday through sunday nights, so that proportion is extraordinarily high. You may remember that Austin is the largest City without a performing arts facility. So I encourage you to think about palmer as a performing arts center and guess what, I think we're going to have more performing arts for you in the 21st century. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Good afternoon. As a broad way produce irrelevant and as the owner and producer of great tuna, a tuna christmas and the soon to be seen red white and suna I'm in support of the ren nation of palmer auditorium. I have performed from everywhere from the white house to the officer's club at fort hood and I can say without reservation that the people of Austin can have a jewel of a performing arts center. I've studied the plans and I think it's a tremendous idea. In the six years since I moved to Austin I've become increasingly involved in presenting shows other than tuna here. These include last year's production of hello dolly and the productions of the not for profit Austin music ket theater, peter pan, west side story and next month annie. I'm also happy to announce that for the first time we're in the final stages of creating Austin's not for profit residential theater to be called state of Texas artist theater or star theater. A group that will very much support the renovation of palmer auditorium. These efforts that I've been involved with as well as the efforts of other groups in town help to elevate the level of performing arts in Austin and to involve increasing large numbers of audience members, but they all have one need in common and that's need for good performing space and an audience friendly environment. The six perform is spaces proposed will satisfy these needs and they will also continue to satisfy a lot of the needs of many of the current users. Mixes use meaning performing arts use and civic use of the auditorium could create a great environment at the new auditorium. I would be happy to present a christmas show, a tuna christmas or a production of nut cracker while the junior league's christmas affair is happening in the lobby space. I think together those two events would be tremendous. I think the new palmer auditorium would be atrablgt active to touring productions who currently bypass Austin as there's no appropriate space available. From an audience point of view Austin will have a beautiful performing arts center and a great location with an unsure passed view with downtown. I encourage you to approve the resolution that aallow it the auditorium to fulfill the function for which it was built and will carry it in a style into the 21st century. Thank you. Claf. [Applause].

>> Hi. I'm representing bouldin creek neighborhood association, the neighborhood association south. River where palmer is situated. I would like you to nae noe that we voted to support the plan to renovate the auditorium we're looking forward to have an arts center it covers the whole spectrum. We really think it's a wonderful idea. We would like, however, to look at the overall picture. We think it is time to look at the whole palmer 40 acres. It is supposed to be park land, not parking lot land, so we would like to encourage you to consider a parking garage. I know that you cannot pay for that and maybe the City can look into that. We would also like to encourage you to look into the coliseum. Maybe the coliseum could be upgraded to make room for many of the organizations my neighborhood frents that currently use palmer. We do support the upgrade plan and we would like to work with you on the overall picture. Thank you very much. [Applause].

>> Good afternoon. I guess I could call you mother ginger Watson now.

>> Mayor Watson: I prefer you not.

>> Good afternoon. I am 13 years old. I am in the eighth grade. I am also currently in the pre profession not division at ballet Austin academy. I have been taking ballet for three years. I train six days a week for a total of 26 hours a week. You are probably wondering why a boy like myself would want to waste time on ballet, but let me tell you something, balance is not a waste of time. It has given me many attributes. Such as self discipline because in ballet you are taught sieve discipline so you can discipline yourself to learn the combination and steps so you won't fall behind or get injured. Secondly ballet has given me a deeper appreciation for maufk because in ballet you are taught to listen to and understand and follow the music while you're dancing. Once begun so you won't fall behind. I've also found a deeper appreciation for literature because just as if you were reading a story, when you dance you have to get into the role you are reading or the character and you have to act it out. And ballet has given me the motivation to get better grades in school because in my house it's a's or b's or off to the c's and that means no ballet. In the year 2003 I will be 18 years old and dancing with ballet Austin will be a reality, but not unless we have the proper facility. If not I will have to move to a place that does and my grandmother and grandfather and mom don't want for that to happen and I don't want it for it to happen because I love Austin. Many of you know that Austin is known as the live music capital of the world. What goes hand in hand will live music besides singing, dancing, of course. So why not have a place we can do all of these to the best of our ability? many of you probably saw our most recent ballet this weekend. We worked hard on this particular piece and only had three days to perform it at our current place of performing and that's not enough time to show Austin the wonderful music that ballet Austin has to offer. On behalf of myself and the 500 other students at the academy I urge you to support this resolution. [Applause].

>> I won't be 18 in 2003.

>> Which makes this all the more important. But I am the person responsible for the artistic product of the Austin letter rick opera and so you might well imagine that when the discussion began several years ago about the possibility of converting palmer into a performing arts center, my big question is is it possible to have theaters in palmer that are first class in every way. And I mean that from the perspective of the performers and the technicians on stage and in the orchestra pit and in the perspective of the level of enjoyment and quality of experience of the audience. As you know through these last years a series of studies have been launched. Some of the best experts in the world have looked at this building. Our organization's own respected stage technicians have been involved and the resounding answer is yes. All of us here in Austin have thought of Austin as a piece of architecture, but now we know that the very ex-17 trick nature of that building allows the construction of four theaters and two additional venues within the wall of the existing building. The vast space is something like putting ships, building ships inside a bottle. It allows the huge domed roof allows for a wonderful vertical volume, which is one of the most important elements for great aco u.s. Tiycs. All of this in Austin will be going from having no stage performance space like this at all except for the campus to having an array of world class theaters for a price raised entirely from the private sector that will astound the rest of the country. Just imagine, it's evening and all of the spaces are booked by large and small organizations, the crowds are gathering. It's almost curtain time. About 4500 people are converging on this new heart of the City. There's a play happening one space, dance in another and in the next theater there's a choral concert and I want to imagine that an opera is being performed in the big hall. The audience sits in a theater shaped in a traditional horseshoe like the great european houses. We finally found out in the late 20th century that that's the way to have great akous sticks. The curtain goes up and you're surrounded by sound that is more alive and intimate than anything you've ever heard in Austin. And what's more, you can actually see the expressions and the faces of the people on stage. That's because this will be a space that will move away from the oversized theaters of the 70's and '80's and be intimate. We're talking about serveg the thousands, tens of thousands, over a hundred thousand people who attend arts events. I encourage you to move forward. Thanks. [Applause].

>> Hi. Good afternoon. I am proud to be a third generation of dancers in my family. Together with my husband we are principle dancers of ballet Austin and I'll also faculty member of ballet Austin academy, your ballet company. And now I present myself to you, the City Council, representing the dancers of ballet Austin. My reason for being here is in reference to, of course, I am 37, the reconstruction of the palmer auditorium, which is in great need. Why? because as of the year 2003, ballet Austin will no longer be able to use bass concert hall as our theater due to their heavy scheduling and very limited days of availability, et cetera. Due to this problem, ballet Austin and other fine art groups no longer have a theater. After forming a career from the east to the west coast in the United States and europe, I moved to Austin four years ago. I love Austin. One of the things that have struck me most about the City is need and craving for the fine arts. Ballet Austin alone has doubled and tripled its tickets sales in the past three years. People want and need the fine arts. Ballet Austin needs this because it will help provide us with more opportunities, for instance, the dancers contracts are for 32 weeks. After this we have a three-month layoff. However, if we have palmer auditorium, it would give us the possibility to increase our weeks of employment. Because of performances would increase. This would what I do, ladies and gentlemen, dancing is my career. Is what pays my bills supports my child. If I as well as hundreds of artists in this City don't have a performing arts center like the palmer auditorium, how are we supposed to continue -- continue it? it would be very difficult to make a living. There are thousands of students in this City studying some form of fine arts and when they graduate and turn around and look at the City and realize that Austin has nothing to offer them and that there is no support and the only thing left is to leave. Is this our future, my future? so what are we saying, that Austin has no future for the fine arts? for the past 35 years during nut cracker time, ballet Austin performs a nut cracker suite for the aisd schools. Thousands of Austin children witness for the first time in their lives ballet and they love it so much. We also perform for all kinds of charitable organizations.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you very much. [Applause].

>> Good afternoon Council. I appear before you on behalf of the downtown Austin alliance. I'd like to share a resolution with you. Whereas there is an urgent need for additional quality performing arts space in Austin, Texas, a City has home to more than 100 performing arts groups, whereas the fine arts are a major part of Austin's economy according to the Austin american-statesman, contributing an estimated 73 million during the 1996-'97 season. Whereas Austin is the live music capital of the world and the largest City in the united states without a performing arts facility, whereas palmer auditorium was once designed to serve as a performing arts facility and several recent studies found the building is in excellent physical condition. Whereas palmer auditorium can be renovated and modern eyesed at a fraction of the cost that would be necessary to by land and construct a new comparable facility. Whereas palmer auditorium is downtown and reconstruction of palmer auditorium as a performing arts center is compatible with current revitalization efforts of Austin's central business district and was specifically addressed in the september 1997 rudat study. Whereas a community performing arts center should be available to be en joid by all greater Austin citizens, whereas the reconstruction of palmer auditorium is contingent on raising the funds needed for renovation and operation being raised privately with the City of Austin's contribution limited to long-term lease of the buildings and property and such additional contributions as deemed appropriate. Therefore, let it be resolved that the downtown Austin alliance supports the reconstruction of palmer auditorium into a performing arts center as an economic and cultural necessity to the greater Austin community. Adopted this, the 12th day of March, 1998. Thank you. [Applause].

>> What I'd like to do is take you through a very brief history of palmer auditorium. Palmer auditorium was originally called municipal auditorium. The bonds, 2.8 million dollars were approved in july of 1956. The bond authorization was very general. It just said for a municipal auditorium. The auditorium was planned for both exhibition space and as a performing arts theater. In 1972 the City already had come to realize that palmer was inadequate to serve both needs. Mayor butler convened a committee to look into a civic Convention Center on june 8th of '72 that committee issued its very detailed report in which it recommended building an exhibition hall with 225 thousand square feet of space adjacent to palmer auditorium and renovate it for a, quote, first class performing arts theater. In 1986 the City Council adopted an ordinance dedicating the 50 some acres surrounding palmer auditorium as park land. In doing so it recognized that some of the buildings had long-term continued uses and it declared that so long as the intended existing uses of palmer auditorium were continued and deemed appropriate by the City Council that they could remain, they can be enlarged, expanded and/or refurbished and it declared the footprints of those buildings as perpetual use easements. In 1987 the City Council commissioned the Town Lake park comprehensive plan. That plan concluded that whatever renovation was done to the Town Lake area, palmer auditorium ought to be the central focus of that cultural park and that all of the uses ought to be cultural. Last year, 1997, rudat recommended that you look to palmer auditorium for a first class performing arts center and integrate that into the downtown plan. We've come full circle on this, but for the last 40 years this city has recognized palmer auditorium as a civic performing arts theater. We've recognized that it has not always been adequate for that purpose, but we have a tremendous opportunity right now to make it a first class facility. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Mr. Mayor, skoubs, my name is ben crenshawson. I'm vase chair and acting chairman of the greater Austin performing arts center, a nonprofit group organized for the purpose of raising privately the funds to create a multiple venue performing arts center and manage that center on behalf of community arts organizations. Gapaac is the Austin arts and business communities joining together to create a public private partnership for the city of Austin. We come before this Council today to ask your support in our efforts to raise the funds to renovate palmer auditorium and create a performing arts center that will be a proud symbol of the world class City that is Austin. Gapac directly represents the interest of over 40 performing arts organizations and the citizens that attend their performances over half a million times a year. Today the performing arts community is severely constrained by a shortage of performance space and the lack of a community focal point for the performing arts. For over 40 years palmer has been planned as this site for a performing arts center. Today if palmer auditorium can be renovated into a venue of four first class theaters plus meeting rooms and landscaped surface parking. The center will provide low cost, high quality performance spaces for the small mid sized and large community arts groups. Raising privately the funds for renovation will not be easy, however, our volunteers are very enthusiastic about this opportunity for community service and look to the City Council for your commitment which will allow fund-raising activities to begin. Encouraging the arts is a key challenge for Austin. A new performing arts center can serve as a touchston for new donors and for other opportunities in the future. Many organizations use palmer auditorium today, including junior league of Austin, helping hand home for children, the settlement club and other nonprofit community organizations that improve the quality of life in Austin. Some of these organizations will continue to enjoy the facilities of palmer auditorium. Others will not. Gap. Ac has proposed a number of ideas to address the needs of the community organizations and we courage the City Council to consider our ideas to ensure that those needs are addressed. As we discuss item no. 37 Today, please consider that the arts have been a fundamental element of every world civil laition saition and in Austin the performing arts are basic to our community identity. The arts define who we are, our dreams, hopes and aspirations and remain one of the most enduring aspects of our world. We ask you to act today to establish a greater Austin performing arts center that will be a focal point of pride and identity in our community. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson:.

>> We're done. Thank you very much.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you.

>> Would you like me to read the list of our speakers?

>> Mayor Watson: as long as it doesn't go more than 10 you don't need to tell me who you have.

>> I may go over three minutes a smij.

>> Mayor Watson: that's not going to cut it.

>> I am president of the junior league of Austin. The the junior league is a woman wim's nonprofit community organization with more than 1700 active and sustaining members. During its 64 year history in Austin we have made significant contributions to the areas of health and well-being, we have and will continue to support the performing arts in Austin, which are vital to our community. Having to mark a for or against box on a card we lies the complexity of this issue for the junior league. Being faced with the choice of a perceived opposition to the arts versus significantly compromising an event that has far reaching community impact is frankly a bad position. So I would like to make clear our position on the resolution to endorse the retrofit. Our organization is not opposed to the concept of reconstructing palmer auditorium into a performing arts center. We recognize Austin's need for additional performance space and the value to our community of a retrofitted facility completed with private funds. We are, however, opposed to a resolution that secures only half of a winter weather advisory solution. The impact of this decision on the junior league is after the year 2000 we may no longer count on a home for a christmas affair for the size and scope that allows us to earn more than one million dollars. A christmas affair is the league's largest fund-raiser and gives us the bulk of dollars that allows us to support our community giving program. Provisions have indeed been made this this resolution that recognize the needs of current users and we appreciate the efforts of our office to include these provisions. The junior league asked the city Council to take the next step by completing the second half of the win, win solution. After carefully examining the alternative locations for a christmas affair we believe that a rebuilding or renovation of the auditorium is the best solution. It can provide a central location for events that have true value to our citizens, handle Convention Center overflow and bring revenue to the downtown area. It would allow us to raise a comparable level of community dollars through a christmas affair which are so dpretly needed by our community -- displetly needed by our community. When the junior league solicited proposals. We received 94 proposals requesting a total of over two million dollars in funding as well as the services of june where your league volunteers. Although it was impossible to approve all. Proposals, it was commendable that some of the money that these agencies received, their ability to provide needed services to our community is compromised without additional private funding. I'm afraid I'm not going to get to my end, so I'm going to cut it to there. May I finish? the junior league can support the resolution if it includes a commitment to rebuild the coliseum. The junior league is willing to commit its resource to recreating a holiday market event in a new location if the facility's availability is secured and if we determine that the event can raise the funds needed to have a significant community impact. Councilmembers, you have shown that you do have the political will to affect positive change in this community. I urge you to cease the opportunity now to plan for this City's municipal facility's needs. If there is no amendment to this resolution, I ask you to call a public hearing to consider these needs in more depth. As we have witnessed here today, there was an hour spent on moving an eye 70 and we are now at 20 minutes or so, which I really don't think is enough to cover this issue. A new vision for Austin should include both a performing arts center and a civic center for events benefitting all constituents. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Good afternoon. The executive director of safe place, which is a merger of the center for battered women and the Austin rape crisis center. I'm here as a recipient of junior league funding and of their volunteers. The june your league of Austin is one of the best nonprofit agencies in Austin and travis county. This is due in major part to the junior league's christmas affair. In 1997 more than one million dollars was raised by the christmas affair to provide essential funds for some of our most pressing community needs. I am deeply concerned about the loss or decrease of these funds to the community if the unique space requirements of this event are not taken into consideration. As an example, let me tell you what they are doing for safe place. The league is currently in the midst of a $150,000 dollar commitment to save place's building for safe families. This is a campaign to help raise dollars to provide ongoing support and additional shelter and transitional housing for battered women and their children. These are women and children that are going to have the opportunity to rebuild their lives free from the despair and terror of domestic violence. Despite active solicitation on the part of our staff and volunteer leadership, we have only secured two other grants at this level from the Austin community. Austin simply does not have the large foundations and corporations locally that are found in most other major Texas cities. Any absence or decrease in junior league funding would make an already difficult and competitive fund-raising environment even harder. Community services will suffer. Also important to note is that the net loss in dollars to Austin's nonprofit community would actually far exceed the decrease in junior league funding. These local funds are what help leverage additional non-local dollars into our community. Not long ago I visited with the maybe foundation in tulsa, oklahoma and it is absolutely the demonstrate active support of the junior league of Austin that helped us to leverage a 750,000 dollar challenge grant to support services for battered women and children in Austin, Texas. We would not have been able to do that had we not had the support of the junior league. Whatever plan is developed and approved must absolutely leave no room for a decrease or intrumtion in the ee have vents currently held at palmer auditorium. Events that support critical community needs and projects. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Good afternoon. I'm the director of the junior league his upon in this case mother daughter program. The program is a collaborative effort between the junior league of Austin and the u.t. School of social work. The purpose of the program is to increase the representation of hispanic women in higher education. We do this by providing services and resources to college bound hispanic girls beginning in sixth grade and continuing through high school. Services are also provided to their mothers to help facilitate their daughter's success. An interesting point by hispanic mother daughter program is it began as a league generated project, which means they did a community needs assessment, identified a population, researched the models that were out there and came back with an idea of how to base the program. We began in '92 with 38 mother-daughter teams. Currently we serve 30084 mother-daughter teams at eight middle schools, five high schools in the Austin area. Some of the specific services provided to participants include mother-daughter workshops, school meetings, tut tering, a grandmother support group, a parent support group, a summer leadership conference and volunteer communities all at no cost to the participants. Our first group will be graduating in the year 2000. Because of possible negative ramifications of the proposition as it is currently stated, I ask that it not be passed until provisions are made regarding alternate sites beyond the year 2000 to use for organization events such as the christmas affair. Support from the junior loeg is certainly to the continue yaition of programs like hispanic mother daughter program. We provide assistance in the development and implementation of the program. They have also provided financial support through their fund-raising at christmas affair. If the junior league of Austin was unable to continue using palmer auditorium or a comparable site for its christmas affair, many community out reach programs like hispanic mother-daughter program would be affected. Christmas affair is the league's large he evident fund-raising effort and is critical to the support they provide to the community. Provisions addressing alternate sites for long-standing patrons of palmer add torium would go a long way to avoid the negative possibility of reduced services to community. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Hello. I'm president of the helping hand home for children. Helping hand home was founded in 1893 when an abandoned child was found at the railway station and the ladies of Austin decided to care for this child and it began a new tradition of caring for children that were abandoned, neglected and abused. Since 1903 the helping hand society has done just that. We have cared for abandoned, abused and neglected children. Much like the kind of children you have read about in the Austin states man just recently where a child was abused and sexually misused by her own father and had to testify in court about the kind of proceedings that went on in their own family. We do take care of children like that. Our organization has used the coliseum since the 1950s and the auditorium since the '60s to have our event to raise funds for abused and neglected children. It is a rather unglam russ job, not one that you see on the stage or here much about, but we as citizens do help, care and provide for these children such such thas they might be able to be prevented from having to be residing in a prison some day. Palmer has been a civic center for the citizens of Austin since 1958. Today more than 80 groups use this multipurpose facility, keeping palmer rented an average 300 days of the year. Some would have you believe that palmer loses money for the City when in fact many palmer expenses are interdepartmental expenses with the Convention Center. Do our citizens realize that it requires a public hearing to change the name of a street, but does not require any hearing to approve the long-term lease of one dollar per year of the City's 40 million dollar asset, palmer auditorium and adjoining site, converting it to a performing arts center? does the public realize that this resolution makes no provision for current users of palmer? many of whom who are long-term clients of this taxpayer owned building once construction begins? where will these groups such as Citywide garage sale, cat shows, friends of the library, hispanic chamber job fair, junior league of Austin's christmas affair, black caucus and others hold their events? the Convention Center is to book downtown groups to bring business to the City through hotel and other businesses. Last year many groups returned 950,000 to the City in community projects. Helping hand home for children and the settlement club of Austin each raised over 300,000 for their care of abuse and neglected children. It seems only fair that citizens in all groups concerned should be given an opportunity for adequate discussion before a decision of this magazine fa nude is made. I urge you to provide a public hearing for citizens to we maintain a civic center in the Austin area. Please do not regard us as the children.

>> Mayor Watson: ma'am, can I ask you is children? how many square feet do you all use?

>> we use about 60,000 square feet.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you.

>> Mayor and Councilmembers, I learned at the beginning of this Council meeting today that I'm one of the working elderly, so I hope you will be kind. I represent the working people of Austin and for 23, going on 24 years, we are in our 24th year of producing events for the public in Austin. And there are 2,000 exhibiters who exhibit in our events over the course of one year in this city. The auditorium and the coliseum have served as a holder for small business. Many of the businesses that operate out of our facilities are minority and women owned businesses and some of the examples of businesses that have incue baited there are kas va verde florist. They started 23 years ago in the lower level at the plant show. Even russell korman, who we all know, and I don't have permission to use his name, but he was down there on the drag selling and then he moved into the auditorium. And so there is a big benefit to the City of Austin. What I'm here to ask you today is to please, before you pass this resolution -- and we all support the arts in our community. It would be a very sad place without it, but what I would ask you to do is please have someone look into the value of what is going on in palmer and city coliseum because no one has asked that of any of the users of those facilities. I'd like for you to know all of economic impact of all of those events. I would like for you to know all of the people that it serves and I'd love for you to come down to the coliseum and the auditorium this weekend and see the many thousands of Austinites who are having a great time in our public facilities they are public faments. I think there should be a public vote on an issue that is this big. So I agree with the junior league and ask that you allow a public hearing and then bring it to a public vote and let the will of the people prevail. But I couldn't help think, you know, that this would make a great opera. You know, the stories about the traditional, timeless story of the rich and powerful who come in and take over -- I'm sorry, but you've all seen those stories and you all know that we are the working people of Austin. And if we had not --.

>> Mayor Watson: wait a minute.

>> If we had not been in palmer all those years --.

>> Mayor Watson: one second. We're not going to do that.

>> That's okay.

>> Mayor Watson: no, it's not. We're not going to participate in this discussion this way. She has three minutes and we're going to let mer say what she wants to say even if you consider that to be inappropriate you are not to cry out, you're not to call out. Just as you would not want anybody to do that regardless of how passionate you might feel about something and the way you might phrase it. This is obviously an issue that there are great passions that run both ways. There's nobody up here that's going to vote tonight that feels 100% comfortable with whatever decisions they make because so much of the decisions do get made in a vacuum. Giving opportunities to raise money that might displace people and not knowing exactly had you how you might go about addressing those are one of those concerns. Believing you you taught to give people the ability to raise money if they're willing to do is is something you want to try to do, at the same time we recognize the value and very much recognize the value of many of the users of that facility and that's one of the reasons that the resolution speaks in terms of assuring that we look for appropriate alternates. And trust me when I tell you we will look for alternates. But the reason I'm rising up right now is I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that a debate of this significance turned into people blowing rasberries who is talking about. So I would ask you not to do it again and show respect for whoever is speaking, rarld little of whoever is speaking or if you think what they said is inappropriate. You may continue. [Applause].

>> I certainly apologize if I offended you. I just couldn't resist the analogy because I thought it was an appropriate one. I will just finish by saying that over the years we have looked and looked and looked the City over for other venues where we could hold our events because palmer and the coliseum are not always available to s when we need them or want them. When the windham built their building we went out there and had a show in their large space. They want to rent that to people who can fill the entire hotel. So that is not an option. The heritage center was not an option. We've looked high and low and there really aren't any in reason. I wish you the wisdom of sole monday in deciding this, but I implore you to please allow the public to vote on this very public building. And there are lots of passions about it. Thank you very much. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: welcome.

>> I've been an Austin resident since '63 and an antique dealer, an art dealer. --.

