>> Good afternoon everybody. My name is Gus Garcia. I serve on the Austin City Council in place 2. And during this portion of the meeting, we present proclamations to people who are observing special dates or doing something else that's special for the City. This first proclamation is being presented to Mr. Peter rieck, the director -- the director of our department of Public Works and transportation. The proclamation reads as follows, be it known by these present that Mayor Kirk Watson and the City of Austin does here by proclaim may 17th through the 23rd, 1998 as national Public Works week in Austin and calls on all citizens to join in this recognizing that Public Works are comprised of streets and highways, buildings and dams, as well as services and projects related to recycling and refuse disease al. Water and wastewater facilities, electrical distribution. Building maintenance and services financed by public funds for the benefit of the general public and recognizing that the department of public works, solid waste services, the water and wastewater utility, the Austin energy, police services and building services for the City of Austin for all the outstanding contributions made to the quality of life in our community. This is signed by Mayor Kirk Watson and by the the City clerk and I'm glad to present it to you.
>> Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mayor pro tem, Councilmembers. I accept this proclamation on behalf of all Public Works employees. And when I talk about public works employees, that is not just employees in the department of Public Works and transportation, but as was stayed in solid waste services, water and wastewater, electric utility, watershed protection, fleet services and building maintenance. And in order to show the citizens what the faces are that are behind all these men and women that work tirelessly to maintain the infrastructure in Austin, Texas and to make the best use with your tax monies in order to keep the streets drivable, to keep the electricity to the houses, I would like a number of these employees to briefly introduce hem themselves, state their name and tell you what they do for you on a daily basis.
>> Good afternoon. My name is gloria and I work in the real estate division and I'm an account technician, which I take care of all the payments coming through real estate. Thank you.
>> How you doing? I'm cliff edmundson. I'm in Solid Waste Services and Recycling.
>> Good afternoon. My name is hillary north. I'm parking he enforcement and I control the parking for the city of Austin.
>> How you doing? eddie montoya and we do all the striping for the City of Austin.
>> I'm jeff and I'm parking meter repair. We take care of all the parking meters.
>> Good afternoon. My name is gilbert alvarez. I supervise the construction inspection.
>> Afternoon. I'm rick hamilton. I'm a supervisor in construction inspection and Public Works.
>> Good afternoon. My name is gloria clark. I work for the a and e services division. I manage prong management fund. Thank you.
>> Hello, I'm marcia simmons. We do flood gate repair and area maintenance.
>> Hello. I work with the signs and maintenance.
>> My name is fer nan do. I work with overlay and milling section. We pave the streets.
>> My name is Robert. I work for fleet services. I'm a fleet mechanic and repair all vehicles that are brought in.
>> Good afternoon. My name is theodore Johnson. I work with the utility. We repair all the utility carts throughout the Austin area.
>> I work in the concrete section and construct the sidewalks and the curb and gutter.
>> My name is larry. I sweep all the streets of Austin.
>> My name is Robert. Solid waste services street cleaning.
>> I'm jose, solid waste services street cleaning. I'm with garbage collection, solid waste services. [Applause].
>>Garcia: thank you so much for being here and thank you for all that you do for the city. The citizens recognize that. Thank you so much. Thank you, peter. This next proclamation is a little bit close to me, my mother and my sister both passed away with cancer. And this proclamation is being presented to the american cancer society. So if somebody is here from the society -- be it known by these present that Kirk Watson.
>> Mayor of the City of Austin does here by proclaim april 24th, 1998 as the american cancer society relay for life day in Austin. I guess you're going to talk about that. Have they had that already?
>> yes, sir.
>>Garcia: and we all on all of the sit sins to join us in recognizing that the american scar raise raise funds to benefit cancer research, patient services and education here in Austin. In honoring all those individuals who have battled cancer in the past and encouraging those individuals who are fighting cancer today and urging everyone to support this most worthwhile cause in 1998 relay for life and it's skiend by the Mayor. And I for one know of the work that you guys do, being a beneficiary of it, my family. And I still thank you for all the services that were provided, even though my mother died in the 60's and my sister in the '70's. Thank you. [Applause].
>> Thank you to Mayor Watson and to the City Council for this recognition. Our second annual relay for life here in Austin was a great success this year. It was held on april 24th and prif 25th and more than 40 teams from the Austin community parnd with the american cancer society and raised funds to benefit cancer research, education and patient services that are provided right here in Texas. The event was kicked off with a survivor's lap that had more than 200 cancer survivors from the Austin area. This recognition will keep our focus on working together as a community here in Austin and in Texas as a whole to work towards a cure. Thank you. [Applause].
>>Mayor Watson: please come forward. Our next proclamation. Be it known by these present, that I, the Mayor the Austin, Texas, do here by proclaim may 24th, 1989 as ban nek burn baptist church day in Austin. Am I pronouncing that right? and call on all citizens in recognizesing that the church was first on organized in may 1973 with 30099 charter members and the church has grown since that day and recognizing the first and only pastor of the church for his dedicated service and leadership in recognizing the members of the congregation for their service to the community and encouraging everyone to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the baptist church, signed by Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin. Thank you very much. Congratulations.
>> I wanted to present to Mayor Watson on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of our church a copy of the bible in contemporary english and I hope you enjoy. Our church is built on the principles and I know you believe in them as well.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much.
>> Thank you, sir.
>>Goodman: about 30 years ago Austin was in danger of losing much of its historic structures, homes, buildings and so on. I'd like to ask loretta dowd to come up and take the proclamation that we're going to give for preservation week. Historic preservation has been an important component of our land development code now since 1974 and over 250 historic structures and are currently zoned historic. There being a neighborhood planned person and planning commission and now Council and having a lot of people who are always anxious to tell me be careful what you do over there, that's a historic area, do not change what we've been able to save, I'm very privileged to have played a role in helping us keep our past as part of our present and our future. And so it's an honor for me to do this, to read it and have loretta accept. This proclamation is to let it be known that Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin, Texas, does here by pro claim may 10th through 16th, 1998 as preserve slaition week in Austin and calls on all citizens to join us in celebrating this year's observance of the 27th anniversary of this event which promotes historical places for the purpose of instilling national and community pride and promoting heritage, tourism and show casing the benefits of historic preservation and rising this year's theme as preservation begins at home and that Austin truly is a role model in Texas for its historic preservation efforts and successes. It is part of what makes us very special. Loretta. [Applause].
>> My name is loretta dowd. I'm the vice chair of the historic commission and as stated, it is preservation week and the theme is preservation begins at home. I would like to take a minute to update some of the things we've been doing this week. The events today include a tour of the pioneer farm, 90 fourth grade students from the barbara jordan school and the students seemed most excited about milking cows. Also this morning a troop of 50 students from fort worth toured the states man here and tomorrow morning approximately 130 fourth grade students from parmer elementary school will tour the state cemetery, which is a crowning achievement in preservation. We have an extended schedule for preservation creek and there will be tours of the brackenridge neighborhood in south Austin on saturday, may 30th from nine to noon and I would like to give announcements of this tour and encourage your attendance for the entire City Council: on behalf of the historic landmark commission I would like to express our appreciation of the counsel's commitment to historic preservation and the commission's role in that objective. So thank you very much. [Applause].
>>Mayor Watson: major taylor can you come forward? be it known by these present that I, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin of Austin, Texas, do here by proclaim may 7-11th through 17th as national salvation army week in Austin and I call on all citizens to join me in recognizing that the salvation army has been extending a helping hand to Austin's families and individuals in need since February 1989. In recognizing that today, more than 100 countries are host to the salvation army's work and that the salvation army has facilities in every major City and in more than 360 rural towns in Texas. In commending the thousands of dedicated members, workers and volunteers who serve in the various aspects of the salvation army and in supporting this most worthwhile organization by celebrating national salvation army week and it's signed by me, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the city of Austin. Thank you. [Applause].
>> Mayor Watson, migrateful appreciation to you and members of the City Council for the continued support that the salvation army enjoys in the City of Austin. I've been here less than a year now, but the salvation army has been around almost 100 years. And we are very grateful for the citizens of Austin for the support that they have given to us. The army has a slow began which says heart to god and hand to man and we pledge to you and the members of -- the citizens of this City our continued support of that slow began.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much. And now for a little music. Beavis griffin migrated to Austin in his early teens seduced by the lure of a music scene and has since established himself as a powerful presence in the local music industry for 25 years. Stirring up crowds in long long, new york and everywhere else in between. He's been there, done that and seen it all literally from fronting punk and bands in the '70's to his current hoodoo if you think. And yet remains a dynamic and unique artist. With his wild stage antics and wailing voe kals. He is the ultimate party instigater. His career spans many years as a leader and side man with many bands. Influenced by diverse musical styles ranging from jazz to metal, he has long been admired do his ability to deliver maximum rock-n-roll and has been in bands that consistently pack the house. Griffin will be appearing part of an all-star line up next week on thursday, may 21st at 10:00 o'clock at the continental club forgive me shelter, a stones hoot for the simms foundation. And we're clees plooesed to have you here. Ladies and gentlemen, beavis griffin. [Applause].
>> Thank you very much. First of all, I wanted to clear something up for the general public and I'm sure you got wind of the John kelso article regarding the pronunciation of my name which was kindly generated by your mistake and unbeknownst to me was it going to go that far, but so far as it did I took the liberty of preparing a little phonetically correct pro nunssation card.
>>.
>>Mayor Watson: pronounce it for me.
>> You did it perfect.
>>Mayor Watson: I thought you were getting on me. Three different places. They've got to make sure I don't mess it up.
>> Absolutely. To the contrary. But for all intents and purposes, I wanted to just first of all speak on a note that after 25 years of performing in the various clubs in and around Austin that this is a town that definitely embraces its musical talent and as a result of that I couldn't be more proud of today than if I was having my first child, to be honest with you.
>>Mayor Watson: great. While you're getting set up to start singing for us, let me proclaim that today, may 14th, 1998 as beavis griffin day and I called call on all citizens to join me in recognizing the outstanding contributions by the local music community toward the development of Austin's social and cultural diversity and in recognizing the dedicated efforts of artists which further Austin's status as the live music capital of the world. Congratulations and thank you for being with us today. [Applause].
>> How is everybody doing this afternoon? you feel like a little blues this afternoon. It kind of sets the mood with the atmosphere outside, you know what I'm saying, a little oppressed. Before we go too far, I want to dedicate this song to my lovely wife kim at home and I want everybody to know that if you're living in Austin, you're going to have the blues from day-to-day, but as long as you bite the bullet before too long you know you will see a smile back on your face again. So this song is called it's too hard. (Singing) (singing) (singing). (Singing)
>> malcolm we will born, ladies and gentlemen. (Singing) [applause].
>> Thank you so very much. Y'all have a beautiful day. Yes, thank you very much. We're going to be performing a benefit for the simms foundation, which is a mental health aid for musicians and artists at the continental club on may the 21st, next thursday. And pop o'mallly and the instigaters are going to be coming back into the swing of things at fat tuesday on may the 29th and the following night at steamboat. Once again, thanks for your hospitality. We'll see you again next year maybe.
>>Mayor Watson: here you go. What the Council is going to do at this point is before we call the meeting to order we're going to try to finish up our executive session. So we'll go back to executive session for a few minutes.
>>.
>>
>>Mayor Watson: is the sound on? does it sound like it's on? all right. At this time I'd ask y'all to please rise and join us in our invocation. The invocation will be delivered today by major Robert taylor of the salvation army chaplain.
>> Please join me in prayer. Our heavenly father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for the privilege that we have of living in a free society. We thank you for our Council and the members and we pray your blessings upon them as they deliberate about matters that pertain to the citizens of this area. We ask for your guidance in all that we say and do and it's in Jesus' name we make our prayer. Amen.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much. At this time I'll call the order of the City Council of Austin, Texas.
>>Mayor Watson: I call to order the Austin City Council for a regularly scheduled meeting. It's thursday, may 14th, 1998. We're meeting in Council chambers. Changes and corrections to the agenda. Item no. 14 To approve a contract with fmc general waste systems is pulled due to a bid protest. Item 29, authorizing the City manager to send water and wastewater representatives to Mexico is postponed. Items approving an ordinance as barton creek and barton springs day as sponsored by the Mayor pro tem the Mayor, Mayor pro tem, and counselor, Daryl Slusher. Item 31, authorizing execution of a contract for the acquisition of acres of land generally known as the he brodie track and sponsored by Councilmembers. Items that are currently set for a time certain, 3:30, item 32 related to the brodie tract. Item no.. At 4:30 zoning items 34 through 37 and at four 5:00 o'clock, zoning for the property typically known a the triangle is set and that is related to item no. 11, Wastewater service. Item -- at 6:00 o'clock, a public hearing for variance request for the construction of a storage shed, item no. 39. At of:30 a public hearing for the motorola lease consolidation site is item no. 40 And 7:00 o'clock a public hearing on amendments to the community development plan and consolidated plan, which is item no. 41. Item no. 33, Which is set for the time certain of 5:00 o'clock, it is -- I can report to those that are watching and preparing or planning to be here at 5:00 o'clock that I anticipate that the Council will vote to suspend its rules to allow for the following format. 45 Minutes for the applicant to be divided however the applicant wishes to do that, 45 minutes for organized opposition and then one hour for open public forum where what we will do is we will divide the cards for and against, whoever the first ones to sign up for 30 minutes apiece. And then we will close the public hearing and allow the Council to have discussion. The reason I point that out is the number of other public hearings that are set following that, for example, at 6:00 o'clock is item 39, at 6:is item 40 and at 7:00 o'clock is item no. 41. Obviously with that sort of schedule on the 5:00 o'clock time certain, you will not be heard at six, 6:30 and 7:00 o'clock. You should adjust your time accordingly and also I think anticipate that there will be some discussion by the Council after the public hearing is closed. The first item on our agenda is prooferl of the minutes of the regular meeting of may 6th and 7th, 1998. I'll recognize a motion. The motion has been made by the Mayor pro tem. Seconded by Councilmember Slusher. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All opposed, the motion carries with Councilmember Goodman off the dias. That takes us to sit sense communication, eric lofgren, followed by kenneth shied snyder and then John hughes: Mr. Lofgren?
>> hello. I'd first like to say that I feel privileged and I think it's an honor to be able to talk in front of the Mayor and city Council. I'm here as a former home lts person and I wish to read something that I prepared. The experience that I'd like to share with you today happened before I got off the streets. I was sitting on sixth street and a gentleman who stopped in front of me for a minute to wait for a friend to catch up casually asked me what I thought of Austin. I told him that I thought it was a very beautiful place and one of the nicest places I had ever been. But I also added that I thought some of the laws they had here were unjust. I told him how I had been ticketed for sleeping in the back of a park on a recent night. He then asked me what I had learned from this experience. The only thing that came to mind was that I learned how to hide better. Because of this and other things that I've seen happen here in Austin, I've decided that I want to sort of work to be an odd cat for home advocate for homeless rights. I'm real nervous here. I've never done any public speaking and I've never had any debate classes, anything like that. But I think I'm fairly articulate and if I can keep from being too may nervous, I think I'll probably serve to be a pretty good advocate. And I would like to work with the City Council and Mayor, but I feel that there's a general -- a general feeling amongst City government in Austin that if we lock up the homeless and we ticket them enough, maybe they'll go away. Well, personally I don't think that's going to work. And I'm just here to say that I'm going to be working for the homeless and hopefully I can work with you, but if I work against you, I think I'll be a pretty good opponent there. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you for being here. Kenneth snyder? followed by John hughes and then John mcMillan.
>> My name is kenneth snyder. The phone number is 388-4277. We've been discriminated against in north ridge acres. I've been up here last week. I don't see how this Council can sleep at night and know we got kids out there and three or 400 people out there living in this assess pool like this here. I just can't see it. We have con testimony nated water, we've got sewer going down the streets. We have everything. I'm going to cut it short and everything, but I don't see how they can sleep at nights knowing we've got to live like this. And it's been going on for three and a half years and we're still doing it and it's going to be another three and a half years because I've been to City Council in round rock. They said it's y'all's problem, not your problem.
>>Mayor Watson: you're going to the round rock City Council meetings too.
>> I sure am. I am going there tonight too. I'm getting fed up. I've got a program coming up on channel six pretty quick, but we can't live like we're doing. We're a poor neighborhood. We've been discriminated against. We're a poor neighborhood and there's minorities out there and nobody wants to help us. We start dying out there. We have got people documented already, we're starting to work on it now that have liver problems, miscarriages and all kind of stuffs out there. Me and my wife are stick right now. Water out there is so bad that you can't drink it. It's got oil in it, some other kind of stuff in there. I gave y'all a deal from the trcc talking about what's in it and everything. We've got to get water and sewer and we've got to get ited now. They did go out and fix the ditches a little bit, but we haven't had no rain, so we made it nice for us. Most people pray for rains. We pray for droughts because we can't flush our toilets if with it rains out there. And if I remember, Slusher was going to check in on this thing. I think I got his name right. I don't know what else -- do you know of anything or heard anything?
>>Mayor Watson: staff is working on a memo. He asked for a memo from staff regarding the situation, including information related to the fact that you and your neighbors requesting that you be removed from the Austin city limits.
>> That's because we never got anything done. When I moved out there we wasn't in the City limits and I was hoping we'd be that way.
>>Mayor Watson: I understand. But we're trying to understand the basis and where we were because it makes it more difficult when on one day people indicate they do not want to be in the City limits, the City of Austin honors their request and they're then taken out of the City limits and then you come back later and he say you want to be in the City limits. We're asking for clarification on that and staff is preparing clarification to for us.
>> I got some clarification I can give you right now. It was did he annexed because a kid got hit out there and y'all never cut the grass. Right after he got hit, three or four months later, they came down and did heness annexed us. That's where it started.
>>Mayor Watson: is that why you signed the petition.
>> I don't remember signing it. I guess I did. I signed it four months before I moved out there, so that's what I can't understand.
>>Mayor Watson: do you remember why you didn't want to be in the City of Austin back during that period of time?
>> no, I really don't because it came up all at once. I had a restaurant at the time and I don't remember signing it. Like I said, I was working 20 hours a day.
>>Mayor Watson: but you've seen your signature on the petition?
>> I did see the signature and it was mine unless somebody done it. We didn't have that problem before. Now we got this problem.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Mr. Hughes followed by Mr. McMillan and Mr. Pena: John hughes? John mcMillan, followed by Gus pena and then John kunkel.
>> Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'm John mcMillan, president of the progressive prohibitionnist religion. The phone number for which is 305-4599. Our religion is here today to ask in the Austin City Council to uphold the state law of Texas by ordering the permanent closing of any business establishment in Austin where penetration national sex frequently occurs. State law prohibits the occurrence of sex on public property as officer chris lamb of the Austin police's vice squad told me in a recent phone interview. It seems to me the failure by the City of Austin to order the permanent closing of business establishments where penetration al sex is permitted by the managers of those establishments puts the city at risk of come policety and a violation of state law. I call your attention to state law in this matter as a means of responding to a comment recently made by Austin City Council member Bill Spelman. This in connection with a recent mid town spa related controversy. Mr. Spelman was quoted as saying according to the Austin chronicle, quote, what happens between consenting adults is not the government's business. I would like to point out that Mr. Spelman's comment or reported comment failed to distinguish between sex that occurs on private property and sex that occurs on public property such as business establishments that are open to members of the public. In a phone interview I had on Monday with sergeant John neff, supervisor of the vice unit for the Austin police department, sergeant neff told me that we've documented two different places in town where sex occurs on a year-round basis on public property, he said. That would be plato's playhouse and the mid town practice spa. And both of those are located in north Austin. So far this year the Austin police department has arrested four persons at plato's playhouse in connection with sex occurring there. Sergeant neff told me.
>>Mayor Watson: if I might ask you to clarify something. You keep referring to public property and I don't want there to be a misunderstanding that maybe I'm under here. For those that might be listening. When you talk about public property, you're not talking about government owned property. You're talking about something other than a private residence.
>> As officer lamb explained it to me, that he maintains that when you have an establishment like, for example, a plato's playhouse, what they call a private club to which you can pay for membership for, say, a week long membership, that he maintains that it's similar to a cover charge in a bar and as long as it's accessible to the general public, then it is a public property and this is where they've had a ruling on this and found that it was in fact public property. So I thought I'd call that to your attention and hope that you would consider asking the police department to give a statement on that.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you.
>>Spelman: Mr. McMillan, do you suspect that you should also close the omni hotel, the sheraton and the holiday in too.
>> I think that's different when you have a private room in a motel. I'm referring to what takes place in a basically a club. The plato's clubhouse or plato's playhouse, as it's called and the mid town spa that's opened to the general public. They have a nude room, for example, in the plato's lay house. I know because I visited there. I was not in that room. They have a designated nude room and you don't find that at holiday inn, I don't think. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Gus pena, followed by John kunkel add then richard Troxell.
>> Good afternoon Mr. Mayor, Gus pena and my boy. Last friday, may the eighth, and this is for everybody specifically the City Manager, the clinic was closed from eight a.m. -- Nine a.m. Do due to a meeting called by shirley brown. There were five senior citizens outdoor waiting. I arrived at the clinic at 8:40 a.m. To deliver some x-rays and I asked the senior citizens how long they had been waiting for. They said they got there at 7:45 in the morning. The citizens were sent there at 8:00 o'clock to have the blood work drawn, to have x-rays performed and there's a meeting going on there. No memorandum, no posters posted on the windows, on the doors or anything and no notice was given to the people, other than be there at 8:00 o'clock. The doors were locked and you had two senior citizen ladies that were crying. One said -- (speaking span lirb).
>> Why did they not inform us of this.
>> To make a long story short, this is unacceptable. You're going to have a meeting posted, let the people know at the other clinics if they sent them over to rz that that entity is not going to open until 9:00 o'clock. And even then to close the clinic for one hour and to have people waiting outdoors is counter productive and not acceptable. The second is Mr. Garcia again to you to relate to the health department is we've been told that the peeds clinic is -- peed yat tick clinic is going to be open at the end of the month. We don't know what month. Now we're being told that the pediatric division from the Austin neighborhood clinic is going to be sent back to the rosewood clinic. Are we going to have only one pediatric clinic in east Austin or can we have two of them or do they know what we're going to do out there? and I ask that these issues are clarified, please, for the people, not for Gus pena or for our organization, but for the people that have babies that need the services to be provided for them health wise and I thank y'all very much.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you Mr. Pena. John kunkel, followed by Richard Troxell and Kirk becker. [One moment, please] ... Direct the City staff to instruct the water and wastewater department to apply a $40 month credit, credit, to those 600 homeowners' water and wastewater bill. Make it an interim credit. Retroactive to when we started paying taxes in January, expiring when a permanent solution is in place. Let me put that into perspective for you. We did a $65 million bond proposition, Mr. Mayor. This is one of your props, you will remember the water bottle. If this is the water bottle for 65 million, that credit for a year amounts to this much water. We don't think that's going to break the waste waste utility. I -- water and wastewater utility. I believe it's important for you to step up to an interim solution and it's important for you to make your wishes known to the water and wastewater staff. I would told to fax back in november. I was informed we don't have to do anything for you folks and we are not going to do anything unless we get told to do so. You told them to if I can the long-term problem. I am asking you to tell them to fix an interim problem. And, by the way, this is no cash outflow. This is merely a credit. It defers collecting as many money as you thought you were going to collect. Unlike this which is real money going to real people. If we can spend $720,000 to do advertising for the electric company, can't we spend $24,000 a month to do what's right for the current taxpayers? this is for the future taxpayers, do this for the current ones. In closing I would like to remind you of what I said to you the very first time we met, I reminded you about the story of everything I needed to learn in life I learned in kindergarten, remember that back at spicewood school.