>> Mayor Watson: can you hang on one second.

>> I'm an antique and art dealer and have been for the last 25 years. I believe resolution 37 favors and reflects the interest and desires of a small, but very influential segment of our community. It is a disservice to the thousands of Austinites like myself who make a living or make ends meet by renting space there and has abled us to live in Austin for years without travelling around the country. There are tens of thousands that attend every weekend. This facility has been a part of the Austin community for many years and it should be the voters of Austin who decide that we no longer need it as a facility and not a few people. I do not believe any special interest group should be given such favoritism, no matter how vocal or organized they may be. I know of hundreds who share my sentiment who either did not know about this meeting today or could not afford to take off a day from work to come and speak. Unlike the Austin convention center, palmer is what the people in Austin use and we have been using it for many years. I do not believe this proposal reflects the needs or the desires of the vast majority of the Austin community. If the arts league can raise 50 million dollars to renovate palmer, they should surely be able to build their own fa facility and not expect the city of Austin to give them our City auditorium. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Garcia: if you could give the name for the record, please. The witness: my name is rebecca richards. I represent the Austin doll collector's society, which has sponsored an annual show for more than 20 years, most of those at palmer. I'm also a small business owner who participates in several events at palmer each year. Whether or not a performing arts center is desired by a majority of the people of Austin, the question is whether it should be located in palmer auditorium at the expense of a vast variety of groups and organizations that currently use it 300 out of 365 days of the year. Palmer auditorium has for many years been the venue for many events, including shows ranging from doll shows to gun shows and including sammy shows, a christmas affair, cat shows, gentlemen and mineral shows and many more. Thousands of people attend these events. For many small business owners, much of their business is transacted at palmer. Under the resolution the current users of palmer would fwair the burden of finding alternate places. For many it is too large or has insufficient parkinging and for others the locations are just too small. City coliseum is not a viable alternative because most weekends three events occur simultaneously at the coliseum and the upper and lower floors of palmer auditorium. It is threer that two-thirds of weekend events would be without a ren venue. For them the loss of palmer is likely to mean the end of their events. They do not have the money or the clout to build or get another location. I understand the desire of some for a new performing arts center, but I am one of many who wants to see palmer City of Austin continue to be used as it currently is. It is not an abandoned or underused facility. It is not good to take palmer auditorium away from the citizens who now use it. Please find another location for a performing arts center and leave palmer alone. Thank you.

>> I'm president elect of the settlement club that supports the settlement home. The settlement home is a licensed charitable, nonprofit entity. The settlement home provides a quality of care for otherwise homeless, at risk girls from the ages of nine to 17 that encompassing residential treatment to foster home care. Founded in 1916, owned and operated by a group of Austin women active in community affairs, the settlement home has changed through the years to meet the needs of at-risk children. The settlement home provides a safe, healing environment for troubled girls entirely self supported receiving no City funding. For the last 23 years, the settlement club has rented the city coliseum as a location of the club's annual fund-raiser. The fund-raiser, a garage sale, nets over $300,000 that underwrites the operating budget of the home. Should the City Council decide to dedicate palmer auditorium to the arts community or worse, alter the tract around palmer, enforce, current palmer 82 user to the coliseum it is entirely possible that we will lose it for this event. It will diminish the monies needed, the additional garage sale serves to provide items from clothes willing to household goods at low cost to needy families and that would be lost also. We strongly urge the City Council to conduct a public hearing on the wishes and concerns of the citizens of Austin for the uses of the only current civic center, palmer auditorium. Palmer houses a variety of community events enjoyed by our varied citizens. Hours of entertainment reflected in commercial shows, community services provided funds for nonprofit users could easily be sacrificed with the acceptance of the current resolution. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Hi. Mr. Mayor and City Council members, my name is hillary anderson, I'm a member of the junior league of Austin and I am the upcoming chair of a christmas affair 1998. I am proud to be a member of the junior league of Austin. The we provide trained volunteers who give over 70,000 hours of their time to projects and programs in our community that meet a wide array of needs. A christmas affair has become an eggerly anticipated event in our community. This year we celebrate our 53rd anniversary, 22 years of which have been held at palmer auditorium. For anyone in attendance who may not be familiar, it is a holiday market that has evolved into the most successful fund raiding event in the country. This year my fra member committee and myself will give over 15,000 volunteer hours to plan, organize and produce a christmas affair. 30,000 People will attend our event. Hundreds of businesses from across the country are already applying for 175 slots as one of our fer merchants. The revenue realized from the sale of booth space, admissions, ticket sales to our special events, along with our underwriting efforts enabled us to net an unprecedented one million $40,000. The million dollars raised at a christmas affair represents an incredible gift we give to our community and it is a gift that we give without any strings attached. This past year the junior league joined with jack brown cleaners, kvet/kase and kvue in sponsoring coats for kids. Funds from us helped distribute 20,000 coats to children from low income families. The resolution before the Council moving if this from a multipurpose civic center to a performinging arts center seems short cited. It is not about a venue for the arts but the Council's intention to do this without an alternate civic center that had you been in place before one brick at palmer is disturbed. It seems an incredible presumption on the part of the Council and the members of gapac that Austin needs the performing arts center that will serve a relative small number of our community. I am here to spoke to the loss that helps us raise the kind of dollars that we have worked long and hard for our community. Please do not undertake the retrofitting of of palmer auditorium without an alternative in place. Thank you. [Applause].

>> I am a member of the junior league of Austin. And in we counted right, I believe I'm also speaker no. 10.

>> Mayor Watson: that's the way I counted.

>> And first I'd like to say that this is not an issue between the junior league and the arlts. The junior league has always support the the arts groups in our community and there is not a major art group in this community or in this room that we have not provided direct financial support. So we certainly think the arts are vital and important and desirable part of our community and we want them to have a home. And if palmer is to be that home, we support them having that home. And that's why the issue is not between us and the arts because we want them to do what they do. We have worked with these people, we have volunteered with them, we have given money to them and we want them to move forward and have a place to do their performances and grow just as the community as grown. But the issue is between the palmer users and the City Council because it is the City Council who can displace the current users of palmer. But it is also the City Council who can resolve the controversy by providing a civic center that can be used by those current palmer users. And this City Council has provided prided itself in providing sluss and bringing people together on issues and it is very unfortunate that on this issue the City Council is the body that's creating the controversy by addressing only half of the issue without addressing the only issue in a comprehensive fashion. By not first working out a comprehensive solution that would provide a home for the arts and a home for current palmer users to present at today's resolution, the City Council has essentially pitted the interest of nonprofit organizations in our community against one another. And that we find very disappointing and upsetting and that's why we want to make it clear that the junior league does support the arts having the home. And if that's palmer and from eferg we hear, that's the best alternative we have, it's palmer. The truth is, and you've heard it, it's not going to be the junior league that is the loser, it is going to be the people that benefit from what we do. Just as the City Council is interested in providing for the neediest in our community, so is the junior league by providing for safe place, Travis County advocacy center, the children's shelter and others. It is obviously that your homeless initiative shows your interest in it and it doesn't make any sense that this Council wouldn't complete the resolution that it it began and provide for a new facility that we can help and provide for the neediest. I urge you to amend the resolution so it provides a complete solution. It is then one that the junior league can support wholeheartedly. Our community has supported a civic center and a performing arts center for the past 15 years and I don't know why this growing City deserves less than that for its citizens now and I would encourage you to make that -- take that into consideration. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: Mayor pro tem?

>> Garcia: we won't count the applause against your time. My office together with other Council offices has been working and with organizations has been working on some amendments to the proposed resolution. Have you had a chance to look at it?

>> I have.

>> Garcia: does that address the concerns that you have?

>> yes in general that addresses the concerns. We're looking for assurance not that the Council will look for a place as an alternative, but that the Council will assure that it will provide a place as an alternative.

>> Garcia: okay. Thank you.

>> And we believe those amendmented do that.

>> Garcia: thank you very much. Mayor?

>> Mayor Watson: these are all the people we'll have speak. I want to thank everybody for working for that solution. What I promised I would do is I would read through these names. I'm going to try to do this very quickly. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record].

>> Mayor Watson: I'm just reading the cards, Mayor pro tem. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Laughter].

>> Mayor Watson: those are all the people that have signed up to be heard on the issue and I appreciate again that -- the way that you were willing to let us handle that hearing for speed's sake. That brings us to the resolution.

>> How many cards was that?

>> Mayor Watson: 367. Did you count those as I went? you missed the first six. It was 367. [Laughter]. You know, I think I can do better. [Laughter]. Councilmember Spelman, do you wish to be recognized?

>> Spelman: no, I just wanted to know how many names there were. Mayor they're that busy brings us to the resolution. I'll entertain a motion for the resolution. Councilmember Goodman?

>> Goodman: move approval.

>> Garcia: second.

>> Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Spelman to approve the resolution that is in your backup material. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Goodman?

>> Goodman: my motion included the amendments.

>> Mayor Watson: okay. That's good to have that clarity. The resolution that you have in front of you is one that was handed out by the Mayor pro tem as a draft dated today. You've had an opportunity to review that. Councilmember Goodman's motion, as I understand it, was for that resolution. Councilmember Spelman, was that your second?

>> Spelman: no, it was not any second.

>> Mayor Watson: so you withdraw your second. Seconded by the Mayor pro tem. There is a motion and a second on the resolution drafted today. Is there any discussion. Councilmember Slusher?

>> Slusher: yeah, Mayor, I would like to offer a friendly, thank you, Mayor pro tem, -- friendly amendment --.

>> Mayor Watson: he hesitated on that, Mayor pro tem. I'm not sure he was thinking friendly.

>> Slusher: I just want todd show how closely we're working together down on this end. On the Mayor pro tem's amendment no. 3 On page 2 of the resolution that -- where it says to -- on line 4 of that -- let me read that, gapac -- did I say page 2, I thought.

>> Mayor Watson: page 2, item no. 3.

>> Slusher: right. That gapac demonstrated by may 31st 2,000 add at what time private funding and raise in full an amend to be determined by counsel to pay for at least a portion of the cost of reconstructing or building a municipal facility to serve as a multipurpose center and then add that would at a minimum provide a comp rehab bli priced location for uses such as those kurptly using palmer auditorium. And that makes an even longer sentence off a long instance.

>> Mayor Watson: and I didn't get it all. Could you repeat it?

>> Slusher: how about we make it an additional sentence after the end? multipurpose center in addition to the City's long-term use of palmer. This center would, at a minimum provide a comparable priced location for uses such as those currently at palmer auditorium. And all I'm doing is reinforcing the spirit of the Mayor pro tem's amendment. I want to make that clear because my concern is that as we -- as the City booms the economy booms, that we not leave behind some of the lower cost uses and lower cost activities that we have here, and I think palmer auditorium is one of the main outlets of that. And I want to make sure that we don't lose that. And I think the Mayor pro tem has actually done a very good job of working toward that with his amendments and I just add this sentence on to reemphasize and make that more clear.

>> Mayor Watson: let me read this. Item no. 3 On page 2, the gapac demonstrate by may 31. An amount to be determined by counsel to pay for at least a portion of the cost for reconstructing or building a municipal facility to serve as a multipurpose civic center that would, at a minimum, provide a comparable priced location for uses such as those currently at palmer auditorium as a condition of the City's contribution of the long-term use of palmer auditorium. Did that get it?

>> Slusher: yes, Mayor. I had set for clarity you can take it and put it as a sentence after that, but I'll just be quiet and owe on as long as it gets accepted.

>> Mayor Watson: let me ask the Mayor pro tem if he considers that to be a friendly amendment?

>> Garcia: very.

>> Mayor Watson: all right. You were the maker of the second. Maker of the motion was Councilmember Goodman. Would you consider that a friendly amendment?

>> Goodman: I think so.

>> Slusher: is that a yes?

>> Mayor Watson: I'm going to take it as a yes. Is there any further discussion?

>> Spelman: I have a couple of amendments but let me raise one which I think will be perceived as friendly. On page 2 no. 2 That gapc demonstrate adequate private funding raised and collectedded in full for an en do youment and it's been added here in the minimum amount of 10 million dollars capable of generating income sufficient to insurance that the maintenance and expenses for the center will not require the expenditure of City funds. It seems to me that we were specifying this in the original version of the resolution pretty closely. We're saying that you've got to have money big ument and the en do youment and get into the principal, just the income that's off the investment will be enough to ensure that the center can be operated and maintained without the City kicking in more money. And we need to specify that and say we know that five years from now we know it's going to be five million dollars at least seems unnecessary.

>> Garcia: well, that's what they said that was required. Working with the groups we tried to quantify some -- so that we could have an idea so we would just not be in a vacuum like the Mayor was talking about. And that's what the parties dpraed to was appropriate. We worked with as many people as possible to get to that number and that's the reason why I put it in there. It's an effort to quantify something that would provide the revenue stream that's appropriate.

>> Does that number need to be in the resolution in monetary form.

>> Garcia: that's why we put it in the minimum amount. We think that's a floor. We hope that it's more than that so that that center can run not at a minimally acceptable to the community, but we think that that is a floor that needs to be mentioned.

>> I would feel more comfortable if we left that up to the City Manager in his negotiation with the performing arts center group. Would you be willing to have that number be taken out?

>> Garcia: well, in what kind of direction are you going to give the City Manager? he's supposed to determine what?

>> Spelman: to ensure that whatever deal we cut that they have en dowment sufficient to ensure the maintenance and expenses for the center based only on the income and not touching the principal. Fwar r..

>> Garcia: I don't understand your problem with putting an amount there.

>> Spelman: spell I guess my hesitancy is what we're getting a and then on tom of that we're saying and we're also second-guessing the economy and interest rates and what investments are going to produce what and in addition to that we know it's going to be 10 million dollars. And if, for example, they are able to come up with a plan for operating and maintaining that center that doesn't require 10 million dollar en dowment but can be done with an eight or five-million-dollar, we would hik maik that impossible for them.

>> Garcia: that's why I asked the question of the people of parties. And my understanding is that the parties tentatively agreed that this aement was appropriate. That's why we said in the minimum amount. I suspect that if this community continues to have the kind of enthusiasm that we're seeing here for this facility, you know, the paper says there's -- how many millionaires?

>> 20,000.

>> Garcia: 20,000 millionaires in this City?

>> Spelman: thousand?

>> Garcia: that's what the paper reported. And I know some of us have difficulty believing what the paper says. Claf lav. [Laughter]. Laugh.

>> Goodman: what if we said in an estimated minimum amount of 10 million?

>> Garcia: is that what you want to say, an estimated minimum amount?

>> Spelman: I would be very happy with that.

>> That's the same as deleting it.

>> Goodman: I suppose in a way, I mean, how can you be sure that your number is absolutely right. I figured that somebody had some kind of physical basis that they were bringing the number from. But --.

>> Slusher: I'm sorry, Councilmember.

>> Goodman: but you can't be absolutely sure. So if the City Manager is supposed to use some more finite tools to figure out what the number is, I'm not adverse to that either. I just want to vote on it, you know. It's something that everybody can live with.

>> Mayor Watson: the only thing I'll add to that is no. 3 Which has been added, that is an amount to be determined at a later databased upon factors and circumstances that might araise. For example, I could foresee where we might come up with some mechanism for creating an alternative venue that we don't even know about right now that could appear and we could utilize that in a way where we might want to say to gapac, we don't need any money to do this or we can do it some other way. And we leave that to be determined. On this one, on no. 2, We are basically saying that we are not going to enter into an agreement, we're not going to let anybody take over that facility for purposes of performance unless where there's a demonstration that they have sufficient money to run the thing. And we ought to be able to determine that and let the Council determine that at the time we're making that final decision. Because there may be something that we don't even know about right now.

>> Garcia: well, the only thing we amended was the amount. The original resolution said that you wanted enough to cover the operation and maintenance expenses for the center and that would not require expenditure of the city. So in an effort to quantify that particular provision, we said let's look for a number. And the people that we talked to indicated that that might be an appropriate number and we said, you know, we'll just say as a minimum. If it bothers the Council that much, you know, I suspect and if I don't get -- if I don't have the votes that I need to have to pass it, you know, I can always compromise. I've been in too many losing situations lately and I don't want to continue. [Laughter].

>> Mayor Watson: well, Councilmember Spelman, I don't know, but I don't stee z it as a friendly amendment. It doesn't sound friendly to me. Do you wirb to offer it as a motion -- wish to offer it as a motion?

>> Garcia: I'd like to call the representatives of the junior league because I think they've been talking to the people from gapac.

>> Mayor Watson: why don't we ask gapac.

>> Garcia: I want to ask both of them.

>> Mayor Watson: ms. Baker, do you know --.

>> Garcia: gar why don't you come up. And I guess, ben, you can come up. Or whoever has the deep pockets.

>> I guess I was -- I think that number simply was what was reported in the paper or maybe in discussions, but I am not aware of what actually dollar amount it would take to generate that kind of --.

>> Garcia: nobody does.

>> So I guess that number is just simply an estimate on their part. That was the number that I had heard in discussion.

>> Garcia: does it bother you, ben?

>> the 10 million dollar number, Councilmembers, was an initial estimate that was not based on a detailed business plan and for that reason we had proposed language that put it upon the City Manager's office to get fully the details of the bts plan once its completed, which includes detailed sumses for schedule, rental rates and so forth. There's a big swing in terms of how much rental rates are charged, what the schedule is. It could be ee row zero, it could be 20 million dollars. And that's a number yet to be determined.

>> Garcia: I don't think it's going to be zero. It's going to be something.

>> It is unlikely to be zero. That's true.

>> Garcia: let me mention another aspect here. Thank you, ben. Actually, in a it says negotiate and by bring back to the City Council for approval. That we added as an amendment. When are you going to bring this back to us and would you be able, City Manager, to bryan amount at that time?

>> it's my understanding that the request was for us to bring something back in september or thereabouts. And we can have as part of the negotiation what we think would be an adequate en doument so that no City founds would be spent for operating and maintenance.

>> Garcia: my recommendation is when you come you have that amount fixed better than just saying it's going to cover it. We need to know. I need to know what that amount is. So can you do that by september? what is this en doument going to be so that the City isn't out any costs?

>> I understand.

>> Garcia: I'll just scratch the whole thing and I think Councilmember Slusher is correct. If we put an estimated minimum if that basically -- but I would the want to add somewhere in this no. 2 That the City Manager will bring to us an estimated amount -- an amount -- a minimum amount that would be required for the en doument. Are those the magic words?

>> Mayor Watson: I want to -- what I understand, and I'm going to ask Councilmember Goodman as the maker of the motion if she will accept that as a friendly amendment so that it say --.

>> Garcia: where I scratched in the minimum amount of 10 million, in an amount to be reported to the City Council by the City Manager before we execute this contract.

>> Goodman: well, I think it kind of seize says that already. If we don't change anything besides dpleeting the minimum amount of 10 million an en dowment capable of generating income sufficient. And since we've given the City manager direction and told him we need that number in september, doesn't it say ha we need it to say?

>> Garcia: I'd like to know what that number is so that we can test the assumptions. That's why I'm adding that. In an amount that the City manager will determine before we sign a contract.

>> Mayor Watson: how about this, Mayor pro tem? go ahead and leave no. 2 The way it is deleting the comma after the word en dowment and taking out the words in the minimum amount of 10 million dollars at the end of that sentence with the word funds in that last heine line and put a period and put that the city should report to the Council a minimum amount by september 30, 1998.

>> Garcia: okay. Mr. Benson, I would like to ask a question about item no. 3 That has been added and ask you your impression of that from the standpoint of the ability to raise the funds to create this performing arts center.

>> Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, we would consider a vote on a resolution with item no. 3 To be the same as a no vote as on the original resolution as proposed. A perform is arts center is a community need. It is a need that a group of individuals, volunteers have formed together to raise privately the funds for renovation so that a community need is not a burden in the long list of projects that need to be done in this community. The renovation of palmer auditorium is required anyway. This is not a brand -- this is not a brand new building that we're talking about changing its use. It's not in compliance with ada standards. There's 240 thousand square feet under cover in palmer auditorium of which 60,000 square feet is used today as a commercial exhibit hall. That's not an efficient use of community asset. This organization has come forward to bring the private sector to bear to help solve a community problem. We do not believe that funds for the renovation of palmer auditorium can be raised privately with the language in no. Approximate approximate today -- 3 today. There is a need for commercial exhibition space, more space than exists in palmer auditorium. There is 60,000 square feet used today. The needs in the community are much larger than that. It takes roughly 18 months to build a new commercial exhibition space. We're talking about 30 months before we'd actually move fard to start the renovation on palmer, so we believe there is time to address that need. But with the language that's in no. Three today, we would not move forward with fund-raising. [One moment, please]

>> we have to do both things if we are to serve the needs of the community in their totally. You know?

>> and we agree.

>> Right. That's all that I am saying on this one.

>> Mayor Watson: let me approach that and see if I can't -- I come at it just a little bit different than the way you phrased it. I don't see this as a gift of public property to a group. Instead, I see this as a gift of $50 million to the public from the private sector. We need a performing arts center. That's one of our -- I think that's one of the things that the community needs in a list of things that we need. We also need space for civic activity. So we have those two needs. One of those needs is going to be addressed by a group -- hopefully -- potentially -- by a group of people coming to us as representatives of the citizens and saying, instead of you addressing that need by coming up with the money in some other way, we will raise for you $50 million. So I don't see it as a gift that way. I see it as a gift coming the other way. The question, to get to your result, is are we committed here tonight as part of the willingness, if we are willing, to say, all right, you need a king contend or an egg to be able to raise the money, we will give you both, here's a chicken, here's an egg, you figure it out, go raise the money, are we prepared to commit tonight to do something more with the b part of this resolution on page 3, which currently says that we want the City Manager to identify potential alternate locations. I guess the stronger statement would be that we would commit to finding some mechanism for alternates. In other words, at the same time we accept the opportunity to get $50 million from the private sector for public use, say, all right, we are going to do that, but we are also going to chomp at the bit and find an alternative use. I frankly think it's going to be real difficult to raise $50 million. And if in the -- if we create as a condition of acceptance of that gift to us, that they also have to raise for the second need we have, I don't think we get either. I think we are left with -- with the current situation and I don't think we maximize our possibilities. So I think that's the real question. And that's what I would encourage us to look at is if that's the problem, that's your concern, then maybe we need to strengthen b and make the determination here tonight whether or not we are willing to commit to creating an alternate site and making it part of our downtown and biting the bullet and coming up with the doe that would do that.

>> -- The dough that would do it.

>> Garcia: I don't make it a habit to argue with good defense -- I mean good lawyers, not being one myself. But -- and I agree with you that there is a gift being made or proposed of $50 million. But there's also a gift going the other way. This facility belongs to the people of Austin, they paid it out of general funds. And we are providing it to -- dedicating it to a special group of people to the detriment of other people. And what I am saying is where do the benefits flow? who gets what? how do we make this one in which the -- in which the chicks -- economics make sense. To me it makes sense if we don't displace somebody to benefit other people. That's where I am coming from, I think there is some displacement. If you think b does it, I find b to be a little bit short of the target. And that's why -- in a 3, we said for at least a portion. Okay? we didn't say the whole thing. But there is -- there is some need on the part of the people that are going to get this particular facility that was paid by all of the people of this community because that's -- this was not bed tax money that paid for this, to be -- to take -- to take care of that particular displacement, so to speak, that's what I am trying to address. I don't particularly like the idea of saying if you put this you are basically -- we are basically going to back off the table and we are going to let you go, because that sends to me a message that either we get what we want or we ain't playing. I don't like that.