>> I'm not sure you want us to remember the first time we ever met.
>> You may remember me in favorable terms. Remember clean up your own mess first, be fair, do the right thing. Do that for the current taxpayers, if you are willing to do this for the future. (Beeping).
>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Richard Troxell followed by Kirk becker, dave schroeder.
>> Good afternoon, Mayor. My name is Richard Troxell, president of house the homeless. About five years ago, one of our members, this woman here, asked if we could sponsor a child in -- a homeless child in uganda, africa, we did that, she five years later has asked to address the City Council of Austin. At the age of 15, I have been unfortunate to go through the life being homeless. This has been so following the loss of both my parents. Some people with homes today could have none the next day, particularly in our africa where civil wars, natural hazards, epidemics and other conflicts do exist. The homeless in uganda are labeled, they are looked upon as theives, lumps, thoughtless trouble shooters, constantly on the run and condemned to death. Some of these people are Austin young as four years old. Like any other human being, they, too, are citizens of this world. The highest order of civil decision can only be attained when all human beings are equal like they are during creation when they are socially, economically, politically safe. This can be possible if organizations like Austin City Council desist in doing the following. Stop putting the homeless and other under privileged people in jails. Stop enacting laws that make them more december substitute. Stop treating -- destitute. Stop treating them like they are sub humans. What they need is the following: everybody's help and counseling, particularly from planners, leaders and politicians. Jobs. They are able bodied and so they can work given opportunity. They need housing as a basic need alongside food, clothing and love. I became associated with house the homeless, inc., in January, 1995, when I was primary 6th and in three years I've been changed, transformed, rehabilitated by them. I am now in senior ii in terms of education, which I know this would not have been possible as an orphan. These people, among which I have been accepted as a member, have enabled me to realize my potential and survive. Both my village and community have benefited through increased food production by acquiring quality seats through house the homeless. Above all house the homeless has given me love in an bun daens. Actually they are my parents. Abundancy. Request you to demonstrate love, help and offer housing to my fellow humans. Conflicts have no place, but rather discussion and negotiation are needed in the world today. Please do accept my many more wishes and best regards from all of the homeless in africa and uganda in particular. A member of house the homeless. I wanted to share with you pictures that bobbi has done. Some of the ways she has -- come to work herselFAA from homelessness. Given the opportunity. This is a pretty amazing story. This is a -- amazing sister that we have in uganda africa. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
>> Thank you. Kirk becker, followed by dave schroeder.
>> I am here to speak on homeless issues again. The the battle we have is for acceptance. It starts with complaints of drunken pan handling and ends with sleeping in doorways of closed offices, telling us to get a job someplace else. The proposals to build another shelter or at least an expanded she will inventory to help the homeless. Part of the proposal is a requirement that the homeless have to go into the shelter and not come out. That's not accepted. They are people and citizens. The -- the -- um -- it's particularly ironic that the most successful people in the city, the business leaders in Downtown Austin Alliance and the public he should -- publisher of the only newspaper in town -- they are not happy to have us at the top, they think that the homeless should join the system at the bottom. The new shelter proposed is not to help the homeless for the benefit of the homeless, it's for the benefit of the Downtown Austin Alliance, that's as far as it's planned to go. You are encouraging downtown housing, even subsidizing it, will you build transitional housing for the homeless? you have federal funds to do that. You are spending millions to renovate Waller Creek, it's more of a renovation than a restoration. Rebuild public restrooms there and in other downtown parts. $5 Million to renovate the drag. Does that include money for restrooms? are you still going to people using the alleys behind the stores with customer only signs in the windows. Recently you passed item no. 54 Directing the City Manager to explore the possibility of offering economic incentives to businesses developing a facility for the homeless. 10 Or 15 years ago there was a proposal to subsidize a mall at 11th and I-35 with 20 million in tax abatements. Now it's new development at 5th and lamar. Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if the 5th and lamar put it at 11th and I-35 without subsidizezy or road expansions? alternatively the road improvements should be considered enough of a subsidizezy to accept a homeless shelter, seaholm along Shoal creek. The planned developments will have enough security to maintain their premises.@ so much of this is objection to homelessness as a behavior, which is beyond just objecting to the behavior of the homeless. What we are trying to do is ends homeless -- the notion of homelessness as a condition. The hopelessness that makes people think once you are homeless now, it's homeless forever. A day shelter for homeless without accepting them as community members is like proceeding with this meeting as a proclamation -- after this morning cops were outside giving tickets to City employees for jay walking.
>>Mayor Watson: dave schroeder.
>> I thank you very much for this opportunity, again. This is of deadly earnest, very serious, we just had two ozone poisoning days, they are not action. I don't see any action. I'm going to read a piece that I wrote, ozone is a -- is a -- a -- it's a -- a blue, it's a casutic gas, derived from oxygen, that causes permanent damage to lungs, sinuses, bronchia, the most immediate effects of ozone poisoning are fatigue and headache, the immune system is lowered by ozone poisoning and the ground ozone that we suffer is a direct function of the ozone layer being dissolved by a myriad chemical reactions, chlorine, jet flights, car emissions and I know outside they say it's like smoking 10 packs of cigarettes a day, these are fires in Chiapas and north of san antonio. Which is compounding our ozone problem and you can't fight these fires, you all, but you can do a lot to discourage car use and this is my piece I wrote for this opportunity. I call it caca cars or leave the oil in the ground. Car boom oxide. Carnage, car cuss, cars, spitting, (spits) carbon die okay sid, incarceration, car bunkel, car megeddon, car-sick, car, all 450 million of them (spits) carcinoma, carbolic acid, car bombing against, cars cause worse in Chiapas, persian gulf, vietnam, cars karma bad, car dullture is killing our ozone layer. Bicycles rock my world and pedestrians rule. I want you to visualize the interstate highways as a big old hike and bike trail. Thank you.
>> I worried there for a minute we were going to hear car-Watson. Thank you for being here. Next item is the consent agenda. The items that are available for the consent agenda are: 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, and item no. 48 And the board -- item no. 48 Are the board and commission appointments, the following appointments: brackenridge hospital oversight Council, garde Reed and mark gentle by consensus, library commission mike clark madison by Councilmember Slusher. The medical assistance program advisory board, Dr. Walt leverage by consensus, the urban forestry board, maria sanchez by Mayor pro tem. Child care Council leonard saenz by Councilmember Spelman. Are there any items that have been pulled from the consent agenda that can be placed back on the consent agenda?
>> Mayor?
>>Mayor Watson: yes, Councilmember Spelman.
>>Spelman: I have a question on 16, I don't know whether I need to pull it or ask it now.
>>Mayor Watson: ask it now, let's see.
>>Spelman: this is actually a question of City staff. On the -- just a second. I understand. The question is on item 16. This was a -- an amendment to a contract, the original cart was for 375, now we are amending it by adding $300,000 to it.
>> That's correct. It initially evolved over time. Initially we are not sure if we would need to continue this. We would use that firm as kind of looking over shoulder oversight for internal bench marking survey that we did. During that process, we felt like it would be important to continue that, to do basically finding out what the competitive gap is that if we were to be competing against the private firm or someone else, what -- you know, what's the gap there that we need to become more efficient in, where we need to cut our costs and so forth and would like to use these same people, we have a good knowledge of that first phase to use them to help us through that process.
>>Spelman: that's understandable. When malcolm rirnie was originally chosen to take on the original contract that we are now amending, was there any indication that it was -- that was available to any of the bidders on that project that this might lead into a larger project downstream?
>> I think the indication was that it was possible. It -- like I say, it kind of evolved. Our initial intent was, no, we just wanted to do that first part. Went through the full selection process. But I think as we got into it, and I -- I would have to check with people that were on the selection committee, whether they actually told them that or not. But normally we don't -- normally we don't evolve it this way. Hindsight we probably would have done it differently.
>> Okay. Just -- I don't know whether this needs to go to a vote or not, I certainly wouldn't want to put a crimp on your ability to make an administration selection on any contract of 375 or less, but if there are further contracts of that kind where it looks like it may evolve into something larger than you can administratively approve --
>> we will just redo the rfp. This one like I said evolved over time. That wasn't the best proceed, but we recommend that we stick with them because of their knowledge.
>> In fact what I have asked the staff to do because Mayor pro tem Garcia asked the very same question, we are moving on a very fast track for a definite phase knowing that there are other phases, even though that might be under our administrative authority to do a $39,000 contract, what I have asked the state to do is to bring it to the Council, to -- so you can examine the process that we went through, the selection of that firm, who the alternates are so that you will understand who was in competition, you then approve that contract even though it's within that administrative authority because we know there will be a second, third, subsequent phases.
>>Spelman: thank you very much, appreciate it.
>>Mayor Watson: can it stay on the don't sent? it will be 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, and 48 as read with one addition and that would be to the child care Council a reappointment of joe mccray by consensus. Spell move approval.
>>Mayor Watson: motion made to approve, I there a second?
>>Griffith: second.
>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Griffith. One person is signed up to speak on the consent agenda, bill bunch. Bill bunch. Bill bunch? he signed up to speak on agenda item no. 30 And didn't say whether he was for or against it. There is any discussion on the consent agenda? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. [Inaudible].
>>Mayor Watson: that would be my guess, I didn't want to put words -- didn't want to put words in bill's mouth. [Inaudible] [laughter].
>>Mayor Watson: that take takes us to item no. 26, I will recognize Councilmember Goodman.
>>Goodman: what I wanted to make sure about was that we were not phasing out our trucks for those that would not be able to service people who have alleyways and along with hyde park, there are some other neighbors that have the alleyways and prefer to have their service that way as opposed to out in the streets. At a time when our planning initiative include his encouraging neighbors that -- neighborhoods that are going to have smaller streets and not rely so heavily on wide neighborhood collectors that ultimately become cut throughs and encouraging alleyways for back parking allowing front porches and so on, so forth from the old den days. My concern is we negate one of the parts of the initiative we are working for if a policy decision is defact to made by the solid waste services not to allow that kind of service because we won't have the equipment that can do it.
>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Rhode'.
>> I'm willie rhodes, the trucks that we are buying will be able to be utilized in the traditional neighborhood plan that you proposed. For the alleys we made comments on what the widths of the alley would be if they want to utilize alley service for the garbage. These trucks will be able to fit down those alleys for those neighborhoods. These trucks will fit the majority of our service area that we have today. There are certain areas that it won't be able to fit down. They won't be put in those areas. These are automated trucks which will help us long-term in providing services to our citizens of Austin without having unduly added additional staff level to do it. So this is the reason we recommend this item be approved today.
>>Goodman: okay. Could I ask as a follow-up, are we planning then on in the future keeping a fleet that obviously I don't know how many of a fleet we would need, but so that we could service not only the hyde park size alleys, but the other newer developments that are using that kind of prototype?
>> these -- well, let's take it two -- divide your question up into two areas. These trucks are not considered to be placed throughout the City of Austin, these automated trucks, we are looking at 40 to approximately 60% of the City to put these trucks in. The area will be bounded probably by an area west of lamar, the majority of the area will be west of lamar. For the hyde park alleys, our current trucks have a difficult time providing service in hyde park. The issues are the same as we've been discussing with the hyde park neighborhood association since july of 196. There are several issues that needs to happen over there. Once we go to the pay as you throw program, which is the cart program, the hyde park alleys is 12 foot wide with telephone poles in there. The telephone poles reduce the alley width to 9 feet. To try to put a cart in there and my trucks, they cannot fit in a 12 foot alley. It's extremely narrow, that's the issue with the hyde park alleys is the width of the alley. It's not because it's an alley but it's the width of the alley.
>> Right. Aren't there some equipment and trucks available that are narrower?
>> we have two trucks in our fleet, we call them the tonka trucks, those trucks carry nine cubic yards of material, which is approximately two and a half tons. The body width of the trucks is 7.4 feet. The width of the truck with the mirrors, not the mirrors extended, but just the mirror base is 8 feet 10 inches. So in the hyde park areas that still leaves you only two inches of clearance when you have the telephone poles across from each other. Those trucks will still be slowed in making the pickup. Because the capacity of the trucks is reduced, you would need additional small vehicles to service the hyde park alley. We only have two in our fleet and presently those are utilized throughout our fleet five days a week. Where we utilize those two smaller trucks are some dead end streets that we cannot make a turn around in so it would be easier to serve those areas, alley collections and those type of trucks, so that's what those trucks are utilized for. If you tried to buy additional trucks, you would have to purchase it -- solid waste services would have to purchase additional trucks for hyde park, additional staffing levels to do that, too. And basically that's -- if you wanted to do that, try to get a fleet for a smaller sized truck. We also provide two other services with the same types of trucks. Recycling collection. Recycling is done with a one person operation. Our current fleet of trucks has a difficult time in the hyde park alleys because as the driver is trying to pick up the recycling material, he must locate a location where he can exit the vehicle, walk back and pick up the recycling material and bring it back to the truck because it must be loaded on the side. Not from the rear like on the garbage trucks. With one person operation that slows up the operation in the hyde park alleys. We also do yard trimming in hyde park alleys, trying to have the customers sit out their yard trimmings out in the right-of-way of the alley then reduces the width of the alley as we are trying to drive down there. So the issues in hyde park alleys are one for the garbage side is cart placement because you cannot have two carts across from each other in the alleys. The yard trimmings, placement for -- dedicated place for yard trimmings. The telephone poles are there. Southwestern bell has agreed to relocate some of their poles, but relocation of the poles from what we have seen on the electric utility side is moving them about two to five feet either direction from where they are. That does not offer us enough clearance for what we are trying to do in the alleys in hyde park. So we need to go back and try to figure out if they can relocate the poles even further. Those issues have not been solved -- resolved. Solid waste services are looking for vehicles to try to service hyde park in two ways. With the concept of keeping alley service in there, we are going to do ifb, information for bid for alley service in hyde park, including yard trimming collection and recycling collection. We also are going to look at if we get -- add additional staff and -- equipment to do that, could we do it on one day a week service or could we do it for a five day a week service, provide those three types of service. That's where we are with the hyde park alleys. The answer would be no, our current fleet do not fit the alleys well.
>>Goodman: thanks. I just wanted to make sure we hadn't gone too far in replacement of fleet that took a policy decision out of the discussion stage. What I would like to recommend is that the solid waste advisory commission have this item on their agenda and talk about all of the issues, the neo traditional planning initiative and alleys and replacement of fleet and cost of service, if it costs more to serve somebody, then so it does. And if they prefer that service, there's no rule that says we have to have the same cost for a different service across the City. I wanted Mr. Rose to be able to talk to us about that, so I would move approval.
>>Mayor Watson: motion made by Councilmember Goodman.
>>Lewis: yeah, I would like to ask a couple of questions. On you said these -- the two trucks that you have which service the -- could service the alleyways you use them to service the other five dead end alleys, what -- what do you use to service the alleyways on 7th -- at 6th and 7th street and what part of 6th and 7th in sesquicentennial do you service -- in Cesar Chavez do you service, use the alley ways?
>> just a second. On these alleys we use our normal garbage trucks.
>> It says here -- the question was please provide lists, neighborhood areas currently receiving alley services, you have west Austin university area, 26th through 38th street, travis heights, barton sky area, braker lane at metric, East Austin, high traffic streets, 6th, 7th, Cesar Chavez and jefferson at 38th. And 38th area. What part of 6th and 7th street is a high traffic area that you service in the alleyways? do you have any idea?
>> I don't know. I have somebody here who can help me. Everything east of I-35 where we have businesses, done with our normal garbage collection trucks in the alleys. The quo was please provide a list of neighbors that receive alley services. These receive it with our standing trucks.
>>Lewis: you mentioned the width of the distance in the poles in hyde park area is nine feet. How many of these poles sit directly across from each year? I just can't believe that those poles are -- that's there -- there's that many directly across from each other.
>> Doing the work we did with the hyde park neighborhood folks, approximately six months, we went out and tagged all of the poles over there. I would say in every alley in the hyde park area -- I need to define what we are talking about for the hyde park neighborhood proper. We are talking about from 38th street to 45th street, from guadalupe to duval, that's the area that we are talking about. We found in probably every street going from block by block, a minimum of two to three times where the poles are set directly across from each other. Also during that six month time frame, we did open up the question to the hyde park neighborhood association by them providing -- having a different level of service and providing for -- that they pay for that. During that time frame they rejected that option. So we didn't pursue it any further.
>>Lewis: well, I -- I noticed that on one of the items, on one of the sheets you had said that item had been reviewed. I would -- I would like to make a substitute motion.
>>Mayor Watson: are we -- we don't have a second to the first motion. Let me see if we can get that. Motion has been made by Councilmember Goodman to approve items 26 and 27, is there a second? seconded by the Mayor pro tem. Councilmember Lewis?
>>Lewis: I would like to make a substitute motion that we postpone item 26 until after the solid waste committee can review this item.
>>Mayor Watson: will you consider that a friendly amendment?
>>Goodman: yes.
>>Mayor Watson: all right. Then the motion will be to possess pony item no. 26 Until it can be reviewed by the appropriate commission and to approve item no. 27. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. -- Hang on one second. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on items number 26 and number 27. At this time I will entertain a motion to recess to go into executive session pursuant to section 551.072 of the Texas government code to discuss the purchase of approximately 76.682 acre of land generally known as the he brodie tract located on loop 360 south near the intersection of lamar boulevard and loop 360 south an area subject to the save our springs initiative. Is there a motion? motion made by Councilmember Griffith, seconded by Councilmember Lewis. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries, we will recess into executive session.
>>Mayor Watson: folks, we'll start when staff brings out a map.
>>Mayor Watson: I'll recognize assistant City Manager.
>> Let me get started while judy is kind of setting up a map that we can take a look at. For the brodie tract, we are looking at 76.682 acres of land. We're having problems getting set up here. But for 76.682 acres we are looking at a proposed purchase price of four million 969,220 dollars. This is probably -- this is your first purchase coming off of the bond election and there are a number of reasons why this tract in particular is important. One of the first questions is that this tract is not in the general figure 8 target zone that we have been looking at the bulk of our tracts; however, this tract is contiguous to significant existing greenbelt in the barton creek wilderness park. This tract meets the scientific criteria of our matrix. This tract is facing some very rapid impending development which is one of the reasons you are seeing it as one of the first decisions coming forward on the proposition 2 buffer purchase. There is a clear proximity of significant recharge features to the springs from this tract and there is very rapid runoff, in other words, undiluted runoff from this site to the springs. The brodie site overlay is a major localized flow route of groundwater that flows to barton springs. So this is a significant tract, 76 acres, 4.9 million is the proposed price in front of you today.
>>Mayor Watson: before we have -- well, I'll tell you what,, I'll entertain a motion and we'll go to the public meant comment and we have a number of people signed up to speak. Motion has been made by Councilmember Slusher, seconded by Councilmember Griffith to aapprove. We have a number of people signed up to speak.
>> The City attorney just wantses me to read the exact price into the record again. 4,969,220.
>>Mayor Watson: I note from the cards that we have one person that's signed up and checked an against box. The remainder of the people have signed up and checked the for box with one person who didn't sign either for or against, but based upon the neighborhood -- okay. All right. And so what I'll do is I will start calling on people. If you wish to just indicate your position, let me read it into the record, that would be helpful to the Council. If you feel like you have something unique that we need to hear with regard to this, please feel free to come forward. Kirk becker.
>> I'm the guy that signed up against. I want to talk about this anyways. There was a theory back in the dark days of early s.o.s. That the source of increasing pollution of barton creek was cattle. Some people took that seriously. Could yous eat more grain than people and it makes since that cows make more than people. Comparing cattle and people is wrong as comparing apples and oranges. The pollution caused by people is much more destructive to the environment than the pollution caused by cows. That's why limiting the amount of impervious cover is so effective a means of preserving water quality, but limiting the amount of impervious cover, you limit the number of people living on it. Most of the non-impervious cover is about as impervious as concrete. We can understand their point, but limiting the amount of people made impervious cover still effective because it restrains the number of people dumping stuff on the impervious cover. This development has been designed to meet the is surface area requirements by stacking people and impervious cover on top of people. Instead of in paralegal. This development complies with the letter of s.o.s., but no not with the spirit of s.o.s.. Should you buy this or not. The broader question is to recognize you don't have enough funds available to buy all the developers out, so how do we best preserve the watershed. And again, we want to limit the number of people. Between residential and commercial property, commercial property is much more expensive but we tend to think of commercial property as much more destructive than commercial property because the commercial property attracts so many people. Still, the people have to come from someone and they come from residential property. Much of the s.o.s. Ballot has recognized the tragedy of the comments. One person lives over the aquifer, that's no big deal, but if everybody does, it's sure to become polluted. Every developer wants to include a component of more valuable commercial property. Each will build a development as they can. If we buy up as much residential property as we can and let developers build as much as they want, there won't be enough residents to support the commercial values. The commercial properties will be less utilized and less than predicted. Meanwhile we look at the aspect of City growth, we can hope that living in the City can become a more attractive, liveable and accommodating, there by so far inc. Demand for living in the watershed. It's a tough goal. You have to make it more love able and lower cost. I understand, but really buying up this property, I would prefer for you to buy up commercial property, take that out and zoned for as much commercial as we want. Let me go broke. -- Let them go break.
>>Mayor Watson: mary arrest Arnold. She signed up for. Bridget shea. She signed up for. Bill bunch?
>> thank you, Mayor, Councilmembers, I will be brief. I just did a few bullets on why we believe that it's a good idea to buy this property. I just want to pass those around, if you will. I appreciate all of your patience on this issue and I'd be prepared to answer any questions you have. Obviously the price is something that y'all have to decide. You have access to various market information that nobody else has. And so that's there to help you determine what is an appropriate price. Obviously we had hoped that this property would be purchased for much lower value, but we also understand as our memo and as we've indicated before, that this is a very high priority for protecting both for environmental reasons and for the traffic problems there that this project would create along loop 360. So thank you very much and I hope -- I urge you all to vote yes on this. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Cora quinn.
>> Mayor and Council, I'm so excited at this point in time I don't know if I can get this out, but I consider it a privilege to speak on behalf of the purchase of the brodie tract. It seemed for a while there that the smart growth timing had come a little bit too late as far as where we were down the line with that tract and then when we found it was possible for it to be included, we were very excited. We do look upon this tract as being special and unique, as has already been mentioned. We do now it's just four miles from the capital itself, right at barton creek, leading right into barton springs. We feel it's unique. We feel that it going from the hands of someone that would develop it commercially into the hands of the City, that's where it needs to go. We feel it would be in good hands. Smart growth is wonderful. We would hope to see as much of that tract preserved as wilderness as possible, but yet there are other things that can be done. The western slope, the top of the plateau is special as far as wilderness is concerned, but there are compromises that can be made, there are things that can be done. As far as the neighborhood is concerned and the people on cupid drive, we would hope that if y'all do go ahead with the purchase of this tract, and we do sincerely hope you do that, that we would consider it an honor and a privilege to work with y'all if need be. We're just very excited about this. We appreciate everything that bill bunch and s.o.s. And the sierra club has done. I think that Austin is -- is headed in the right direction as far as the election that we just had. Proposition 2 had a narrow margin, but yet when you saw who voted for what, it was the core of the City, the people that had been here a long time that voted in preserving what we have. I think that everybody is ready for smart growth and this particular tract I think is what smart growth is all about and we thank you for the privilege of speaking on its behalf. I hope you buy it.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you for being here. Ellen long?
>> Mayor Watson and Council, I'm ellen long and I live at 3212 cupid drive. I'm here on behalf of the h. E. Brodie tract purchase. First let me thank you for your innovative smart growth program to preserve Austin's natural resources, green spaces and beauty. I have had the awesome privilege of promoting this city to newcomers for over 28 years. I hear many comments about Austin being a clean City with clean water, lovely parks, lakes and friendly people. Today as leaders of Austin, you have an opportunity to do something very special for the citizens and the future citizens of Austin and travis county. Our children and grandchildren will one day rise up and call this Mayor and this Council blessed for preserving this property. You have the power and the goal from the voters of Austin to move forward and purchase the brodie tract. This tract shu be preserved for future generations. I thank each and every one of you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much. Tim jones? aaron larson will follow Mr. Jones. Be shown in favor of the purchase? okay. Patrick larson? the same? signed up in favor. Mary Aleshire indicates she does not wish to speak, but is for the City of Austin purchasing the land. Jim quinn wants to be shown in favor of the City purchasing the tract. Bobby nash? in favor? and I see you're representing cupid drive. Is that what that says? my eyes aren't picking that up. Sandy gonzales says she's not able to speak, she's representing herself and her child and she says I beg this Council to buy this land and keep it in its state. Keep Austin and keep it green. Jean wilkins wants to be shown in favor? [audio problems, please stand by].
>>Mayor Watson: thank you for being here. Mr. Jones.
>> Thank you, Mayor, Council. I want to say approximate that if you do this, this is a magnificent gesture to the children of the City of Austin. I've done extensive research to the brodie tract and that part of barton creek through the park. The problems that we have below the unnamed draw that drained the regional water quality pond at 290 are enormous. Barton pool was polluted. Most of the silt problems at barton pool, most of the silt problems in barton pool that occurred when no water was flowing in barton creek in those dry times and we had big rains, we used to think went to the recharge point from gains creek and then to barton pool. It turns out that that apparently goes to cold spring and in fact, the major episodes that we saw and we observed in barton pool were derived from the construction of the regional water quality pond on the brodie tract. What comes down the unnamed draw has an enormous impact on barton springs and what you're doing here in buying this tract is saving us from a construction assault of enormous proportions, plus what follows from the scouring and impervious cover and things. I think it's very important move to save this tract. We have virtually lost campbell's hole because of construction in the vicinity, and it's old rules that per vaided when we did that construction or allowed that construction, but nevertheless, campbell's hole over there by spy glass trail is almost unswim able. I don't swim there any more. I don't want to see that happen to the rest of barton creek. You can walk to the park, up the hike and bike trail. It's important that we save the near in lands for the people that can go there and use the park and barton springs this way. And I think it's a great gesture and it's very important to us kids that you save this place. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you Mr. Jones. Those are all the people that have signed up to speak. The motion has been made by Councilmember Slusher. Seconded by Councilmember Griffith to approve the negotiation and the execution of the contract in the amount indicated by the assistant City Manager.
>> I wanted to just add one other piece of information so we could be clear about what the sources of funds are going to be for the 4.969,220. In the current year budget of our water wastewater utility we have a two million dollar fund that has been set aside for conservation easements. We will be tapping that two million dollar line item. The remaining balance of two million 2,969,220 will be from bond funds. We will be pulling from that to maximize proposition two bond funds so we can meet our goal of 15,000 acres.
>>Slusher: Mayor, I want to make a couple of comments. First of all, let me thank Mr. Carpenter of jpi for the -- we've been in negotiations about downsizing the purchase of this tract and we are moving rather rapidly today, but that's one of the reasons I'm willing to do that. Could we get the camera on this? this is loop 360, highway 290 or ben white, westgate mall, tony burger center and this center outlined here is the brodie tract. Here is barton creek, barton creek greenbelt. One thing I want to point out was that this is -- the brodie tract is shaped like a triangle. So we'll have two of those today. It's been sort of a bermuda triangle for me and may continue to be. And here's the neighborhood that some of the folks have come down here from. And so I think that establishes well where it's located. There's also a fault line along the property, on the property, that then Councilmember Goodman may talk a little bit more about in a minute. But that fault line is one of the reasons why this tract is so critical to get in the city's hands and preserve in perpetuity because not only will you have runoff from this tract going down to barton creek, but according to the edwards aquifer district there is recharge to other creeks that goes underneath this tract. So this is a very important tract for protecting the water quality of barton springs and the water quality going into the green water treatment plant. One thing we've said all along about our -- our matrix or about our purchases is that tracts that were contiguous to land the City already owns would be considered,. As you can see from the map or the aerial photograph that I held up, this is very -- this is right on top of the barton creek greenbelt and I think it would be a great loss if we didn't purchase it. It has some other public policy benefits as well, for instance, enhancing the greenbelt, but also keeping traffic from getting worse in the area. And I've been in the area a lot recently or throughout my years here in Austin, but in particularly recently driving around looking at these -- at this property and others in the area, and one tragic thing that's happened is the amount of properties that have been built not under s.o.s. In this area. And to add this one, even though it would be under the s.o.s. Ordinance, but to add half a million square feet of development here is a burden on the creek and the aquifer that I don't think it should bear. Now, the cost is high, although it's going to come in at or I believe below the appraised value or we won't be purchasing it, but I'm confident from all our studies of the comparables it's going to come in below the appraised value. We're also paying for -- we're paying for the development rights on it as well with half a million square feet. I think that's going to come out probably larger than what we're paying. A lot of these decisions were made back during the boom of the 1980s and that's something that the City has suffered for in a number of ways as far as the price. We paid, the City paid before I was here similar prices on property in the area when the barton creek wilderness properties were purchased, sometimes higher than what we're paying here today. And I haven't heard very much complaining out of our citizens that those were not wise or prudent purchases. And I think this fits in the same category, in fact, it's a missing piece of the greenbelt, as you could see, on the aerial photograph. But what it comes down to me, after being involved in this negotiation for about a year and a half and thinking a lot about what it would be like to have those buildings down there, it's a decision for us to not make this purchase and to save the funds that we will put into it or to spend that money and preserve this tract have it there for the future generations and including all of us for the rest of our lives to enjoy. And to me it clearly comes down to that we should purchase the tract, and I think the future generations won't discuss the price paid at the time very much. They'll be very happy that we had the wisdom to preserve this land.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Councilmember Goodman?
>>Goodman: one of the reasons that I think it's important to look at this tract for possible purchase is because of the fault line, no. 1, And the speed of the flow underneath this particular tract. The fault line tran secretaries this parcel and it's the same fault line that discharges at the springs. So whatever the quality of the water is beneath this tract, that's what you're getting in the springs. It moves it four miles per day, I believe, which is very quick, so there is no time for anything to settle out before it hits the springs. And we all know how sedimentation in this area has been truly critical for folks wells around there. It's pretty strategically placed for us in that the monitoring well that is possible for the district and the City to uncap there and monitor would give us incredibly valuable information so that we can know even better how the aquifer works and the dynamics of our particular closed flow. Those things along with the strategic value of the planning that we're doing I think makes this worth talking about even at its rather high price. Sometimes when you have development happening, residential and otherwise, you don't have the opportunity to connect up to your existing greenbelts and make sure that there is adequate green space for folks who were either living there or about to live there with subdivisions coming. In. So strategically in a planning sense, along with another one in southEast Austin that I'm thinking of, I think that if we're having to rely on regulatory protection and strategic acquisition of property as the way that some development is going to actually contribute to quality of life for us in the community, then this is exactly the right spot to acquire that land. We do have the opportunity. It does have its approval, so it's a very narrow window and I think it's worth it.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Grf Councilmember Griffith?
>>iffith: thank you, Councilmember Goodman, I couldn't agree with you more. If we can hone in on this, I'd like to show you on this aerial map why this is so special and so vital to acquire and to protect. In 1990 the City applied for a national parks service grant to do a study of barton creek. It usually takes about four or five years to get one of those, but our pictures were so compelling and our story was so strong that we got one the first time around and we got $160,000 to study the area from the Travis County line into barton springs pool and we used the -- the consultants used the overlay system, which means every critical environmental element there is has its own separate mylar sheet. And you identify in your study area every one of those features that you find on that sheet and then you pile all of them on top of each other, they're all clear, and what you get is a very -- you get shades of gray. And the land that we're looking at right here, several thousand feet back from the center line of barton creek, when we piled all of those mylar sheets on top of each other was black. It was so loaded with critical environmental features. It was very easy to see what was most important to buy. Now, the challenge was, of course, it was close into town, extremely desirable and expensive. But on august the eighth of '92 the folks decided that the price was okay and they were going to spend the money to get the most critical thousand acres between the travis county line and the pool. And what you see in green there is what we were able to buy as a City. You will see two big missing pieces. Today we're buying one of those two missing pieces and we're completing almost the acquisition of what is most important to have in terms of land according to the national parks service to protect barton creek and barton springs. So I recommend to my colleagues that we make this expenditure.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Further discussion? I'll just briefly say, first of all, thank you to Mr. Carpenter and jpi for the length of time and energy and patience that you've had in working with the City Council and particularly we want to thank skoubs Slusher and Griffith for the amount of time that they've put into this effort. I feel very, very good about Austin, Texas and its citizens when we have an election like we had just recently where once again the citizens confirmed a value judgment that I think they've made and reemphasized over and over again about what they think is important and what they want to see. And I frankly think it's wonderful that we are here tonight in a position to carry forward the mandate of the citizens with regard to this sort of thing and I think it will be a protection and a legacy that, like Councilmember Slusher says, in the long-term we're all going to be very proud of. With that, if there's no further discussion, the motion has been made by Councilmember Slusher, seconded by Councilmember Griffith to approve the purchase as outlined by the assistant City manager. There being no further discussion, all in favor all opposed? motion carries on a vote of seven to zero. [Applause].
>>Mayor Watson: that will take us to our 4:30 time certain. We'll go to items 34 through 37. I'll recognize ms. Glasgow. Folks, if y'all could leave it down as you're leaving the room, we'd appreciate it. Ms. Glasgow?
>> good afternoon Mayor and Councilmembers, alice glasgow, I'll be presenting zoning cases to you today. I'll start off with the consent items. We'll skip through item 33. It's going to be a discussion item. Starting off with item 34, case c 1498 five, the request is to rezone property located at 2305 rio grande street from a multi-family four to general office mixed use. The Planning Commission recommendation to you was to grant that rezoning with conditions. And this case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 35, Case no. C 14-98-21, the address is 12424 scofield farms road. The rezoning is from multi-family two to community commercial --.
>>Mayor Watson: hang on. Ms. Hodges, Mr. Blumburg, could you tap -- could y'all close those doors, please? Mr. Blumburg, could you please -- could you please stop operating as a door stop? [laughter]. Ms. Glasgow?
>> again, item 35, case c 14-98-21, located at 12424 scofield farm drive. The rezoning is from multi-family 2 to gr-kro and that stands for community commercial overly district. The Planning Commission recommendation is to grant that rezoning request with conditions and this case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 36, Case c 14-98-27, we have a request from the applicant's agent to postpone the case for one week to may the 21st, in order to continue a dialogue with the highway department regarding right of away reservation and/or dedication. Item 37, case c 14-98-36, located at 12108 and 12 --1112 rocks si drive. The rezoning is from interim single family two and community commercial to limited industrial. And the Planning Commission recommendation was to grant limited industrial with a conditional overlay. And this case is ready for first reading only. That completes all the zoning cases that are up for consent this afternoon.
>>Mayor Watson: let me make sure I have it right. Item 34 it's consent on all three readsings. Item no. 35, Consent on all three readingsings, item no. 36 A postponement of one week and item no. 37 A first reading only. The motion has been made by Councilmember Lewis. Is there a second? seconded by the Mayor pro tem. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. -- I'm sorry? [inaudible].
>>Mayor Watson: why don't you step up to a microphone and identify yourself.
>> Hi. I'm Bill rolands, on item no. 34, One of the conditions that was put on by one of the Planning Commissioners was a no demolition because he wasn't sure if the property had any architectural significance or not. Since that team cease seen it and she's agreed that there is no architectural significance and be willing to rescind that and I will I would like to have the no demolition part of the conditions rescind. I've brought pictures if you want to see what it looks like.
>>Mayor Watson: I'm not sure that's going to be able to satisfy us. The motion is approve the Planning Commission recommendation and unless we're prepared to figure out a way to get around that because we have the information necessary -- Councilmember Lewis?
>>Spelman: could we approve that on first reading only?
>>Mayor Watson: that's what we ought to do. The maker of the motion. The second was by the Mayor pro tem. Would you consider that a friendly amendment? that way that will solve the concern that we have. Item no. 34 Will be consent, but on first reading only. Yes, Mayor pro tem?
>>Garcia: let me ask alice, what's going to happen between now and the second and third reading?
>> when we come back -- we can bring bri it back for second reading and at that point you can address his concern and we'll --.
>>Garcia: does this go back to the Planning Commission?
>> no. Mayor we just need to get the information so that because it appeared to be consent and the Planning Commission recommendation, we don't have the information in front of us to determine whether that condition should be removed or to -- and I'm not doubting your word, but we ought to confirm that the maker of that motion --.
>>Garcia: that's the question I'm asking. Who is going to confirm that.
>> We'll look into that, staff will look into his request.
>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis?
>>Lewis: could you get the information from ms. Baker? I think she was the one who recommended that -- that there be no demolition. Looking at the backup, I think it was her sheet that made it.
>> We'll do that. We will give you additional information when we bring it back for second and third readings.
>>Mayor Watson: so the motion is on consent item 34 on first reading only, 35 all three readings, 36 postpone for one week and 37 on first reading only. Is there any additional discussion? Councilmember Goodman?
>>Goodman: just clarification so I know what it is we're going to be looking for. It's a question of old as opposed to historic, right?
>> correct. That's correct.
>>Goodman: the value of old versus the value of historic.
>>Mayor Watson: there being no further discussion, all in favor? all opposed. Motion carries on items 34 through 37. That leaves us with our 5:00 o'clock time certain. I'm going to entertain a motion to recess, but for those of y'all who are arriving on -- that are arriving to discuss the 5:00 o'clock -- the 5:00 o'clock time certain, I anticipate that there will be a motion that the way we will conduct that public hearing will be for there to be 45 minutes of presentation by the applicant. The applicant can divide that up however they want, which will allow rebuttal time at the end. There will be 45 minutes set aside for organized opposition to make a presentation and then there will be one hour of time for public -- general public comment. The way we will do that is I will take the first 10 cards that are signed up in favor that are not -- that are separate and apart from those who speak as part of the organized 45 minute opposition and I will take the 10 -- first 10 cards that sign up of those people that signed up in opposition. Now, if somebody doesn't need to talk, they just want to say I'm here in opposition, then I'll go to the next card or they want to say I'm here in favor, I'll go to the next card and that way also. At which point I anticipate we will close the public hearing and allow for discussion by the Council. I apologize. We won't be recessing. There is another 4:30 time certain. That one is below the line. Item no. 38 Is a public hearing to amend chapter 13-2 of the Austin City code. Who do I recognize on that? ms. Glasgow, item no. 38, Please.
>> Councilmembers, item no. 38 Is a request to amend a restrictive covenant. There is a provision that was added to the restrictive covenant as an initial zoning case several years ago and the proposal is to amend a condition that limits use to the site for cocktail lounge only. And this amendment would allow for other uses to occur on the site. And that amendment is recommended by staff.
>>Mayor Watson: there has been no one signed up to speak on item no. 38 At the public hearing. Is there anyone that wishes to speak with regard to item no. 38? I see no one. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Motion is made by Councilmember Slusher. Seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Is there any discussion?
>>Garcia: I have one quick question. Is this the old antone's?
>> yes.
>>Mayor Watson: there being no further discussion, all those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye. Opposed say no. That close is the public hearing. That takes us to item no. 42, Which is to take action with regard to the substance. I'm recognize Councilmember Goodman?
>>Goodman: move to amend the restrict active covenant to commercial services.
>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made to amend the restrictive covenant. And -- made by Councilmember Goodman, seconded by Councilmember Slusher. Is fly discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye.? all opposed? motion carries. I'll entertain a motion to recess until 5:00 o'clock. Motion made by Councilmember Spelman, secked by Councilmember Slusher. Is there any discussion, motion carries, we will be recessed until 5:00 o'clock p.m..
>> I call the Austin City Council back to order. We will go to item no. 33. Item no. 33. Ms. Glasgow. Mayor and Councilmembers, item no. 33 Is zoning case c 14-97 hundred 146 known as the triangle has bounded by north lamar boulevard and guadalupe street. It is unzoned because it is owned by the state of Texas, namely the Texas department of mental health and mental retardation. This case was filed on november the 14th of 1997 in accordance with senate Bill 1262, which authorized or provides for the general land office to identify land that is unused or underused and therefore to either sell or lease it in order to provide revenues to the appropriate department. And I'm sure the general land office or the applicant will speak to that in more detail. The zoning application that was filed with us includes a general what I call a feasibility plan which you don't typically see with your regular rezoning cases. You typically handle zoning based on land use and -- and I will walk over the map to let you know how we assessed the rezoning. The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and the Planning Commission recommendation to you was to deny the request and the Planning Commission recommendation to deny was based on two sections of the land development code which they cited as not having been adequately addressed. And I will start off with section 13-2-165 which speaks to mixed use development. This provision of the code allows for the combination of certain zoning district in combination with a mixed use designation, mu, to allow for a balanced mixed use development that allows for office, retail and residential. The Planning Commission felt that there wasn't a satisfactory balance in their view regarding the mixed in development and certain as to how this balance would be accomplished. The second aspect of the Planning Commission cited was section of the code 13-5-42 and that section relates to traffic impact. And the commission felt that the traffic impact was inadequately addressed. That's a section they cited. The commission also offered other ideas that they felt had they been addressed might have presented -- put them in a different review of the project and they cited the following items: they were concerned about the fact that the plan did not comply with the Austin tomorrow plan. They also identified that if the development were reduced the number of screens were reduced from eight to 10 -- between eight and 10 screens it might be somewhat acceptable. The concern about paving of the site. They wanted parking areas to be -- to be in a structure as opposed to surface parking. Architectural standards for buildings in the concept plan, they felt that they were not adequately addressed. Timing and scheduling requirements for roadway and traffic improvements around the site. Pedestrian walkways they felt were not adequately separated from automobile drives and roadways and parking. They also indicated that the language concerning traffic impact and concerning cases for future items regarding investing was a concern for them. That concludes the planning commission recommendation. I'm going to also give you a staff recommendation. The staff had reviewed the development based on what the zoning was appropriate. Staff felt like the zoning request was indeed appropriate and we recommended the case to the Planning Commission and we recommended to you also and our recommendation is based on the fact that we're limiting the square -- the square footage is limited to a total of 800 -- a total of 385,000 square feet. The full area is a ratio of.41 to one. It allows a ratio that is higher and this limitation is to.41 to one. The maximum impervious cover is 86%. Cs zoning allows a impervious cover of 95%. Is there is a cap on impervious cover. Staff also prohibits the following uses. Automotive repair services, automotive washing of any type, pawn shop services, restaurants, drive in. My role today was to touch upon the land use aspect of the zoning and why staff recommended. I've also given you an overvau of the Planning Commission recommendation and why they recommended denial of the zoning case. George sap lack will give you the brief overvau of the traffic impact and the traffic impact analysis and then marty terri from the law department will give you an overview of legal issues as she has -- since she's the lawyer who has prepared the ordinances that she'll be presenting to you. That concludes my presentation and george will follow me.
>>Garcia: ms. Glasgow?
>> yes?
>>Garcia: the review that you did for this particular application was -- what was originally submitted, this proposal has changed somewhat. I mean, not significantly, but in some ways it has changed. Have you reviewed the latest proposal?
>> the plan we have in front of you, the con september hasn't changed significantly from the beginning. Some changes from occurred within the latest change that we're showing in front of you, so there has been one change to show certain amendments to the plan and the applicant's concept plan probably highlights those probably more than the basic visibility plan that I have in front of you.
>>Garcia: so your recommendation is still the same.
>> The staff recommendation is still the same.
>>Garcia: thank you.
>> Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers. I'm george sap lack. I'm director of the inspection department. The total traffic estimated to be generated by the use as proposed within the training he will development would be 25,000 per day approximately, however, this number would be adjusted to blgt account for the fact that some people visiting the site would use more than one facility within the site. And in addition it would be discounted to account for the fact that some of the traffic accessing the triangle would be traffic that is already using the existing roadways. With these adjustments, we estimate that approximately 15,000 new trips would be made to this site once it is fully developed. The traffic impact analysis examined three intersections, first was lamar and guadalupe. No improvements were identified as necessary to make this intersection operate at an acceptable level of service except for some changes in the signal phasing. The applicant is proposing to spend about $5,000 to make this intersection more pedestrian friendly. The gia also examined the intersection of lamar and 45th where a westbound right turn lane would be added and adjustments would be made in the signal phase phasing. In addition, the intersection of blood pressure and 45th was analyzed and this was the most problematic because of the lack of left turn lanes on 45th street at the present time. -- Guadalupe. The applicant is proposing is add eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. In addition, there would be two driveways signalized. One on guadalupe and one on lamar and the applicant would pay 100% of the cost of these signals. The total contribution by the developer would be 415,000 dollars. The proposal also includes a shared parking plan whereby the normal parking requirement of 2,000 spaces would be reduced to 1300 spaces because the uses would share the same parking spaces at different times of the day. Additional parking spaces would be provided off site on land that is owned by the state of Texas. And in addition the public works department has approved the inclusion of some paralegal parking spaces along both sides of guadalupe. -- Parallel parking spaces. Another issue that has been --. [Inaudible].
>>Nary issue that has been raised is the possible closure of 46th street between old guadalupe and new guadalupe. This was originally proposed by the applicant in order to address concerns by the neighborhood that the traffic from the triangle would shortcut through the neighborhood. The staff acknowledges that this could be a problem, however, we also have concerns that the existing traffic on this section of roadway, which is about 3,000 cars per day, could be distributed back into the neighborhood to some extent and therefore make an existing problem worse. Rather than closing the street at this time, staff recommendation is that the situation be studied one year after 15% of the project is built out and if at that time some-odd modifications are needed to 46th street, the developer would be required to pay for the cost of those improvements. And these could include things like closing the street, making it one way westbound, making it narrower, various options that could be considered at that time. Some questions have been raised by the assumptions that went into the traffic impact analysis, particularly the deductions that I referred to previously whereby the gross number of trips was reduced down to 15,000. The staff considered that the deductions used by the traffic consultant were reasonable and consistent with those that had been used in similar applications for other projects; however, we recognize that some of the data is rather limited and the -- the choice of numbers to use in estimating these deductions is not an exact science, that there is some judgment that goes into it. If the more conserve sieve assumptions were used and the deductions are reduced somewhat, it is staff's opinion that the traffic could still be accommodated within the roadway network, but some additional improvements would be needed in putting dual left turn lanes on lamar at guadalupe. Another possibility that has been raised is to change the cycle length of the signals in the area and the Public Works department is prepared to give a response to that proposal.
>>Lewis: you said the trips for the development would be approximately 15,000?
>> 15,000 new trips, yes, sir.
>>Lewis: has there been a recent traffic count in that area?
>> yes. There has been various counts taken along the roads.
>>Lewis: so the counts indicate that it's about 10,000 trips per day generated in that area?
>> the existing counts are about 22,000 vehicles per day on guadalupe and about 30,000 per day on lamar.
>>Lewis: so we're saying that between the two or on either street would be 15,000?
>> well, 15,000 total and that would be disbursed on all the streets in the area, guadalupe, lamar, 45th street.
>>Lewis: all right. Thank you.