>> Well, except that they are talking about $50 million or so. I mean, it's not as though they are saying just give us something for a small amount of money. I hear exactly what you are saying, that's why I am suggesting that perhaps the question is not if are going to create, you are going to help us create as a City a cultural asset and the way that you are going to help us do that is by putting $50 million -- that is for the entire community. That is not just for a select group of people. That is the entire community. And many, many people will enjoy that and they won't be able to enjoy that in my estimation for some time to come if they are totally reliant upon the City of Austin to come up with the kind of money necessary to either renovate or build a new performing arts center. So the sit sdins of this community gain great things by this offer. But I am very concerned about the displacement. I am particularly concerned about it in the context of not for profit entities that do give greatly to this community. So what I am suggesting is instead of saying to somebody that is to go try to raise $50 million to help us with that part of it, that you also have to do additional and we don't tell you how much that is right now, instead we leave that real vague and we will tell you about that down the road, what I would suggest we do is let's decide tonight whether or not we want to bite the bullet on a greater commitment. I frankly, as I sit here right now, looking down the barrel for two years and trying to figure out whether or not we are going to do it, I am a little concerned about building a new facility and then if the $50 million is not raised, we have a new facility, we have the old facility, too. But ... We ought to be in a position to decide whether or not we are willing to make the commitment as part of the vote on the resolution. That would mean fixing b in some way.

>> Goodman: I'm sorry, Mayor, are you saying we should put something in here about the city is committed to providing the alternative --.

>> Mayor Watson: what I am suggesting is if the Mayor pro tem's concern is that there needs to be an alternate location before he's willing to say that parmer is going to be a performing arts center, if that is what he is saying --.

>> Garcia: I'm saying two things, that's the first thing that I am saying. The second thing that I am saying is if in essence we are transferring value, then the people who are receiving value need to help us in the relocation of the displaced individual, that's all that I am saying. That that formula, you know, the City Manager could work it out. Instead of us saying, well, we are moving you out of the parmer, the City will have to fund everything, all of the costs that are associated with providing a replacement. I am saying when we transfer this asset that we have, I understand your argument about the gift that they are giving, I am not challenging that. I am saying what are they doing to help us help the displaced individuals? and you mentioned the non-profit organizations, those non-profit organizations do a lot of good in this community.

>> Mayor Watson: absolutely.

>> Garcia: I wouldn't want them, you know, not just from the point of view of the dollars, but the point of view of the volunteers, I don't want to discourage them in any way, shape or form, I don't think these people do, either.

>> Mayor Watson: I don't either.

>> Mr. Mayor, can I be recognized?

>> sure.

>> Councilmember Garcia made a point about transfer of value, just to make sure that we are all on the same page. We have estimated that the costs of a new civic center with exhibition space similar to what is used, enjoyed by the parmer users today would vos in the vicinity of $4 million. We have estimated that the cost of renovations plus an endowment for operating expenses for parmer auditorium would be in the vicinity of $50 million. We believe -- we agree that there must be a solution for the current users. However, a resolution which burdens the private sector with an unspecified requirement will not be something that donors would even consider. Particularly given that in some of the cases the current users were talking about commercial interests and donors would not step forward with their hard earned money to say that I am going to build a place of business for other people. And that's -- that's a fundamental issue that we are working with here.

>> Mayor Watson:

>> Slusher: yes, Mayor, I support a performing arts center and I -- obviously the $50 million, if it's collected would be a gift to City. Also the citizens of Austin would be given a gift in providing parmer auditorium for the performing arts center. The Mayor pro tem is right about displacement. I was hoping that this resolution or amendment that he had would win support because I thought it was a good way to get everyone on board, pushing for the performing arts center. Pushing for a replacement. Trying to find a replacement for these things. I think they are all important, the symphony, the ballet, opera, I don't go to the opera a whole lot myself, I also don't go to the cat show, but I don't want to displace the cat show, quilt show, record shows, any of that stuff, either. So I think there would be displacement in this. Maybe this isn't quite ready yet. I would hate to walk out of here today with a split on how we are moving forward without a commitment to -- that we are going to find a way to find an affordable venue for the type of activities that are in there now, especially the non-profits. I will just leave it at that for the moment.

>> Mayor Watson: Councilmember Goodman?

>> Goodman: I don't know that I am necessarily wedded to the language that the that the Mayor pro tem had, but I do understand what he was trying to get to and I thought it worked as an indication that we are all going forward together because there is a displacement. That's a fact. It's a very important displacement. Without some kind of alternative consideration that we can go forward on at the same time as we are looking at the performing arts center, then we really have totally displaced without any consideration a pretty important part of our social health and human services community activities in town. Not to mention the fun things like collector shows and cat shows. Things like that. So I thought that whether or not it needed to be as specific as it is, that it was the kind of thing that we could then use as an indicator of everybody's buy-in. The arts supporters and advocates in our community are pretty influential, pretty dynamic people. When you all go after something, you eventually get it. That same energy, I thought, would make a good overflow into making sure that we get the alternative space and facility that we need for everything else because it's a -- it's not exactly a pair, it's two pieces of one dynamic here, the coliseum and the auditorium tomorrow, that's why I thought that that particular amendment might find favor. If there is other language that gets the buy-in without being these particular words, then that's I think what we are after.

>> Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: Mr. Bentsen, let me ask a question of you, sir.

>> Griffith: Mayor, may I offer some wording in a moment.

>> Mayor Watson: hang on one second. Mayor pro tem have you seen the language that's been put in front of you?

>> Garcia: yes, I have. I just got it. I guess it's general in nature. When we talk about the City's committed, you know, we are the only ones that are making a commitment to it and, you know, that was the thing that I was trying to address. But I am committed to the proposition that we need to have a civic -- just like I am committed to have the arts venue, I am also committed to providing an appropriate, adequate, multi purpose civic facility which for use consistent with what we currently have at parmer, I would like the resolution -- like the amendment reads. I don't know exactly what that means, but I am sure we will define it between now and september 30th.

>> Mayor Watson: Councilmember Griffith.

>> .

>> Griffith: Mayor, there are a couple of pieces of information that I think would be helpful for us in these deliberations, the real estate folks are here right now, I don't know if they are here or not, but I would like to know what parmer auditorium would appraise for. How much value is in that piece of real estate right now? and what's the basis that the city has in it? what's the appreciation been since '58 since it opened and how much would it cost in dallas to provide an appropriate, adequate facility to replace it. Do we have that information, could we get it?

>> Mayor Watson: I don't know. I guess -- my guess is we don't have it here tonight. Since we are talking about a renovation of a facility and not a sale.

>> You would have to get that. It not available, it's a public use, it hasn't been appraised for anything else like highest and best use. We would have to undertake that.

>> Griffith: could we get that? how long would it take? I am trying to figure out the value. The Mayor pro tem has pointed out that there is value moving around. I am trying to get at exactly how much and in which direction. It's really based on the Mayor pro tem's question.

>> I think that the value that Mayor pro tem is going after is replacement value, that's a different type of value than you would come up with through an appraisal process. We can estimate the replacement value because to find an alternative venue for the displaced entities to go through, we can go through that exercise of fining out what the options are, putting a cost on each of those options, that is your replacement cost.

>> Griffith: also there is value in the piece of property as it is right now.

>> Which I think is a different question however than what Mayor pro tem is going after with what is the cost of the City coming one a comable facility for those people being displaced.

>> Garcia: no, jim, that's not what I am looking for. What I am looking for is in response to the Mayor's comments that people were giving us a gift of $50 million, I said, well, that's true they are giving us $50 million to the community. But there's also something being given by the City because a facility that's being used for a specific purpose is changing by the very nature of this particular transaction. The question is -- it could be that the value is determined by finding another place to put the -- the uses that we have at parmer currently. That may be one value. You know, I suspect that if you send an appraiser there, you talk about some of the things that Mr. Benson is talking about, non-compliance with a.d.a., whatever, you could find that the building may not be worth that much. But it obviously is worth something because they want it. Right? [laughter] so -- that is -- that is the issue that I am looking for. It's not a value that you can find easily. Because if they were to go out and build something like parmer from the ground up and finding land where that land is, it's going to cost much more than $50 million.

>> Mayor Watson: Mr. Benson?

>> could we see in the architect tech is still in chambers? architect is still in chambers, I would like to suggest that the Council might want to recognize him, the professional architect who worked on the design con accept for parmer auditorium and has examined some of the questions that are discussed about the value and amenity ies in that building.

>> Mayor Watson: Council do you wish to hear that? all right.

>> I did actually sign one of the cards.

>> The interpret just sent me a card saying she's the interpret who had the pleasure of signing all 367 names I so rapidly rattled off. [Applause] she makes a couple of other comments that I won't read. [Laughter].

>> If I could, I would like to spare Mr. Smith some future pain in trying to deal with this question in relative value because we have really struggled with it, too. I would like to say in response to Mr. Garcia is the reason that we are interested in that building is because the value in it, as far as we are concerned, is the part of it that isn't being utilized at all, the stage house, dressing rooms, tremendous structures of it. In short much of the 234,000 square feet are not being utilized when they are not being used as flat floor exhibition space. Those are the most expensive components of theater construction, which make it possible to cut 50% out of the cost of building a new theater complex. Of course the land value. I am not sure how that could be assessed. We have struggled also in terms of private sector in trying to figure out how to establish a cost. In fact we have discussed this very issue among ourselves, what is the value of the building presently. There are two ways to look at it. The way we look at it is there that -- that there is the potential value of a $100 million performing arts center locked up in that building. However if you were looking at it in strictly real estate terms, you would have to look at the depreciation value of the building after 40 years of wear and tear. And what really could be utilized in the thing besides just the exhibition spaces. It will be a very difficult thing to compare in terms of apples and oranges to establish a value. I think that's why this is such a very difficult question to everybody to deal with. -- For everything to deal with. The cost of the exhibition space is something, also, very different because an exhibition building, which would satisfy the needs of the present users, at least as we understand them, is a -- a much less expensive proposition, a much less expensive kind of building to build. Of course there is also the question of the land cost of it. But the two things are wildly unequal with each other. The cost of a new performing arts facility on the scale of what's contemplated for parmer auditorium would be about $500 a square foot. The cost for a new exhibition facility would be $120 at most, perhaps a square foot. It all depends on the way one looks at it. But I think it's going to be very difficult to sort of weigh the tradeoff in those things.

>> Mayor Watson: Mayor pro tem let me try something, see what you think about it. The language that was laid in front of us about the City being committed to providing by January 1, 2001 an appropriate adequate multi purpose civic facility with the use that is consistent with the use currently made of parmer auditorium, the words centrally located being put in there, what I hear you saying is -- I do hear the two things that you are saying, you and I disagree a little bit on what -- I don't see us giving something to anybody but the whole public and that's different. I -- granted it has a corner use, but when you change that use -- current use, when you change that use to a first class performing arts center that this City doesn't own and have, I see that as something for the entire public that frankly we would never have the opportunity to have that kind of money right now with some of our current needs done otherwise. Let's set that aside for a second. The other thing that I think we can deal with, which is are we at the same time willing to make a commitment that we will between now and whatever is the time deadline, back it up from 2001, say that we also need a civic center in this community, we need a performing arts center, I think there's general agreement about that, there may be different levels of desire for it, but in addition we need a civic center. For my money, parmer auditorium ain't that great of a civic center, even. But we ought to give some thought to what we do in terms of the civic center. So to try to bring this to some conclusion, my recommendation would be that you delete the item no. 3 On page 2, that requires those who are going to have to raise tens of millions of dollars to also commit that they will do -- do something in addition, and let's decide whether tonight the City Council is prepared to make a commitment on behalf of its citizens that it's going to provide both a performing arts center if the money can be raised and going to be prepared to provide a civic center of equal use.

>> Garcia: let me respond to that because if we are going to provide a civic center, I don't think this Council is going to make that decision. I think that that's something that the voters would have to vote because you are talking about money here. You are talking about having to go to -- to the taxpayers of this community and ask them if they want to approve money for a civic center. Whereas this transaction does not require that. And that other transaction could be turned down. What I am looking for is a way to do this in a matter --.

>> Mayor Watson: but if the other action was turned down, it would be the citizens then saying they didn't want that civic center.

>> Garcia: well, but that may be so, but they may also say, you already had one but you gave it away, you know. [Laughter] why people decide on how they vote and what the arguments are made during the discussion is something that we can't predict. That's what I am trying to get to is how can we do it in such a way that we take care of everybody in the manner that is appropriate.

>> Lewis: on this language here, I guess there was one that -- the author, his name is the only one on the sheet anyway. But centrally located, I don't -- what is meant by centrally located?

>> Mayor Watson: I'm not sure we have got to that point. I'm not sure that is making that far anyway. Probably the coliseum. We probably would be doing something at the coliseum.

>> Lewis: the reason I say that is the people that use it, all of them come to so -- have to come there from someplace. Is it in the downtown area or, you know, I mean, the City owns a number of buildings that we don't use. That's at least 60,000 square feet. I don't see a big problem in providing some -- another space that at -- at least the size of 60,000 square feet. So ... But the centrally located language is what's -- what I don't understand.

>> Mayor Watson: can I ask you a question?

>> yes.

>> Mayor Watson: if we were to change page 2, take out item no. 3, Put language that is -- that the City is committed to providing by January 1, 2001 an appropriate, adequate multi multipurpose civic facility which is centrally located, we may have to ultimately define what centrally located it, but I think we are probably talking about as near downtown as we can get, for use, consistent with use currently made of parmer auditorium, with the understanding that what that may mean is going to a vote, would that be -- and in fact it probably does unless there's something special happens that we currently don't know about, would that be language that the junior league and others that are opposed to the resolution as it was originally worded support?

>> yes. The junior league could wholeheartedly support this language. If I may ask, just to clarify, what would require this to go to a public vote as opposed to to --.

>> Mayor Watson: you would have to have some bonds. That's the thing. A few of us up here are ready to write that check. Few of us are.

>> Would it be possible to help pay for this facility with the bed tax funds that have been used to help defray that deficit?

>> Mayor Watson: if the City today were to pass that language, it would strike me that we would have committed to try to find any way we could to do that. But what I am asking you is if the only way we can figure to do that is through the passage of bonds, and an effort is made in that regard, is that still language that you would be supportive of?

>> I think so, I think, yes, I think that's -- yes. [Applause]

>> we would like the arts community support the bond vote since we are supporting theirs. [Applause]

>> Mayor Watson: folks, we have several hearings tonight. It's going to be a long night. [Laughter]. So if -- Councilmember Lewis?

>> Lewis: let me just say one thing. We are saying that the arts group is going to raise $50 million. We don't know if they are going to raise $50 million by January 2001. But let's say it comes up to the middle of twou and it's an indication that -- 2000 an indication that they are not going to raise a significant amount of money to start the operation. I would hate for the City to be committed to building another facility, I mean, we could say that we are going to build it and in conjunction with the construction, renovation of parmer auditorium.

>> Mayor Watson: the difficulty there is somebody is displaced for a period of time. We have a bad chicken and egg problem here. That's -- with my -- that was my reason for originally wanting to only say that we would work to identify a potential at -- to identify potential alternates. I am not hearing that that is a completely supported item. I understand why it's not, but there's a difficulty in --.

>> Lewis: they can always use the Council chambers for a year.

>> Mayor Watson: I'm not sure anybody wants to ever come back here, Councilmember. We probably ought to wrap up the discussion and vote on something. Mayor pro tem?

>> Garcia: there's a motion on the floor and I think that I seconded the motion.

>> Mayor Watson: you did.

>> Garcia: I am going to withdraw that second. I would like to make another motion to postpone this item for two weeks. There's too many questions, not enough answers. [Applause]

>> Mayor Watson: motion he's withdrawn his second, let me ask if.

>> Slusher: I will second it.

>> Mayor Watson: the second that I was asking for to see if there was a second to Councilmember Goodman's motion since he withdrew his second, there is a second. All right, Councilmember Slusher is seconding a motion to postpone item no. 37 Until -- for two weeks, which would be March 26th. The motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye., opposed say no.

>> No.

>> Councilmember Goodman voted no; is that correct? the Mayor and Councilmember Spelman. So a vote of 4 to 3 the motion passes. Item no. 37 Will be reposted for March 26th. Thank you all very much for being here. Please be in touch. [Laughter]. [Applause]

>> I will entertain a motion to recess for 10 minutes. Motion made by Councilmember Goodman, seconded by Councilmember Slusher to recess for 10 minutes, all in favor, opposed say no., motion carries, we are in recess until 6:45. Everybody, can I get your attention one more time, please?!! well done. Can I get your attention, please?!! we have an amazing amount of business to conduct tonight. If you would please in deference to the other citizens that are here on matters, move as rapidly as you can out of the Council chambers if you are not planning on staying, we would appreciate it. We are in recess until 6:45. And I would like to be able to start promptly at that time. (Council is in recess to 6:45) (Council is in recess). <~-- Recess 2 -->

recess until 6:45

>> Mayor Watson: I call the Austin City Council back to order. If I can please have your attention. Could everybody please get quiet? so that you will know how we are going to proceed? we are going to go in the order of times certain. Item no. 13 Will be the next item we take up. Then we will take up item no. 31, Then item no. 39, Those will be the order we go in. Then we will come back to the other items we have on the Council. So I will call up item no. 123. Frgs -- item no. 13. I will call up item no. 13. I misspoke, we will do item no. 13, Then we will do the one consent zoning item, item no. 38, Then we will go to the 31 and then 39. The item no. 38 Ought to take about that long (snap).

>> What about 23?

>> Mayor Watson: item no. 23 Is not set for a time certain, we will come back to that after we have completed the ones that have been set for time certain.

>> Could you postpone it.

>> Mayor Watson: I don't know, we will see how late tonight gets. On item no. 13, The way I would like to proceed, unless I hear dissent from the Council, is treat the one side as the applicant, give them a five minute opportunity to make a presentation, and then I will call on those who are in opposition and ask them to come forward and state their opposition and allow a rebuttal if it's necessary. We have just so that everybody is here knows and it not your fault, but we have already had a very lengthy day with a number of items. And we have a very lengthy night ahead of us. I just indicated two -- three other items that are set for time certain. And we have business beyond that. So those of you who are speaking on these items, unless you feel like you are saying something particularly unique and it's just never been heard before, [laughter], or something that we just wouldn't be able to survive without hearing, I ask you to try to avoid being repetitive. I will be happy to indicate your position in opposition, I would also appreciate and I know the people that are sitting here waiting for other hearings would appreciate the lack of repetitive comments. Is that for me? with that, I will ask Mr. Carpenter to begin.

>> Slusher: Mayor, could I say something first information is the long awaited, some people think not long enough h.e. Brodie tract hearing which is a piece of property right adjacent to the barton creek greenbelt down at 360, lamar and ben white. Where that comes together. I became involved in this case about 14 months ago, maybe even longer than that. When I was just sitting at home and I -- flipping through the dials on the tv and I guess that's sort of what I get from watching tv. I have cut back on my tv watching since then. But what I saw was a hearing at the Planning Commission on the site, alteration of the site plan for a development that had around almost 60% impervious cover on the edge of barton creek, a very large apartment complex, 2356 units, I believe, -- 356 units, I believe, five, 5-story office buildings, a four lane extension of westgate from where it dead end north of ben white to curve across the tract and come out down on 360. I was really frankly sort of horrified and I called the developers repetitive and asked -- representative and asked them if they would be willing to talk about purchasing the tract or downsizing it. Councilmember Griffith got involved in that, with us, and first we talked about purchasing, but the -- decided that the -- at the time the fund weren't there. And that we shouldn't just pick this one tract and buy it without considering the need of the whole City or without having the whole City decide on it. So then we switched to talking about downsizing it and Mr. Carpenter is going to speak in a minute, he has been very cooperative, I think very public spirited in offering various plans to take down the size of it to where he gave up a whole apartment complex an one of the office buildings and has now agreed to comply entirely with the save our springs ordinance, which is the ordinance for the area that we have for many years trying to get developers to voluntarily comply with. We would also have 60 acres put into a permanent conservation easement and a donation of $30,000 to the Austin parks foundation to maintain that. And the road wouldn't happen, it would just be a two lane road into the bottom of the tract. Still, the neighborhood and a lot of the environmental community still don't want this built there, even though it complies with s.o.s. And I understand that. For one thing, the neighborhood has suffered greatly under the current zoning granted back in the 1980's, but not just from that in this tract, but it's been by all of the highway construction and changes, there's really been sort of isolatedded there on that tract. So I understand that. I understand their concerns, I understand the environmental community, the users of the barton creek greenbelt that don't want anything there. But, of course, the only alternative, I think when someone comes in at -- and voluntarily s.o.s. Would be to purchase it. That's something that I would still be willing to consider, but I think we also have to seriously consider, I would recommend passage of this plan tonight. But would want to hear from the public.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, Councilmember. Mr. Carpenter.

>> That gives me a big leg up on my five minutes. [Laughter]. My name is art carpenter.

>> Mayor Watson: remember what I said about repetitive comments. [Laughter].

>> I will do my best to for the do that. My name is art carpenter, the Austin regional partner for jpi Texas development. We have our southwestern regional office located here in Austin, we employ about 200 people. We are here today to request approval of a proposal that we have been working on with members of the City Council for over 14 months, which will bring the h.e. Brodie tract from the currently approved zoning site plan with 67%, down to 15% impervious cover, bringing it in strict compliance with the s.o.s. Water quality ordinance. The h.e. Brodie tract is an 8 acre tract of land located on the south side of loop 360 between mopac and 290. Their zoning site plan for the property containing 639,000 square feet of office space, 356 multi family units and a four lane divided roadway was approved in 1986. Since January of 1997, we have been in possession of all of the necessary permits to develop that tract. As -- as Councilmember Slusher pointed out, we were contact understand January of '97 by his office and initiated discussions to try to identify additionally a method to acquire the property, when in about june of this past year it became clear that at least at that moment the City was not interested in buying the property. We parted ways. I went back and took a lot of what I had learned in the permitting process, a lot of the thinking that we had done, realized that we could -- that there was a method by which we could take the approved zoning site plan and bring it into compliance with the s.o.s. Ordinance. What makes that possible is basically the swapping of major infra straukt -- infrastructure through the site development area. The current premise is to take the property into -- into strict compliance with interpretation of the s.o.s. Ordinance to provide 60 acres of conservation easement, which will provide an extension to the barton creek greenbelt and to provide a -- an endowment for the maintenance, ongoing maintenance of that property. It's come to our attention that the City of Austin may again be interested in acquiring the brodie site. In the event that this proposal is approved, we are willing to work with the City to make this possible and as evidence of our willingness, we are prepared to offer the city of Austin an option to purchase the property. The terms of such an option will feed to be worked out and we are prepared to meet with city representatives at their earliest convenience to work on this proposal. In summary, we request that you support the proposal we have all worked so hard to create, which will bring h.e. Brodie into compliance with s.o.s.. And will result in the 60 acres of parkland going to the city. We request that the City Council take action on this proposal tonight in order to realize the benefit of the hard work that we have all done during the past 14 months and in addition as we have already stated we are prepared to work with the City of Austin to make a sale possible if the City determines that an accusation is in the best -- acquisition is in the best interests of its citizens, thank you very much for your consideration on this complex issue. [Applause]

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Carpenter. I will now call on the people -- we have 16 people signed up to speak in opposition. Again, let me please ask you to limb your comments -- limb your comments. If there's no need to repeat -- limit your comments. If there's no need to repeat, unless it's something that you don't believe we will get from anybody but you, I would ask that you let us know your opposition. An grew albrecht. -- Andrew albrecht.

>> Can you see this?

>> Mayor Watson: put it over here. There's another easel right here in case that one is not wide enough. Will that fit? that works. Thank you.