>> At this time it's -- marty terri, City attorney. I have handed out to you on the dias three separate ordinances and the reason why we did this is because you need to have language in front of you because this is your last opportunity to act on this matter. And I wanted to go through those because they are the result of the withdrawal of capital metro's previous approval of the right-of-way vacation proposed by the applicant along the west side of west guadalupe. And as a result of that, what was then pending before the city is the application for the vacation of right away plus the application for a license agreement for parking along the east side of west guadalupe. The application for the vacation of right-of-way along west guadalupe. Given capital metro's withdrawal of its approval, the Public Works department decided that it could not recommend vacation of the right-of-way. The first -- your original ordinance in your backup, so that you have that option, includes vacation of the right-of-way. It also includes cleanup of language clarifying references to table 3 and four, the traffic impact analysis and addresses the staff's concern about the closure of 46th street. In addition, today peter rieck advised me that he has determined that he does not need to approve the license agreement. He merely needs to -- he has the ability and the authority to merely approve the parking arrangement on the east side. So you will find that on page 7 of the ordinance I have interlien 80ed new language that reflects that he has approved the parking arrangement, not the license agreement application as submitted. Now, you also have -- all of the changes in these ordinances are set out in legislative format, including inner lien yaition that I have given you. The second ordinance I have given you contains the additional cleanup on the traffic, the new language addressing the closure of 46th street. This language in this ordinance reflects denial of the request for a vacation of right-of-way along the west side of guadalupe and it mandates compliance with City code requirements concerning parking. It does reflect the new language regarding the license agreement concerning the east side, but it does not approve parking arrangement on the west side. Again, giving you an option. The third ordinance that I have given to you contains the additional cleanup language on the traffic, the new language addressing the closure of 46th street, the language reflecting the denial of the request for the vacation of the right-of-way, mandates compliance with City code parking requirements and reflects that the City staff has approved both the parking arrangement on the east side and the west side. And indeed that has peter rieck -- he has agreed to recommend to approve the parking arrangements on both sides. So again, these are various options that you have in front of you. You have the language giving you the opportunity to have -- to adopt something which reflects staff's actual recommendation. The additional item which I have given to you, as you're aware, the ordinance actually has attached to it the development plan, and that consists of exhibits. And the exhibit j has been corrected to reflect the new applications for the license agreement. So I have given to you the new exhibit j which will be substituted for the exhibits that are currently in the development package. So what you have in front of you is three separate ordinances which give you options. You have the new exhibit j and I'll be happy to answer any questions to hopefully clarify the complicated nature of what I've given you. [Inaudible].
>> It's actually the language that's interlien yaited and it's been added in. It's very brief and very short. [Inaudible]. [Audio problems, please stand by].
>>Mayor Watson: that's twice I've heard Councilmember Lewis move to postpone. All right. That leads us -- ms. Glasgow, do you have anything to add at this point?
>> now that you asked, just something very brief, I promise. I wanted to also state that in reviewing the plan, what is presented to you that the -- there's a residential component that comprises 12.98% of the total project. In addition there is an additional 50,000 square feet of area that could be developed as residential, although it is also possible that none of this additional development would be used for residential purposes. So I also want to indicate that we also compared this to a traditional neighborhood district development under that scenario, though it's not applicable to downtown development because the ordinance is intended for land that comprises 40 acres or more, in just looking at that and comparing to this project at this scale, you find that there should be at a minimum 20% of the area of the neighborhood center should comprise of residential development, and that would translate to 5.4 acres of development in the range of 25 to 30 units per acre. That range would be 135 to 162 units. So that's something I did not get a chance to state earlier. Thank you. That concludes my presentation.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you ms. Glasgow. Mayor pro tem?
>>Garcia: thank you, Mayor. On page 509, marty, in the paragraph you underlined, about midway through where it's talking about the City determines that mitigation measures are needed.
>> Yes, sir.
>>Garcia: the developer shall be responsible for providing the cost of. Such costs of restricted to measures --.
>> I think that explains it. The developer shall be responsible for all costs of traffic mitigation related to the cloets sure, not to exceed the cost of of removing the payment pavement on 46th street. Revegetation of the area. The following sentence is an elaboration on what I -- what we -- what the staff meant by measures. Details exactly is what it was we were talking about.
>>Garcia: okay.
>>Mayor Watson: that leads us to the public hearing portion. As I indicated, I anticipate that -- I'll recognize the Mayor pro tem for a motion.
>>Garcia: thank you. My motion is to suspend the rules that we have with regard to public participation so that we allow 45 minutes for presentation by the applicant and whoever they select, 45 minutes for the organized opposition, I guess is the best way to say it, and then an hour for -- that's to be allocated 50/50 or 30/30, 30 minutes,, to general participants who are not part of the organized opposition. And that that would take about two and a half hours. And then at that time we close the public hearing so that the Council has an opportunity to debate the issue. Let me just say that the motion I think makes sense because we have heard more on this issue than probably any other issue we have had in the recent past and I think Council is well aware of the issues that are before us. So I make that motion.
>> I'll second that.
>>Mayor Watson: motion is made by the Mayor pro tem. Seconded by Councilmember Slusher to amend the rules to conduct the public hearing as follows: 45 minutes for the applicant that would allow the applicant to tell us how they want that time divided so that they will be entitled to rebuttal in accordance with our rules. 45 Minutes for organized opposition and then 60 minutes for general public hearing. And the way we will conduct that is I'll pull the first 10 cards of those in favor and the first 10 cards of those in opposition and that's the order I'll go in. If you don't have anything to add. Assuming that the motion passes, if you don't have anything to add and you wish to be shown in opposition, we will do that. I will also read all of the cards and the position taken on the cards into the record regardless of whether you have had an opportunity to come to the podium and speak. Mayor pro tem?
>>Garcia: let me just say that if the applicant or the neighborhood, the organized opposition wants to keep time for rebuttal out of the 45 minutes, that was part of my motion.
>>Mayor Watson: okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Hearing? all in favor? all opposed? motion carries.
>>Slusher: I justment to announce that I'm going to be off the dias for the beginning of this, but I will be watching on tv. I was talking to some of our friends in the media during the break and didn't get to enjoy supper, so I'll be listening. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: and he has credibility on that since the last seinfeld episode has not started yet. [Laughter]. With that let me ask before we begin the public hearing as spekt if any member of the Council wants to stay anything or make any comments in preparation for the public hearing?
>>Spelman: thank you, Mayor. There has been -- first of all, welcome back, y'all. Y'all have been here about a month ago, the buck stops here, the buck will stop in about three hours. So you sit tight and I hope you've got your videotape machines working. There's a cartoon going around the state's land development process that all the state cares about is maximizing its income, making as much money as possible that they're auctioning off state lots to the highest bidder. In this case at least this is a misconception and I wanted to correct that misconception before we started the public hearing in the hope that by focusing some attention on what it is the state is trying to do here in addition to making money for the Texas department of mental health and mental retardation, it will help to focus the discussion. In the solicitation that was issued in 1995 for sale of this lot, the Texas department of melt and mental retardation put in an exhibit suggesting some site development guidelines. These are the principles are summarized here on this overhead. If any of you want to use the overhead, please feel free to, but if you don't need to, it would help me if we can leave these up and if any of you would like to refer to this exhibit along the way in the course of public hearing, please feel free. The state put restrictions on the kind of developments that they were willing to accept and that they considered to be appropriate for this site. The first was that they were looking for a high density mixed use development. They said they wanted to intensify development. Intensify intensify ity of development of the site, recognizing this is an urban location. They wanted to provide for a mixed use project. They wanted to create buffers against the street and against the state property. The state property is in the vicinity of the children's psychiatric unit of the Austin state hospital and the Austin child guidance center, which are in that little cut out facing on 45th street, at the corner of 45th and lamar. They were looking for visual buffers and separation there. They're also looking for buffers especially across I guess the parking lots against adjacent streets on guadalupe and on lamar street, through the placement of buildings, the use of walls, berms and landscaping. And they wanted to preserve the existing trees on the edge of the property at 45th street and guadalupe and further develop the green buffer by adding trees all along the perimeter of the site. Third they were interested in traffic circulation. The state asked for a limit on the number of curb cuts, asked for an establishment of intervehicular circulation within the site here and they asked the successful applicants to provide a direct east west access from lamar boulevard to guadalupe street, in effect they were asking for a connecting street to be on the site. Fourth, they were interested in how the parking actually got done on the site. They wanted to limit the surface parking to a minimum, emphasizing instead structured parking because that would be limiting impervious cover and preserving as much green space as possible. In particular they wanted to avoid large uninterrupted spanses of parking lots. That's all I need to say about the parking. We're looking for pedestrian friendly development. This is a direct quote from the exhibit. Pedestrian circulation between all buildings and uses on site and between the private development and the five acre estate office tract will be encouraged through site design. They asked for an architectural connection between this site and the office tract to reinforce that. And finally they were interested in open space and what they referred to as people oriented spaces. They referred to again one of the reasons for structured parking rather than large parking lots was to limit impervious cover and preserve large green space. The state was asking for the detention area, wherever the detention area would go to handle the drainage, that that be used as a recreation site if at all possible and they were interested in creating what they called people oriented places, including things like fountains, terraces, permanent water features and landscaping. This is what the state was trying to accomplish, not just to make as much as money for the state as possible but to create a development that would be of benefit to the people of central Austin with these kinds of restrictions in it. And if in the course of your discussions if you could give us your opinion as to how well this development succeeds in matching the solicitation, I for one would appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor.
>>Mayor Watson: with that we will go to the presentation. The first 45 minutes --, I'll ask you if you come forward and tell me how you want your time split, if you want it split and I'll have them set the clock. Go ahead.
>> Mayor Watson, members of the Council, my name is tom der kel and I am an executive vice-president with sin correllty services. The way we would like to handle our part of the presentation is I will speak for approximately 10 minutes or so. If I can have another man from the traffic engineers address some of the traffic concerns that many of you have raised with this. And finally Mr. Greener with greener andy stoo wart with conclude the first part of our presentation. We would like to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal if we could.
>>Mayor Watson: I'll ask you to set the clock for 30 minutes so that you'll know at the end of 30 minutes and if you want to have more time you will know that's what you're doing.
>> Thank you very much. [One moment, please] many of the criticisms that you have heard leveled are fairly accurate about this project, about this plan. It has a line of buildings facing to the north where they are -- with a fairly conventional parking in front of it. We presented this plan to the public in september of 1996. Shortly after we received a bid. We began the public input process. We conducted a series of meetings with representatives of the 8 affected neighbors -- neighborhoods from september of 1996 until april of 1997. There were a lot of criticisms of this plan. And so as a result of that, we modified it, substantially, to -- to I think operate many of the comments and ideas we heard. We pulled buildings out to the edge of the street. To serve as the buffer Mr. Spelman referred to a moment ago around the surrounding arterials. We created an internal walkway from the theater up to the middle of the project. This was the plan that we took to a public hearing in june of 1997. It was a product of hard work and frankly we thought a fairly well received. But we were wrong, it was very badly received by the public when we presented it to them in 1997. We were somewhat taken aback by the reaction we got. It was an angry meeting and it was not a pleasant experience for anyone who was there. But I think we learned something from it. What we really learned was that we needed to think harder and longer about what we were bringing to the City. About this time a petition was circulated, you will hear more about that tonight I'm sure, regarding the number of signatures, but this was the plan or something very similar to it that was in circulation at that time. We spent the next six months working with urban land planners, architects, academics, and others to ask them why do you think our plan was so poorly received and what can we do about it? and that plan evolved into this. We added in this iteration of the plan 40 lost apartments over in this area, becoming a three story building. We put underground parking in under this building as well as here and under this part of the project as well. This plan had about 700 underground or -- underground spaces or spaces containing parking structures. Another point that Mr. Spelman alluded to earlier. It also contained mixed use ideas, we had office space, residential space and retail space for the first time in our plan here. This was filed with the City in november of 1997. We went to a charette that was sponsored under the leadership of Councilmember Griffith, it was attended by a number of citizens and conducted by some planners and experts from around the country. We learned more about different ideas about how to make the project more responsive to the community's concerns at that meeting as well. We sat down in a series of meetings with neighborhood leaders and Councilmember Griffith once again through her leadership and hard work and we came up with even better ideas, we thought about how to organize our plan and how to present it, so shortly before we were scheduled to go to the Planning Commission, we amended our plan and it now is the plan that is before you tonight. This plan, I think, addresses the open space issue that Mr. Spelman referred to in the mir guidelines, making them usable spaces. We have two areas, approximately an acre and a half or an acre in size each, almost the size of a downtown city block that are in the middle of the project and are functional. There are a number of aspects about the project and you have heard -- the Mayor indicated, and Mayor pro tem Garcia indicated that you have heard more about this probably than any other project in a long type. So I won't go over all of the details, but there are four or five elements about our plan that I think are somewhat unique and innovative that I would like to call your special attention to. First of all, I made reference earlier to the amount of underground and structured parking. Our project has approximately 40% of its parking, either in structures or in underground parking areas. There isn't another project certainly in Austin and perhaps in the state of Texas that combines these uses, but makes such an extraordinary use of structure and underground parking. Certainly the area in which the green space is incorporated into the project. We have buildings with outdoor seating areas around in -- and straubts with outdoor seating areas around the park at the north end. As well we have it on the south end. We have a restaurant with an amphi theater and an outdoor deck to encourage musical performances and dramatic performances. The area at the south end of the project is one about which I am especially proud because it I think serves as an example of how end fill development should be done, making efficient use of land for dual purposes, it would also serve as a detention pond. It is sized to accommodate a third more runoff than we would be required under City of Austin guidelines. It -- but it -- it is configured so that the typical mall rain events, the low intins community rain events will be contained in the east side of the site in a channel keeping it out of the main body of the green. In major rain event, where we have big storms, it will overflow the channel and pill into the detention area. Then we will go in, clean it up, restore it so it can be used again. The amount of rain water leaving our site in a developed condition will be one-third less in a 25 year storm event than it is in an undeveloped state. This is important because the area to the south and east of our area suffers from flooding problems. The north university neighborhood. And this will make a significant contribution toward improving those conditions. There are other external impacts of our project, of course, and one of the most significant and I'm sure one of the ones that we will talk the most about tonight will be traffic. There are a variety of questions that have been raised sin?/
>> this particular project, we -- we worked with the City staff to get an approved scope of work for the study so that we all were on the same sheet of music, so to speak, in terms of conducting a study for this site. And that scope is what was used to proceed as far as the studies we conducted. And upon completion of the studies, this, of course, the report was submitted to the city, reviewed by the staff. We had several months of discussions with the staff in terms of addressing comments, more details on the assumptions, many of which Mr. Zapalac indicated to you earlier. Again as noted earlier, staff supported the results of the studies that were conducted for this particular project. In the course of this, there were a couple of specific questions that came up in discussions with City Council members, I have responded to those in a Written fashion. But I would like to again just briefly visit with that concerning some of the assumptions that Mr. Zap lack mentioned earlier. I -- specifically having to do with the supermarket pass by. As we always do, we looked at what we felt were conservative assessments of adjustments that were mentioned earlier and the supermarket being one of those, we reduced the assumption on the pass by significantly from what was assumed originally. In addition at the time of approval of the scope, the wall green's development at the intersection of guadalupe and 45th was not included in the scope because it was not proposed at that time. We have also looked specifically at potential impacts of that project. The net effect of these two is an increase of about 240 or 50 p.m. Peak hour trips. We have analyzed those on the roadway met work and feel that they can be adequately accommodated with the recommendation we submitted earlier. Again as I noted in each case we have attempted to look at appropriate factors based on the transportation engineers and studies conducted all over the country. The intent being to provide a conservative assessment of those assumptions and korndingly liberal estimate of the number of vehicles limited by the project. The intent being to get a picture of what the conditions will be like at the buildout of the project. To provide guidance to the city in improving the development as well as the development itself so that it operates and functions properly and adequately. Another issue that came up in discussions is dealing with freight. We haven't dealt specifically with freight and service vehicles itself nor in other tia's that have been kukded. That is a detail that should be considered as part of the site planning and operational aspect. There are a number of other commercial facilities in this area, the project borders on three arterials. There's no question that freight vehicles will be considered as part of the overall site design and operational considerations for future planning on this project. The results of our analysis indicated some improvements that need to be made. Mr. Zapalac mentioned some of those, specifically 45th and lamar, we have identified a need for a right turn lane, web to northbound on 45th at lamar. Westbound to northbound in the need for providing north turn lanes, both east and west on 45th street at guadalupe. We feel with these improvements that the project's traffic can be supported adequately as well as increases of background traffic and the wallgreen's project and other planned development in this area. The cost of these improvements we have estimated to be between 5 and $600,000 and the pro rata share of that share is $410,000. In conclusion, the project is appropriate from the standpoint of traffic operations in this location as proposed and we feel that the recommendations have been submitted and the layout and design of the project as proposed will be adequate to address the traffic impacts associated with it.
>> I believe Mr. Jenner will wrap up.
>> I guess the Mayor is off the dias for a second. Mayor pro tem, City Council members, I'm steve drenner on behalf of cen corp reality services, I think the presentation by mess glascow and mystery really explained what you are -- miss takes terri had it before -- before you is a zoning case, this one is different, it's a state project, I know you've had recent experience with state projects, I would suggest to you that they are all different. In this case what you have for veterans of the early 1980's is a zoning case with a zoning site plan. And what that provides you is a great deal more specifying, more clarity about what's going to happen on the site than you typically have with a zoning case. We are, therefore, subject to not only the limitations and restrictions set forth in the code with respect to gr-mu use but in fact that fat development plan that you all have seen provides a conditional overlay of its own because we are subject to all of the restrictions, claire cakeses, specifications in that development plan. Not the least of which is the conceptual plan that I know that you have all seen and spent some time with. Without belaboring the specifics that are in that plan, I would also suggest to you that obviously the second thing that you are being asked to approve is the reimbursement for some of our hard costs with respect to the west water line that is being installed off-site. As indicated in the presentation, that's in accordance with the code and I think accurately reflects frankly the rather extensive work that is necessary and nourp was sort of smokingly -- shockingly so necessary to provide service to this inner city development. I would suggest to you again without passing over it lightly that we spent a tremendous amount of time with your staff, I would like to commend the staff publicly for a tremendous job, I think, in working in a short time period and focusing on the real issues associated with the plan. We spent a lot of time with them, a give and take process, a negotiating process, we finally reached a compromise position, which that staff supports. So, again, without trading and skipping over it too quickly, remember that you are experts, you are City staff that spent literally six months looking at this plan, supports both of the issues that are before you tonight. With some trepidation, let me also talk to you a bit about smart growth. I don't suggest that this is going to be the last time that concept comes up tonight. But it is clearly a concept, at least that, this community has adopted. In large part frankly due to your leadership. I would suggest to you, it means different things to different people, but I would suggest that almost anybody's definition of smart droet is going to include two things: one of those is limiting development on the outskirts of the City, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas, the other thing it will include is in-fill development. I know that -- I think most Austinites really have a pretty clear picture about why we have to achieve that first result and frankly how we are going to do it. The citizens have within the last two weeks given you additional tools to accomplish that result and the Texas supreme court has endorsed the tool that you have used most frequently to limit growth in the southwest part of the city. However, I would suggest to you that most Austinites are probably a little fuzzy about how we are going to accomplish in-fill development, particularly in a way which doesn't unduly intrude on nearby neighborhoods in a manner which reflects Austin's unique character and in a manner which deals creatively with the obvious problems that are associated with in-fill development. As a community, frankly, we have not demonstrated a commitment to in-fill development because it's tougher. It is tougher because there will always be some who oppose the project. They may oppose it because it's in their back yard or they may oppose it because it doesn't fit their idea of what in-fill development ought to be about. But it's tougher to approve in-fill development, frankly, in my book than it is to restrict development on the fringes of the City. Yet the challenge is clear: in order to be -- to have a sustainable City, in regard to have smart growth, you have got to do both. For right or wrong, I think the triangle project has become somewhat of a litmus test of this other side of smart growth. [One moment please]
>> I would also suggest to you that if you think about it, you can't find a project in Austin or anywhere in the vicinity that has usable open space to the degree that this one has that open space. Really it's a different issue frankly than I am perfect just cover. You can satisfy I am perfect just cover restrictions in a variety of ways. You can do it by putting green strips in the parking lots. You can do it by having lake travis land in the center. And I can point you to examples of doing that. In this case the green areas are truly usable areas in an an unprecedent the scale. Where else are you going to find a project of this size that has two City blocks that are set in the very heart of the project for use by the people who use the project? I would also suggest to you that a third element is a project that is pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Despite what you may hear later, I think that cars are a necessary evil and you've got to accommodate those cars in doing any sort of a development of this type, but you can go the extra step, and I think this project does it again to an unprecedented level in terms of not only accommodating pedestrian and bicycle uses, allowing those uses to traf verse the site in any direction, but also in making that experience an enjoyable one. I think in this case the pedestrian bicycle has the right-of-way and I would challenge you to find another project where that's truly so. Structured parking tom mentioned a good bit, I work on a lot of retail projects, frankly, some office projects, multi-family projects. The continuous refrain from your City staff, from neighborhood leaders, from environmentalists is use structured parking. Normally the answer is no, I can't do it. In this case, as tom said, almost 40% of the parking on this site is structured parking or underground. Truly an unprecedented level. Tom mentioned the efficient use of the land and I would -- I would call your attention to that again. Again, most projects don't segregate -- most projects do seg gee grate they're uses horizontally. They don't integrate them vertically. Most projects satisfy the detention in a seg gre gated area. It's usually berm, it's usually done in such a way as you don't see it. Most projects don't use structured parking. This project to an unprecedented degree again uses the land efficiently by integrating the uses vertically, by using structured parking and by viewing the opportunity to use the same land for multiple purposes. What I mentioned so far are elements our plan which are on site. We've mentioned again two issues with respect to the off site issues. First of all, with respect to the drainage issues, you're not going to hear a lot about that by those who oppose the plan, but I would suggest to you that from day one that was a high priority in designing this project because the north university folks have real life threatening flooding issues and it was always of the highest priority in designing this project to maximize the detention. Again, as tom said, more than one-third more than the code would require. Respect to traffic, you've heard and on I'm certainly no traffic expert, but I will give you mylai man's, if you will, common sense perspective on traffic. This site is unique. In terms of an infill development opportunity and I would ask you to focus on that picture that's in front of you, where else are you going to have the opportunity to do infill development surrounded by three arterials. I would suggest that that fact alone mitigates a tremendous amount of the traffic impacts that you're normally going to find with respect to infill development. I would also suggest to you when you look at that picture, not only is no house particularly close to the project, I would doubt that any house -- that the view from any house that you can even see this project. So again, you have -- you have an unprecedented situation in that you have a project not only surrounded by three arterials, but totally surrounded by commercial development. But I also suggest to you with respect to regional traffic issues, again, two observations. One is the people who are going to use this center are already going to find those services someplace else. They're already, if you will, on the road. What this allows us to do in the inner City is redirect that traffic to adjust those traffic patterns. I don't think we're adding a lot of new traffic. The reason why those retailers want to be here is because the traffic already exists. What we're really doing is providing opportunities for the people who live near this project to spend less time on the road and perhaps no time on the road if they choose to get there by foot or bicycle. We're also going to hear and have heard a lot about redone dance si of services. Again, I think a little different perspective on that. Certainly there are other grocery stores in the area, there are other movie theaters in town, although not particularly close, but it's not all about uses, it's about state-of-the-art uses. We're talking about an industry that is constantly evolving. And if you continue to put the state-of-the-art uses on the fringes of the City, the traffic will follow. So again, it's not simply a matter of saying, well, gee, we have a theater somewhere in the area, but when you -- for a lot of folks when they get ready to go see titanic they're going to think about where do I want to go with the new stadium seating, for instance? where do I want to go to provide -- to find these state-of-the-art service? so in evaluating this project, keep in mind we're not only providing the same services to some degree, but we're able to provide state-of-the-art services, which ought to keep that traffic that's coming from the central and going to the fringe kept in the central part of the City. I'm going to close at this point. We'll be happy to answer questions at this point and wanted to save a little time for rebuttal.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Anybody have any questions at this point? all right. Folks are keeping the time, if you can stop the clock on that so they'll have the remaining time left for rebuttal. With that we will go to the organized presentation of opposition and you will have 45 minutes set aside for that. And are you the person I ought to look to for that, the organized opposition part?