>> Is that better? good evening, I'm andrew albrecht. I am the vice-president of the barton view neighborhood association. I want to begin by showing Council this and I recall photograph that includes the brodie tract. It very clearly places the tract in perspective can barton creek green bell, barton springs and the rest of the City, it is plainly evident from this paragraph the real -- photograph the real importance of this tract. I would like to quote Mr. Carpenter that the best possible use would be to leave it entirely undeveloped. If barton creek and barton springs are truly the most important natural resource that's we have, they should be treated that way. It would be hard to find a more valuable tract along the greenbelt and in the watershed for purchase and cover vision. The aquifer is fully exposed here. The rifts on the property feed directly to the creek and barton springs, it is home to wildlife, including endangered species of animals and plant, a place of archaeological importance. The basis of these facts alone the sites purchase has great merit. But more importantly, upon examining the opportunity costs in letting it be developed, the argument to conserve it becomes even more compelling, 60 foot buildings, 700 feet from the center of the creek at the top of the hill will loom over the greenbelt ruining its aesthetic value forever. Many thousands more car trips a day would spill noise pollution and traffic cord to the epa the most environmentally sensitive traffic area in the whole of the barton creek watershed. Barton creek has been my neighbor for the past seven years, I have been a firsthand witness to its continued degradation -- deg agree addition. I am aware that it suffers and it will surely get worse unless we intervene. We have a responsible developer who is willing to sell the tract. It would be catastrophically short sighted did allow this opportunity to slip through the City's fingers only to be replaced by what many consider to be another brass coffin nail from the creek and spings visible to the whole City. This is a unique ecosystem that has taken hundreds of thousands of years to create and I have every reason to fear it will be undone in less than a generation. One that would even allow the land to pay for itself. Surely from all of the resources available, including a bond issue we can find a way to accomplish something that would be far superior to degrading our ecosystem, our finest public park, ruining a neighborhood, creating more noise and a traffic nightmare. I once again ask that the Council find a way to conserve the tract. Thank you very much. [Applause]

>> thank you, sandy gonzales. Sandy gonzales.

>> I wanted to give a few reasons why I am opposed to building behind our neighborhood and I am not going to mention how it will ruin the safe cubbyhole that is our neighborhood or how we have already surrounded on three sides by 290, mopac and 360. Or even how property values will go down. All of that not withstanding, there are many environmental reasons to not build here, but to keep this site in its natural state. We are talking about office buildings that will be seen from the greenbelt trail. I ask you now what attracts people to Austin. Aside from the substantial economic and financial opportunities, there are three main things that make Austin so well loved. They are the music, the water, and the green space such as zilker park, Town Lake, auditorium shores and the greenbelt. People who enjoy what Austin has to offer treasure those things and we beg of you not to destroy that. I would ask that the City find some way to stop the ruin nation of this green space. The environmental impact is enormous, we are talking about increasing the traffic on this part of 360 by maybe 6,000 considers a day. This is right upstream from our creek. This area is already so congested that this proposal becomes ridiculous. The taxpayers will have to get ready to -- to again foot the bill on new road construction. In has to be a better way for the City to acquire this land. I understand that jpi has certain rights. But we all have those, don't we? as a parent, I have the right to raise my son as a nazi skinheaded bigot, but that doesn't make it morally right. Sometimes what is legally right and what is morally right is two different things. In the word of my father, you may have certain rights, but they cease to exist when they begin to infringe on my rights. I would ask that jpi be magnamious enough to work out a solution, I appreciate they have scaled down their plans, but if they could find it in their hearts to do more, it's not like they don't have more money than I will ever see in 10 life sometimes. When is it enough? on a final note, I would like to say that the people elected to this board last year were elected on what I called the green ticket. Our neighborhood alone had signs in nearly every yard. People who vote the green ticket do so for one reason only and it's because we feel that you hold the environment in highest regard. Please do not make us regret that choice. We have rights, also, as do our children. They have the right to a future with a clean environment and a clean water. For Austin's future and the future of our children, I implore you do not ruin this site, do not ruin the aquifer, do not ruin the greenbelt. There are things here that will be lost forever, things that we will never be able to recover. I think that Austin is environmentally conscientious enough to take a lesson from the iraguay, think of how your actions will affect the next seven generations, thank you. [Applause]

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, mary around. Mary Arnold. Mary signed up in opposition. Bill bunch. Mr. Bunch will be followed by cora quinn, ms. Quinn if you are intended to speak, make your way toward the podium so we won't lose any time. Thank you, Mr. Bunch.

>> Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council, I have lots of thanks headed out your way this week, that's a different three minutes. There's been a lot of really hard work put into this. We really appreciate that, especially on behalf of Councilmember Slusher and Griffith, also jpi, nevertheless there's still very important misunderstandings and serious problems that -- with the proposal that's on the table. First of all, I think procedurely there's a serious problem. The first being that this item is not properly posted. This is really an amendment to s.o.s.. The way this is -- this ordinance is Written, I guess it's not intended based on the comments, this would not require them to comply with s.o.s.. But in fact it would allow them three additional years to continue violating s.o.s.. So it clearly needs to be reWritten, there's serious misunderstanding here. In addition to the posting problem, the way this is Written, you are amending a zoning site plan. That is a zoning action that requires that you go to Planning Commission first. This has not been to planning commission. On the history of the project, there's a couple of -- of key information that you need to start -- the analysis from. First is that the original zoning was wholly inappropriate. The scale of this project, both in its previous form and in this form is not appropriate. And you shouldn't accept that zoning, you have the power to change that zoningment and you should seriously consider that. The second historical element that you should be aware of is that jpi purchased the site in 1994 for $1.4 million. In '96, they received $3 million for a type knee fraction of the development, 8 acres, plus damage to the remainder. That means they have already been compensated for reduced development potential on the site. And, yet, they are going forward with the project that's not really down sized, it's merely upsized. The foot print has been shung, but it's still a massively -- shrunk, it's still massiving enormous development for this site. Please do not approve this site in a way that damages the neighborhood, seriously damages the barton creek greenbelt for miles upstream and miles downstream. The sore thumb factor on this proposal cannot be overstated. You will see these buildings from all over Austin because of the high prominent building. Finally, the traffic issue is very serious (beep) I gave you the exert from the fish and while life service document that addresses the traffic hazard.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, ms. Quinn. [Applause] [one moment please]

>> I know there's a problem as far as your being able to seeing this. They are small photos and they are a distance away. But I have ab stwlabtd the distance is of each of those photos and if you all can hear me.

>> Mayor Watson: there's a microphone right there. You see that? you just pointed at it. If you will pick up that, we will be able to hear you.

>> Okay. Is there some way I can explain this also?

>> Mayor Watson: yes, ma'am, we have another ease sell right here. There is one right there too. Whichever one.

>> Okay. I believe the saying a picture is it a thousand words or 10,000? I think that these pretty much speak for themselves. Before I go into that, though, I will say that there on cupid drive there was a perception that the cupid drive people were relatively isolated and you might say rather alone in our cause as far as the no development whatsoever concept we were given good advice, legal advice that we needed to get support of the neighborhood as far as our opposition. Last saturday, we canvassed 120 homes in the neighborhood and from that about a third of the people were not at home on a saturday morning. But from that canvas, we got close to 80 proxies as far as opposing the development is concerned. Our -- the people on cupid drive have lived there for decades. We built and moved into our home 28 years ago. When we did so, the nashes, the longs and the crawford families were already there. We have a deep commitment to this property. The view isn't spectacular. We're on top of the plateau. We're surrounded by the forest the wilderness. The herds of deer are prominent. They do wander into our neighborhood, herds of them at times. If this development was built, Mr. Carpenter, those deer would have no place to go. They would die. So far there have been excellent speakers. They've covered so much ground I had intended to say something about that I -- but I am going to forego that. I'm going to interject something very personal because of that. You said not to say anything to add unless it was really something different. This is something different, and I can end up looking a little foolish but that's okay I had three german grandparents, but I had one cherokee indian grandmother. This area has a soul. You can't go out on that tract without feeling there is something special there. It's not like -- it's not like a lot of other pieces of property. It has a feeling similar to what enchanted rock does in fredericksburg. You go to the enchanted rock and you feel something is there. You go down the tract, this is the top of the tract here. Pictures no. 13 And 16 are the abstract. Up there, there are rocks and plants that are unique to the area. You traverse across the top, you go down the trail, and it takes some effort to do it. My son and I took these 14 pictures, it took us three hours to do it and we just scratched the surface. You go across a tract, you go down the trail, you are at the greenbelt, you are at barton creek. Native americans lived of live there, you can feel it. I understand that right past the mopac crossing where the greenbelt would lead into, I found that out this morning, there is an indian burial ground. You can see areas where you know that there were encamp ments. My sorntion who is an avid environmentalist and ecology has found (beep) remains of campgrounds down there.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you very much.

>> You are welcome. Is that six minutes?

>> Mayor Watson: that's your six minutes. [Laughter].

>> Would you please look at the abstract.

>> Mayor Watson: yes, ma'am.

>> We'll leave this for you if you want to look at it later, but it's irreplaceable property.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you very much.

>> You are welcome. Again, let me say for what it's worth that if you are following someone and please, if you can limit your time, I would appreciate it. Mr. Quinn. A. J. Quinn.

>> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the City Council. Mayor. I hope it's going to be a good evening. That was my wife that was just speaking. We've been married 42 years. Excuse me if I tend to get a little emotional. I don't intend to, but I got to say this. We originally moved to Austin simply because as a child in middle school, we had a outing from -- we were both born and raise understand san antonio. We had a outing to come to Austin to see the capitol. And all the good sights, the university and everything else and the one thing that struck in my mind was barton springs and the surrounding green area. Never been to a City that had as much natural beauty and Austin at this time still has it. We need to retain as much of that natural beauty so that people that are coming in in herd and droves to clutter our area, which is great, Austin is a great City, it will be greater in the future, but we got to look ahead to that future. Now, god makes little green apples. He made you, he made my wife, my children, we raised a family there. But little green apples are expendable. People are not. Animals are not necessarily. Neither is the natural beauty that he made. He, she or it, whatever your faith may be or not. He made something that can never be replaced simply because it's a one of a kind thing. However, simply due to him giving us the ability to build things in an area that really shouldn't have anything built on it, if you want to go from from a practical as speblgt, the height of the thing, the type of ground it's in, it weeps, it seeps, it's nothing but limestone, you are sitting right on top of the aquifer and as it is, after the anything was constructed there I wouldn't want to go up in any of those buildings. Who knows, you could always have -- we're sitting on fault lines all over the place. I've got holes in my property where I could stick a garden hose and run it for six hours and it will never bubble up.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, sir.

>> Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: we appreciate you being here tonight. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: John long.

>> Mayor Watson, Councilmembers I'll make this as brief as possible. You've heard a lot of compelling reasons. I want to get two things in the record. I'll pass them in. I'm a member of the cupid drive coalition. I was raised there, we had purchased a house in southwest Austin, as a boy I was raise $on cupid drive. We spent numerous summers in the creek. I still remember the first fish I caught. I remember the first time we went to the creek. My most memorable experience is my first time of seeing folks down at the creek, that was when clothing was optional back in the 70's. [Laughter]. As a young boy that made quite an impression. [Laughter].

>> Mayor Watson: see, folks, this is unique testimony. [Laughter].

>> What I would say is in carrying on and being brief, Councilmember slucher, thank you for working on this project. The 86 project was horrible. You all have done and made great strides to try to correct it. What we would say is the property is such a jewel that we really need to look at preserving it. It has some very unique features which have already been addressed. It has some concerns that go wit, traffic concerns, pollution concerns into the creek, the fishers in the jpi trangt directly in charge of barton creek. You can walk right into it and get into the creek and what I would say, the citizens of Austin as they drive mopac, they are not going to see the 15% s.o.s. Foot pront. What they are going to see, they are going to see the big office buildings on the hill. And in the words of Councilmember Lewis what I'm going to say the decisions we make tonight are going to effect us to a certain degree, but more over they are going to effect my four year old son who goes with me to the creek on weekends and the children of Austin are going to have to live with the decisions we make. What we would ask is that the Council, if something has to be built there, build it in a like harmony with our neighborhood, with the creek, residential, large acre residential. The other thing I was say is we would really like to push to see if there is some type of win win situation for all and the folks on cupid drive would work hard for some type of corporate acquisition funding to turn this into a park land or preserve. Thank you for your time.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: ellen long. The darrin crawford here? Mr. Crawford --

>> I pass my time to her.

>> Mayor Watson: I just wanted the make sure you were here. Ms. Long, if you need it, you will have up to six minutes.

>> I'm ellen long and I live on cupid drive directly in front of the brodie tract. I've lived there for the past 30 years nine months. My reason for not supporting this development is not an attack or an assault on Mr. Carpenter or jpi. On the contrary, jefferson properties, incorporated builds and maintains some of the most beautiful apartment communities in Austin. I've visited many of them. I'm very impressed. Jpi is good for Austin and Austin has been good to jpi. I am concerned with this proposed development because it will greatly add ver sayerly affect the quality of life for the neighborhood, the precious little animals, I'm concerned with water pollution. It will impact barton creek and barton springs and other pollution issues. Air pollution, noise pollution and the lighting pollution. The tranquility of our neighborhood has already been greatly disturbed because we are just wedged in, we are just there with all of the whizzing and all you can hear is just noise, noise, noise from the three major roads. Can you imagine the air pollution flowing into our neighborhood from 1400 cars coming in and out of a two-story -- or a six or seven story parking garages, two of them twice a day? we have three senior citizens in our neighborhood over 90 years of age that are in failing health. We also have a nursing home in our neighborhood that will be impacted by all the pollution. Barton creek and barton springs is our crown jewel. Let's protect it and examine our options. Many years ago my family and the nash family, we went to hays county and bought 50 acres. Some of you may remember this. A pipeline from alaska wanted to move crude oil from alaska to houston to the refinery. They came out, our land was right dead in center of the project. They offered us money, but you know, we could have legally taken that money, but money was not an option because we were on top of the aquifer and a break in the pipeline that was moving hot crude oil, they have to heat it to -- to 110 degrees or so, that was not an option for us. We said no, we joined forces with other landowners in the hill country and Austin, with the legislators and you know what, that project got cancelled. For the good of Austin and Texas and so I was proud to be a part of that. Well, I've marked out so much of my speech, I'm just going to say off the cuff, Mr. Carpenter, we hope that you will go back to your partners and offer them some options that has been offered here tonight and if, by chance this project does not get built and barton creek and barton springs our crown jewel is protected, hey, we will erect the biggest sign you've ever seen that says jpi protects. For all Austin to see. And-.

>> Mayor Watson: but not on this tract, right? [laughter].

>> But Councilmember Slusher, we'll just erect a big sign that says the City Council protects, call them and thank them and we'll put John long's phone number on it. [Laughter]. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, ma'am. Jean wilkins. Mr. Beers, do you wish to speak or show yourself in opposition?

>> I wish to speak.

>> Mayor Watson: would you please go ahead and make your way to the microphone.

>> I live on nancy gale which is a street away from the proposed development. This has been my residence for the past the 1 years. I've seen a lot of changes. As a neighborhood we have been work to go move the jpi development farther away from our homes while not increasing the height of the buildings to the requested inappropriate height of 78 feet. The Council is to be applauded for their work in bringing jpi to voluntary compliance of s.o.s. And special thanks to Councilmember Slusher dpor his work. Water quality is vital but not the only issue here. Many bart view neighbors have pushed for the preservation of this property. Anyone who has driven across the mopac bridge over bart yeek find it unimaginable this area could be destroyed. Let me go into a preef history of the variances on this tract. In the height of the proposed buildings depending on which variance was being asked for, range in height between 60 foot and 200 foot set back from the neighborhood, 78 feet high in buildings with a 375 foot setback and other proposals. Mr. Carpenter visited our neighborhood on February 8th and offered an improved plan of 65 foot buildings set back to 375 feet from our neighborhood. The neighbors were not given the opportunity to discuss the revised plan before it was withdrawn lirt r prior to the February 9 adjustment meeting. The take it or leave it proposition unfortunately set back negotiations as there was no time provided for the neighbors and a democratic process to moves towards consensus. I'm glad we're getting past this type of negotiations. We are facing a fork in the road where we can died to preserve what is irreplaceable to kmournt and important to all of our lives or we can let this opportunity slip away and lose the wooded cliffs, harm the creek and aquifer and detract from area's beauty and what makes this Austin instead of houston. People care about this area and would like to see it preserved rather than adding to Austin traffic and air pollution problems. Our neighborhood would be completely surrounded by high rises and highways greatly diminishing the quality of life. Neighbors would be breathing fumes off of garages. This is addition much like theodore roosevelt made with the help of his friend John moore. Preserving territory in line for commercial development for the sake of prosperity. There have been times in our american history when government officials with the forethought to make a stand for the future made the right thois choice. Please preserve this land for Austin's tomorrow.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you very much. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: Mr. Beers. Steve portnoy. Ee thank you for the tuchblt to speak, Mayor. Boy, tonight we real hi a view of the growing pains we're all going through here with folks in the southeast mad about a trailer park and folks in the northwest divided over the dell campus. I guess no matter what do you, you are always gooding to make somebody mad. Nevertheless, I'm dismayed at this premature settlement bus I honestly think we have a unique chance at a win win here. The developers has been offered many ways to gain most or all of the value they seek and yet down size this development or eliminate it all together. I would ask you to postpone action tonight or at least not finalize action because we only knew this morning about this 4:00 time certain. Of course we're after 4:00 now. But I think this issue is important enough to a diverse public, the environmentalists, the residents of the downstream neighborhood, bart hills neighborhood association their homes lose a lot of value if the creek and springs are lost. There is the 200,000 people that swim in barton springs every year and there is probably half a million, I would say, that have used the greenbelt through a year, and I think that these are a lot of people to be affected by a project of this scale. I have some concerns about the ordinance itself I would like to share with you. One is, it says here the owner is not required to construct westgate boulevard. Well, that's good, but it does not definitively rule out the City building westgate boulevard, it just says the developer doesn't have to pay for it if you do. It says a building set back of not less than 200 feet. Well, the developer already offered 375 feet, so I would think it would be acceptable to him. We also have -- I also have questions here about waiving water and waste water capital recovery fees. Seems reasonable to refund fees already paid on a downsized project, but here we're talking about future fees and excusing them altogether. So I don't understand that. I don't know if you guys do either. I don't know how long you've had to study this thing. But I think that also I'm told that no traffic study has been done yet about the amount of delay the seconds of delay that will be caused by the 6,000 additional car trips dumping on to loop 360 there at that light. And whether or not that will mean a very expensive construction of an overpass there to avoid delays that will clot traffic on three ways, mopac, 360 and 290. So I think the strategic location in this, the proximity of the parties involved to having a good settlement within our grasp, I think this is premature because (beep) you are going to under mine the incentive to bargain further to acquire the tract if you pass this.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, sir. Dick Kellerman.

>> He's gone.

>> He signed up against. We are losing valuable natural property on the greenbelt. Karen ascot. Ingrid mortgage ton. Is she here? you don't wish to speak, you wish to be shown in opposition?

>> I want to give andrew my time.

>> Mayor Watson: I don't have a card for anybody named andrew. Oh, okay. You have already spoken.

>> Well, there's another issue. I'm not being repetitive.

>> Mayor Watson: well, I'll explain the rules to you in just a second. Go ahead.

>> Good evening. My name is karen as krochlt t, I'm the conservation chair for is sierra club of Austin representing approximately 5,000 members. I would first like to say thank you very much Mr. Kaerp ter and Councilmembers Griffith and Slusher for the hard work you have done on this already. We recognize you spent a lot of time and effort. The neighbors have already stated the environmental case about as well as I could, the endangered species, the uniqueness of the tract, the proximity to the springs and creek. We do oppose the ordinance as it stands. I believe you have probably all seen the joint statement from January 20th issued by save our springs alliance, sierra club and the barton springs yabd association which basically urges an exclusion which will protect the neighborhood, the aquifer, the creek as well as the greenbelt. And barring this to scale back the project. Just the other day we received notification from the president of the barton hills horseshoe bend neighborhood association saying that they also supported our joint resolution from January. 247 Members supported it. Only 40 opposed it. These are the neighbors downstream who would be very negatively affected if anything happens to the creek. Sierra club also recently reaffirmed we see three possible solutions to this case t first being to shrink the development to three stories which would be more compatible with all of the surrounding developments. For instance, the office buildings directly across loop 360 which are only three stories. Secondly, perhaps the option of moving the entire development down to the intersection of 290, which is is 71, and 360 so it's closer to the roads, closer to other commercial dofrments and it would provide access off two major roads rather than only one. And thirdly, our most preferred option is obviously some kind of negotiated third party acquisition for conservation. Please realize this is not an isolated case. It should be viewed in the context of the entire City and whatever master plan we do or don't have. On a half mile stretch of creek, there would be over two million square feet of development which are now either under construction, proposed or -- or proposed, including this one. I think we're systemicly destroying our green spaces and creeks without realizing it one step at a time. And I would say we can't see the forest for the trees because we look at one development at a time but in this case we can't see the trees for the office buildings and the fra six to eight thousand cars on day on that road. Please think about and especially consider the third party acquisition option suggested by andrew with methods that may, as he suggests, maybe the land pay for itself. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. [Applause]. Mr. Haulbrek, if toument come forward. Typically if someone donates time it's taken to time someonist speaking.

>> I'm sorry. I want to address specifically the ordinance. Gi ten 1996 planning commission approval that inden toured a plan not currently compatible under 1998 zoning we would like to include some of the following things. We were promised by the Planning Commission a fully undisturbed 200 foot buffer, not the 150 as it appears on letter m. We would also like to have put in this that construction work space ajays stont the buffer would be replan with landscapinging before construction. We would like a wrautd iron or equivalent six foot fence system separating the commercial office development from our neighborhood. We would like a restating of 132607-2 from the code that states exterior lighting illuminating the second floor is prohibited and we would like to provide for sdreen screening of the parking garage lighting on the facades facing the neighborhood. Previously these were acceptable to the developer and I think they would be as well currently. Thank you.

>> Slusher: do you have those in writing?

>> yes. I faxed them to our oofs. Did you not get them?

>> Slusher: I guess I didn't. We have them on tape. Let me ask you, you said on the letter m --

>> I believe tonight's the ordinance letter.

>> Slusher: that's the one about the lift station.

>> Excuse me. Regarding the 150 foot buffer. When we were at the planning commission in 96 one of the few things the planning commission agreed to as I recall was a fully undisturbed 200 foot buffer. I may be in error but I don't think so. And if that is the case, we would like that honored.

>> Slusher: it does have a 200 foot buffer.

>> Well, it has a 200 foot buffer but which 50 foot was allowed to be disturbed for construction purposes, but at the Planning Commission we were told that a fully 200 foot undisturbed buffer was going to be acceptable. So --.

>> Slusher: I believe we're just going to pass this on first reading.

>> Mayor Watson: patrick larson do you wish to speak or being shown in opposition.

>> Opposition.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. Robert donely, do you wish to speak or be shown in opposition?

>> speak.

>> Mayor Watson: all right. Please come forward. Welcome.

>> Thank you, Mayor, Council. My name is Robert donely, I'm a member h. Member of the east Town Lake neighborhood citizens association and as the Council has always been on the same side or the same page as with all the neighborhoods and if anyone is aware of the dangers and what really can happen, to negative effects of placing things in neighborhoods by City governments in the past, we have suffered through all of those things and we seem -- we have seen the results of that and we have always been on the side of the neighborhood, and I only urge all of you the City Council to listen to the neighborhood and I think that most of you all, when you were running for City Council, made that vow, that you would side, that you would be with the neighborhoods, and because this is something that -- like not only for this neighborhood but for all neighborhoods, I believe that the neighborhood is the one that really knows what they want and what they need in the individual needs and I think that it would be behoove these people, the City Council to listen to that because in the future that in case of something -- something that bad may happen because of the decision that you made whether it will come back to haunt you. And this is why I believe that the best Council is the Council of the neighborhood and I urge you to follow what the neighborhood said. Thank you very much.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. Mr. Donely, hold on. Councilmember Slusher has a question.

>> Slusher: so the neighborhood position is pretty clear that they want the tract per chased so am I to take you would favor the City purchasing this tract?

>> well, I am with whatever the neighborhood wants. What they are comfortable with the decision they make I think is the decision you should follow.

>> Slusher: that would be purchase since every one of the neighborhood folks have called for us to purchase the property.

>> Well, I'm not -- I'm just saying I'm not in a position to make that kind of decision. But I just say that I believe in -- very trongly believe that whatever it is that the -- if that's what the neighborhood wants, I think that this is -- you should follow as closely as you can to whatever it is that they want.

>> Slusher: thank you. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: those are allist people signed up to speak with regard to item 13. I will entertain a motion on the substantive portion of item 13.

>> Slusher: I proof approval on first reading. I think we have a clarify phing amendment to read.

>> Ms. Terry, why don't you read that and I'll call for a second.