>> yes.
>>Goodman: good Mayor, can I say I'll be off the dias frequently, but I'll also be close to the monster.
>>Mayor Watson: are you going to start? let me ask for purposes of ease, what I'm going to do is ask them to set the clock for just 45 minutes and let y'all use your 45 minutes however you wish. Is that all right?
>> thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: welcome and thank you for being here.
>> Thank you. I'm susan moffett. Co-president of the hyde park neighborhood association the I'd like to thank the Mayor and Councilmembers for this student to speak and I'd like to thank everyone else to giving up seinfeld tonight. I hope this will be worth it. When the City Council adopted the recent smart growth initiative, its stated goal was clear, to manage growth, protect Austin's quality of life and environment and assure the creation of a healthy economy. The question before us tonight is does the cen corp plan achieve these goals? we believe it does not, but we do believe such a plan is possible, a liveable triangle development that will meet the state and developer's financial needs and be a vibrant asset to our central city. We must also bear in mind that what happens on the triangle will likely set the tone for future development of the remainder of over 100 acres of state land immediately to the south if and when that tract goes on the market. Before going into the current plan, I would I would like to note that this is an unusual situation. Not many communities face the sudden development of a 22 acre chunk of their City's core. If this site had developed naturally along with the rest of central Austin, it would probably look a lot like the neighborhoods that surround it, but having been held off the market until now, it is essentially landlocked. There are no major highways that feed it, making any significant development contingent on comprehensive and obviously costly traffic improvements as well as other infrastructure costs. Since the City will be footing this bill, it is extremely important that what we put there be something that we as a community really want and need. As one of the first projects developed after the smart growth initiative, we must ensure that this project lives up to the spirit and letter of that initiative. Anyone can slap a smart growth label on a project. It is up to us to make sure that the contents match the label. We believe the City has a unique opportunity here to carefully plan and consider what kind of development best suits our central City. It is a chance to think about what is important to us as a community and how we want to grow. Yes, we may still have to fight for this at the state level, but we believe the future of Austin is worth fighting for. Now to the current proposal. Based on november's community wide design charette, the neighborhoods have identified four areas of fundamental concern in the cen corp plan. These are lack of usable green space or public areas, lack of a strong residential component, lack of an adequate traffic plan for the surrounding area and finally lack of a co-hernt network of cross streets use believe by pedestrians, bicycle ifts and particularly the residents of the nearby Texas school for the blind, who constitute the largest visually impaired population of our state. You will be hearing about each of these elements for more detail from the speakers who follow me. The Planning Commission is already on record with a strong vote against this project. In recommending its denial, commissioner walter brown stated that it did not meet the standard for infill development. Its major faults being the enormous supermarket and the project's orientation toward the automobile. The commissioner also included a number of elements he would have to see to approve a development on that site, including at least a 25% residential component, clearly defined architectural standards, pedestrian walkways separated from driveways and parking lots and schedule requirements for traffic improvements in the area. We concur with these recommendations. Before I close, I feel it is important to say we did not want to be here tonight opposing this plan. We have been working for months toward a compromise, but despite our best efforts, the developer has refused to budge on any of the plans' major elements clearly believing that he will be rescued at the state level. In fact, one of the more bad side effects of the land development process is it allows developers to ignore the kind of meaningful negotiations that would normally accompany the City zoning process in a contested case such as this one. The sole result of our months of meeting is they now talk the talk of smart growth. The plan itself shows no signs of walking. I would also like to remind you that the contract between the developer and the state does contain an escape clause which provides that if the city denies zoning to the project, any party may walk away from the deal. Though we have no way of knowing whether either side may make use of this clause, we certainly want to preserve that option. I'm sure you've heard the time mouse idea that form follows function. Regrettably in this case, both seem to take a back seat to financing. He claims he can only make money through the plan as it stands, which is essentially a standard issue strip mall with 40 apartment units tacked on. But national sperpts have shown us that he can recoup his investment with a street friendly old neighborhood style true mixed use development. We certainly recognize his right to make money from this project, but that is not the only issue at stake here. As the Planning Commission vote showed, cen corp's development is plainly at odds with smart growth. It does little to increase residential options in the central City, makes no provisions for public transit, overwe will ms existing streets with added traffic and provides goods and services that are largely redundant to the area. Far from reducing suburban sprawl, it brings that sprawl to the core of our City. If the triangle is to be developed, it must be done in a responsible, sustain able way. We recognize the state's need to make money from its underused lands, but this is not just another vacant tract, it is the heart of our capital city, it belongs to all of us and it deserves more vision and more consideration than the current plan provides. We ask that you send a strong message to the state on this matter and respectfully request you to deny zoning for the current plan. We believe a liveable triangle development is still possible. Thank you. I will now turn the microphone over to jeff jack, past president of the Austin neighborhoods Council. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. [Applause]. Folks, it's advisory only, but it cuts into your time.
>> Mayor, Councilmembers, I'm jeff jack and still currently president of the Austin neighborhoods Council for a few more months. The agency has been following this project since its inception and has seen presentations by both cen realty and the neighborhood associations from the surrounding areas. The anc has also supported and participated in the design meeting for the triangle site sponsored by the City. After much input and consideration on March 25th, we passed unanimously the following resolution. Be it resolved that the Austin neighborhoods Council opposes cen corp realty zoning request for the triangle project and supports the efforts of the neighborhood association in finding an alternative solution to the request of development of the triangle property. It should also be noted that the anc supports a sustain able City concept and we believe that appropriate infill projects are essential for managing Austin's growth. Further, the design concepts that the neighborhood association has laid out in their community plan document are sensible, consistent with the compact City I can't understand should be adhered to for this project. It was noted earlier this evening that this is a lit must test for our community support of the smart City and smart growth initiative and good infill. This is not a litmus test for those concepts. This is a test whether or not this project is appropriate for this site. While the plan is mature into the public input process, it still falls short of providing the quality of infill development that both respects our neighborhoods and -- that Austin deserves. The anc has joined the following organizations this opposing the pln. The guadalupe homeowners mer kmants association,. Hide mark neighborhood association, neighbors of triangle park, north field neighborhood association and the Austin sierra club. In addition, the brent wood neighborhood association found that 95% of the residents opposed the development as earlier planned. And 6,000 citizens have at at at large have also signed a petition against the project. The Travis County democratic convention have also passed resolutions opposing the current state land development process and supporting the city's right to plan our future. It is clear that all Texas cities, not just Austin, should have more influence on how state land within our communities is developed. And now I'd like to introduce Dr. Kathy he can else, co-chair of the hyde park triangle task force. She is going to talk to us about the traffic impact on the project. Maifer Mayor thank you, Mr. Jack. [Applause].
>> I'm catherine echols. Co-chair of the hyde park neighborhood association and a homeowner in hyde park. I'll be speaking about one aspect of the proposed triangle project that has raised widespread opposition, traffic. Now, any development on this site is going to increase traffic, but the plan with its heavy reliance on retail and automobile intensive retail a at that is problematic. Our streets are already overloaded. As one indication of existing traffic problems, the hyde park and hancock neighborhoods have been targeted in 100,000-dollar traffic calming project funded by the City of Austin's Public Works department. To be more specific, intersections that will be affected by the project already are failing or close to failing. As members of the City Council will know, a common measure of traffic congestion is delayed time, essentially the average amount of time spent waiting at an intersection. In an earlier analysis, the transportation sperpts described several intersections, for example, guadalupe and 45th and lamar and 45th as failing with delay times in an unacceptable range. In the current traffic impact analysis, the average delay times of most intersections squeak by in the acceptable range, but delay times are failing for traffic in certain directions or for certain types of turns. Sen corp claims they will mitigate the traffic congestion from the project so all intersections that are immediately adjacent to the project will fall into the passing range. We are highly skeptical of these claims for several reasons. First, we have questions about sen corp's numbers with regard to traffic. I would mention just some of these concerns. Sen corp's estimates of traffic impact dependent on substantial internal capture. That is, driver's patronizing more than one location within the complex and also substantial pass by kpap chur, in other words, drivers coming into the center who would be driving by anyway. In the tia, the developers originally submitted to the city, they reduced their estimates of total daily trips from about 25,000 to 15,000 based on the two sources of capture. These reductions were excessive. For example, grocery stores tend to generate primarily destination traffic where a patron will drive from home to the store and back with no other stops. As you've heard, the developers took a 30% reduction for pass by capture. The reduction was derived by taking an average of pass by capture noted for five studies of grocery stores. The problem was that all of these grocery stores were smaller than the proposed randall's, with four or five being substantially smaller, one-third to two-thirds the size of the proposed store. This is a problem because once the size of the store increases beyond a certain point, it becomes a regional, not a local store and the portion of pass by capture will be less. For the store closest in size to the randall's, the pass by capture was about nine percent. When at the challenged them on this 30% figure, they agreed there was no good justification for it and have subsequently readjusted the tia using the nine percent, and I'll return to that in a moment. However, there are still problems with the pass by capture. For example, they used a 40% figure for pass by capture for the restaurants. That is the figure cited in the fifth edition of the institute of traffic engineers trap manual, the gopper's own source for drive through fast food restaurants. The restaurants proposed for the site or described as high turn overrestaurants. Drive through fast foods are prohibited in the development plan. This is an important distinction. High turnover restaurants are the ones that tend to stand alone on shopping center sites, the chill lies, gran dees, tgi friday's, whatever. Think about it, you might stop by from home or work for ear rands, but if you go to chill lease, you would probably head back home, most of the time head back home afterwards. Though the manual contains no limits of pass by capture do high turnover restaurants, 40% is clearly way off base. More generally, those -- they describe the project as serving central Austin and did so once again just now. It is clear that this development is focused on a regional and not a local market and that it will not survive unless it brings in substantial traffic from outside the area. 12 To 14 screen movie theaters and grocery stores cannot exist on the neighborhood clientele, particularly with several other large grocery stores in close proximity. In addition to the pass by capture, we are puzzled that the theater traffic counts are described without -- without matt anyway. There will surely be matt anyways. Many theaters are conducting matt anyways much of the day on weekends. Additionally the square footage for the five restaurants was combined, which would be underestimating of trip numbers. It would seem that the likely's sourts uf internal capture for the grocery store would be advice verse va. Yet both are reduced by 20% based on predicted internal capture. In other words, we're concerned that there is double counting the captured traffic and in fact in looking through the manual sen corp doesn't list its source for internal capture, but the figures listed in the ite, the institute of traffic engineers manual, suggests that about 21% of the shopping at grocery stores also goes to other locations and about 27% for small retail stores also goes to other locations. Also is at multiple locations. So that seems to confirm my suspicion that they're capture figures are at least partly double counting. There are some other troubling aspects of the traffic estimates. The reduction to 15,000 trips is obtained by reducing the trips for each component of the center by a certain percentage for pass by capture. Even if we could believe the proportions that they use, the reductions that they use, there's still a problem because the proportions that they obtain from the manual are for peak hour traffic, that is rush hour for externally generated traffic. Pass by capture during peak hour when people are returning from work is going to be higher than at other times of the day. In the evening in particular when centers use is estimated to be highest, one would expect pass by capture to be minimal. It's likely that evening trips are being way underestimated. At this point leads to another set of problems with the numbers. In fact, 26,000 versus 15,000 isn't relevant for the intersection analyses that determined whether the traffic congestion is considered unacceptable. It's only peak hour traffic that is taken into consideration in these analysis. I just realized I meant to say something about that last part. The ite cautions against using peak hour traffic for pass by numbers. Sorry about that. So there are another set of problems with the numbers. The only peak hour traffic is taken into consideration in the analysis, but extrapolating from the parking figures, the use of the center is going to peak at about 8:00 o'clock at night with heavy usage from one to nine on weekdays and from 11 to nine on saturdays. What that means is that rush hour effectively will be extended for much of the day, particularly on weekends. Nonetheless, the development plan is Written so that only weekday peak hour traffic can be taken into consideration in assessing the impact of the project. Weekend traffic is not even mentioned. Our experiences with central park indicate that weekends are particularly messy. And the inclusion of a theater, which will have afternoon movies, will substantially aggravate the problem. To give you some nns e. Numbers, the same program that provided the weekday theater estimate of about 34 hundred trips, provides an estimate for saturday of about 34 hundred trips and 36 hundred for sundays. Both ex-clus afternoons. In addition we're concerned about provisions for non-automobile modes of transportation. They describe the project -- once again they just did, jibed the project as being friendly to pedestrians, bicycles and other so-called non-traditional modes of transportation. I didn't realize walking was non-traditional. That claim is inconsistent with the realty of the project. The massive parking lots with discourage pedestrian traffic. No one wants to walk on a sidewalk that's surrounded by asphalt. Instead, even nearby residents will drive to the center, then get back into their cars to drive from one area of the development to the other. We do not see evidence adequate provisions for pedestrian and bicycle friendly intersections and furthermore the project is on one of the most heavily used bus lines in Austin, but there is no evidence of a pull pullout to accommodate this mode of transportation. They're only vague promises about linking with transit stops. Furthermore, the proposed light rail system, which is backing a reality, would pass right through the project, but there's no evidence that the developers have planned for that event. They've ignored non-automobile transportation in their plans, the developers suggests that the use of these other forms of transportation will further reduce the automobile traffic on the project and they include a modest reduction in predicted trips on that basis. An additional concern pertains to special class vehicle or freight traffic. As you heard the developers have not provided estimates of freight traffic and it's clear to us that a 62,000 square foot grocery store is going to require many large truck deliveries. The bulk of this traffic will come off of I-35 and along 45th or 51st street. These streets were not designed to be arterials and in fact 45th is not an arterial. It's a feeder street. And those streets cannot accommodate that type of traffic. Though 45th technically has two lanes in each direction, those lanes are small. A large truck does not fit into a single lane. 51St is perhaps even more problematic. Both streets run right through residential areas and there's a park on 45th and elementary school on 51st. Large trucks don't stop on a dime and they certainty can't stop for a child running out into the street. Their build out date of 2,000 is one realistic. Moving along here. That's significant for traffic because it enables the plan to ignore traffic derived from the heart hospital that is now being built in the central park development as well as a 900 employee health building that's supposedly, I didn't know about this, but supposedly is slated for construction between 49th and 50th. They also are not considering -- sorry. The intersections that are not already failing will be by the time those additions are made. The City staff note that the addition of the heart hospital traffic to the traffic at 45th and lamar would most likely result in an unacceptable level of service unless further improvements are made. And that was qoelted right from the City staff's comments. Turning to the particular mitigation proposals that they have made, we also have concerns here. One important component of sen corp's plan involves the widening of 45th street to provided for left turn lanes. Our concern here is that widening 45th street is likely to increase traffic speeds on a street that passes through our neighborhood. As a result, pedestrian and bicycle safety will be adversely affected. Burth more, it's a step in the direction of making 45th street into a major thoroughfare. With regard to guadalupe, it's not clear to us how the parallel parking would result in traffic calming as claimed by sen corp and we're concerned ta there's very little information about the pedestrian crossing from 96th and who will pay for it. More generally as noted earlier, some of the intersections surrounding the project already are failing with delay time. Most other exhibit failing scores in certain directions or for certain turns. Even accord to go their own estimates with all of the proposed improvements, intersections will still achieve failing scores in certain directions and for certain turns. The late evening peaks and weekend traffic is significant here because for many of these failing on on -- main of these failings turns are into and out of the center. These delay times translate into frustration for drivers and greater likelihood of aggressive and unsafe driving on our neighborhood streets. Furthermore, the City considers overall intersection delay times of 20 to 40 seconds as within the acceptable range, transportation sperpts generally do not use kvue it as functioning desire bli unless they are less than 25 seconds. That's not their fault, that's the way the numbers work, but it's something to keep in mind. We need proof that the proposed changes will indeed mitigate the congestion resulting from this project. Even in traffic increases really are as low as 15,000 trips and we're highly step ta kel that they will be that low, it doesn't make sense that so many additional cars can be dumped on our streets without increases in congestion. And speaking of mitigation issues, I mentioned earlier that when challenged on the 30% pass by capture, they rerun the tia using the nine% pass by kp chur. Though intersections were already close to failing, they managed to keep them in the barely passing range. How did they do that? what they did was change the intervals on lamar and 45th, the worth intersection. One possible sequence is that delay times are decreased for cars in the through direction, but delay times are increased for turning cars. The numbers end up working out, though, because the total intersection delay time is calculated as a weighted average and more cars are going in the through direction. In fact, if you look at the numbers for that intersection, every single one of the left turns is failing, as is one through direction, southbound on lamar. One turn, left from 45th to lamar, has an exceedingly unacceptable delay time of over 80 seconds. Furthermore, it's not at all clear that sen corp would be allowed to modify the signal incident values in this way. The interval presently is set at 130 seconds because the city has determined that interval to be optimal to having lights together all on lamb har. So basically it's a numbers game so they can get the overall intersection score to fall into the barely passing range, anyone who wants to turn or anyone trying to avoid red lights upstream or downstream on lamar is simply out of luck. Finally I should point out that evening with all of this manipulating of numbers, the intersection is only three 10ths of a second from failing. Meaning that evening small amounts of additional traffic will push it over into the unacceptable range. That's why I mentioned this new state building that even I hadn't heard about. Certainly I wouldn't expect sen corp to know about it, but the point is there's a lot of other stuff happening in this area that is likely to further aggravate -- that are likely to push those intersections over. Finally, their mitigation plan depends on significant contributions by the City of Austin. The costs will be far greater than those contained in the plan because the impacts of this project extend well beyond the site. To give just one example, the large increases in traffic on 51st, including the truck traffic, is going to necessitate modifications on to that crazy five way intersection at duval and 51st. More generally, modifications are going to be required all along 45th and 51st. We will return in a moment to the issue of cost to the City, but I'll just mention here our concern that because of funding constraints at the city level it will be difficult for the City to carry out the improvements that are expected of them and the residents -- the residents, us, will then be left with the traffic nightmare. We believe that the traffic concerns alone are enough to merit a denial of zoning on this this project. Thank you. [Applause].
>> Mayor, Mayor pro tem, skoubs, I live about four blocks north and east of the triangle. I got involved in this process March of last year, representing my neighborhood. And I'm going to talk about costs of the City. I'd like to talk about this visual that's being pass oud tonight and give a year long perspective. When I first joined this process, the parking lots were colored black and people weren't too happy about that. In june of last year they began a light blue color, which we saw them show. In november of last year, the central parking lot, now called the paisao became a peach color. And now the buildings are pink and the surface parking is nearly an invisible white. I know he's powerful if he can make invisible parking lots, I'd like to see that. Let me return to cost of the city. We've heard how the developers traffic engineer used traffic solely through levels of service at lights adjacent to the triangle. She spoke about how neighborhoods perceive traffic. That is, the dangers of traffic cutting through our neighborhoods and traffic on the weekend when you're at home and the pets and children are on the street. Likewise, the developer's traffic mitigation plan only deals with the lights adjacent to the triangle. The neighbors of the triangle, however, will feel the affects of the dangerous increases in traffic throughout our communities. With the tremendous traffic impact becomes tremendous costs for milt gaition. All the traffic experts, including a consultant hired by the developer who looked at central Austin have come to one conclusion, the traffic situation is bad and we will need a regional transportation plan to accommodate any future development. They said what the neighbors already knew, that a regional transportation plan is not an option, it's a necessity, but the question remains how much would this cost the taxpayers. We followed the regional traffic plan. He suggested the following changes that neighborhoods have embraced, raised cross walks, a median on guadalupe, diagonal parking, a raund about on 51st street to accommodate traffic coming from I-35. Added turn lanes on the lamar and tariffth street, added turn lanes on guadalupe and 45th and traffic calming devices on 45th street like bike lines and round bs. What is the cost to the City. The Public Works and transportation made an estimate. The cost to the City would be in the rake range of 13.5 to 16.3 million dollars. Approximate this points out how the current plan and contribution of $400,000 truly is. It seems that the citizens have two choices in this mall gets built without a better traffic plan. We can bear the purd of the extra traffic load and the dangers of cars cutting down our residential streets or we can pay for regional traffic plan ourselves and the citizens and the City are left with the cost. Neither is acceptable. With regards to the flooding issue, the situation is nearly as bad. To save homes downstream the neighborhoods have asked for 45 acre feet of retention. Current drainage plan involves a 24 acre foot detention pond on site. To reach the need, 45 acre feet, the City must supplement the plan with a 20 acre foot retention pond across blood pressure guadalupe. They have failed to mention this in their am proposal. Essentially they want the City to build a cement swimming pool across guadalupe. Ens the plan, the City can either create oon eyesore or we can spend millions of dollars to cover the pit with a cement ceiling and plant grass on top. A development on more dwreen space would allow for more cheap above ground flood 46 and leslie retain the 45 acre treat that the neighborhoods downstream want. In another cost to the taxpayer, their request for three quarters of a million dollars as a taxpayer subsidy to build the sewer line for this development. Last week the water and wastewater commission voted five to zero to did he thigh in this question. They said the City could not justify spending money for for the sewer line especially when there are many other urgent wastewater projects that need funding. If they recognize the City as legitimate stakeholders of the site, they might deserve our financial support, but they have refused to design a neighborhood friendly plan. Still, they are very willing to ask for tax dollars to subsidize development that we don't want. I personally find this outrageous. All told, the cost to the Austin taxpayers for sen corp's development could range to 19 million dollars. We don't want the strip malls or neighborhood $and would add insult to injure to make us pay to support it. Thank you. I'd like to turn this over to someone who is going to talk about legal issues.
>> Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, mu name is amon burton. I want to speak for a few moments and I've been instructed it must be a few mements about some legal issues. The graves-dougherty firm and I have spent time and particularly in the last six weeks dealing with the staff and meeting with your attorney, ms. Terri, to look at the plan and the ordinances. I'm going to say that the legal staff I think has made a value yent attempt to try to insert some standards and limitations in these ordinances to the run away demands that have existed in the developer's proposed ordinances. This is not an ex-soj raition. All you have to do is look at the developer's latest proposed ordinance on april 23rd that you have in the big book to see that the very extensive provisions on limiting the impact, the traffic impact analysis have essentially been done away with. Those have been changed to some extent and ms. Terri has been very profession until in dealing with us and trying to address some of those issues. I want to point out that there's still sarment of these negotiations and the ordinances that you have, there's still some very serious problems that I think prevent the City from being able to effectively deal with the traffic problems that arise from the development and that relate to the traffic impact analysis: in the ordinance the concept is if the traffic that's generated from the project exceeds the amount of traffic that's set forth in the traffic impact analysis then there will be no more site plan approvals or buildings approved for the site. The language is in part five, b-3 in the three arrested unanimouses that the staff has given to you. When you look at those, what it says is that no building permit for construction of a building on the property may be issued if the completed development and so forth generates traffic exceeding the total traffic generation for the property as zone in tables three and four in the traffic impact analysis. If this project is built out so that the buildings are constructed to be ready for the grand opening as what it is anticipated, there will be no need for any additional building permits for additional buildings on this site. And therefore that critical provision in the ordinance really has very little meaning. Secondly, even if we can find some application for it, is it going to be enforceable? I would point out that toward the end of that provision, the last sentence and five b-3 provides that the assumptions said forth in exhibit d of the developer's traffic impact analysis are incorporated into the ordinance. Not only are those provisions have the problems that Dr. Echols mentioned, when you read through the suption suchltions that are set forth in that traffic impact analysis, you see the vagueness and the subjective elements that exist, such as on page 19 it refers to engineering judgment calls. Page 20 it talks about pass by trip reductions, internal capture depends on the type and quantity of land uses. There are constant references to estimates in those assumptions. It would be a serious effort for us to try to enforce those kind of provisions. And as you look at these ordinances and deal with the overburdened City streets, it's very important in these ordinances to think about if the traffic impact analysis is wrong, can we do anything about it? it's my opinion that in these ordinances the City is not fully protected and a lot of this is out of the result of the negotiations that have occurred. And I do think the City staff has done an ad mir rabl job. All you have to do is look at the past ordinances that we were dealing with two or three weeks ago to see how much improvement has occurred, but there's still serious problems here. Thank you very much. [Applause].