>> Add a provision to page 3 of six in the ordinance to subsection l and it would be l-4 and it would read as follows: runnoff from the proposed project shall be managed through water quality controls and onsite pollution prevention and asimulation techniques so that no increases occur in the expected average annual logdz for the 13 parameters described in section 13-7-36.4 of the City code. We have just drafted this and what we will do is is that we will come back with an ordinance which reflects the objective of this amendment and this language.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. Before I call for a second, I forgot to give rebuttal time so whoever wants to give rebuttal.

>> Thank, Mayor, I'll be very brief. We agree with much of what's been said this evening. We hope that the Council will focus on the big picture. This is reduction in impervious cover from 15% to -- 57% to 15%. Elimination of 356 multi-family units. The amount of office squire footage is being reduced. Did overall square footage of buildings to be built is being reduce understand half. Jpi has negotiated in good faith for the last 14 months. I remind the Council jpi has held construction permits on the entire 14 months. They could go start construction tomorrow if they wanted to. As a further gesture of good faith, Mr. Carpenter has offered to negotiate an option for the City to purchase this property. We would ask the City this evening to show your good faith that you approve this plan on first reading, if that's appropriate. So that we can move forward and it would represent a responsible fallback position in the event the acquisition ultimately does in the take place. We appreciate the leadership of Councilmember Slusher and Griffith and bringing us to this point this evening and we -- it's been a very unique experience getting from where we were 14 months ago to where we are tonight. We truly believe this is a very responsible plan. And again, Mr. Carpenter is willing to negotiate an option for the City to acquire the property, but if that does not take place, this would represent a very responsible plan going forward. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. I'll entertain a second. Motion made by Councilmember Slusher, secretaried by Councilmember.

>> Griffith: it to approved the ordinance on first reading. Discussion?

>> Slusher: I would like to foint out a few things. There were a number of questions raised tonight and we'll address all those in between -- the gap between the first and third reading. I would like to hit on a few of them. The "-the road being abandoned is being allowed to be counted as in the net site area to calculate the impervious cover and I think that's appropriate because it was going to be a four-lane road, now it's going to remain unpaved while territory -- wild territory. So I think that's appropriate to be able to include that in the impervious cover. Also I think it's appropriate to waive the water waste water capital recovery fees because you have a developer doing something voluntarily that is in the City's interest and is a policy that citizens of Austin by a two to one majority have called for the developers to follow an ordinance in which most of the environmental community for many years called on develop tors voluntary comply with, that being the s.o.s. Soared ordinance. So I think those two things are appropriate. I wanted to address also the point about putting the buildings up at the top of the hill. That's something we explored during the 14 months and something that I was in favor of until I found out that a fault line on the property that drains the springs is below those -- the top of the hill, but it would be above where the buildings would be under this plan on the table tonight. So aesthetically the plan on the table tonight is going to be worse, would be worse than having the buildings up on top of the hill, but water quality-wise, having them down further is better. As far as to rushing this on, well, first of all it's only being approved on first reading, but second -- I think it's a little bit of a stretch to say it's something we've been working on for 14 months is being rushed. And there's been a lot of folks think everyone here has been involved in that for a number of months anyway, if not the whole 14. And basically what we have here tonight, we have three choices. One would be to keep the current approval and do nothing and under which jpi would have the permits to go out and start building tomorrow at the 57%, the apartment complex, office towers, the four-lane road through the property. The second choice would be to approve this agreement where they voluntarily come under s.o.s.. The third is to buy the property. And I don't think -- we cannot do that tonight, but we are going to take Mr. Carpenter up on his offer to negotiate to purchase the property. And before I will agree to it or the rest of the Council I believe would agree to it, it's going to have to be a good deal for the citizens of Austin. I think the move that makes the most sense tonight is to approve this on first reading.

>> Mayor Watson: is there any further discussion?

>> Lewis: I had some questions I would like to have answered before the next reading and that's one, the amount of the fees to be waived, amount of the reason fees to be waived, and the other one is the amount or some range of purchase price that they negotiate if they -- if we could get -- if the negotiations were complete prior to the next time we -- it comes to Council. So by that you could deduct the amount that -- waive the fees minus what you paid for it would actually give you what the City is losing or paying for the property.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. Let me just say by way of discussion that I think the whole City owes a real debt of gratitude to Councilmembers Slusher and Griffith for the amount of work that was put into this. I also want to thank Mr. Carpenter and jpi. I really think this is the kind of thing the citizens ask us to do and these two Councilmembers and jpi and Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Armbruster have washed hard to get us to a much better result and I agree with Councilmember Slusher when he outlines the three potentials, but to have someone with the level of rights that they had coming down and voluntarily agreeing to comply with s.o.s. Is something we should all be very proud of and I want to personally thank the Councilmembers that were involved in that. Is there any further discussion?

>> Goodman:.

>> And thanks to both of you from me tochlt have I a mechanical question. The negotiation of an option to purchase, could I ask how that fits-is that part of our motion, it can't be part of the ordinance obviously, but so is direction given because either a Councilmember has asked that it be pursued or a property owner is amenable to --.

>> Mayor Watson: let me discuss say as part of that that as we're all away, tp Council is in the process -- aware, the Council is in the process of looking at a bond election in may that would involve doing fairly scientific determination of whaert quality and things of that nature and I would think that unless I hear some dissent, an expression of the will of the City Council, the City Manager would be to look and see if this fits within the scientific matrix we're trying to put together as part of our efforts to do what we're trying to do on behalf of the citizens in that regard. I think that would cover us. Does anybody have any --.

>> Goodman: the reason I asked is there are several sites around down in different water sthaedz are almost identical strategicly with this one, and so I'm wondering about the mechanics because we're going the talk about another one of those places very soon tonight so I wondered if we wanted to pursue or to research the same sort of option that we have here, how would I mechanically be able to introduce it into the later case.

>> Mayor Watson: I think you just need to tell this guy.

>> Goodman: okay. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: with that, motion been made and seconded to approve the ordinance on first reading only. Any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. That takes us to item no. 378. I'll recognize misglascow. -- Item 38. I'll recognize ms. Glascow.

>> Excuse me. Alice glascow --.

>> Garcia: folks --.

>> Mayor Watson: hey, everybody. Mayor pro tem an are both talking at the same time just like everybody else. We got other business to conduct. If you could please be quiet as you leave the room. Thank you. Start again, ms. Glascow.

>> Item 38 is our 4:38 zoning case. Item no. 38 I'm going to offer this item as a consent item this. Case is located 1001 land creek cove and the request is from single family two to lo which stands for limited office t planning commission recommendation to you was to grant limited office with a conditional overlay and this case is ready for all three readings. That concludes my presentation that have item.

>> Garcia: thank you. Questions on this item?

>> not on this item, but a zoning item that I thought would be here. Can I ask that at this time?

>> Garcia: we're on 38. You don't have any qos this one?

>> Goodman: no.

>> Garcia: okay. Entertain a motion to close the public hearing and approve this item. Motion by Councilmember good man, seconded by Councilmember Spelman and.

>> Lewis:. All those in favor say aye? opposedded? motion carries on a vote of 7 to 0 Mayor. We're through with 38.

>> Goodman: could I ask alice before she goes.

>> Garcia: Councilmember good man has a question. Was the hearn case not supposed to be on tonight's agenda also.

>> Which case?

>> Goodman: on hearne. The --

>> it was on last week I think it was the action was to -- either withdrawn or denied. I think you acted on it. It wasn't supposed to come back.

>> Mayor Watson: that brings us back to item 3 1.

>> On item 3 1, I believe at last hearing Council approved second reading on the case and I believe we have prepared an ordinance to reflect what Council approved on second reading, and if there are any questions from Council I would be glad to answer them.

>> Mayor Watson: I'll recognize the Mayor pro tem.

>> Garcia: I would like to move that we suspend the rules as it regards public inputted. We have had a lot of public testimony on this. I know there's people here and I was wondering if Councilmember Griffith had made arrangements to how the testimony was to be done.

>> Griffith: I have not. Has anyone else talked about that?

>> Mayor Watson: no. Of course this item has been before us a number of times.

>> Garcia: let he me say that my understanding was that there was going to be a member of the staff of the Austin independent school district here, Mr. Dan Robertson.

>> He is here, Mr. Mayor pro tem. He is back here.

>> Garcia: and that was going to talk about the site that was going to be -- if you could take the motion to suspend the rules. See if there is a second.

>> Griffith: I had understood that there would be ten speakers on either side.

>> Mayor Watson: another hour of testimony on this item that's been before us about five times now?

>> Griffith: I had -- yeah, that's what it would be. Would you rather go with, say, seven or eight?

>> Mayor Watson: I would --.

>> Garcia: I would like to have like maybe two or three.

>> Griffith: how about five?

>> Mayor Watson: what's your motion, Mayor pro tem.

>> Garcia: to suspend the rules. We already have had a public hearing on this item. We usually don't have testimony on third reading but when we did second we said we were going to keep it open because at that time the Austin independent school district had not made a decision as to whether they would be able to use this land should they decide to put a school there. So my motion is to suspend the rules so we don't have open testimony on it but that we might give people a little chance to speak, but I specifically want to --.

>> Mayor Watson: so we can do something in terms of concrete how many people is in your motion? ten minutes aside?

>> Garcia: ten minutes a side would be fine.

>> Griffith: could I suggest 15?

>> Mayor Watson: you are the one that has to look at all those folks.

>> Mayor, there's three sides if you remember from the second reading.

>> Griffith: actually, no, --.

>> Mayor Watson: well, we've had this debate before too.

>> Griffith: just four right now I think it's just four -- a for and against and that would break things out pretty naturally.

>> Mayor Watson: well, Mayor pro tem's motion is for ten minutes a side and if we go with just a for and against the motion has been made ten minutes per side. Is there a second? is there a second?

>> for what?

>> Mayor Watson: to suspend the trouls allow just ten minutes per side. I'll second the motion for purposes of a vote. Is there any discussion? griftd could I have a substitute motion, please.

>> Mayor Watson: sure.

>> Griffith: 15 minutes a side.

>> Mayor Watson: motion been made, is there a second to that motion.

>> Garcia: can I accept that as a friendly amendment and just get on with it?

>> Mayor Watson: I guess so. [Laughter]. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed we'll suspend the rules and allow for 15 minutes a side. Could a representative of aisd come forward? there has been some controversy and some debate and discussion as to whether or not the piece of property that is being donated as part of this is land that is suitable for building. And I can tell you that the amount of information that's coming into my office both saying yes and no is phenominal. What is the ajs?

>> Mayor, we have -- what is the answers.

>> We have determined by having our architect on a nearby project do a feasibility study that it is feasible for us to put a school on the site and having made that determination, we went forward and made an agreement with the developer for the site.

>> Mayor Watson: all right. Thank you very much for being here. Mayor pro tem?

>> Garcia: dan, between now and the year 2000, which campus are you all predicting will be needing relief?

>> Mayor pro tem, of course we have identified previously and I believe the neighborhood is aware of this three particular areas that are -- seem to be most worthy and this is one of them. As you know, we were opening one elementary school next year in south and we have three more. But most --.

>> Garcia: but most of those are southwest.

>> Yes. There is another one southeast that's nearby, but it takes it to relieve the overcrowding in wadane and houston and I think as the neighbors have stated in our process to determine where the next relief is needed, they don't feel that that school will adequately relieve them south of William cannon.

>> Garcia: palm and lanford need relief? that's correct.

>> And although the school board can only make this decision about where that last school will go, after its boundary process is finished and it sees, as you will recall, there are many affiliation issues in these things that have to be worked ut. They will be making that determination and our preliminary indication is this is one of the areas the school could be located in. We have tard our-tailored our agreement so that shed we, the board actually come to that decision, we could get to property, do our feasibility and decide to go forward if that's the decision of the board.

>> Garcia: butted you still have at least one more elementary campus that you need to put in south Austin, you just haven't decided where it's going to be?

>> that's correct. All the rest have been decided save one and that was put in by the citizens who recommended it because of this very problem. They foresaw perhaps we would be short in relief with those four and we would need an additional school.

>> Garcia: how many students do you have at palm?

>> the combination of palm and langford together I think we're already 1600 or so between the two of them.

>> Garcia: between the two. And those skills were built for about 600 students?

>> yeah, they really should be between 650 and 700.

>> Garcia: so you are already 400 or 500 students above? so that would be almost the beginning for a new school.

>> Correct.

>> Garcia: that's all the questions I have.

>> Griffith: Mayor, I have one quick question.

>> Mayor Watson: Councilmember Griffith?

>> Griffith: and I -- am I to idea this site will be considered but you are not making the specific commitment tonight?

>> yes. Our agreement says we will agree to build the school within ten years and what we plan to do is run our feasibility concurrent with their site development process. And if school board's process for looking at their boundaries has them making a decision in the last meeting in april. So we should know this spring and recommend to them where we think the last school should go.

>> Griffith: thank you.

>> Lewis: I have a question.

>> Mayor Watson: Councilmember Griffith?

>> Lewis: have the -- anyone from the school board looked at the site? because as the maps show part of it is in the flood plain.

>> Actually, Mr. Lewis, we considered the site ourselves independent of our knowledge of the reej even si village project in our initial look. I believe I looked back today and we had a rating of the site on may 12th where we considered it our second best of five sites. We had some caution because when we went out there the first time we saw a van out there and we ought, oh, no --.

>> Mayor Watson: that's how a lot of us felt.

>> Maybe somebody beat us to it. But we had already had an interest in the site independent of the developer or knowledge of the developer, so we've looked at it and we had our architect put the footprint on the school. We see that it works. We're going to continue to-and on the basis of that we changed the configuration a little bit of what they had been showing and we'll continue to work on that and try to have our school fit on it in the best and most fish nt way, but we're convinced it will work on the site.

>> Lewis: well, I was under the impression that the site that the school board looked at originally was over near slaughter lane rather than pleasant valley.

>> No, this was included in the whole group of sooitsdz we looked at for the southeast element ri so it was one of five we identified.

>> Lewis: thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: any further questions at this time? all right. The motion -- or the way we're going to conducted this is 15 minutes a side. What I'll do is Mr. Bury, I'll ask you to come forward and I'll give you the opportunity to take as much that 15 minutes you want and save some for rebuttal.

>> What I would like to do is get our neighbors to go first and I'll finish up after them. We have three or four one minutes and I'll take the last three or four minutes.

>> Mayor Watson: I tell what you I'll do, I'm going to time you and I'll tell somebody if they tell me how much time they want as they come up.

>> They can tell you as they come up. I would like to reserve probably four minutes on the back side to make sure I have plenty of time to close.

>> Mayor Watson: all right.

>> I think we would like our first two speakers to take a minute apiece and three for me.

>> Mayor Watson: that would be fine and I'll keep track of the full 15 minutes. Welcome, ma'am.

>> Good evening. My I'm a homeowner in this subdivision and I'm a member of the neighborhood association. I'm here in support of the regeny voil age prom promise. We have -- village compromise. We have met and Mr. Bury has worked with us very diligently and we feel comfortable and confident with this proposal. So I'm here to ask to you vote in favor of this proposal. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you.

>> Good evening. I'm a homeowner and also a resident of silver stone association. I'm also a past president and I -- I would just like to say I'm in favor of this compromise. I know that people have worked diligently and put a lot of time and effort have gotten the developer to work a compromise that's suitable for everybody where everybody wins. The school -- you know, the school district wins, the people that need affordable housing win. We -- marks and recreation are going to get some -- parks and recreation will get some land also. If it was up -- if it was up to me, I wouldn't have anything built on there. But Austin is growing pretty fast and it's going to keep growing and we're going to need to be able to provide housing for a lot of people. And I'm glad that this (beep) the developer has approached our neighborhood and let us be part of the input and the decision-make thanking we're doing right now. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, ma'am.

>> Thank you. I'm president of the silver stone homeowners association. I do want to make it clear I'm speaking night not on behalf of the neighborhood association but as a homeowner and as someone who has been involved in actually opposing the regeny village project for about a year I guess. And I guess the best way to sum this up is to say this is a different proposal than what came before you a year ago. A year ago I came to you to talk about concerns that we had related to the density of the project. Relating to flooding, traffic and schools. What we're looking at now involves 350 units, which is is fewer units total than would be involved in a comparable sf 2 development and I believe that's going to have a smaller impact on the traffic and the schools. In addition this project has added some set backs that limits traffic access and brings additional benefits in the form of the park land dedication including the land that's in the 1 hundred year flood plain plus some additional property, plus some improvements to park listened and plus finally the school dedication which if the property is not used as an elementary school which we badly need, it would also become park land and I think either way it's going to be a benefit to the neighborhood. And finally the proposal as it stands has the unusual feature of giving the neighborhood association stand to go enforce the deed restrictions. Which gives me certainly a greater deal of comfort that the project will be -- will live up to what little supposed to be. This has been a very divisive issue for my neighborhood. A lot of my neighbors feel very strongly they aposts any form of zoning. In fairness to them I think it's only fair to point out ha southEast Austin has more than its share of mh zoning. Nevertheless, I feel this project brings -- it satisfies my original concerns and it brings some additional benefits that I don't think our neighborhood can count on getting in any other way. So I support this project. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, ma'am. Mr. Bury, are there any other speakers on the front end?

>> Goodman: Mayor, can I just say I have to leave the dias for a short time but I'll still be listening and I think I can see the monitor also.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. Mr. Bury, are you ready?

>> yes, sir. I believe so. I'll help you with a donated easel next time.

>> Mayor Watson: low bid.

>> Happens every time. Mayor and Councilmembers, thank you very much. This has been a long process for us and I do appreciate you all's time and effort on this. I'm just going to go back through basically what our deal is and what you all voted on last time and reiterate a few points. As Mr. Robertson said, we have made a deal with the school district, they've had spent a great deal of time on their own studying it and we have the property under contract so we're pleased with that. This agreement includes 58 acres of park land. It's park land is identified in the City of Austin master parks plan. It is a continuation of the onion creek greenbelt. It's not only dedicating real property, we're going to construct soccer fields, parks I mean excuse me, parking lot, hike and bike trail and other facilities that we talked to the neighbors about. Again I think that's going to be a very valuable addition to that area. Affordable housing is something the City has talked about since the day I moved here. It's something each one of you have campaigned on. It seems like it's something that gets a lot of lip service and nobody ever does anything about it, but this project will supply a great deal of affordable housing that Austin needs very badly. Now, the other thing about the affordable housing, this is quality affordable house,, it's not subsidized, it's not new, it's something that again is just not offered in the City or anywhere else in the area that I have seen. Environmentally, this tract sets aside a significant amount of land, no other proposal of use out here will do that. Our impervious cover on a net site basis will be 25% our less. It's less impervious cover that's what's laid out in the sofs standards for southwest Austin. On a growth side basis our impervious cover will be less than 15%. Again, I think that's significant item. We are also located in the preferred growth corridor. This Council has done a great job in starting to identify how growth will happen in this City. And we are in an area that you all have identified as somewhere we need to be. Traffic, our traffic from this project will be one-third of that of a single family residential subdivision. Traffic has been a big concern and again, this project is one-third of the traffic generation that would be from a comparable single family subdivision. Quality, again, just to hit on that, this is a quality, new affordable housing alternative for this City. I want to reit rated it's not subsidized. It's not something that the City is having to waive fees on. We're very proud of what we've got. To close, we worked very hard she it's been a very divisive issue. We think we have a great project. We (beep) are going to not only get this zoning tonight but we're going to work diligently where the neighborhood. We have a planning meeting set april 7th if we get approved tonight for the neighbors to help us with layouts and make sure their thoughts and knowledge of the area gets incorporated in the project. Again, I would like to thank you all for your great amount of time we've spent on this and look forward to your favorable decision tonight. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Bury. [One moment please].

>> Believe me, trying to sell homes in this area and we can say the school is next door. It's a win win deal. And the school district has dictated the shape of the property and where they want it and that shape is still good if they come back and say we need a bit more here, whatever it is, but it is our goal to give them a usable piece of property that meets their needs.

>> Mayor Watson: you will have seven minutes and 50 seconds on the back end. If you could go ahead and take this down, though. For those in opposition, have you worked out a sequence in which you wish to speak? all right. Okay. Are you going to set time limits on yourselves that you want me to help monitor?

>> 15 minutes total.

>> Two minutes for sur rebuttal.

>> Well, I know you'd love that, but it doesn't happen.

>> Garcia: why don't we put 13 minutes on the light.

>> Mayor Watson: what he's talking about is rebuttal on the rebuttal. We don't do it that way. But do you want -- do you want me to set any time on individuals' figures or do you want to run through your 15 minutes? okay. Okay.

>> Mayor, Mayor pro tem, Councilmembers, I'm bob larsen here tonight representing southeast corner alliance of neighborhood. I remember the first time I entered these chambers to speak to the chamber 10 years ago. I came here because my neighbors asked me to. After that I became a regular for a while, for about three years as a matter of fact. I haven't been back to address you as a group since leaving the City. I've spoken to each one of you individually, but this is the first time at this microphone since I've left the City, and again tonight I'm here because my neighbors have asked me to come speak to you. My neighbors have also authorized me to make a proposal that might get us all out of here early. My neighborhoods are willing to take the jewish community center if the other folks are willing to take the trailer park, if we can work that out. [Applause]. We could all go home early, Mayor.

>> Mayor Watson: well, we'll recess and give 20 minutes to look into that.

>> Seriously our time is limited and I appreciate your time tonight. A quick history of the neighborhood. My history goes back some 21 years. When my wife and I moved in there just a couple of blocks north of the mendez middle school our backyard seemed to stretch for miles. It was a rural country setting. We heard cow cows in the morning mooing and the reduce ster's kroeg. A lot of military families like myself at the time were moving in and people were moving in and out pretty regular. And the turn overrate was pretty rapid because of the development in the community. In the 80's we had a malfunctioning sewer plant just to the right, the Williamson creek sewer plant start todd overflow. That was a moratorium on hookups. The City started dumping fef fluent on the golf course. For a few years our neighborhood stung stung. Nobody would buy the homes. A lot of people had to sell to investors. They were turned over to rental agencies to lease and nobody would rent them. Anybody that came into the neighborhood wouldn't want to move in. It stung for two years we smelled that from the golf course. So will only alternative was section eight. And all of a sudden overnight we became a very high section eight community that was the only folks they could get to occupy those homes while that sewer plant was overflowing. The lcra was suing the City. We got relief in the south regional plan and things got better. By that time we had become a different kind of neighborhood, drugs, crime. My home was last broken into while I was running for reelection in '93. We came home one night and found our back door busted in. More importantly all of our neighbors were robbed. That was kind of the low point. In the meantime, skan, which started as a neighborhood organization really started to blossom in defense of all of this that was going on. In 1994 we become a targeted neighborhood, a hud authorized targeted neighborhood. We got so low that we finally qualified for hud relief because of your income level, average income level and other things. The City programs helped a lot. We've had turned a lot of things around do you due to the City's help and my neighborhood ooze help. We formed our own action plans. My neighborhoods formed the cops group, citizens on patrol. We have yard equipment that we check out every weekend to new families who don't have lawn mowers and my neighborhood man that tool shed. We have grafitti wipe out programs. I think most of you are familiar with the efforts. The City has helped too. The biggest program that's helped is the homeowner ship program. Those hud monies have helped do that. As an example, some statistics in 197393, the principle men 93 the principle shared with me that 63% of his population turned over, not counting his graduating class, but he had 63% of turnover rate of students who should have been there the next year. And he told me we can't establish lesson plans. There's no continuity in the classroom. It's impossible for the teachers. Today that turnover rate has been lowered to 40%. There's a meaningful statistics. It's still too high, but we have made headway in establishing ownership and stability not only in our neighborhood but in our schools. That's why this issue is so important to us. After making all this headway, we see this as a step in the wrong direction. What this development is is not ownership. And that's why it's so important to us, not only symbolically, but figure wise, numbers wise. We're trying to get ownership established in that community. We've made some headway, but we've got a long way to go. My neighbors are going to share with you tonight a petition and I know all of you understand the valid petition process and what that means and I'm sure you will honor the petitions. They mean a lot to you. Our petition tonight isn't valid due to a technicality in the allow because -- it doesn't. So we don't meet the legal test of the valid petition, but we have over 60% of the neighbors that signed the petition and I believe it meets the spirit of the valid petition process and so I hope you would consider it in that spirit tonight. I want to close my segment by first of all thanking my neighbors for all the hard work they put in over the years in helping our neighborhood become a more liveable, enjoyable community, reestablishing ownership and a lot of other things they've done for us. I want to thank you, the Council, for what you've done. I want to thank you for the library, the rek sister that will open soon.