>> Good evening. My name is jennifer vickers. I'm co-chair of the hyde park neighborhood association's triangle task force. I also serve on the board of directors of the project for public spaces, which is a knot for profit which works in cities throughout the country to help improve live ability in urban public spaces. In our presentation tonight, we talked a lot about the negatives, but actually many of us are fueled by a great sense of optimism. Our opposition to this plan is largely driven by our belief that a wonderful infill development is possible for the triangle site. The neighborhoods have done a lot of research. We've participatedded in a meeting and benefitted from the discussions with planners and designers from throughout the country. We believe the City and the state deserve better and that a much better plan is possible. So I'm going to talk a little bit tonight about a vision for the triangle that we can see how it's possible to turn the state's 22 acres into a real gem for the capital City. In the past couple of weeks there have been a lot of statements made asserting who is for and against you are bin infill and even about what constitutes smart broeth. Some of these assertions have been misleading. The first thing I would like to do is clarify that the Council and Austin citizens that the neighborhood representatives who stand before you tonight support positive urban infill. We support an integrated mixed use development of the triangle site. And as the voter returns have shown, we support the smart growth initiative. Mayor Watson and our Council have taken a bold step in bringing smart growth to Austin. We believe that in doing so they've provided the leadership needed to make this city one of the finest in the country, so we'd like to thank you. We know that smart growth means that we must be concerned with how we develop -- concerned with where we develop, but it also means we must be concerned with how we develop. Environmentally sound communities need parks, regional greenbelts and high quality open space, but they also need density and street life. We support a development that will result in a walk able, mixed use neighborhood which reinforces transit, including light rail, preserves open space and makes a more compact metropolitan form. We ordering private space to make the public domain more memorable and a focus of the neighborhood is an overafternooning goal. To illustrate what we mean, I'd like to show you some ampls examples of positive projects in other parts of the country. The con trafts with this plan will be dramatic. The examples we have reflect the kind of development the neighborhoods could support at the drieng he will. They illustrate the concepts the neighborhoods have been asking sen corp to develop into the plan since the beginning. The elements we'll see in these plans are in fact some of the very elements outlined in mhMr's solicitation for bids which Councilmember Spelman showed to us earlier. The illustrations we've got on two overall site plans, some slides and photos. Sues si burke is going to play vanna white for a min mit.
>> First is a town in california and no, we didn't invent it. It's actually a triangle shape of 22 acres. The other plan is a plan approved for development and neighborhood in denver, Colorado. And it's 27 acres. What really jumps out at us here is is that these tracts of land, similar in size to the triangle look like towns. They have a sense of place. Their design makes them urbanville lajs. They have clearly identifiable street networks, the perimeters of the neighborhood kebt connect toed ajent land. Streets have have intrauks and are nair re. We can imagine a person walking in dixon, being able to look across the street, see an interesting shop and be able to easily cross over to that street and go shopping. The shops and buildings front sidewalks and are contiguous. There's some curb side parking along the streets, parking lots are either structured or shielded inside court yards or oriented toward the rear of buildings. Transit stops are designated at key areas and are incorporated with public space and amenities. Let's take a quick look behind me at a slide of an existing street in new orleans to get another close example of what we're talking about with the narrow streets. What else jumps out at us on these plans? public and green spaces incident grade into the development so that it's usable. In dixon we've got a park to the north with gardens, community center, benchs, paths wind through and lead to different areas of interest and connect to adjacent buildings. There's more green space on the southern end. The other has a public plaza with a renovated theater and a care sell to attached gardens. Additional public areas are throughout. We can visualize how people on would linger at a bench here. Let's look now at the slide of a public plaza to see what we mean by integrated public and green pace space. Both of these are mixed use. The dixon plan is approximately one-third retail, a third prnl and a third offices or services. The other is two-thirds residential is a range of housing types, like single family townhomes, live in work studios and apartments, assisted living and day care and community centers are also planned. Structures are in scale. Developers for both these projects told me that grocery stores can be a valuable economic generator, provided they are designed at the right scale. The largest anchor is approximately 40,000 square feet. In dixon there is a 7,000 square feet grocery deli planned. By using these examples I've tried to illustrate basic principles that neighborhoods have been asking for the triangle. They were also produced by the community again at the charette. With that understanding and vision in mind, let's briefly compare the sen corp plan. Over here our impression is not of an urban village. We see immediately that there are no un fieg street system. There are driveways through parking lots. Buildings are segregated and for the most part large in scale. We have we have the center of what the developer is used to call the pedestrian oriented area and really that you can see you're walking not along the street, but rather through an island of -- surrounded by four rows of cars. To cross from one side to other you are crossing a parking area. The person we could so easily imagine wandering around dixon streets doesn't fit into the picture here. The people who will were really not fit into the fikt here are the people to the west of the development, the visually impaired citizens from the Texas school for the blind. We have learned that parking lots are some of the most disoriented and hazardous environments for most who are blind. Navigation becomes almost impossible. What else do we notice? the green and park are not usable public areas. The green is really a water detention pond. It's a 12 foot deep pit that will likely be filled with mud or dried out with trash remains from runoff. The park abuts a two-story parking garage, not a particularly inviting spot to linger. We recognize that over 70% of the development is dedicated to retail and dominated by big box stores. It's not true mixed use. They do not constitute a residential component and further making it worse is no accommodation for public transit. Let's turn to a few slides. Here we see a randall's in Austin which is developed by sen corp. It is 67,000 square feet, approximately the same size as the one proposed at the triangle. Sfiet a few trees there's a vast spans of parking directly in front just like what the plan calls for on the triangle. The next slide is another development up at 183. This is actually a driveway or entrance to the center with a green median by the parking. You can see it's a driveway, but it bears no redem ambulance to the stree. This is a street. [Applause]. With that I'd like to turn over to someone else who will make some concluding remarks.
>> I think I have a minute and a half.
>>Mayor Watson: less than a minute.
>> I think this is a conspiracy. I'm always at the end and we're always out of time. I'm simply going to say that the most ringing endorsements that we've heard in the past of sen corp's development never to point out it's medicine okay raty. It's not great, but it's better, we hear. We've made some improvements. It's not better yet. (Beep).
>>Mayor Watson: sorry. [Applause].
>>Mayor Watson: your time is up. Folks, we need to do something about everybody that's standing because of fire code requirements. If you could please find a seat where there are seats, and there are a number of seats over here and over in this area. If you have an empty seat next to you, if you could please raise your hand. I'm requesting you be neighborly.
>>Garcia: can we pit ms. Brumeister first on the list of people speaking? that takes time away from their 30 minutes, of course?
>>Mayor Watson: what's that?
>>Mayor Watson: all right. Thank y'all for doing that. That's great. What will now do is we will go to the open forum part, which will be 30 minutes for those in favor and then we'll go to 30 minutes for those against. And what I've done is pull some cards. I've got the cards in the order. Let me ask a question, though, of those who are in opposition. We've got a number of people that have signed up and I'm going to run through some names real quick and make sure. Grant thomas? are you here? bo kurssy? are you for or against? okay. I want to make sure I had you in the right stack. Claudia parker? okay. Let me ask you a question of those in opposition. Ms. Burmeister didn't get to have even what we thought might be a minute. I would be happy to call on her first and let her take up three of the 30 minutes unless I hear dissent from those who have signed up. [Applause].
>>Mayor Watson: not yet. [Laughter]. We're going to go -- I'm going to have the 30 minutes of those in favor first. And here's the way I'd like to proceed. I will call out three names and if you can, start -- particularly since I've now packed you into these seats, please start making your way to -- if you're the person on deck, please make your way to the empty podium and that way we can move more efficiently through this process. Peter pfeiffer? followed by Robert foreris. And he will then be followed by tish Williams. And actually, by darrell Williams. No, I'm sorry, by tish Williams and darrell Williams is donating time. So Mr. Pfeiffer pd. And if Mr. Morris is here, if you will start making your way on the other podium and ms. Williams, if you will find your way to an I'll so that you will be ready. Welcome, Mr. Pfeiffer.
>> Thank you for your time. Mayor Watson and Council, I have lived in this area for 17 years. I have owned my home there for 14 years. I am presently raising a family of four children on 46th street, three blocks away from this development. It is in my immediate backyard. I have been following this very closely. I also am an architect and planner in this area and feel very strongly about the overall health of this City. I don't oppose at all intercity development. I moved into hyde park because I looked forward to it becoming a little more sophisticated and densified an area. It may be unpopular, but I like being able to walk to the grocery store and walk to get a bite to eat and walk to the movies. I participated in the design shar rets and I have two reasons for being here. One is unpopular and one is very popular, but I want to remind you that I live on 46th street, perhaps the closest as anybody to this development. I am not against it because of the reasons I stated. I like the idea of central city living and the ability to walk to these amenities. But perhaps what is popular about what I have to say tonight is the fact that the traffic situation does fright en us and we are -- I'm here just to ask you to do whatever it takes to close 46th street off to access to this movie theater or development -- movie theater or store develop. Let's make this a pedestrian friendly development to the development. I want to have you undo the wrong that was done 12 years ago when the state broke 45th street through to guadalupe. It never used to be open. It's not going to affect the credit union or anyone everything living there and I'm here to show you we have a petition of all those who will be affected by that closure wanting it closed. Most everybody who owns real estate along 46th street signed this document last year. So the reason why I want to close as owe he as opposed to a wait and see attitude as opposed to a one way closure is we fear to for our children's lives by the movie goers or going to the movies, speeding down 46th street to get there on time at the same time our children are riding their bikes or walking along 46th street. So that is my specific issue and the reason why I'm here tonight. Please do what you can to close 46th street if this development gets approved. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Mr. Chap pa. What we're doing is each person will have three minutes for a total of 30 minutes, so if there's time left if one speaker doesn't use up the full three minutes, please keep that so that they will have that additional time because they will have a total of 30 minutes. You're Mr. Morris? welcome.
>> Thank you Mayor and Councilmembers. I've been president of the north university neighborhood association for the two years that this development has been planned and I think we were referred to earlier as the neighborhood that is downstream. We are indeed downstream. And I wanted to let you know that we've worked with your staff and your staff has attended a lot of our meetings and helped us a great deal in working with the developer in coming up with what we think is a very successful solution to our historic flooding problem. This development does a great deal to solve that problem. So what I'd like to do is thank you all for your staff's work and the City staff's work. I think in the earlier presentations against the project there was some reference to perhaps our dissatisfaction with this particular development plan and that is not the case. Our members very much support the storm water retention strategic that they have come up with. So again, having set that, I will step down. Thank you very much.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you Mr. Morris. Are you tish Williams? welcome. You will have -- because you've had three minutes donated to you by -- is darrell Williams here? you will have up to six minutes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Mayor Kirk Watson, Councilmembers, my name is tish Williams. I'm wearing red today. This is my red badge of kour raj outfits that allows me to overcome fears and allows me to speak out personally for what I want. There are two things that I want. The first is the development for triangle square. I want this more than the raw land even despite some parts of it that are not to my liking. This is a we will thought out plan, probably one of the best developments ever to come before Council. For the first time Austin could have an all City meeting place. A drive with trees and fountains, overlooked by stores with balcony departments and angered we parks of over two acres apiece would be a lively and friendly setting for people to shop or stroel. Rest runts with overlook the parks where children would play or neighborhoods hold fares or get toegs. The architecture projected is extremely attractive derived from old Austin and stepped back terraces and planters with trees and flowers. But the permitting for this may not be forthcoming. Why? the lure of new urban nism is so blinding, making all compromise solutions seem like failures. New urban nism promises much for City planners and neighborhood groups wanting solutions for cities and neighborhoods broken apart by super highways. The promises for all ills, but I would like to to read excerpts from these magazines about it. Sierra magazine on liveable cities. While the new urbannist designers are making high density mixed use, close knit neighborhoods mark act as high end housing, they have come around fire for failing to practice it in the heart of the City. Preservation on the -- preservation magazine on the ideal City. But until new urban nism says it is serious by repairing the old rather than simply finding more ways to develop open land, the movement will only operate literally on the per rif if I. The boston globe magazine on new urban nism. Indeed despite its name, but urban nism has so far been a suburban phenomenon. Curiously the few recent efforts to bring new urban nism style cop septembers to the City have ended up producing some-odd results: in other words, new urban nism is still a beautiful vision untested in the nitty-gritty of today's cities. There is another reason why sen corp's plan is at risk. Neighbors of triangle park have waged a sfis fa indicated assault on the sen corp plan. Excuse me? okay.
>>Garcia: go ahead.
>> I have personally witnessed or been a recipient on six occasions of what to me is assault active and underhanded behavior by ntp. The people of this community are scared to speak up against them. The ntp flattens opposition. This means that they can state without challenge that they represent all of the inner city. I'm here to tell you that they do not. Who does? no one. Opinion and inner City is as diverse as the people. Many people have told me and other neighborhood representatives in private that they want the City, but fear ntp too much to speak out. I could get angry the neighborhoods of triangle park if I hadn't personally witness $the rage of inner City residents for the past 30 years as they confronted powerful City officials and other groups who protested in the past. I've especially come see that the great power of the state is not only on behalf of citizens but only special interest groups. What's great for general motors is good for the country has ruled as philosophy in Austin and shows in our inner city neighborhoods under assault and lunar landscape inturbs. And the more entrenched and detached the power structure becomes the more violent citizens groups become. This defending the barricades and storming the barricades mentality plays out destructively in third world countries. Is this how we want to play it now and increasingly in the future? this brings me to the second thing I want. I would like to see in some small measure a new dynamic in Austin. I call it a dynamic of thriving. I am a house woman and my job is to create a space for thriving, whether in personal life, neighborhood life or city life. To create thriving people value themselves and others, no. 1, Go strongly for what they want while valuing themselves and others. No. Two, consent to learn. Number three, consent to become experienced, which means they become smart in creating relationships, as well as creating prosperity for themselves and others, no. Four. And number five, they create space or breadth. People who defend the beared kaids or storm the barricades on a reaction. This did don't leave space for open mindedness on of the process. Has there been a place in Austin where this dynamic of Austin took place? yes, it took place at triangle park negotiations. When neighborhood representatives state officials spent many months hammeringing out a plan. Was there a perfect outcome on this? no. Was everybody happy, no. But this was the first time for a sanctioned event for any knowledge to happen for a developer to rework a plan to make it more human and community oriented. I would like to take my hat off to tom terkel for showing character through this time. Councilmembers, I don't urge you to vote one way or another. Rather I urge you to consider a good plan and a good process which are both assets to Austin. Please -- please send this project to the state with a defile will mean you don't support wets wealth in our plans. Thank you. [One moment, please]
>> we had Austin plan, here is sector 3 and sector 1 of the relevant areas. When you are talking about development, you have to talk about expectations, what's appropriate. I know that the community feels that a lot of what's done is not appropriate in their eye -- in their sight, but this is what was said in '88 by the community leaders that created this: central plans indicate the surroundings around the transportation as an employment center on a regional level and a desired local for community level. Neighborhood activity noticeds are designated as sites such as 43rd and 5 3rd street. As a matter of fact even in the 1970 plan the triangle is not a part of a neighborhood but sits within a transportation corridor surrounded by neighborhoods. The -- they go on further in the 1988 sector plans: the site was given a land use level of 7. Now this is the same lands use level that state tracts to the north of it the office buildings have. The part of the state hospital to the south of it has land use level 6. Now, hyde park today has the next lowest level of a level 5. The land use level for the triangle anticipated any of the following: 22 to 36 units of multi family residential per acre, a.35 to.70 far, flow to area ratio of office, or of retail. The proposed plan that you have in front of you has a.41 far, almost snack dab within the targets for -- stated in the Austin plan. Excuse me. Further the sector 3 plan goes to to talk about truly three development sites left in sector 3. That the vacant land areas would be developed at significantly higher. This was done to take development pressure off of the already developed lands. The opportunities for development include under utilized lands along commercial strips and state lands and the triangle fits all three of these groups. Now, the areas that they targeted were basically these -- specifically said that the land between burnet and guadalupe was one of these sectors. It also said the areas on transportation corridors were appropriate for intense commercial development. (Beeping) I would like for you to look at the transportation plans, including the new light rail plan, which sets 20,000 people per day, I think that this qualify, thanks you.
>>Mayor Watson: rick iverson, followed by chris allen, frank cooksey.
>> Mr. Mayor, City Councilmen. Today ironically is the 6th anniversary of the death of billy ray fingle. He was a 19-year-old young man who died in hemphill creek, according to records that we get from the City in a hard two inch rain. I know that all of you have been in hemphill park, but I don't know that you all are aware that the beautiful architectural bridges are all completely underwater in the 100 year event. I think it's fitting to billy ray that we are bringing before the Council this evening a no compromise plan for storm water management in hemphill park and the primary goal of our plan is to mediate the existing condition. We have received a great deal of assistance from the City staff. We received a lot of help from people with the state of Texas. And I would like to thank tom terkel for the important role that he played in developing this plan. We are on our sixth or seventh plan. Raymond chan was given the responsibility of coming up with a watershed management plan for Waller Creek from saint John's to 15th street. And his mandate was to bring the City a plan for the next 100 years. His plan called for six regional development ponds on Waller Creek, one of which just incidentally happened to be on the triangle that's under discussion today. Now, one of the first things we did was to move the existing storm water retention pond to the south end of the site. We feel like this move is more strategy to holding the water in the area and also opens up opportunities for us which we have pursued extremely aggressively. The greens are a cornerstone of an aggressive plan which will include a triangle piece of land on the winters complex that currently only has 4 acre feet of storm water detention. Our plans are -- our most recent plans are for one, which is 44 acre feet of detention, another which calls for 40 acre feet of detention, I put to you that the final design will most likely fall between those two numbers. Raymond chan in his study of Waller Creek pointed out that west branch or hemphill creek watershed is 1,000 acres and that approximately 50% of these acres are state controlled lands, the other 50% being commercial lands and we feel like that strongly defines the participation here.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much. Chris allen. One second, Mr. Allen. Mayor cooksey, I understand that you are part of the rebuttal. Richard hill. And then richard runday or runde. Thank you. Welcome, sir.
>> My name is chris alan. I'm a resident of the rosedale neighborhood. I never dreamed that I would stand at this podium and speak up for a developer and I want to be clear that I am not here to endorse cencorp's plan as ideal. But the opposition to this project has been so unscrupulous and so intimidating to those who don't share their opinion that I feel compared to speak out. It may be politically skpeed gent to abandon ethics in pursuit of a worthy goal, but it's destructive to our community, more so than any development project could ever been. Ntp has convinced the news media that the overwhelming majority of the residents in the immediate area are opposed to the development and that tom terkel is a great satan. This is a distortion of the facts. We have all read that 95% of central Austin is opposed to the triangle development. In actuality this came from an unscientific effort of the hyde park neighborhood association, of the 2,600 surveys distributed, only 400 people or 16% of those were interested enough to respond. Thus the majority we have been told about represents only 380 opponents of the project. No real survey has been performed. But you can look around the neighborhoods and count the small number of signs. Ask the neighborhood residents if they can overcome their fear of ntp, many will whisper that they would like to see this project happen. I am not exaggerating about the fear issue. My neighbors in central Austin are afraid to express their approval for this project, even long-time neighborhood leaders have been bullied into silence by this group. Another distortion of reality put fort is that cencorp has been unresponsive to neighborhood concerns. In fact cencorp has met over a dozen times with the leadership group. The group was formed in 1996, composed of representatives of 8 neighborhood association, a delegate from rosedale attended these meetings, in turn the neighborhood newsletter continuously report odd this process and solicited neighbor's input. Cencorp cencorp listened. The problem here is with all of the ugliness and name calling we have been distracted from the real problems that led us to this situation. First, we have no legitimate master plan for Austin's future. We complain about sprawl and traffic condition investigation, but we have no comprehensive solution for dealing with these issues. Second the straight has a great deal of land that may be developed in the near future and the citizens of Austin will have no say in how it hey be developed. The war over the triangle is destined to be repeated over and over again until the City and state create guidelines that respect the right of a community to guide its own future. I challenge all here tonight to dedicate themselves to working on a civilized and cooperative solution to these problems, but passion and energy expended to keep a shopping center out of hyde park's back yard could be channeled to an effort that would benefit the entire community. Thank you. [Applause]
>>Mayor Watson: is richard hill here? richard hill? Mr. Runde.
>> I am richard rund, I live about 3 blocks north of this project. I came here tonight in speak in favor of it. I think it's a beautiful project. I think we need the jobs in that area. I do not believe that it will cause the kind of catastrophic events that have been described. I do applaud everyone, my neighbors for your concern, but I just happen to think that you are wrong. I shop at central market and I enjoy it. It's very nice. The only problem is everyone goes there on saturday and you can't get a parking space. So I willing up to 183 and braker and I see the beautiful randall's store that's there, I wish we had one in our neighborhood. I have heard the claim that it would be okay to have a movie theater if we only had four screens. But the economic reality of the movie business is that a four screen theater doesn't make any money, even the village was bought by a big chain. All of the theaters have more than four screens. They typically have 12 to 16. That's the way it is in business. I don't believe it's going to cause the kinds of problems. If you remember, weapon have a representative government here in Austin. These people are elected to make these decisions. These staff people are paid to make these decisions, they are the experts. You can be an armchair expert and a lot of people have obviously spent a lot of time talking about it, but the experts tell us that they approve it. We pay them to make those decisions. I can't fathom why the Planning Commission didn't approve this. If you won't approve this project on three major later materials in the center of our city, tell me where you will approve one because there is not a piece of property anywhere in central Texas that makes more sense for a shopping center than this, guys. We can talk about traffic problems, but the traffic problems we have are global. We need a cross town six clarity to move traffic across town at some kind of speeds not as surface. We need a lot of thing, but the bottom line is that the traffic is not going to be solved or made worse significantly by this project. The people that are going to come from here are our neighbors. If you remember, I have teenaged kids, I would like to be able to have them have a place to work and to walk to work. This will provide that. I would please ask you to keep an open mind and above all keep the process civil. I respect all of your opinions. I disagree with it. Respect mine. Let's support the project. Thank you. [Applause]
>>Mayor Watson: those are all of the people that have signed up to speak in favor of the proposal other than those that are signed signed up to speak in rebuttal. At the end of the opposition I will call for the rebuttal. Ms. Burmiddle easter the first speaker for three minutes, followed by Kirk mitchell, stacy able. Please come forward.