>> .

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Larsen.

>> Mayor, Councilmembers, my name is Bruce sanders and I'm speaking on behalf of scan as well. One of the things I want to talk about is there seems to be a great issue about the affordable housing in our area and how they're helping us provide us with affordable housing that we need. One of our primary goals was to increase home ownership in our area. As Councilmember past mentioned. We presently have flu% home ownership 63% rental ratio in the southeast corridor of Austin. We are paying anywhere from 550 to $850 a month for rent for the same homes that I'm living in. The average price of a house in the scan area is 61,000 $300. We have a board in front of you that shows that we have the most affordable housing in the City of Austin. No other place in the City of Austin offers the affordable housing. And we have 68% of that is rental property. A 30 year mortgage at eight percent with a five percent down on 61,$300 would come to 427 dollars a month as compared to Mr. Bury ri's proposition, a 30 year note on an average 40,000-dollar manufactured home or mobile home, if you will, will a five percent down at eight percent would be 264 dollars. However, this homeowner will have an average of $250 a month in lot rent. This brings the total to 515 dollars a month. The homeowner does not get the tax break from the lot rent and their homes decrease in value while the property they are renting increases. This can't be called affordable housing. To address the issue of mobile homes, my wife and I when I was a young nco in the air force in wichita falls, Texas, owned a mobile home and when I re-enlisted in the air force when I came back from vietnam I took my reenlistment bonus and bought that mobile home. I lived in that mobile home for two years and then I got orders transferring me out. I had to find someone to take over my payments, beg them and to get them to take over my payments I had to pay the $500 it would take to get it moved off of that rental property. Our small community already has 3,000 113 mobile homes in our community. That doesn't include the proposed 350 units already that Mr. Bury ri would like to give to us. Manufactured homes, they're not affordable housing. If you want affordable housing, Councilmembers, zone this property sf-2 and then come up with some of that hud money that the southEast Austin quadrant gets for the City, because you do receive money from the hud for us and provide some down payment assistance to that 68% of the people who are paying rent and getting no tax break for it. Give them the opportunity to own their home. And just the touching sign, a wish that I had taken that thousand dollars that I put down on that mobile home and that $500 it cost me to get it moved and put it in a -- just a moderate mutual fund. Had I done that in 1971 I wouldn't be living in the southeast corner of Austin. [Applause].

>> Councilmember, my name is joann rodriguez and I am here to represent the 260 some-odd people that live in silver stone neighborhood association and I'd like to pass you out these petitions that they've all signed stating that they don't want this. They know what this is. You're giving us mud. You're giving us a school. You're not evening promising us a school, you're in the evening guaranteeing us a school. Please don't do this to this neighborhood. It doesn't need it. It needs affordable housing and we have it. We just don't have people that can use it right now. Because you're not doing the proper thing. Please do that tonight. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Council, Mayor, I'm authorized by scan to speak on behalf of our residents that are concerned about this proposal. I'm here to address specifically some flooding issues that you may not have considered. First of all, Mayor, thanks for your appointment to the floodplain task force. I was it was an enduring process, very educational process and there's a lot of things that were learned that you need to know about. When you get the floodplain task force report, look specifically on how the task force dealt with existing structures, specifically mobile homes. Think about those lines changing over time and those mobile homes that are sitting down in south creek and the impact that that has on them now when these lines have changed and all of the rules have changed. Think about that. I'm sure y'all all -- since we can't talk about the floodplain task force report because y'all haven't seen it yet, all I can talk about is the loomis report. Aim ooim sure you're all familiar with that report. I'm here to express that of any 15 bit that this proposal has there is always going to be a loss and the loss is one of the potential options that was pointed out by the loomis report is also one of the options hopefully that the corps of engineers will pursue. And I'm speaking of page 95 of the loomis report. Is talks about side channel detention and it talks about the collective effectiveness of these four structures, and specifically area 1 of detention 3, this off line detention will have an impact, immediate impact to those individuals that live downstream. If you put those mobile homes there, you lose that as an option. And just know that. Take a look at figure 95 and page 595 of the loomis report. Also, I know Daryl Slusher may be a little bit more familiar with the flood insurance flood rate process, but just to know that the limits of the study end at regency village. Lastly, it's a double standard to apply more stringent regulations to the 25-year floodplain residents and let the developer get all the way up against the 100-year. [Applause].

>> Mayor Watson: so that y'all will know, you have a little under two minutes left total.

>> Thank you. Steve jackson, vice-president, south creeks neighborhood association, resident of the city's official unplanned growth corridor. We have been begging for City planning in our area. We have been begging for it and we haven't been getting it. We're getting planning one lot at a time by persuasive developers. The result of that has been, as you've heard, an incredible pre upon dense of rental units, including mobile homes, but this is not anti-rental, this is not anti-mobile home, this is pro ballots. And what we need -- what we need for balance is not more of what we already have up to 10 times as much of as the rest of the City. What we need is more home ownership. And I'll step aside and make a plea now because as we look at this we think all of efforts are for nothing, that we've lost. If you do vote this proposal if, please keep in mind that this covenants that you've heard praised are covenants that have been offered to one small group in one of the neighboring associations. If those covenants are to be meaningful, please extend the enforcement rights to scan and to the other neighboring areas, to the other neighborhoods so that we'll have standing to enforce them. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. [Applause]. Mr. Bury, you have seven minutes and 50 seconds if you need it.

>> Thank you. Let me try to respond a couple of things and the affordable housing hirb. You know, the letter we got late today, which seems it be to be the new mark of what we have to respond to, shows that there's affordable housing is a very difficult subject to understand. The monthly payment is only one component of affordable housing. The other things that go into that is the down payment that you have to come up with and how much -- probably the most important thing is qualifying income. In our program our down payment is is typically 50% if not more of what it would be for a standard house. Qualifying income is usually 60% of what it would be for a 60 or 70,000 dollar home and just assume monthly payments are the same, the other two items greatly qes increase the amount of opportunity people have to buy if they're in lower income and need less money on to get in. And also I would suggest that as they said that they would like to have an sf two subdivision it a I ford able housing. We are not asking for any subsidy. We are not asking for subsidy, we are put ng amenities that are usually enjoyed in a much higher cost subdivision. The petition, I heard about the petition. I don't know where it came from. I think the question on it was would you prefer to have sf two or would you prefer to have manufacturing housing. Gosh, I think I'd answer that question sf two if that was what was posed to me, but if I was asked the question would I rather is manufactured housing a park, a school, improved park, buffer zones, less density than an sf two development then I would have to take I need to take a look at this. So I really don't know where this petition came from. I don't know who signed it and I question the question that was asked to everybody. We have worked with the leadership of the silver stone folks from day one. Three past presidents. These people have done a great job of leading their neighborhood to make the right decision. A lot of these folks we're seeing at the 11th hour, which is fine, but again, the only consistent factor for us has been the leadership of silver stone, they are the ones that starting the annexation, they're the ones we dealt with from day one. Drainage issue, I'm going to leave that to your professional staff. I think they've said is over and over again, we're in the affecting the floodplain, we're in the building in the floodplain and again I will leave that to the staff. And lastly, I want to make is very clear that we have a lot on the table. We have offered a lot. We are spending an extreme amount of money to add the improvements which are ifk improvements which are good for the City. We talk about sector planning and we talk about things this area of town needs. We are offering all these things at considerable expense to our project. And unfortunately, if we cannot build this project, these items are off the table. There will be no park, there will be no school, buffer zones, the density will have 40080 units out here of single family residence but will not have 350 manufactured homes. All the items we have will be off the table. Our restrictive covenants require that you have to be a homeowner out here. It will be 100% home ownership. Again, thank you for your time. I appreciate you working with us.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Bury. Let me read through the people that have signed up to speak on this since we suspended the rules. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record]. [Reading registered speaker names into the record].

>> Mayor Watson: I'll entertain a motion with regard to item no. 31.

>> Mayor, if I could respond to something Mr. Bury said earlier. Mr. Bury, could we talk for a minute?

>> Griffith: in terms of what the -- what the silver stone petition is about and what if says, it says we fully support sf-2 with larger lots, 8,000 square feet, which is comparable with the silver stone subdivision. This would address the concerns of density. Larger lots, less dense. We support an elementary school and more park land. We are not against mobile homes or people who live in them. We need more homeowners. The southeast side of Austin has more than its fair share of rental units and mobile homes and this is signed by the president of 14 neighborhood associations, and attached is 60% of the silver stone residents. Here is the homeowner, here is the address of the homeowner, here is the phone number of the homeowner. So that's what was -- that's what was -- that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about all 14 neighborhood associations presidents and we're talking about over 60% of the silver stone residents. Also, in terms of the floodplain, we talk a lot about -- our experience has been that when there is a piece of land that's going to be subdivided and a goodly part of it is floodplain, the floodplain is -- you can't develop it, so no income is going to come in from it, so often times it is given to a public entity. The school district or the parks department. We could certainly expect that to happen regardless of who ends up developing the property. What this is about is not about schools because the school district, I believe, will put the school where it belongs for the right reasons. What it's really about is a community that has recreated itself since 1990. When I first got in touch with these people in this area, it had the highest juvenile crime rate in Austin. It had the highest teenage pregnancy, the highest droppout, the highest whatever kind of statistics that means, crisis, it had the highest. There were a handful of people, maybe five, who decided in 1990 it was not going to stay that way, we are turning it around, and they did. That small handful went house to house. They had small meetings of 10 and then 20 and then 50 and then 100, and they were talking about what do we need, what do we want to do, what do we have to do about it? there was an evening when they prioritized their needs. It was in the auditorium of mendez middle school. The recreation center was on top, swimming pool was two votes behind and library was right behind that. Put -- they fut in enough energy to get all of those things on a bond election except the pool, and. And over the last eight years, all of those statistics, I'm talking about, have improved. They have all got en better. These people have done an amazing job. They deserve our support and they deserve our special consideration. They did a program called neighbors neighborhoods and it was the most important thing in terms of holding it together and in this area was home ownership. This was nothing in second place to that and that's what we're talking about. We're talking about a successful here rowic group of folks who have done an amazing job against all odds. But it's fragile right now. And that's why this matters so much is because we need to support them and back them over the next decade so that they can continue to grow and build on what they've accomplished.

>> Mayor Watson: I'll entertain a motion with regard to item no. 31. I'll recognize Councilmember Griffith. Councilmember Goodman.

>> Goodman: that's okay. I can finish writing my note.

>> Griffith: go ahead. After you, lady.

>> Goodman: my motion is the same motion as last time that we passed on second reading. And if I could, I would second it and get to discussion, there are some things that we might have in the chronology.

>> Mayor Watson: the motion has been made to approve on third reading the zoning request. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Lewis. I'll go to Councilmember Goodman for discussion.

>> Goodman: the chronology of this area is something that is very admirable in neighborhood active vism. And to take off on some of the things that Councilmember Griffith has been saying, further back in time -- and Councilmember larsen, wherever he is, I heard speaking about this, back when Williamson creek wastewater treatment plant was overloaded because it wasn't the package treatment plant that didn't have the capability for the load it was asked to carry, the suit brought against the city because money was being diverted to other areas of need was brought by united south Austin, which jack Goodman was -- I think he was vice-president at that time. It was james pineda and jack Goodman. There was no action being taken without that. And so we went around to all the other neighborhood associations, to Council, to Planning Commission, to county, to state, to anybody that we thought would give us some time to hear about the issues. And the reason that we now do have the onion creek regional plant and the Williamson plant is off line and gone forever is because basically james pineda and jack Goodman worked very hard to make it so. All along the line that particular neighborhood has fought very hard to regain the integraty in the scan area as a whole, but in dof springs in particular that they started out with. And there is nobody around that I know of who doesn't admire their erchts. And as a Councilmember, I have supported what that neighborhood has always tried to do for itself, supported Councilmember lr 17's effort as an example to make sure that the pool was full size because the funding was slipping away, costs were higher and the recreation center was not going to have all the amenities that the neighborhood originally thought. Supported the library, of course, and even the occur tu, which was a philosophy I didn't agree with, much like the camping ban. And all along, too, there has been a lack of, I think, aisd attention and educational investment in this part of town. And that is why I went to the aisd site hearings to tell them that whatever they did in the southwest they were not doing enough in southeast and south central. So the issues that I start out with, looking at for both south central and southeast are issues like the schools, the parks, the greenbelts and the flooding, of course, on on onand Williamson always and cheer creek too,. It goes all the way to central far south Austin. It's not just here. From time in memorial when impervious cover was allowed to great degree for anything that was not residential and all the run jouf was deliberately designed to go into on onand Williamson creek as a receiving body. We've had to spend money over the years and cip's and in drainage utility fee projects to try to channelize in some cases which, of course, is always only a temporary fix because what you're doing is hurting the people who are at the end of that channelization project. And that's why creek bend, the project, the flooding mitigation was also something I supported very strongly. The other issue that I have always is affordable housing. And I suppose it depends on how you define affordable housing and investment and ownership as to whether you think that's appropriate in your neighborhood or not. Most neighborhoods I think find the label to be something they don't want to deal with, which is something we will have to work on as an initiative of smart dpro growth. When this issue came up, neighbors came and requested that we annex and some Planning Commissioners also requested that we annex. And I went ahead out on a limb and sponsored that because I was also told by the neighbors that this was not to stop the project. If in fact it was to stop the project, then I should have been told that up front as I sponsored it because I might have agreed, but I would have definitely said so. Having said that to the developers obviously we are not here to stop your project, it's been said out loud in public that puts me in something of a box. When we started talking about the original proposal which was 50039 units, as I recall, somewhere like that, that was the legitimate issue that I think this project brought to our discussion beyond the flooding and beyond the traffic because the flooding for this area can't be mitigated here. The flooding that hurts this neighborhood comes from upstream where we neat to retrofit. And that's something that we've asked our watershed protection folks to be looking for because it's hard to come by retrofit land to mitigate flooding that's assisted for so long. The flooding is an issue, but it can't be cured with this project at this point. Affordable housing is something we work on in many neighborhoods and that was definitely an issue, that will always be an issue for me because we have too many folks who can't afford a house. There are not poor, they are what we used to call middle class. And we don't have enough housing stock in town for them to be able to find neighborhoods where they can afford to live. The developer made an effort to come up with the same kind of density that the existing neighborhoods had. That was an important point for me here. The traffic is more difficult to deal with because of what the traffic engineer said a road is capable of is often times more than what a neighborhood wants to absorb, so that's a harder one to fix. The flooding I say again for this particular part has to be retrofitted further upstream, but there is also the issue of anything that goes in now and how are we planning for the future so that in the future years where more development has caused more flooding downstream we have a handle on it with creek bend and other kind of mitigation projects like that. So those are the issues that all came into play when you looked at what the development was willing to offer in terms of a school site and whether or not that school site was used for a school ultimately it had to remain park land. It couldn't be for more development. There was agreement put forward, and I don't have all the paperwork with me, but there was a facesed development of 100 or so units a year, as I recall, and if that number is far off ield need to be corrected. Can anybody tell me yes or no on that one?

>> I'm not sure we got the exact number, but we will do it in two phases. It won't on come on line at one time.

>> That also is an issue, especially in regard to flooding. The flooding task force was an item from the on -- on the agenda in Councilmember Slusher co-sponsored that because the flooding is an issue in far south and far south central. So obviously I think this whole Council is trying to do whatever they can not only for the community value that cut across neighborhood boundary lines, but also for the particular things that we know is an impact on this neighborhood. The neighbors who do negotiate with the developers are neighborhood people and I want to thank them for the courage that it takes to come in to a roomful of people from all around their neighborhood who disrae with their position. I think that's extremely brave and I admire the fact that you are neighborhood activists and whether you agree or disagree with your immediate neighbors or far away neighbors, you are doing this for your neighborhood, for your children and for the future. And I think that that is very admirable. Somebody earlier challenged the integ are if I of the one of the neighbors that was trying to negotiate a good deal with the neighbor and I think that was bad and certainly not true in any way. So in supporting this motion, I want to also add one more thing. When we looked at the h. E. -- The brodie, sorry about h.e.b.. The jpi tract. That piece of land is located strategically for planning in much the same way as this particular tract. And in far south central and east there is always been a problem trying to keep contiguous creek builts in our immediate tien of agriculture acquisition. There have always been chalked up and non-accessible pieces of greenbelt. So in terms of what neighborhoods want us to try to acquire this one is just as available and almost the identical same strategic beneficial spot as the brodie tract. And in that context I want to ask if procedural I can direct the City Manager as part of this to look at the options we have within our drainage utility and looking for land for mitigation for flooding. To ask also to look into negotiating an option to purchase this tract. So I need some legal advice, ms. Terri.

>> You can -- even though the ordinance can be adopted, that does not -- that does not stop a direction to the City manager to go forward and explore other avenues. Because this is a zoning ordinance and that still -- that doesn't prohibit the City manager have pure pursuing the alternative of going forward and purchasing the property.

>> Goodman: the last part of it is when these folks were annexed, they had all the approvals they needed to go forward with their project and they did not. They went ahead and came through the process in good faith because we had said we were not out to stop them. Or I'm assuming that was a sense of security they went forward with. And at this point even though you wanted to try to see if there is an opportunity to purchase a tract, you cannot devalue it through any City action that might have some impact on that value, which is why I still make my motion. I am not out to stop them, but if there is a way to acquire that tract along with the same kind of same kind of negotiation that we're trying to do is the brodie tract, that would be perve for future growth because it is a beneficial spot to acquire and if they are phasing and if the school site is there and identified, then possibly we could have a win win.

>> Just for my own clarification, what you're asking is for us to evaluate it in the context of the drainage utility where there is a beneficial use for that property to either mitigate flooding or to enhance the issues that the water quality process is involved with the drainage utility. To evaluate that. And I can't tell you today whether in our opinion that is something that's needed or something that would be required for the utility to achieve its objectives tifs, but we'll be happy to evaluate that.

>> Goodman: and there's also some money in -- I'm not sure what sector there is, but I noticed there some money in the polt and so perhaps a condemnation of resources can be looked at to see whether or not this is a possible option for us. Thank you, Mayor.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. Motion has been made and seconded to approve on third reading.

>> Griffith: Mayor, I have -- I have a substitute motion. That will be to zone this property sf-2 about a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, which would result in a comparable density to what's being suggested.

>> Mayor Watson: would you consider that to be a friendly amendment, Councilmember Goodman? I'm asking if it's considered a friendly amendment and then I'll move for a second if she doesn't get it as a friendly amendment.

>> Goodman: I don't see how it matches.

>> Mayor Watson: is there a second to Councilmember Griffith's motion?

>> Lewis: I'll sexd it.

>> Mayor Watson: motion has been made and seconded. The motion is to zone the property sf-2 about a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. I need to ask a question about sf-2 zoning. With sf two zoning is there a specified lot size that you can -- can it be changed in this way?

>> the minimum lot size for single family two zoning is 5,000 750 scare sfeet at a money hum and so this would be making it more restrictive by requiring a larger lot and a minimum.

>> Griffith: the reason for this is so that it would be completely compatible with silver stone, which is next door.

>> Mayor Watson: I want to make sure it can be done legal ily. Can you -- I'm not sure I understood your answer.

>> My understanding of the question was what is the minimum lot size for single family two. There is a minimum lot size and a minimum should be 5,000 750 square feet, but there's no prohibition against making it.

>> Mayor Watson: that is what I wanted to know. All right. Councilmember Slusher?

>> Slusher: okay. You may be able to do it right there, but you may need the calculator. Do you know how many -- what the impervious cover and the houses per acre would be at that rate.

>> We'll get the -- well, I need to determine precisely what we're using as the basis for calculation and we have those numbers and we'll run them very quickly. The reason I ask, Mr. Bury indicated that should there be an alternative zoning recommendation, the recommendations he had for park land would all come off the table, so therefore that changes calculations slightly because we had praise baised your prior calculations on exclusion of all the park land and exclusion of it all being in the floodplain.

>> Slusher: and in those cattles you we looked at last time I believe you said that sf two would make it 450 homes; is that correct?

>> at single family two we're giving you a net site build annual area of 79 acres that would yield 40080 single family units. Single family.

>> Slusher: then that number is before Councilmember Griffith's overlay, right?

>> that is after we exclude for park land and we have 80 acres.

>> Mayor Watson: I think his question is if you made the minimum lot size bigger does that change the 40080.

>> This is before. This is before this. This was based on 5750 square feet. We need to run the numbers.

>> Slusher: okay. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: do you wish to be recognized?

>> I just wanted to point out that the unbuildable land would have to be taken out.

>> We'll run those numbers. You also asked a question about impervious cover. The impervious cover will be based on the comprehensive watershed order unanimous for single family.

>> Mayor Watson: how quickly can you have that information?

>> in a minute or two.

>> Mayor Watson: let me ask if there's any additional discussion.

>> Goodman: Mayor? while they're doing that can they check out the traffic counts too? that was an issue for the neighborhood. And the formula I think that traffic engineers used had showed -- shown the manufactured homes to generate less trefk than traffic than the single family.

>> Mayor Watson: folks, don't do that. Don't cry out like that.

>> Lewis:.

>> While we're waiting for the answer, I have a question.

>> There's been a lot of -- I thought I had it on. It's one of these eerchgs. There's been a lot of discussion about the effects of a mobile home park somehow defined on a single family neighborhood. And it seems to me the big issue is transienty. How long diso people stay in one place, how quickly are they moving. That's what destroys a community is when you have people moving in and moving out so quickly so you don't get to know who your neighbors are. Do you have any comparable -- do you have any nmpls on how long people are likely to stay in mobile home parks similar to this one.

>> We've got a study done by the Texas manufactured housing association going by memory. 70% Plus or minus of the folks that live in these things stay there five years or longer.

>> Spelman: okay. So we can assume that the medium median time people stay is something like seven years. I'm extrapolating a little bit.

>> I think I'd be guessing at that answer. All I know is a large percentage of the people that live there stay there more than five years. And if they stay 10 or they stay nine or they stay 20, I don't know the upper number. To get a median I would have to guess.

>> Spelman: the reason I ask about seven is because first it seems compatible with your 70% and second because at I understand it, it's a well known rule of thumb in the real estate that you assume that the average home buyer is going to stay in that house for sechk years. That's about the length of time the average person stays in. So time extrapolating a little bit and you're speaking from memory, but it seems to me if these number numbers are correct, we're talking about the same level of stability in a housing complex of this time as there would be in an sf two housing complex.

>> Our clients owns 150 of these parks communities around the kund and they've got very comprehensive data and these are not transient people. These are quality homes that people buy and they own them and they're proud of them and they live there. These homes are 15 to 20% larger in square footage than the adjoining residence. These are nice facilities. These are not cracker boxes. It's not the stigma we grew up in the trailer parks. These are great places. So I think our numbers show that this is not a transient neighborhood. Long answer. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: are you ready?

>> yes, I am.

>> The new numbers based on 8,000 square foot lots you end up with 30044 units, approximately. 300 And 44 units approximately.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. 3,000 20086. The motion to go to sf two with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet would allow for 30044 units and you would have three,286 vehicle trips per day. All right, the motion has been maded seconded. It's the stubs tut motion that we'll be voting on and that's the motion for sf two with minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Okay. With that being said, is there any further discussion on the subs constitute motion? there being no further discussion, will you call the role? this is on the substitute motion, sf two with minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet.

>> Lewis: yes.

>> Slusher: no.

>> Spelman: no.

>> Mayor Watson: no.

>> Garcia: no.

>> Goodman: no.

>> Griffith: yes.

>> Mayor Watson: there being two yeses and five no's. The substitute motion fails. That takes us back to the main motion, which is to approve the ordinance on third reading. Is there any further discussion? gar.

>> Slusher: I would vic looik to say a few words. I would like to acknowledge the neighbor r. Neighborhood's incredible work in turning around the neighborhood. It probably is the majority of the neighborhoods that don't support this zoning case. I acknowledge the point about on the affordable housing that it does doesn't state the numbers and it doesn't appear to be that wide of a difference between the single family and the mobile homes, although I don't think that at the median price I don't believe there are that many being built now or it would be very difficult to build one for what the median price is in the area. That's the median price of houses that are already built and being sold. And a person making a lot less money will be able to qualify to get one of these mobile homes and not for one of the houses at the median income. The park land makes a big difference to me and the school really the final difference. I think we heard tonight from the school district that this makes it much more possible that there will be a school in the area. And I don't believe that this mobile home park is going to take the neighborhood down the tubes like has been portrayed. And I could -- I know some of the folks are pretty upset with me and -- if I needed proof of that I got proof of it the other night at the floodplain meeting. And I could -- since I know Councilmember Spelman seconded the motion, I could sit up here and vote no and do the political maybe smart thing or easy thing, but I just don't believe that's the right move to make in this case, so I'll be supporting the main motion.

>> Mayor Watson: is fl any further discussion? hearing none, will you call the role? this is on the main hoetion motion to approve the ordinance on third reading?

>> Griffith: yes.

>> Lewis:.

>> Mayor Watson: he's absent. He's off the dias.

>> Slusher: yes.

>> Spelman: yes.

>> Mayor Watson: yes.

>> Garcia: yes.

>> Goodman: yes. Mayor mir Mayor it being six yeses, no no's and Councilmember Lewis off the dias, the ordinance spass on third reading. -- Passes on third reading. That takes us to item no. 39, Which is the public hearing on the appeal -- folks if we could ask you to quietly --.

>> Will the chair entertain a motion for a 10 minute recess?

>> Spelman: exactly 10, yes.

>> Mayor Watson: while folks are leaving what we'll do is we're going to recess for 10 minutes and we'll be back precisely at 15 till 10. The motion has been made. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Griffith. Is there anything discussion? all in favor all opposed. Hearing none, motion carries. We're in recess until 15 until 10.

recess until 9:45

the appeal to you tonight is the appeal of the planning commission decision to grant the proposed dell jewish community center which is located approximately on 40 acres of land, zoned single family 3. The site is located north of far west boulevard, boarded by hart line to the east, chimney corners to the west, graystone to the north. The applicant proposes a campus type containing two synagogues, two recreational fields, a community center with a health club and swimming pool. And a daycare center. The site plan that was filed serves two purposes, it's a two in one site plan. I will explain that. We have two types of site plans in the land development process. They are those site plans that go to the Planning Commission, those that are -- have uses that are called conditional use that's require a public hearing at the planning commission to determine their appropriateness of the use. Then there are those uses that are permitted outright and those uses can be reviewed and can be approved administratively if they comply with the land development code. This site plan has those two types of elements on the plan, the religious assembly uses are permitted uses, those are shown on the plan, therefore those will be approved administratively, concurrent with this plan. The other uses that require the conditional use permit site plan include community recreation center, that includes the private recreational facilities, daycare and private and private education facilities. A traffic impact analysis was submitted. We have reviewed it and Mr. Joe zapala following me will give you a brief overview of that traffic impact analysis. The Planning Commission recommendation to you was to grant a conditional use permit having reviewed the findings of conditional use requirements in the land development code referred to earlier, there are nine of them, and the planning commission felt like the proposed development satisfied those criteria and approved and -- and approved the site plan on a vote of 62-2 with the following conditions, nine conditions: the first condition was that access to firestone drive will be by extension of a driveway that serves as a private drive and should include a circle design with landscaping in the median where firestone drive currently terminates. The second one is to prohibit vehicle access to stone cliff, the third condition was recreation facilities shall be located as shown on the site plan. The fourth one, exterior lighting shall be located only on one field furtherest -- furtherest from this residential units and that should be located -- should be turn -- the lights should be turned off no later than 9:30 p.m. All other outdoor activities shall cease no later than 11:00 p.m. The fifth condition was a minimum of 54 vegetative buffer shall be installed. Sixth a minimum of 100 foot building setback from any were the shall structure. The 7th conditions [inaudible] shall be posted for a pro rata chair of the cost of the traffic light at chimney corners. The 8th applicant shall be allowed [inaudible] replaced with 150% inches, finally, amplify ied public address system slam be permitted on the site, however [inaudible] for special events. That concludes my part of the presentation. I was going to briefly -- show where the conditional use permit is on the site. The plan that I have in front of you shows the surrounding zoning. This is the subject tract. We have highlighted the full sites or lots. The site has been subdivided into four lots, lot one right here in orange where the proposed religious assembly use will be located. This is lot two in the middle is the lot that contains the conditional use permit. The -- the other lots contained, those permitted uses that would be approved administratively and the conditional use again pertains to the site in the middle, lot 4. Those are the uses that were approved by the planning commission. That concludes my presentation. Mr. Zaplac will give you the traffic analysis.

>> Mayor and Councilmembers, the traffic impact analysis indicates that the project will generate approximately 4,264 vehicle trips per day. Unlike most projects which have a very pronounced peak in the morning and evening hours, since this site is made up of a variety of uses with different schedules of activity, the peak periods are very widely dispersed. The most pronounced peaks are on monday and wednesday afternoons when the school is letting out and secondary peaks occur friday evenings and saturday mornings when the synagogues are in service. Approximately 80% of the site traffic will enter and leave the site off of far west boulevard and hart lane. The rest of the traffic will be dispersed among hart lane to the north of the site, graystone drive and chimney corners. There's proposed access to fire stone drive here, which will allow access over to chimney corners. The traffic impact analysis examined five intersections that are most directly affected by the site, each was found to be operating at an acceptable level of service after the site traffic was added. Some I am prufts will be required at the intersection of hart lane and far west boulevard and the applicant has agreed to participate in the cost of those improvements. The intersection of far west and chimney corners does experience a lengthy delay for traffic that is southbound wishing to make a left turn on to far west boulevard. But overall the intersection does operate at an acceptable level. Most of the traffic is on far west, so the amount of the traffic coming off of chimney corners is fairly small. The staff feels that it's unlikely this this intersection will justify a signal in the future. However the planning commission did require as a condition of approval that the applicant provide a pro rata share of the cost of the signal. The land development code classifies hart lane, graystone and chimney corners as residential collector streets and states that any traffic volume over 4,000 vehicle trips per day is an undesirable level. Hart lane and graystone presently exceed 4,000 trips and will receive additional traffic from -- when the site is bill. The code states City Council may approve the site plan after determining that the applicant has satisfactory mitigated traffic impacts or that the additional traffic from the project is an insignificant impact on the rcht shall street. Directly in front of the site, resident shall -- residential street. Hart lane carries about 158 trips per day right now. With the growth in the additional traffic and the traffic from the center, it will eventually carry 11,500 trips per day on full buildout of the site. Although this greatly exceeds the limit of 4,000 in the code, the character of hart lane in this area is not single family. It is classified as a rntsd shall street because the jewish community center is zoned single family. However, there are only two single family dwellings along this section of hart lane. Um ... North of graystone, hart lane also exceeds 4,000 trips per day. It presently carries about 4400 trips and it will increase to about 6300 trips per day in the future. But the traffic from the dell jewish community center would account for only 3% of this total. In the staff's opinion this would not be a significant deterioration of the present operating level. Graystone west of hart lane also exceeds 4,000 trips per day, presently carries about 4600 trips, it will carry about 5500 in the future. Once again, the dell jewish community center traffic is only about 3% of the total and staff does not feel that it is significant factor. Chimney corners, on the other hand, is far below 2,000 trips -- 4,000 trips per day and will not exceed 4,000 trips per day even with the additional traffic from the center. For this reason the staff feels that it does justify opening firestone drive and allowing traffic to act chimney corners. In summary the staff recommendations are first that access to stone cliff drive which is another cul de sac that abutts the project to the north be denied. That the southern driveway here on hart lane be restricted so that exiting traffic must turn right. There by discouraging traffic from going north on hart lane. The applicant would post a pro rata share of improvements to the intersection of hart lane and far west and chimney corners and far west. And that the development of the tract should be limited to the assumptions that were contained in the traffic impact analysis concerning trip generation and other traffic related characteristics. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you. Yes, Mayor pro tem?

>> Garcia: Mr. Zaplac, on the conditional use permit, item no. 4, Says that if we find that the proposal adversely affects the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic recently expected to be generated by the other uses ... Land uses in the area, that's one of the conditions that has to be met, is that one that you feel comfortable that this particular development satisfies criteria?

>> yes, sir.

>> Garcia: okay.

>> Mayor Watson: Council, before we proceed with the remainder of the hearing, because of the agreement that was reached at the prehearing conference, I would like to get us on the record as approving that process. So I would entertain a motion to approve the modified hearing process that was agreed to. Motion has been made by Councilmember Spelman, seconded by Councilmember Slusher. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye., opposed say no. Motion carries. 6-0 With Councilmember Lewis off the dias.

>> Garcia: let me ask a question, Mayor. All of the parties that appealed agreed on this?

>> Mayor Watson: all of the parties that appealed were present at the prehearing conference and have agreed to this process. Let me make sure that I -- if there's anybody out there that dissents to that statement -- folks we look to as representatives nodded, but I want to make sure, is there any dissent to that? all right. With that, Mr. Score borough, what I promised you is I would give you a minimum or two to state what your position was before we went directly to the hearing process. So why don't I offer you -- how much time do you need, sir?

>> about two.

>> Why don't we have the clock set for two minutes. (End of captioning) will focus on the access through those streets. Jeff jack of Austin neighborhood Council and corner borrow of northwest Austin neighborhood alliance are going to discuss the significance of the conditional use permits that have been tentatively approved in this case, how they are going to affect the City as a whole. Summation at the end of our case in chiefly be by my co-counsel. Before my clients begin addressing these specific criteria, how the planning commission did not make the findings that we believe would have defeated this conditional use permit, I want to draw your attention to number 3, which I think is the single most significant of the nine criteria. If this site creates -- if this conditional use site plan creates greater potentially unfavorable effects or impacts on other existing or permitted uses on the abutting sites, on the neighborhood, then those which may reasonably result from the use of the site by permitted use, this conditional use site plan should be denied. We think that's a pretty straight up comparison. It's an asset two zone site. What we are going to be asking you to do tonight is compare these conditional uses with the daycare, the school, the recreation center, compare that to what would be developed under sf 2 zoning without --.

>> Garcia: sf 2 or sf 3?

>> I'm sorry, sf 3. Again, the two alternatives we are going to ask you to focus on tonight, an sf 3 neighborhood developed under existing zoning and without conditional uses as opposed to the djcc with four conditional uses as proposed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission. Our first speaker this evening will be patti leonard.

>>

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, ms. Leonard.

>> Mayor and Council, I am karen baur, president of the northwest Austin neighborhood alliance. We are an umbrella group that represents approximately 40 neighborhood associations in northwest Austin. Our area covered is part of the northwest Austin civic association.

>> Mayor, Council members, I am jeff jack president of the Austin neighborhoods Council. We represent about 60 neighbors, together with karen's group, we represent over 100 neighbors in Austin. We stand here together tonight because there is a very important underlying issue that this case presents to you. Through all of our -- though all of our neighbors are different, we have one thing in common. We all rely on zoning regulations to protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods. We depend on these land use ordinances to give stability and security to our neighborhoods. And we are here today to ask you to support the integrity of our neighborhood zoning regulations and the zoning process. An important part of the zoning protection is the role of a valid petition. When a neighbor objects strongly to a proposed zoning, this recourse is through a valid petition. As we noted earlier this evening, a valid petition requires the signature of the residents in the area. In this case, 80% of the signatures of the residents in the area signed a valid petition. A valid petition is an essential safeguard for our neighborhoods against adverse zoning changes. As noted within days, these people in these neighbors filed a valid petition against this project. A valid petition is supposed to make it hard inventory get consensus at City Council and it's purposely done that way. The applicant, understanding that overcoming a valid petition was a difficult thing with -- went through that and substituted an application for conditional use permits. If the Planning Commission decision is allowed to stand as is, then we will have in effect a back door zoning change over the opposition of a valid petition. This is a major threat to the integrity of our zoning protections. In the past, you could hear a lot of times in our neighborhoods not in my back yard! it was especially true when we talked about in field projects. But things have begun to change in Austin. Many realize a growth will continue and that suburban sprawl is far worse than the alternative of a compaq sustainable City. But appropriate in fill of a city is not an easy task. Many of our neighborhoods are very apprehensive and need to be assured that we are not moving to denseify of our City at the expense of our neighborhoods. Maximumming growth is essential, but we should not max out every piece of vacant land in the City. We must find a balance between the need to accommodate growth and the need to maintain quality of life in our neighborhood and maintain the integrity of our zoning process as essential. This is truly smart growth. And I urge you to support reasonable compromises that reaffirms our zoning protections, respects our valid petitions and requires adherence to the strict requirements for conditional use permits. The northwest neighborhoods, the dell jewish community center, and the whole community will in the end benefit from your leadership in supporting our zoning protections. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Jack.

>> Mayor Watson and Councilmembers, I am ruth veturna, and I live on graystone. When we moved from the east coast to our home on graystone, 22 years ago, I believed this to be my home for life. Having moved 29 times in 30 years, making a home for my family while my husband serve his country honorably in the u.s. Army. If this development is approved as proposed, I must either move or succumb to the destruction of my neighborhood. I have three points to make on the overdeveloped dell campus. One: at the planning commission meeting a rabbi speaking for dell group stated that it was a tenant of his region to make friends out of enemies, the jewish community center was welcomed into and accepted as a friend by my community. The enemy, lake pollution, noise pollution, traffic pollution, appeared not with the community. But with the intense development of the creation of the dell campus. Two: a flier from the jewish federation mailed to all of the northwest hills homeowners quoted a psalm, how good and how pleasant it is that people dwell together. In an effort to avoid a religious as spegt of the controversy, we in northwest hills agreed to abstain from involving three logical references. -- Theological references, however I find this is a point with which I also disagree with the jewish federation, for it is also Written: do not plant evil against your neighbor who dwells trustingly besides you. Proverbs 3:29. Whoa to them that join house to house, that lay field to field until there be no place. Finally I ask you to look at the audience and measure the disparity of the numbers of people representing dell campus, most of whom do not live in northwest hills, and those representing the immediately affected area. This is the magnitude of the numbers we, the northwest hills community, can expect to disturb and disrupt our quality of life, our tranquility and our residential environment. The overcrowding we are experiencing in Council chambers tonight is exactly what will happen if our neighborhood. -- In our neighborhood. It's the equivalent of depositing a huge commercial enterprise right in the middle of what is now an attractive and peaceful residential area. The area will be forever impacted negatively and as the usage of dell campus is conceived expands, the community will also ultimately be destroyed becoming a cross hatch of stop lights, backed up automobiles, and unwarranted and unwelcome 12 to 16 hours a day activity. It is projected that this development will add 4,000 to 6,000, now I hear plus, car trips per day through my neighborhood. This means that with existing traffic, a car will pass by my house every 10 to 12 seconds. Day and nate. Think about it. That's a lot. I plead with you, all of you, please, please, reduce the intensity and incompatible land use and development of this tract. A 22 acres community center was and is so welcomed in our community. A sprawling 40 acre development with schools, daycare centers, item pels and a home for the aged along with a huge community activity center and athletic complex can only be viewed as an invasion of money, indifference to the community, and do you police community and -- if duplicity in exchanging one project for another. When we bought and when we built and created our neighborhoods and homes. I thank you ladies and gentlemen for your patience and for being here for a such a long long time today. Thank you.

>> Good evening, Mayor, Council, I am allen tannebaum. Three sides of this site are residential roads, unfortunately the project has no access to the fourth site, to the fourth side at the bottom, far west boulevard, the only major road in the area. This design flaw is at the root of most of the traffic problems at this site. The residential community at this site would generate at the most 2,687 trips per day, that's the number that we have agreed with the staff, and never increase. But this project will generate 4,264 trips and not have a natural cap, the natural cap of a residential area. Since there is no accepted formula for the complex interaction between 8 independent commercial and private facilities, the trips and parking are just educated guesses, neighborhood are understandably concerned about what happens if the estimates are wrong. Backing out of driveways, waiting at the corners to turn, that's what people think about. Seven years ago a zoning case for apartments on this same property was withdrawn. The City said that the traffic on hart lane was shown to be excessive and recommended -- just hold that up -- recommended that the traffic should be linlted to no more than would be generate understand the property developed to the maximum density allowed in sf 3. This is why we have tia's and traffic assumptions for the various zoning district. This was an example of the tia in action. As everyone in northwest hills knows two months ago the traffic situation was certainly no better than it was in 1991. Blue the -- but the planning commission approved the project with twice the traffic of that apartment project. The traffic clearly causes criterion no. 4 To fail. Where will all of this traffic go, I ask my neighbors. Thanks, 3300 will flow in and out on hart lane, bringing the total on that street to over 10,000 trips per day according to the applicant's study. This is 158% over what the city code calls undesireable and the projects accounts for 27% of the increase. The site will generate high volumes from early morning to late evening. Not just during rush hours, but when our children are coming home from school, we are walking our dogs or jogging. The patterns from this site are nothing like a residential area. Regardless of the level of service one or two blocks away, rars of the time of day, the city code says this project must be denied if it exceeds 4,000 trips in 24 hours. This is not some outdated code section, but in fact revised just last year with the intention of making it this strict. Unless you find that this is, "an insignificant impact on the street" you are supposed to disapprove the project or at least find that it does not conform with the land development code. In either case, criteria number one fails, this is not the only street failing the test. North hart lane will be 58% over and graystone 38% over as you see in the chart. By the way, Travis County has lowered some tax assessments on hart lane by 5% each year, directly due to the increase in traffic. Residents are worried this drop in values will accelerate. Chimney corners will be below the 4,000 mark, that's on the left side. But for good reasons. It's a quieter road that goes nowhere fast. If firestone drive -- the road on the west side -- if firestone drive is opened without some solution to the underlying problem, the traffic study -- the traffic study says that the turns at far west boulevard, that's at the bottom part, will fail at times by as much as four minutes. As you know, levels of service at turns are rated abcdef. Since f in this case is 45 seconds at this intersection, the level of service is f, f, f, f, f. Yet the consultants call these passing intersections because the traffic doesn't slow down on far west boulevard. This traffic on chimney will cause the existing cut-through situation during the day to be much worse, raising safety fears and causing criterion no. 4 To fail again. One block away is doss elementary whose traffic and safety concerns are well known and documented by the City. But the entities didn't know about each other. The traffic study for this site did not go even one block from the site. The use of the bike racks at doss as steadily decreased to almost non-use by the heavy traffic on far west and once again safety concerns. The pc asked that the applicant pay for their share of a traffic light. We have heard strong objection to that plan from the doss neighborhood. The staff and Public Works says it's very unlikely to meet warrants due to the steep hill. Please fix it but don't look at a quick fix to the symptoms at this corner and cause yet another problem. In conclusion, I ask you to take these technical arguments and common sense pleas from the heart into account as you determine the future of our neighborhood. We just want to be able to live in our neighborhood and feel good about all of our neighbors, include the djcc. We would love to see built the jcc that we were originally shown. Scaling traffic back will go a long way toward that goal. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you Mr. Tannebaum.

>> Good evening Mayor, I am John Martin, the president of the chimney corners townhouses association, a 22 unit complex on chimney corners near far west boulevard. I am an appellate on behalf of that association. I am here this evening because the Planning Commission's decision to grant conditional use permits was in error. The biggest issue for my association is the opening of firestone drive. We believe this is an inappropriate access point for the dell jewish community center traffic. Putting 880 more cars on to chimney corners is irresponsible. Because drivers unwilling or unable to negotiate the failing left and right hand turns at the corner of chimney corners and far west choose alternative routes. The most popular, a short-cut through our shared private driveway, which services 43 private residences and is used by students walking and bicycling to doss elementary school. If you remember, many of our elderly residents -- furtherer more, many of our elderly residents choose longer but safer traveling alternatives. The opening of firestone drive clearly fails criteria number 3 and number 4 of section 14-1-663 of the land development code. This stubout was never intended to be used as a private driveway for a large multi use facility dumping cars on to chimney corners. A petition was recently circulated through my neighborhood asking to you decide that if -- if firestone is opened, that you not remove any of the traffic alleviating recommendations made by the Planning Commission. This petition is a clear indication that we are fearful the evidence will be ignored as it was on January the 6th. Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, most people associate the word responsibility with the word burden. Let me suggest tonight that you should associate it with the word freedom. Tonight, exercise your freedom and protect the life style investments we have made in our homes. On behalf of the chimney corners townhouses association I insist that you must take whatever steps are necessary to keep firestone drive closed. Thank you for your consideration.

>> Spelman: quick question of the speaker. You pointed out -- you mentioned that there was a private driveway, a lot of cut through, could you point that out on the map, please?

>> yeah.

>> Spelman: one of those questions what shouldn't be counted against their time.

>> Mayor Watson: I have the clock off.

>> Spelman: I see the green light.

>> Mayor Watson: I have my fancy watch, I am ready to go.

>> Spelman: right.

>> I was wondering when you were going to get some.

>> More charts.

>> I think maybe you have too many.

>> Use the microphone. Well, I can't do both. I know that. Okay. Here's the corner, fire stone opens here's, this is the private driveway, my complex is here, chimney oaks complex here, doss elementary right over here. What happens is this cornerbacks up, cars will come out of here, and see all of these cars backed up here and come right through here. This is the cross walk to the elementary school.

>> Far west.

>> They enter off of your private driveway, what's that intersection like, if you could describe it for us?

>> this is actually -- yes, this is above the hill, you are coming up the hill here at far west. This is where the school cross walk is. This intersection here in the morning will back up here, all of the cars are coming down far west, people are trying to get out of school to come this way, the crossing guard here will actually stop traffic on occasion to let -- to allow for turns to be made out of here or out of here, typically after a student has crossed the road or whatever. But most of the traffic will flow on to our driveway from this direction on chimney corners, not this way.

>> This is a primary problem during the morning peak hours? is that correct?

>> morning and in the afternoons.

>> In the afternoons, too.

>> Yeah. Not nearly as bad in the afternoons because of the traffic on far west is not as bad

>> you all welcomed and supported the original plan for the swru wish community center in our neighborhood. And we still do. But through the use of conditional use permits, we wind up with a regional development not compatible with our neighborhood. We respectfully request that the Council reject the present plan. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: for your reference, you have five minutes left on the first 30 minutes.

>> Mayor, Councilmembers, my name is larry lay, president of the northwest Austin civic association and I want to appreciate the support we are getting from the other neighborhood associations tonight with their letters to you. A few comments on the process and the neighborhood involvement in november of '9, we had a neighborhood meeting which notices were mailed to every single member of the neighborhood association and area residents that were not members, perhaps within about a mile, I'm sorry, half of a mile of the proposed development. After that meeting, we had 85% voting in full support of the neighborhood position. In november of you 7, we also had a zoning committee meeting, which had a 9-0 vote in support of the neighborhood position. During the last two months, 500 residents within about a half a mile of the proposal had been called, 75% support the neighborhood position, 15% were undecided or expressed no opinion. We also distributed at request of adjacent neighbors within several blocks of the project, 250 yard signs that you all saw one in the paper this morning. I've been a resident of northwest hills for about 25 years and watched the traffic problems in the area worsen during that time. Today I am going to talk about the proposed lights on the playing field as a part of the conditional use permit. Also known as the glow on the hill, I think, by paper. Even with directional lighting, the lights have to be bright enough to light the field. They are going to be seen. The main problem is the noise associated with the lights. Other neighborhoods with no ball field lights such as wooten, ramsey, brentwood, anderson high school, have no lights on existing athletic fields. Like most other neighborhoods, our neighborhood becomes quiet after dark. This is a normal neighborhood expectation. It is not by accident, but by design with prefts neighborhood interaction with the school district in particular. The noise associated with lights on ball field operating until 9:30 and other outdoor recreational activities until 11:00 p.m. Will disrupt the neighborhood and the residents' quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood. We have been informed by the Austin parks and recreation that they have trouble with curfews on their lights as it exists today. Use the athletic fields only during daylight hours. Use of the fields without lights still permits the kids to play and permit the applicant to lease the field, but does not turn our neighborhood into a north pleasant valley sports complex at night. Sundown equals quiet in neighborhood. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Lee. Mr. Aryan.