>> Okay. Thank you. I as most people know have been working with and representing neighbors of triangle park. An organization that clearly I think has a reputation that I am not -- wasn't necessarily aware of. I did know that I was so intimidating and I apologize to anyone who -- in the neighborhoods who felt at any point that we were not doing our best to encourage the participation of all people in this project. In the input of this project. It's unfortunate that because we are an organized group representing people in all neighborhoods that are in opposition that any person in opposition is presumed to be a member and representative of our group. So I would just like to apologize on behalf of the neighbors of triangle park. And I would like to point out a couple of things. I think that it's clear that the most -- even when we are talking about the endorsements of cencorp's development tonight, it's clear that these citizens are also very concerned about traffic and storm water mitigation. These are important issues that are common to all people I think vouping the triangle, I do think that we look to you as our representatives to make a judgment for the City of Austin as to whether or not cencorp's plan is going to mitigate the traffic or the storm water enough to approve it. I think we also see in the endorsements of cencorp's development that it's not an ideal project by most people's standards, it's changed a lot, it's improved, but it's not a great project. I would like to say the -- that great cities are not built a need credit tee. It's true that we -- mediocrity. In 1987 garry mauro produced a report on the development of mhMr plans, it included principles strikingly similar to some of the neighborhood issues. MhMr has also demonstrated know that they know how great cities grow when they produced this guidelines for the triangle development as parted of their solicitation of bids. Councilmember Spelman pointed that out earlier. An inner City strip mall is not right for Austin. The City and state knows it. The only one that don't seem to know it are the strip mall developers. I would like to suggest that's because they define successful development according to the returns on their leases, we as a City must define a successful development as one that brings us together as a community, including state and neighborhoods and enhancing our quality of life and in closing I would like to ask you to deny zoning. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Chapa. Mr. Chapa, she was the first speaker in opposition, so the opposition side will have 27 minutes remaining, each person being entitled to 3 minutes.
>> I will make mine very brief. I am a -- I'm Kirk mitchell, thank you for letting me address you tonight. I am opposed to the triangle development as it is proposed by the cencorp development at the moment. I am a resident of the north university neighborhood association for the last 20 years and I am concerned about far more than only the flood control problem that my neighborhood association has focused on, in particular the traffic congestion, which will result from this development and the fact that it is not compatible with building a beautiful, attractive central city. Smart growth must build -- to succeed in smart growth, the new buzz word, I am very much supporting it, must build a beautiful humane City. As the density grows, the aesthetics must be always, ever increasing in our criteria. Otherwise we cannot build a city where people will want to live there. Density or not. We may have similar problems while people aren't happy with it. I want to encourage to you keep those things in mind. The aesthetics of this project do not qualify for building a great City in my opinion. I would holding in my hands the traditional neighborhood design ordinance, the great work of this City Council which I appreciate. I think it needs to be addressed as soon as possible to adapt the -- some of the very good ideas in this ordinance to smaller scale project for in-I will. I have understood that's one of the objectives of the Council in the near term. If you are working on it, that's great. But I really think if this -- if this project had as the base level of, you know, requirements in planning, that it must comply with something that resembles this design ordinance and only a variance from that could get you to the strip mall concept. That would be a better place to start. I certainly encourage that for the future of in-fill projects which I certainly do encourage and hope to advocate in the future. Bye bye.
>> Stacy able, followed by mel lawrence, then sandra viaz dixon.
>> Thank you, my name is stacy able, I'm a resident of the central City and one of the organizers of the triangle sewer receipt. Cencorp contends their design proposes new urbanism. We karkted a national authority on new urbanism, here's what he said: the proposed plan does not create a neighborhood. Ie an area with a balance of places of residents, retail, employment, recreation and worship. The lack of housing is especially con suspiciousous in its absence. No institutionnal buildings such as school, daycare, branch library or community center. No provision for active recreation. The pedestrian and vehicular circulation layout is problematic, specifically the internal circulation system consists of connected parking lots, rather than streets. There is neither the spatial definition or sense of place or vitality that a double loaded street of pedestrians cars and finally mixed uses can provide. Despite landscaping efforts, pedestrians will not feel comfortable or convivial in large areas devoted to parking, nor are there many direct or convenient connection withs of internal circulation to streets across lamar, guadalupe or 45 street. The project area remains an island. Most of the building footprints prints are unconnected to each other and scattered around the site, further detracting from any physical sense of place. More structured parking is needed if the look and feel of a strip shopping center is to be avoided, providing a greater mix of uses on the site, especially residential ones will help mitigate parking needs and lessen the increase in traffic within the site and on abutting thoroughfares. The prominence of chain stores, whatever the quality of merchandise or service, will tend to ensure the generic feeling and substance of a shopping center or mall and to undermine existing retail establishments in the surrounding neighbors neighborhoodses, shops that are typically locally owned, the project in no way could be described as new urbanist in either program or design. We hope they will rerethink their plan and avoid dealing another place also, auto dominated anonymous curb urban shopping center, thank you. [Applause]
>> good evening, I'm mel lawrence, an architect in Austin and a colleague of sin claire black who could not be here tonight because of a conflicting bond hearing. Sinclaire asked me to read a statement on his behalf regarding cencorp's proposed development, however he wanted it clarified that rather speaking on behalf of the neighborhoods or the developer, he is speaking on behalf of what he feels is best for the city. The decision made today by the Council will tell the world how Austin will grow and howell get there. The choice is incredibly clear. On one hand we have a proposal from cencorp development to bring a conventional suburban strip center back into the city center to colon united states our neighborhoods. As an alternative, there exists a significant opportunity to create an example, indeed a prototype of smart growth compact City and new urbanism, in this case true urbanism. A strip mall is a low density single use automobile dependent form of economic exploitation. With a short time horizon. As an economic entity, a strip mall is a mono culture with a fixed ability to pay a fixed land lease and therefore highly vulnerable to competition and failure. New urbanism represents a long-term investment in mixed use, medium density, live work extension of the true urban fabric of Austin. It is to a great extent inoculated against economic failure by jury tie of the diversity of use -- by virtue of the diversity of uses. A strip mall is characterized by vast parking lots dotted with insignificant cheap and temporary buildings with expensive attempts to make it all okay through token landscaping. A decorated parking lot does not make a City. A true urban neighborhood is composed of a grid of small streets scaled -- small scaled streets, ie great streets. Defined by medium density mixed use buildings of substantial construction inhabited by people who live there, work there and shop there. The strip mall maximizes the number of sparking -- parking spaces and the number of daily auto trips while required while virtually eliminating any vest damages of street environment. A true urban neighborhood town center manages traffic and parking in a civilized way, offers a comfortable place to live, a grid of streets to walk between closely packed destinations and places to gather and to together creating a gentle, humane and democratic urban fabric that supports complex lifestyles. A strip mall requires no vision, no design or planning skill and very little leadership. The process that produces a strip mall at at triangle is not a caring response to challenge the building the city for our children and their children. A true urban neighborhood properly designed and built for the right reasons will take -- snirts mang you, you need to stop. [Applause] [applause]
>> dixon also signed up but indicated he did not wish to speak. You will be followed by ms. Suzy brooks and then kay plavadol.
>> Thank you, good evening Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is sand degree dixon and my husband and I are residents in the hyde park neighborhood. We live in the heart of what we consider to be the finest of Austin's inner City neighborhoods. Hyde park is a jewel in a model inner City compact neighborhood. We are proud of our homes, our businesses, our merchants, our churches, our theater, our live theater that is and grid like streets and yes even our apartment buildings. We -- an expansion of this type of community is something that we look forward to and we invite. We who have chosen to invest in Austin's heart know the value of compact living as others in this City and in the nation have identified that as well because hyde park has been selected as a model to emulate whenever inner City neighbor planning is discussed. I would like to make a few points. Repeatedly grid like streets, pedestrian streets, high concentration of residents and a careful mix of businesses are regularly identified as the key factors of a compact inner City that should be considered in development. The cencorp plan does not have these features in correct balance. Over the past four years, the city is concentrating on building our social fabric. That's the streets the transportation, our buildings, our water, our water quality, and I would like to say that those also include our youth, families and our neighborhoods. Let me just make an analogy for you, I think of 45th street as the seam of a size 10 dress, if the cencorp development is approved it will explode the area, our neighborhood to at least a size 20. [Laughter]. The fabric will tear. Our neighborhood will be stressed to point of rupturing seams or worse actual tearing of fabric. When the fabric is torn, the dress is destroyed. When the neighborhood is worn too heavily, too steadily, it will become threadbare and worn and torn, it will be destroyed. Please consider the stress on the streets as traffic increases beyond I believe anyone's ability to predict with the cencorp plan. In an effort -- in effect the streets will rupture, I can carry the analogy on, but I won't. [Laughter]. City staff recommended this plan and recommended the zoning. But I will ask you does it really consider the recommendations that we have been asking for in the City, involvement of the citizen? does it take into consideration the overwhelming requests by the citizens to reject this? please consider that overwhelming public cry. We don't want this cencorp development, we do want a development. We look forward to a compatible contributory development that will tribute to our inner City. Please remember we want to keep hyde park to continue to be the most liveable community in Austin.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. [Applause]
>> I am suzi brooks, co-president of the hyde park neighborhood association, I will be reading a statement given by my neighbor ray sa ber stein to the.
>> Although it's focused in the neighborhoods that will be directly impacted, all of Austin stands to lose if this development is aloud to proceed as currently configured. I think that we would all degree that the corridor formed by guadalupe and lamar boulevard provides central Austin with its core identity, both are the crucial primary thoroughfares that contribute to Austin's character. One of the main reasons Austin stands out as a distinctive american City. Among the most travel and most visible local streets in Austin, the character of guadalupe and lamar substantially contribute to the City's self image and give visitors their lasting impression of the City. As the confluence of these two main urban bfldz, the triangle represents a spiritual northern term news of central Austin, the historic core of the City. Clearly an appropriate development has a great deal to add to the City's image and identity. Because of its unique circumstances the transportation's open field and stands of trees are unusual in this City. We are presented with a unique site, an opportunity to create a major part of the identity of the City we live in. This is our hollywood in vine, our broadway, our fifth avenue, our great urban bfldz. This is our only chance to substantially influence the character of this crucial site for the next half september terri and beyond. What we -- century and beyond. What we do tonight will seriously impact the she's image and quality of life. I your honor the sounl to deny cencorp's zoning application for the benefit of all of the citizens and future citizens of Austin. We must send a message to state officials to encourage their cooperation and maintaining the innovative creative forward looking image of their state's capitol City and by extension to promote the state's image as a leader in high technology and sustainable growth by dem strailgt a real commitment to local control of local issues. If Texas knows what's best for Texas, then doesn't it follow that Austin knows what's best for Austin? thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Mayor Watson, City Council members, I am speaking to you tonight on behalf of the Austin regional group of the sierra club. I do want to clarify one thing. The regional group of the sierra club is not opposed to the zoning change. But we are -- and we are for the opposed to in-fill. But we feel like all in-fills are not created equal and we oppose the type of development that will be built in this area following this zoning change. The proposed development is not -- does not fit in with the local neighborhood, nor does it effectively meet the needs of the majority of the neighbors. Instead it is a suburban style mall in the center of town. It is not a true mixed use development and worst of all it is auto focused rather than human focused. This will result in a significant increase in traffic in the area, which is bad for the neighbors and bad for the environment. However, all of the above mentioned issues are merely symptoms of a far greater, far scarier, far more serious problemment and that problem is the state asset management program called samp and its supporting senate Bill 478 which most of us would agree are undemocratic. Samp allows the state to close a deal to state land with the developer without any public input. Senate Bill 478 allows a special board of review, which is dominated by state officials, to overrule any opposition to their planned development. Opposition such as the refusal to grant a zoning change. The sierra club asks you to support us in requesting changes to samp and to senate bill 478. That would require, one, public input prior to the closing of a deal between the state and a developer, and, two, require that this special board of review be a neutral body that is not dominated by state officials representing state interests. If changes are not made to samp and to senate Bill 478, we fear that the City will continue to face situations like triangle park and the hogg farms. At this time, we also request that you work expeditiously towards developing a comprehensive master plan for Austin. With a master plan, it would be much more difficult for the special board of review to overrule the City's decisions, because it would effectively be over ruling the decisions of the entire City rather than just those of a couple of neighborhoods. We feel that the above actions are necessary for smart growth to be successful. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you. [Applause] grant thomas.
>> Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers, I speak to you tonight as something of an old coot because I have lived in hyde park since 1976 and have been active in the neighborhood association ever since. To the extents that I have a memory, I can recall that the issue of compatible has been a very significant one for our neighborhood association for a long, long time in the late 70's, early '80s we were facing some horribly incompatible development and as a result we formed a development review committee to assess the compatibility issues, we engaged sinclaire black's firm to develop compatibility guidelines, those have helped to steer more exitable development to the 80s, when we heard about this development described as new urbanism we were excited, because that would be compatible. Them we did consult with doug kelbaugh and you have already heard his assessment of the extent to which the proposed development is reflective of new urbanism, to echo -- I would like to echo his sentiments and hers and to propose that cencorp can contend all it wants to that a hedge hog is a duck, but if it doesn't have feathers and it doesn't float and its feet are webbed, it doesn't have a bill, it can't quack it ain't a duck. So thank you.
>> It was pointed tout to me a minute ago that 16 percent in the bond election would be a great turn out, you would will be really lucky to get 90% in favor of that bond. So the supporters of this ordinance don't have much to speak of in terms of how that survey turned out. But let me just read you something and -- that I have prepared. It's sort of a -- of a personal experience with this whole issue. It feels to me like a very long time since young called me with the intention to write an article about the proposed development of the triangle. At the time I was one of the editors of a newspaper that -- political newspaper you may have read a few years ago. I told him to go ahead with the story and we published it in the november 1996 issue. In February of the following year the Austin chronicle picked up the story of the triangle. And published a piece that unlike elliott's piece was very positive of the development. Residents in the adjacent neighborhoods found out that point about the proposed development and cringed. One person did more than just cringe. She actually picked up the phone and called elliott the person that had Written the article and told him, we need to do something about it. His name appeared in the chronicle article. That's how she found out about his name. Within a week, five determined neighbors formed triangle park. They were making an effort to provide residents of the add just gentleman sent neighborhoods a stronger voice on how the -- adjacent neighborhoods a stronger voice on how the triangle should be developed. They were joined by numerous residents of affected neighborhoods in trying to stop the misguided efforts of cencorp, which remains an out of town developer regardless of tom terkel's residents, he always claims he's not out of town because he lives here. Neighbors of triangle park faced many obstacles. [Inaudible] countless individuals, neighborhood directly affected evident trawl all of Austin or most of Austin were made aware of the travesty represented by triangle square. One neighborhood after another was turned around and the hyde park neighborhood association became a strong and indispenseable ally in the battle against the proposed development. Not in my wildest dreams would I have thought that the nremging opposition would reach the current proportions, as you know thousands of citizens have opposed in letters, calls, faxes, petitions that you can see mounted on those boards over there. Today a little over a year after the humble whispers of protests, we can hear loud appeared powerful scream of entire neighborhoods, their message is clear, cencorp square does not fit in the triangle, thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: Bill oliver. Huh ho. [Laughter].
>> Excuse me, thank you. I knew right away this was a bad idea. The name, the name just doesn't work. My graphics aren't as good as the rest of your,, but I did get these from a daycare today. Now look. [Laughter]. There's a triangle, there's a square. You don't put that square on the triangle. [Laughter]. Obviously. I live about a house and a halFAA from hancock golf course. And I don't golf there, but I go there and it comes to me, wildlife, occasional golf balls. Is that the only way we can save open space in town is to have golf courses? I don't know. It's a nice place. (Guitar music).
>>
(Music)
high in the air, looking down, from an airplane leaving
my hometown, trying to find the open space, that's the land next to
my home place, call it a blessing, call it relief, it's as real to me
as a summer breeze, you don't have to go there, but it's nice to
know, there are places where no buildings grow. Open space, whatever
happened to open space? kiss it goodbye, another piece of the sky.
(Music)
(Music)
>>
(Music)
over the outskirts of the etj, only cul de sacs take the
hills away. There's a six lane freeway and stun stone house since the
boom went bust and their luck went south. Well, open space, whatever
happened to the open space? kiss is it goodbye, another piece of the
sky.
(Music)
(Music)
who you. [Laughter]. Yeah!
>>
(Music)
who is really crazy? who is really sane, holding earth
day over a parking green, official excuses for higher uses, it's a
square peg forced in a triangle frame. Call it a park, a modern
central mart, but when the slabs are dry, only the cars will park.
And control the erosion, build for the flood, but don't deny that you
have drained the blood, from open space, whatever happened to open
space? kiss is goodbye, another piece of the sky.
(Music)
(Music)
another piece of the sky. Vote to deny, save a piece of
the sky, vote to deny, save a piece of the sky.
(Music)
(Music)
[cheering].
>> I love you.
>> Boy, I have got to follow that. [Laughter].
>> Let me just talk a little bit more about traffic. [Laughter].
>>Mayor Watson: well, that's not the way to follow it. [Laughter].
>> What the heck. Mayor, Councilmembers, friends, thanks for this opportunity to speak. I just want to talk a little bit. Mr. Terkel recently wrote in a recent op ed specie that the facilitator said that the traffic would be a disaster in the area if his development was not built. I think that's kind of disingeunuous. I think he said traffic is going to be disastrous no matter what unless all of the traffic modifications suggested in the sewer receipt were actually put in. This is -- charette were put in. He was pretty emphatic about that. 7 To 10 roundabouts, 13 to $16 million can the City afford that for Mr. Terkel's development or for anything? one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the five acre set aside for the state use. That doesn't come up in the background at all. The 900 person laboratory that is currently under construction, doesn't come up in the background at all on this tia. The tia that you have seen that's brought up to you, the few weeks ago, was pointed out the flaws that ago greeting joys errors in -- egregious rorsz in calculation, a few more things projected in. This is a wish specific document, does not truly reflect what's going on with this -- with the traffic. I'm trying to raise a five-year-old son in hyde park. Already traffic goes by at 55 and 60 miles an hour. When somebody is late for a movie on my street, which is the widest street in hyde park, they are going to be coming through a lot quicker. I see various members of the Council here on my street occasionally. You see the traffic go by. I don't know if you all have children or not, but several of you do. Several of you do have younger children learning to ride bicycles and walk. My soon cooper who shares a name with your son, I think, Mr. Watson. It's -- it's going to be disaster. Flat disaster. People trying to make movie theaters are going to whip through and sooner than later a child is going to die. And I don't wish for that to happen for tom terkel's development. Thank you. [Applause]
>> Mr. Chapa, according to my calculation, there's about a minute left. Can you confirm that for me? just so you will know, he is handing out the words to the song. [Laughter]. I was wondering what that was. [Laughter]. Mr. Chapa, can you help me out?
>> yes, sir, only one minute left.
>> Okay.
>> Mr. Barton, dan barton, if you will come forward, you will have one minute. Dan barton. Signed up against. Jay lake. One minute, sir.
>> I will talk like the fed-ex guy. Thank you very much for your time. The problems with sore's -- cencorp's is element. Those who do not bare the costly not benefit. The state benefits, hhMr, cencorp, randall, tom terkel benefits, my family does not. As local residents, City taxpayers, commuters, voters, users of neighborhood amenities will be inconvenienced endangered, this Council through its action will have the opportunity to bring the community responsibility to the triangle development. Please help keep neighborhood residents from bearing the costs of the development they do not want or need by denying this application, thank you. [Applause]
>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Chapa, how much time is left for the opponents?
>> 30 seconds.
>> Mr. Lake, jay lake. That was you, wasn't?
>> yeah.
>>Mayor Watson: sorry about that. You did great. Ann galloway indicated she didn't wish to speak, I apologize, I spaced out. Ann galloway does not wish to speak, against. Dorothy richter it's my understanding had to leave. She signed up against, but she provided a note and it may take me 30 seconds to read it. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, I am dorothy richter, I am sure that all of you know what a valid petition. How -- how it is obtained and validated, that it requires six votes of this Council to change the zoning on a parcel of land. For the sake of those who do not know of this, I would like to explain. State law requires notification of a zoning change request to owners of land within 200 feet of the subject property. The City notifies 300 feet plus neighborhood associations. If property owners have 20% of the land ... Sign a petition opposing zoning, it requires 3-4ths of the ruling body, in this case six of you to overrule the valid petition, as you can see the property within 200 feet surrounding the triangle parcel belongs to the state. Except for a small portion on the corner of 45th and guadalupe, not anywhere near 20%. (Beeping).
>>Mayor Watson: oops. [Laughter].
>>Mayor Watson: that's where we will stop. Before we go to rebuttal, as I promised that I would do, I am going to read the names of the people that signed up to speak. I am looking over at our interpret and she is going to panic. John larson against. Martha cook ward, against. Luis shelby against. Sabrina, sarah sol, monica luseu, shaun kelly, chris muzuko, jay ashcraft. Tammie brookshire, kim barro, w eugene george, mary h george, wanda penn, David heffner, Jackie thomas, don smith, michael cappiciano, burton u banks, David and gretchen douglas, glen coleman, alex urgiddy, David butz, lillian Garcia roig, katherine colby, martha campbell, Charles spiegal, don, bo, bob price, becky hellton, page carus, james carus, kristine hopkins, dane lieberman, andrea, Bill finch, francis lux, devoe, nancy granthum and dean, elizabeth wild smith, David kramer, laura ray, Kirk, matter tee combs, rich mcmath, jacquelyn wool, julie strong, ed Monday eisentat, Beverly and herb benebomb, michael cooper, michael small, scott graves, caroline chamber of commercer land, susan crabtree, craig Lewis, bernstein, Paula hunly, ross baldic, shaun harto, leslie grove, rob, test ra meiden and lee phraseser, jason gray, carol cohen burton, alberto he is sparza, douglas sofer, kay geist, stephanie, mark fint, David jay arn, cath ring ecdels, marilyn goss, again verdict reese, daniel menig, alison brous, mary murphy, susan -- I may have made a mistake, is susan indicate here? susan susan kate, I made a mistake, signed up in support, I apologize if I fouled her up. Patrick getz, anthony edwards, claire deyoung, james hitzel burger, mary desilva, mike burning hart, gabriel summer, chris kuzac, turner morales, I think, marcy shapiro, burjet husky, David varian, janice goodspeed, alec norton, waver, claudia parker, daniel gillot, Jackie berniski, rekinnis, liz hughes, jackson, mancada and brazil, janice burning hart, andy espinschide, susan schnieder, lawrence playlick, kathy morton, katherine stern, michael bloom, matthew monks ann mareyl, carol butler, alvarro pena, sharon fray lick, tamar rivers, kristine verana, terrance vandolyn, jeanie madden, ann grale. Those are all of the people signed up in opposition. The applicant is now entitled to rebuttal. Mr. Chapa, out of the original 45 minutes, they used a portion of their time for their initial presentation. Can you tell me how much time they have left?
>> 18 minutes.
>> Would you please set the clock for 18 minutes. Mr. Drenner, are you first? we are going to set the clock for 18 minutes, let you all use it however you see fit.
>> At the end of my presentation, I was intending to give you what my estimates were for the City portion of the triangle drainage project and according to my estimates, they are 36% less than the costs that were in the master plan by raymond chan. And that cost does include aesthetics, it does include a walkway for north hyde park. Also I wanted to say that we feel like that the City deserves that 36% rate for funding the raymond chan master plan and we think it's the plan for the next 100 years for Waller Creek and we urge you to support the plan that nuna has proposed. And that cencorp is willing to perform on. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Iverson. Mr. Drenner.
>> Mayor, thank you, could you give me a high sign with about 6 minutes to go.
>> Mr. Chapa, if you will let me know on the monitor when he had six minutes to go, I will give you the high sign.
>> Mayor cooksey will close for us, let me attempt to clarify.
>>Mayor Watson: the high sign is I throw a bottle so you will know.
>> I understand, I will try to duck.