>> I am going to summarize very briefly here. We believe that the planning commissionered in approving the conditional use plan because the facts that you have just heard do not justify a finding that there will be no potentially greater unfavorable impacts on the neighborhood with the conditional uses as opposed to the permitted uses that would otherwise be allowed. The standard for a conditional use site plan are very high. They are intentionally high. As Mr. Jacks pointed out, the applicants originally came in with a go, general office zoning plan, there was a valid petition so they tried to do it through the conditional use process what they couldn't through the zoning process. The standard says you measure the proposed conditional use plan against what the denseness permitted use -- densest permitted use that could be developed on the property would be. Based monday that sort of a standard comparison, you determine whether or not there will be any greater impacts potentially greater, more unfavorable impacts with the proposed conditional use as on toesed to a permanented use. Facts you have heard tonight --

>> you have about 30 second.

>> The facts that you have heard tonight, the vehicle trips per day from a permitted use of a dense permitted use would be 2687 versus 4264. Possibly much more. Lighted ball fields versus no lights in a duplex residential subdivision. Streets that -- that cul de sacs that have access into this project where families will be dropping their kids off on stone cliff versus a quiet private cul de sac. I might add we spent a lot of time down here earlier today with this parmer auditorium matter. Just to conceptualize what we are talking about, the proposed project has more square footage than parmer auditorium and the coliseum put together on 15 fewer acres. Thank you very much.

>> Mayor Watson: you used 30 minutes and 40 second. I will calculate for you when you get back. Mr. Subtle? suttle. Mr. Suttle.

>> How many different pictures can there be of the same site?

>> it depends on your perspective.

>> Sit sdeps of Austin, look forward to your decision tonight. The cases was originally filed as a zoning case along with the site plan, as you heard from the neighbors we filed for go zoning, it allowed for more impervious cover and after visiting with the neighborhood committee, listening to concern, we withdrew the zoning case and went to a conditional use permit under the sf 3 zoning category. What came with that was an agreement to abide by the development restrictions of sf 3 zoning. What comes with that, 35 foot height limitation, 45 foot -- 45% impervious cover, a reduced square footage on the project. Before you tonight is an appeal of the conditional use permit that was approved by the Planning Commission after a -- about I think about a four hour hearing. Before it was approved by the Planning Commission, it was reviewed by the City staff and I think if you will ask any of the City staff, they will tell that you they have spent more time looking at this case than most any case in a long, long time. After that very lengthy review, the planning staff, the professional planning staff recommended approval. The traffic impact analysis was reviewed by your professional planning -- professional traffic staff. As you heard tonight, they glae with the findings, they agree it does not have a significant impact and will not cause a problem in this area. After the hearing the planning commission approved the conditional use permits as recommended by staff and then they added some additional conditions. And that's how they made their finding that it met all of the criteria. I will get to the findings in a minute. It's interesting how those findings work, it's not exactly like you heard tonight. 131663, The chart that you see here, says that the pc shall deny if it makes the findings of the undesirable effects. So what they have to do is to decide well it doesn't meet number 3 or it doesn't meet number 4. If they make that finding then they shall deny. What happened after the long hearing, the long staff presentation is they didn't make any of those findings because they are not require. They are only required to make those findings if they are going to den) they didn't do it. Pursuant to 13145 is the -- 13154 the burden is on the appellates. We feel they did not meet that burden. They don't have to make findings unless they want to deny it. 131663 Is clear. The objectives of sf 3, you hearing aid that it doesn't meet the zoning objectives. The fact of the matter is we are meeting the zoning objectives of sf 3, these uses are conditional uses in sf 3, we are abiding by the development regulations in sf 3. You have heard that maybe criteria number 4 wasn't met because there's too much traffic and inconvenience, george stood up tonight and answered point-blank does it -- can haw that finding that it is an inconvenience or is unsafe for the motoring public? he said they didn't make that finding and neither did the Planning Commission after the hearing. You hear of undesirable levels of 4,000 trips. In fact on hart lane in front of the jcc, if you look across the street, it is all multi family zoning except for the part on far west and it's commercial zoning. On the dell jewish community center side it's commercial at far west, sing gel family on the community center side, then there's one house that has a driveway on hart line in this segment. One house, we have a letter of support from that home owner supporting the plan commission. The lone household with the driveway on hart supports this project. You get into what happens on the other segments if they are over 4,000, that's gray stone and hart north of graystone. What the code tells us if it's over 4,000, you have to mitigate or you have to find that it's an insignificant impact on the traffic and you heard the staff say it's 3% increase and that includes all of the background traffic. And I think everybody agreed the staff, the traffic engineers, Planning Commission agreed that 3% was not a significant impact on these two streets. You heard some talk about intersections failing. There are no failing intersections. According to the tia reviewed and approved by City staff. There are no failing intersections. At very short periods of time there during the day there are failing movements within an intersection, meaning it is hard to get out and take a left or hard to get out and take a right, but the intersections all pass, according to the City of audio code and criteria. If you look at the professional analysis and staff recommendation, you have to agree on an orb active criteria, traffic is not an issue here. On firestone it's been said we shouldn't take any access, even though fire stone and chimney corners are way below capacity, I want to emphasize this is a 40 acre site, 40 acres, at one point we are being asked to take access on one one street. Hart lane at that segment while it has more traffic, we can mitigate that, by agreeing to do the improvements that have been requested by staff and that is to restripe and put a left turn lane down at the signal to move traffic through there, it keeps the intersection operating in an acceptable level of service. You have heard testimony about the lights. The lights were carefully considered by the planning commission and what happened on the lights? originally this site had two ball fields lit with unlimited hours. We have an agreement with a condo owner association that is most affected and you will hear from him in a minute basically they said light that one field on that corner that's as far away as you can, turn those lights off I believe at 10:00. The Planning Commission said one lighted field, turn them off at 9:30. The rational was in the summer you will be out there until 9:30 anyway. In the winter this allows the opportunity for the kids around parents to play together after the kids get out of school the parents get out of work f.you think about it after work in the winter, it's dark, there's not any time to play, with lights until 9:30, it doesn't increase the impact any more than what would happen in the summer when it's light until 9:30. I want to re-emphasize that the Planning Commission doesn't have to make a finding. They made their finding. They approved the plan. They only have to make a finding if they want to disapprove and they didn't. Finally, many of you are probably wondering why couldn't we work this out? this is a wonderful project. You heard neighborhoods earlier tonight say, boy, we will like to have that in our neighborhood, let me tell you I have heard that all over town, we would lingd to have it in our neighborhood. We have heard issues of phasing, phase this project. What we did is project this -- we brought this project in showing full buildout, ultimate buildout so all of the cards are on the table. If you phase this, what happens when you are fundraising? this project is not being built with any public fund, these are funds being raised from private individual. But if you tell an individual, pledge your money, but you may or may not get to build it because we have this phase in plan, the fundraising doesn't working. What about the access? why can't you give up fire stone? 40 acres, the planning commission put a circular drive, traffic calming circle to discourage that but to allow a third access point somewhere on that site. What we hear most is down size down size down size, what we are looking at is three entities two, congregations, and the jewish federation wanting to a do a community center, recreation, where can we down size, number one, who are you going to tell to down size, number two, and number 3, why, when all of the objective criteria I can't show there is no reason to down size, all of the intersections work, all of the roadways work, all of the infrastructure is there. But what did the campus do? increased buffers more than code refresh my memory. Withdrew the zoning, down sized it as a result of that, there is a letter, I don't know if it's in your package or in the plan commission packet, I think there was 40 some odd points that the neighborhood wanted and there was agreement on many of those, agreement by the campus to do that. Of course that always -- that started -- that's where we always start from, every time, the agreement, but what happened was we compromised, we worked something out to get the Planning Commission approval. Now we are skked to to start there and cut more. And down size more, I just don't think that's fair. Beyond that what you see here is a map and many of you got lots of e-mails, lots of letters in your office in support and opposition to this. There's been allegations support is in the neighborhood. This map, can you probably barely see the pins, there's many many pins all around. Those are letters or e-mails that we received copies of that were sent to you in support of the planning commission recommendations. Those aren't all of them. This is basically a stack of all of the letters and e-mails that have been sent on this project in favor and there are hundreds in the northwest hills area. At this time, I would like Paul rush to stand up. Paul's group is one of the large condominium associations that reach an agreement with us, I would like for Paul to discuss that briefly and then I will wrap up.

>> I am Paul rush, a board member of the far west skyline homeowners association I represent 50 condominium homeowners who have their homes located adjacent to the proposed jcc, for the last two years we have worked with the leadership of the jfa, have found them willing to compromise with us to provide a project that will enhance and compliment our property. The jfa and the planning commission incorporated our signed agreement into the conditional use permit, the jfa has agreed to the following 8 points. First was an sf 3 zoning for the whole tract, the what will 40 acres, second was a height restriction of 35 feet for the whole project except for worship space in the two synagogues, third, they will construct a fence and landscape the area between our two properties that is acceptable to us. Fourth, that the playing field closest to our property will not be lit. All play will end on the fields at 9:30. Fiflt, the playing field closest to hart lane fartherest from our property may be lit with directionnal lighting, lights are to be off by 9:30. Sixth the tennis courts were were moved, an may also be lit with directional lights but turned off at 9:30. 7Th, no permanent public address system, although a temporary pa system could be used for special events, including high holly day. 8Th, no alcoholic beverages will be allowed on the field. During the past two years I have visited four different jewish community centers in four different cities and I have noticed and been impressed with each one, their quality, their compatibility with the neighborhood, their concern with the neighborhood. In conclusion I speak for 50 homeowners, the one that's live closest to this project in support of the dell campus. Thank you.

>> Does the Mayor -- I was wondering how much time we have left? that will --. 17? We are going to be able to give you some time back tonight then. In addition to Paul's neighborhood association, I was handed tonight another petition of another 50 neighbors in the northwest hills neighborhood, a petition with names and addresses on here in support of the Planning Commission recommendation. Backing up, one of the criteria is will this have an effect on the bud -- abutting sites, more or less unfavorable than a permitted use. I think that what you have to realize or what are some of the permitted uses on an sf 3 site. Besides houses and duplexes and religious assembly, synagogues, churches, temples, et cetera, you can also hypothetically do public, high schools, public junior highs, and public elementary schools, we are not suggesting that's going to happen tonight, but when you hear that you have to make that comparison, keep in mind that those are permitted uses, they can be there, but it's not like we are proposing those. At this time, I am just going to run through the site plan very quickly for you to show how this lays out and close, I want to remind you that our traffic engineer is here for any questions that you might have. I don't pretend to be a traffic engineer or expert, numbers go right over my head, but mike mcintyre is here in case you have in questions.

>> Garcia: I have a quick question. I have heard your responses to the arguments by the people that are opposing, but I understand that you are also appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. Unless I miss the it for whatever reason, I haven't heard what your appeal to the Planning Commission's position is?

>> I withdraw our appeal right now.

>> Okay.

>> We can live with the Planning Commission conditions and recommendations.

>> You can barely see it because of the overlay, this is a site plan as it was filed. The overlay shows the setbacks that the Planning Commission placed on it to make this compatible with the abutting sites. Basically it includes a minimum of 50 feet of green space buffer and a minimum of 100 foot of building setback along with a traffic circle at this driveway at firestone with a landscape median in the middle, if you can envision driving in what you will see will be landscaping, the circle is to discourage drive through traffic and the concerns that some of the neighbors raised by people coming in and out of here. What you have here is the synagogue, the temple, the educational facilities, the community center with expansion space, the ball field, should be noted that this is the all field that is poped to be lighting until 9:30 and it is about 1,000 feet from the closest single family residents. It hangs, if you remember, kind of hangs over the cliff that is there on far west. It should also be noted that the Planning Commission approved the plat, the subdivision plat of this property with a note that requires access between the four lots on hart and to firestone. There's also a -- an easement that was filed of record as a refresh my memory of the plat showing a cross access easement between the tracks to fire stop and to hart. We have lots of boards, the traffic engineer is here, our architect is here, the subdivision plat, the map that shows just some of the pins that represent letters of support. It doesn't show the additional 50 that came in today. And plus the letters, we will be happy to answer any questions that you might have, but our plea tonight is, please, support your professional staff. Support your planning commission. Support the hundreds of neighborhoods that live -- hundreds of neighbors in live in the northwest hills area that support the planning commission recommendation, I mean hundreds, we are happy to go through these, they are in your offices, too, support whatever religious institutions enjoy in this city, that is a place to come, worship, gather, play, relax and learn, please don't make the jewish community wait, don't make the citizens of Austin wait, vote to deny the appeals tonight and let's get on and build this wonderful project as approved by the plan commission, thank you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Suttle. [Applause] are you ready?

>> yes, sir.

>> You have 29 minutes and 20 second. I'm sorry, -- sorry about that. Nine minutes and 20 second, I'm sorry.

>> I will be very brief. Mayor, members of the Council, I would like to point out just a couple of factual issues. The -- we are told that the intersections don't fail, that the technical staff that -- has calculated the intersection movement, the intersections don't fail, therefore traffic is not an issue. That clearly just isn't the case. Even if -- if the whole issue and the standard for comparison here is not just to determine that the intersections fail under some technical argument, the total amount of trips is substantially more, the assumed trips of 4664, or 4264 is 70% higher than the most vehicle trips per day that would be produced from a permitted use. The most important thing here is that if -- if there was a duplex development or a -- or a residential development in this property, once the property was developed out, that will be the max nofziger trips that you would get. The traffic that is -- that you would get. The traffic proposed here is based upon assumed enrollments in some of the various uses. The community center, the daycare center. If those assumptions are wrong and enrollments are higher than were assumed, then the trips will go up. And as it stand right now, in the conditional use plan that was approved by the planning commission, there are no enforce I didn't believe caps, there is no mechanism for going -- enforceable counts. There is no mechanism to take count of the amount of trips going on on site based upon the enrollment levels in some of the various uses. Consequently, there's no way of protect being the neighborhood -- protecting the neighborhood from a development that ends up being far denser in generating far more traffic than is being assumed right now. That needs to be taken into consideration, that is a real failure in the conditional use permit requirements as they are right now. With that having been said, I will defer to Mr. Kaiser who will make the close.

>> Thank you, Mayor, Council members. I want to economiment Mr. Suttle on his case, he laid it out very cogently why it would be an asset to Austin. What I want to talk about tonight, though, is not whether this is a good project or would be an asset to Austin, because that's not the issue we are down here to decide. I told you at the start of this hearing that the neighborhood appellant were going to talk about the issues on appeal particularly about the development criteria for conditional use site plans. The question that you need to be asking is not do we want this project, but does this site plan comply with the criteria for approval of a conditional use site plan. And I differ with Mr. Subtle as to whether the planning commission needs to make those findings. Those are not optional findings. If the evidence shows that the site plan does comply, then the Planning Commission should approve it. If it doesn't meet any of those criteria, they should disapprove it. I want ho be very honest about those criteria because there's a lot of wiggle room in them. They call for subjective evaluations in some cases, if you look at those criteria, they use word like detrimental or compatible and adequate. And I think the neighborhood appellates would still disagree with the planning commission if the planning commission had made findings and had explained why they thought that certain features of this site were or were not detrimental or adequate or compatible, but we would recognize there can be honest disagreement about a lot of these criteria, they are subjective. The criteria 3 is very different. It is a straight up comparison. It asks you which will create greater potentially unfavorable effects or impacts. Use of the site by a permitted use or use of the site with conditional use perm. In this case use of the dell jewish community center site with these four conditional unit. Each of you on the dias can answer that question without resort to expert witnesses or expert testimony. I just ask you to put nurse the position of an abutting resident on graystone or chimney kaurps, then decide, which would have the more unfavorable impacts on you, a single family zoned neighborhood with houses much like your own, no commercial uses, no more than 26 trips per day on hart and other neighborhood streets or a 330,000 plus square foot mixed use development with recreation centers, schools, daycares, lit ball field, victimming -- swimminging pools, at least 4,000 trips per day, maybe at least 6,000. You don't have to decide that this is a bad project. It's probably not a bad project. Probably too dense of a project. We are not saying this is anything like a hog farm or barton creek because it's not. It's a great big community center. But to decide this appeal, you don't have to decide it's bad, but you do have to make that comparison called for in 3. You have to decide which has the more unfavorable impact on abutting properties in terms of traffic, in terms of lights, in terms of noise, in terms of intensity.

>> Mayor Watson: can I interrupt you. When it talks about abutting, help me with that. Because traffic clearly has one of its own, that's number 4. And so I -- but when it talk about abutting, that -- is what it's intended to do there is to talk about something that literally comes up next to it? you mentioned graystone. Should I be looking at the houses that are on the property line with the community center and that's what's abutting?

>> abutting to me is also always been across the strict. A strict reading you have to talk about what touches you, what's across the street. I mean the street belongs to the City here? in this case what you would suggest that is I would want to look -- in instance on graystone, I should not only look at that -- I won't use the word abutt but backs up to, across, hart lane, what is across hart line.

>> And chimney corners.

>> And across chimney corners. All right. I'm sorry to interrupt.

>> That's quite all right. The reason it's hard to make that finding is it's not supposed to be easy. Conditional use permit are a departure from zoning. Zoning cases are the building blocks of our planning in this city. The zoning enabling act tells the City like Austin you can zone if you have a comprehensive plan but use that plan to decide what can be built and what can be done and when you depart from that comprehensive plan, when you depart from what you can do in a zoning district, in use or structure, you need to have a very good reason and you need to have very strict criteria. Four separate conditional use permits on this sf 3 site circumvents these planning principles and it is not supposed to be easy to find that it's going to cause less unfavorable impacts. Two thoughts in closing Mayor and Councilmembers. The first is please do not be dismissive of the neighborhood's concerns here. Whatever you decide tonight is going to seriously affect these people and their lives and their homes. It's going to affect what they hear and see at night through an open window, and what happens to them when they back out of their driveways in the morning and what happens when they driveway down to doss elementary school in the afternoon to try to pick up their kids. When you say don't be dismissive, I am thinking about an editorial that says these problems to individuals and neighbors don't really matter if the goal to be achieved like a large community center is sufficiently attractive. We are here tonight to remind that you that's not the way the planning process works. Individuals do matter in our -- and our code is Written to make sure that individuals have certain rights in planning no, matter how influential a developer may be and no matter how worthwhile a project may be. Secondly, and finally in closing, once again, you are not here to decide tonight whether the djcc and whether the many good people who support it's ace good thing for Austin. It's a much narrower question, does the conditional use site plan particularly meet the criteria set out there. The neighborhood paelts ask that you do your job by answering this question, that you not decide this case based on politics or emotions or the number of influential supporters that either side may have. We thank you for your attention and this procedure.

>> Mayor Watson: thank you very much. [Applause] on behalf of the Council I do want to thank all of you all for being here, thank you very much for engaging with us in the prehearing conference. I think that made for a better procedure for this appeal so I appreciate the fact that everybody even those that didn't participate in the actual prehearing conference, participated by allowing us to conduct the hearing this way. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item no. 39. Motion made by Councilmember Griffith, seconded by Mayor pro tem. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye., opposed say no. Motion carries with Councilmember Lewis off the dias. That takes us to item no. 40 Which is the action on the public hearing item, I will entertain a motion with regard to item no. 40.

>> Goodman: Mayor I have a question first. For staff. Procedural actually. I came to mind after something that Mr. Cowser said, I would like to know are we precluded from doing anything in granting or denying except to take action on what is before us, meaning the planning commission recommendations or are we given the leeway to amend whatever we are looking at right now? do we just have to say yes or no?

>> Councilmember Goodman, on section 13-1-256 states that -- right in the middle, on appeal the permit approval or decision may be approved or denied in whole or in part or may be modified in dorns with appropriate findings applying the -- in accordance with the appropriate findings. That's the first page of your yellow handout.

>> Goodman: I hope everybody is really paying attention to this and never ask why it is we need to revise the land development code. He want to also thank all of the folks who have been here all this long time and for this presentation, this was really good. And before we get into any difficult stuff, I want to also thank the reps of the two side, you all have the very best here tonight, Mr. Suttl, Mr. Cowser, Mr. Aryian, it almost makes the land development code interesting and fun. Almost. [Laughter] thank you, Mayor. [Applause]

>> Mayor Watson: a question has come up, I apologize, are you finished?

>> Goodman: I don't have a motion.

>> Mayor Watson: a question has come up as to whether or not I should read the cards of those who have signed up to speak. [Laughter]. I tell you what I am going to do. Since we have modified -- I believe we have broke the record tonight of the previous record. We have 338 cards here. Let me just ask, of those who are here, who really feels like they need to have their name called out? [laughter]. All right. With that being said, yes, Mayor pro tem?

>> I want to tell you that when we discussed one of the water quality ordinances, we had 675 people sign up to speak on one item.

>> Mayor Watson: well, in deference, since nobody just cried out that they need to have their name said outloud and in deference to our interpret who -- [laughter] -- terri chappell, who -- [laughter], what did she do? [laughter].

>> Garcia: I think we could maybe do it easier Mayor by having the people that are in favor or against it to stand.

>> Mayor Watson: that's not a bad idea. Those who are in favor of the appeal, gym to broadly categorize that as the neighborhood, represented by Mr. Causer, Mr. Arian, please stand. Thank you all. Those who are in favor of the community center as set forth by the Planning Commission, please stand. Thank you all very much, we appreciate you you being here at this late hour, also.

>> Mayor Watson, my name is mill lean wilkes, I don't want to be announced, but there is information that I believe should be asked to the -- to the City planners about when the traffic counts were completed and on what streets, what time of year. Thank you.

>> Mayor Watson: okay. We have completed the process. And if -- I don't know, in all deference, if we feel the need to ask certain types of information we will do that, that's what we are getting ready to do is -- to be a part of this process, I will entertain a motion with regard to item no. 40. Councilmember Goodman.

>> Goodman: I am going to start out as a point for beginning discussion with the planning commission recommendations, but I have some thoughts for possible amendments.

>> Mayor Watson: a motion has been made to approve the Planning Commission --.

>> Goodman: I don't know how to phrase that.

>> Mayor Watson: the motion would be to deny the appeal.

>> Garcia: yes.

>> Mayor Watson: we are going to -- we've had appeals all withdrawn and I want to make sure our record is clear. The appeals by anyone other than what I will broadly label the neighborhood have been withdrawn; is that accurate? so the only appeal to be considered by the Council is that from what we were broadly labeling the neighborhood which is represented by Mr. Causer and Mr. Arian; is that correct? all right. So the motion is -- we have a number of individuals, but it's all combined together; is that fair? six entities, we -- is it fair to broadly characterize it that way. The motion is to deny the appeals of all the appellates that I am broadly labeling the neighborhood, but it would be to deny all of the appeals. Is there a second? there is a second?

>> Spelman: we feed to start somewhere. I would note vote in favor as it stand without some modification, but I think we need to get started, so I will start it.

>> Mayor Watson: made by Councilmember Goodman, seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Discussion?

>> Goodman: I think there are many questions that I would like to ask staff, especially Mr. Saplac, because some of the traffic issues I don't really see an answer to, like -- I don't know the access, the ingress and -- egress, it's very late at night, my vocabulary has just left me. Ingress and egress issues. Somebody told me earlier it started out having two access points on hart. And I don't know if that's --

>> yes, that's correct.

>> Okay. But you don't -- you can't support that because -- because what are the principles involved that they really need to be other access points on different sites sides.

>> With only the accesses on to hart lane, there were two proposalled driveways, let me pull out the site plan. (This is the end of the closed captioning)