>> Let me attempt to clarify a couple of issues. With respect to traffic, you have heard a lot about traffic, I don't intend to beheadaches the specifics of it. Belabor the specifics of it. I would say this, despite the opposition to -- opposition's attempt to make it seem that these intersections will though the work following the development, I think we have demonstrated with extraordinary ily conservative estimates that they will work, they will work after the project is built with the traffic improvements in place better than they work today. That's not just Mr. Mcinturf's opinion, although I value it highly and I think you do, too, since you have hire him on a couple of projects, but that's also your staff's opinion, so rather than hearing from me or anyone else, I would suggested that that's your best authority. Secondly with respect to public trns transit, related issue, we do have a plan to accommodate light rail and it's on that small triangular piece to the east of the site. But it's difficult to be specific about how we are going to accommodate light rail when frankly the City and capital metro have yet to final liz their vision for light rail. We will accommodate bus traffic. We will have a bus stop on site. And we fully support light rail and we fully hope that it runs adjacent to this project and we fully expect to integrate it into the project. With respect to costs, Mr. Burmeister alleges that it will cost the taxpayers of Austin up to $19 million. Again I invite you to challenge those figures, I think they are indefensible. He also forgot the revenue side of the equation, let me pass out -- a one page sheet and I will invite you to focus on three numbers on that sheet. The number is it assumes that for ad valorem tax purposes we will have a $30 million appraisal for appraised value for this project. I think that means one fell swoop, you get back about half of maybe the $65 million property that may be going off the tax rolls or will be adjusted on the tax rolls as a result of prop two. So in terms of smart growth, in-fill development, you are literally taking property that is untaxed at this point and putting it on the tax rolls at a pretty high number. [One moment please]
>> and beyond that we have in conversations with the state talked about making that additional state land available to further solve that drainage problem, that flooding problem. And to get credit sizesed for that and to indicate that we should somehow be responsible for solving the entire drainage problem in that bass sin I think is overreaching. We also talked to you about the reality ies of could we have I cheefd a compromise. I would suggest to you that after 20 months of negotiations, after talking with eight separate neighborhood groups who have frankly differing priorities and frankly agendas that to some extent change from time to time, I'm not sure we could. And I'd like to show you an example. We had a lot of trouble figuring out as we had discussions what would be satisfactory. And in response to that at doing the end of the project we were handed what Mr. Sin claire black presented as a solution, if you will, that they could support. Well, that solution incorporates 800 90,000 square feet. 890,Square feet. That solution also incorporates tremendous amount of parking jound ground and then the detention facility underneath the underground parking with a pump up system of some type in order to get that to the out flow. So we continue to scratch our head with if traffic was the issue, how does 890,000 solve that problem. It is a difficult issue, I would suggest to you, to achieve consensus when we're all over the board in this fashion. I would also suggest that the slide show is further evidence of how difficult achieving consensus may be. First of all, with respect to some of those slides, I think I saw bourbon street, although when I've been on bourbon street I may have been in a slightly altered state, so maybely recollection is imperfect. But I would suggest to you that we can't build bourbon street here. We don't want to. I would also suggest to you that -- thank you. That the slides that you saw on dixon, california reflect the revitalization plan for downtown dixon, california. That's downtown, dixon, california. I don't think it's unusual in that context to think about the grocery store in downtown dixon as being the typical deli grocery, 75 hundred square foot grocery that you might find in a downtown. I would also suggest to you that the slides that were shown for cen corp's projects are I think successful projects. First of all, the first slide that you saw, which was of the randall's, I think is a nice project. Cen corp didn't build it. Secondly, I would suggest to you that the other projects that you saw are cen corp developments' they are successful projects, they are in the suburban part of this city. They are -- were intended to be, always were intended to be and are located in the inturbs of the City. That's not this project. And I would invite you to begin look at the plan before you and compare it to any notion of those suburban projects and I don't think that it will stand the scrutiny. I think I'll let Mayor cooksey close. I appreciate your time and attention.
>> The reason I wanted to retrieve that is that it shows what is surrounding this tract. When I was on the City Council one of the things that I thought of immediately when I was doing a zoning case and determining what the appropriate use for a tract was was what is surrounding the tract. That's the very first consideration that I used to determine whether a use was appropriate. What you have here are state office buildings almost completely surrounding this tract and commercial development going down guadalupe and lamar all the way to 34th and nat case of guadalupe, all the way to town. Today you are considering what has become a hotly debated triangle project. As you know, I have been through the public policy wars with many of you and have sat where you sit having the responsibility to act in the long-term public interest, even in the face of passionate opposition. To the action which had to be taken. In particular I remember one hearing in which the Council, although not pleased that it had to raise electric rates due to the cost of the south Texas nuclear project, did raise rates in the face of the opposition of constituents who lived in an all electric apartment complexes during a very cold and bitter winter and were experienced very high electric bills. That action produced fair rates and preserved our City's bond rating. During my service as Mayor, I concluded that all one can do in these tough situations is to do right and risk the consequences as sam houston once said. Now, what is doing right in this case? I would suggest to you that doing the right thing has a lot to do with being fair. Some of that being fair has already occurred in this matter. The department of mental health and mental retardation has been more than fair to the neighborhoods by listening to neighborhood concerns and by requiring its developer to do so. The developer has been fair by listening to the neighborhoods on numerous occasions over a period of more than 18 months and making a number of major changes in this project to accommodate neighborhood requests. Mr. Ter kel freely acknowledges that this is a better project as a result of his listening to some of the neighborhood groups and responding to some of their requests. As a matter of being fair to him, let us acknowledge that he did a good job of accommodating often contradictory and competing neighborhood suggestions in modifying his plan. Now the time has come for the Council to do the right thing and be fair. Fair to whom? fair to those vulnerable citizens who will be better served by the nine million dollars coming to mhMr's capital fund project and revenues. Fair to the City's smart growth and urban infill initiatives which rely upon inner City projects like this to pull growth away from the environmentally sensitive areas over the edwards aquifer, fair to mhMr and a developer who has acted in good faith to change his initial plan and propose what is an unusually appropriate project on a tract surrounded by large office buildings and commercial activity. Being fair in this context certainly requires at the least treating this project in the same way that similar tracts have been treated in the past. Every one con soods that this project as presently proposed -- concedes that this project as presently proposed is an innovative plan, like the central market plan, which was approved by the City for mhMr. Most concede that the zoning sought is justified in the context of the land uses already taking place around the triangle. The City staff recommended the zoning and the planned use of this tract after very thorough analysis. In light of the fact that Mr. Ter kel's plan fully supported by mhMr is the only one on the table and that the zoning is appropriate in the context of surrounding land use, to completely deny the zoning would be unreasonable. The only supportable action which would be to grant the zoning and the water and wastewater improvements. Subject to such reasonable conditions as you might deem appropriate under the circumstances. That is a reasonable result. Then the City of Austin would take advantage of the opportunity for participation in the planning process afforded by state law in cases where public property is leased in order to obtain revenue from publicly owned assets. A complete denial of this zoning would disregard the planning rights afforded the city under state law. I cannot believe that the City of Austin would intentionally act in such a manner. Ab da indication of responsible planning in cooperation with mhMr will almost surely result in a project which achieves fewer city planning goals than the approval of zoning subject to reasonable conditions sought by the City. In closing, I realize that I'm asking you to make a tough decision, but it is the right decision, the right thing, the fair thing. I am convinced that the long-term public interest will be better served by your approving agenda items 11 and 33 subject to reasonable conditions you deem appropriate. Then the planning process will contain your input and the city of Austin will have done its part to act responsibly in this manner. On behalf of my client, the general land office, I wish to express my appreciation to the city staff which has worked so hard on this case and to each of you Councilmembers and the Mayor who have listened so carefully to the vus of all concerned. Thank you very much.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mayor. (Beep).
>>Mayor Watson: well timed. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing? motion is made by Councilmember Griffith, seconded by Councilmember Lewis to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All opposed? motion carries. The public hearing is closed. Let me say on behalf of the entire Council that we really appreciate the way the public hearing was conducted. This Council continues to try to come up with new ways where we avoid some of the old Austin approach of what I've referred to as jump ball politics and he said, she said aspect of public hearings and conducting processes where we call them hearings, but there isn't nobody hearing nobody nothing. And we really do appreciate the way you've done. I frankly feel like tonight worked pretty well using that format. If I could get you to move those so I can see people. I appreciate it. Thank you. With that and the closing of the public hearing, why don't we move to some discussion by the Council. And I suppose I'll start. I agree with Mayor cock si. This is a tough decision. And I agree with Mayor cook si that I want to be and I know every member of this Council wants to be fair in the way we approach this and I think one of the ways that we can be fair is regardless of how any one of us may vote or how we approach that vote, whether it is approval, denial or conditions, whatever as suggested by the Mayor, I think that you will hear us give some input tonight that may be used at some point in the future. I want to start off by saying that I favor quality appropriate development in the desired development zone of our City and that includes infill development. My opinion infill development, among other things, slows urban sprawl, is critical to keeping the Austin independent school district a viable central City school system. Can save tax money by utilizing existing infrastructure, reduces the need for new school construction or the extension of emergency services, is necessary to enhance our tax base and tax base of our urban core and can be central to revitalizing our inner City neighborhoods. I also believe that the triangle property is an excellent opportunity for infill development and good infill development that will develop our tax base so that the current taxpayers benefit by having more revenue to pay for things such as police protection, fire protection, emergency medical services, parks, playground, libraries and things like that. And I want to be be foresomething at the triangle. I want to be for infill development at the triangle. But no one should be misled by the al leisure of just any infill, not all infill is smart growth. Smart growth requires us to manage where and how we grow. All infill development meets the where we should grow test, but not all infill development meets the how we should grow test. Now, smart growth means some things to some people and different things to other people, and there's going to be some single list of priorities for infill growth or any definition of managed growth that will be ideal or will completely capture the goal of smart growth. No development, even good infill development, will be perfect or satisfy everyone and all of our desires won't make it into each development. However, there are certain practices or principles that should be considered and balanced when evaluating or pursuing infill development in my opinion. Our initiatives to manage growth should give neighborhoods an appropriate satisfy in development that impacts them. Although all infill development will necessarily have a traffic impact, efforts should be made to minimize negative effects. Infill development that abuts neighborhoods where as or is in a neighborhood should have a neighborhood or human scale. We should also try to mix land uses in as fine a way as the market will allow while helping the Austin independent school district achieve what I believe is a very reasonable and achievable goal of having 50% commercial and 50% residential in its tax base to keep the school district strong. We need to preserve open space, create community gathering places, encourage transit and help enhance pedestrian activity. Obviously not all of -- these aren't all of the items for consideration when you're talking about infill and as I stated, no list is going to be definitive. And different projects are going to require different balances. The triangle property involves at least one significant additional consideration that I also believe is unique. That property is owned by a public entity, the state of Texas. I believe that public ownership should allow us to achieve solutions and public benefits beyond squeezing every dollar out of a development site. As a taxpayer and as a representative of taxpayers I want the state to make intelligent money decisions, but I also want the state to consider community goals such as building strong neighborhoods, increasing affordable housing and providing certain uses that fill voids in our community. Last night I watched a representative of the state on tv say that they don't just represent Austin, they represent all of the state of Texas. And I understand that. But the property is in Austin and the impact is on the neighborhoods in Austin and so we ought to try to balance the goals and utilizing that public land. Additionally the process used by the state with the triangle property in my opinion focused far too much on maximizing dollars and far too little on the other matters. The process did not at least from all appearances utilize in my view best development practices for urban infill. And I want to thank Mr. Ter kel because I believe he has worked hard and I will tell you personally that I appreciate the way you have dealt with me and my office and the amount of openness, the amount of discussion and the amount of willingness to admit when you may be learning and when you may have done something wrong from the beginning. And frankly, I want to apologize to you for what I believe in some instances was extremely unfair attacks on you throughout this process. But I do believe that the best development practices for urban infill weren't always used. For example, I think the developer got locked in very early to anchor tenants that were predominantly retail which destroyed the chance to mix the uses better. The mix proposed was 71% retail, but only 16% office use and 13% multi-family use. This very top heavy ratio of retail to other commercial and residential use gives the surrounding neighborhoods the heaviest traffic impact, the most intense parking requirements and a design that is least likely to preserve a sense of neighborhood. The proposed level of retail represents 92% of the additional traffic impact. It represents 86% of the required parking spaces. The proposed ratio of retail use as compared to other uses I think drives a level of parking and traffic impact that frankly creates a sense of big box reretail and doesn't lend itself to a neighborhood scale or neighborhood friendly design of cross streets and green space. An example of what I believe most people would consider a more thoughtful approach would be a ratio of 24% retail, 50% office and 26% residential, which would double the residential there. This mix would result in a 55% reduction in traffic from the proposed development. A 38% reduction in parking for the project. The changes I think would allow for more neighborhood friendly design, more opportunity for a grid design or something like that. And most importantly, that mix would actually increase the project's property tax valuation. Even using Mr. Drenner's numbers, and frankly his numbers were more conservative than what I had originally calculated the property tax valuation would be for cen corp's proposal, but under any scenario, the mix I just mentioned would actually -- would reduce traffic, reduce parking, create the opportunity for more friendly neighborhood friendly design and it would increase the property tax valuation. Now, I'm confident there are other mixes obviously that could work also, but that's just one. The fact is that we're not going to all and may not any of us ultimately agree on all aspects of the development, but I think we can all support appropriate development of the triangle. I'm going to continue to work hard for smart growth in Austin. I think this Council has put itself very firmly to try to do the right thing and do it in in a thoughtful, meaningful way. I'm very committed to enhancing or tax base while minimizing urban sprawl. I am committed to helping the school district achieve its 50/50 mix so that it can continue to fund in an adequate way our critically important inner City school district, but I'm not going to be for this proposal. Now, I get another shot at this because I'm one of those lucky people that gets to serve on the special review board. And I think that is a good thing. I do think and I hear Mayor cook si when he talks about being involved in the process. I do think it's a difficult process. It is better than having a process where the state just comes in and does -- just says it's going to do something, but I think there are other ways to improve on that process and I look forward to working with the state and other officials between now and the time of the hearing assuming that this is not approved. If there are not substantial changes in the plan, I'm going to vote against it tonight and I'm going to -- and if there are not substantial changes, I'll vote against it at the time that it comes before the special review board. Are there other people that would like to speak? [applause]. Councilmember Goodman?
>>Goodman: I'd like to say that you took a great many of the points that I was writing down as we went through this, but I would like first to say I do thank all the neighbors whose presence here tonight was important on both sides of the issues and I don't at all doubt the integrity of any neighbors who spoke on the side of which I'm not going to vote, but I don't think you can question the commitment of any of those folks because they've all been around here too long and have done too much. The traffic for me is almost insurmountable issue here because of those absolutes that we started out with, and that's back to the anchor tenants. When we talk about smart growth, for some people it's infill in the old way that we did infill, which often came out to mean find an empty space and fill it up with as much as you can. And then there are folks who think smart growth is taking every undeveloped piece of land we have currently and making it parks so that it will not be developed. And, of course, smart growth is neither one of those or both of those and everything in between. So what I came back to again here is trying to figure out how the infrastructure we have, the roadway infrastructure most notably, can accommodate the kind of traffic patterns and the flows that are mandated by the cinema, for one thing. That was the hardest pattern to try to figure out how this infrastructure could handle, especially without a significant investment from our side, because it really starts back at 35th street, I think. So it's sort of like a cumulative impact from 35th to 51st and it's a very difficult scenario when you look at that stretch because as it's grown up over the years, the increase of traffic from all kind of uses is channeled by this spot and through this area as opposed to being drawn to this triangle in the middle of everything. And that I think would be really difficult for anybody, maybe not even as people come to to the cinema, but as they leave it. And when we're talking about closing off 46th and all the different scenarios we can think of with mass transit, it gets more complicated instead of simpler. So I think that this is not an area that's going to remain park. I think that we could have worked with everybody and put some money into mhMr's coffer's and made some profit for the developers and also benefitted the neighborhoods around and ourselves as a community and a City too if there was a process that put the people in that review at the beginning of the process instead of at the end. When you really don't have the options that you need to for smart growth, for real smart growth. Again, the structural problem. Maybe it's not 13.5 million that we would need to put in it because that does have a lot of roundabouts and I'm not sure there's enough room, but I do know if we make the improvements as proposed, what we're doing is enhancing the flow and enhancing the open asphalt space for the cars, and that may take care of the capacity problems, but in doing that you've just negated the ability to make that people scale and neighborhood friendly. So neither one wins in that case. At this time we couldn't, I don't think, give it the zoning because it goes with the development plan and at this time the development plan with the cinema and the randall's and some of the immovable options -- that's a contribution. They're not options. There are possible options we could think of if there were not the immovable issues wishes of some of the randall's parking and some of the cinema, namely number of screens and the pattern and the flow. So thank you, Mayor. That's it.
>>Mayor Watson: additional discussion?
>>Lewis: yes, Mayor. I would just like to also thank the people for coming tonight and the way that the hearing -- public hearing was conducted. I think it was a little less contention than a lot of people had planned for. I would also like to say that even though a number of people is against the project and I've received a lot of e-mail saying we don't want anything there. We'd like for it to stay open land. Well, I really don't think that that's an option. I think that basically we should try to get as much as we can while we can because if we get to a point that we don't have an option, then it's going to be even worse the way that I see it. I was listening to the people speak about the randall's and I know there's -- I think it's a ran dals at Koenig Lane and lamar. And I would just like to say that when you cut through from your neighborhood -- from where you live going to Koenig lane to come back because you don't want to get out on lamar to go to the store, you need to think about that. And think about the people that -- over in the neighborhood at 45th street where the hancock center is, the h.e.b. Store just increased to a little over 93,000 square feet. And you know that that's not a neighborhood store. So those people -- the number of people that shop there is normally people that come through their neighborhoods. It's not very many of us that want to get out on 35 to go to the grocery store, so we take the shortest cut or the easiest cut, which is through someone's neighborhood. [One moment, please] ....
>> If we are going to have a compact City we are going to have to say individually that I am not going to drive my car like I have been doing, because if we don't we are going to have traffic jams. To say "we" is not the answer because if "we are going to do it" I am going to wait for you and you are going to wait for me and we are not going to do anything. I think we need to say individually "I can make a difference on the traffic by leaving my car at home sometimes." I can make a difference by [applause] riding with someone else. Or I will -- I will go out and get a bicycle. And ride a bicycle. But, you know, those ever the types of things that I think more and more that people take for granted that everyone wants to wait for everyone else. I was asking the -- today, well, what is the projected time that the traffic would reach the same level as it would without this being built, that it would if it's going to be -- if it's being built? because I think the way Austin is growing, eventually it's going to reach that level whether that become a -- stays as a vacant open land even without a park. So those are the things that bothered me. As the Mayor said, he will work toward it at the state. But I just think that to just blankly tell mhMr no, you can't do what you want to do, I think they go going to take a different attitude about it. I would rather to do something with some provision than to do nothing. I think, too, that the plan includes more open space than it had, I looked at all four of the plans and I know that the neighborhoods have, too, that from number one to the last one, it's a lot of difference. I don't know -- one thing was that -- and I think that they mentioned the fact that it would have a bus stop. My whole thing was we need to do mass transit because without parking spaces, if people go, they will find some other way to get there. And if you don't have a -- if you do bus stops, then you don't have a reason for driving your car every time you go. That was one of the things that I suggested that they put -- that they make a bus stop or change where the buses could go through the facility. Now the plan also -- the modification provides for internal streets. The configuration for cross streets. My other suggestion was not to make it so that if you was at one end you couldn't drive through to the other end of the facility unless you go out on one of the main streets. So that way you will leave your car parked and go and walk, you know, because most of us need to do a little more walking anyway, at least I know I do. The plan contains a drainage system that I thought when they brought it back to me the last time and I took a look at it, you know, for -- to be able to use that space for something other than just a drainage field like most of the drainage fields are, I thought it was innovative, as far as the things that was changed. I would also say the zoning -- just looking at -- I've been here for a long time, just looking at what's around immediate adjacent to that track of -- tract of land, the zoning is appropriate. Now, whether it meets our specifications or not, it's a different story. But it's no -- for the going to -- not going to keep anybody awake, you know, we all would like to be able to not have to sit through three lights or wait coming out of a driveway for 40 cars to come by before we can get out of the driveway because we haven't been used to that. Times ever change, I know coming out of my driveway at home, used to I could come down, maybe one car would go by, now I counted this morning, five cars went by before I could get out of my driveway. Things are changing, we are going to have to try to hit gate -- mitigate as much of it as we can individually and until we do that, things are not going to get any better for us. So I am going to stop there because I know Dr. Spelman has a list of items that he wanted to cover.
>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Spelman.
>>Spelman: it will be a very, very short list Mayor. Can you set the easel up for me, do you mind if I borrow one of your boards. Thanks. Kristen, get that first version of the plan that was submitted, I think it's in here, yeah. That looks right, yeah. That's close enough. This is the second time that the -- that the City Council has been -- that's the one. This is the second time the city Council has been through a -- an action involving state land and the pattern in this case has been almost identical to the pattern in the last case. The last case was the hog farm up in northwest Austin, southwest Williamson county. And the case situation was very similar. We had a lot of people from neighborhoods surrounding the hog farm, we had a lot of individuals concerned about traffic, concerned about drainage, concerned about xait tiblt with the neighborhood and they spent hundreds of hours getting their act together, coming up with the arguments and then coming before the Planning Commission, before the City Council, before the special review board, not once but twice, to argue against the plan. And the same thing has been true obviously here. Many people hundreds of people spent hundreds and hundreds of hours, collecting information, investigating the effects of this plan and argue very articulately against this. At the same time the developer has been spending hundreds and hundreds of hours, retooling the plan, coming up with new ideas, trying to meet your requirements and also meet the requirements of the state. I don't think this is any way to plan a great City. I don't think you should have to spend hundreds and hundreds of hours to fight something. I don't think that the developers should spend hundreds and hundreds of hours to try and fix something. I think we maybe need to spend a few hours at the front of the office to come up with a program, a list of requirements from the very beginning so the developer before they bid on the process know what they are getting themselves into, know what the neighborhoods are looking for [applause] -- I might add that many of us on the dias have spent what at least feels like hundreds and hundreds of hours talking with you and trying to sort out what's really going on. I don't think it's fair to us I think if we spend a a little bit of time up at the front of the process, we wouldn't have to do this again. I would like to make an observation on the very first plan which was submitted by cencorp. There can be controversy as to whether or not the latest version of cencorp's plan fits the state's requirements. That exhibit e that mhMr put together back in 1995. I don't think there can be very much controversy at all as to whether the first version did. I think it's very clear this first version absolutely did not fit exhibit e, did not fit the program. It is arguably high density, but not mixed use, almost entirely retail. There are very few buffers against the state's property and against the surrounding neighborhoods, there is no through traffic, you can't drive east-west from guadalupe to north lamar. There are no parking structures, the parking is all in lots, not pedestrians friendly, walk across parking lots in order to get someplace, very little open spaces, I don't think you will refer to this as a people oriented place at all. And if -- I'm not sure what happened in the state for them not to follow through on that exhibit, that program that they put fort. But if they had, I don't believe this would have qualified as a program -- as a proposal which would have gotten much further than it did. Once cencorp's proposal was in the gate, then I think tom terkel and his associates have done a tremendous job of bringing it as close as possible to the state's original program as they could. Given the difficulties involved with anchors that you can't get rid of, you don't want to get rid of, you need anchors if you are going to build a development that's actually going to make any money, he was under contract with them, I think he can came up with the if I am version of the plan as close as possible to your original are requirements and mhMr's requirements as he could, I think he fell short. He doesn't deserve any blame for that, he did absolutely the best he could, but he was stuck in a process simply taylor made for failure, I think we should unmake this process. I think there are three things we need to do. Again I'm saying we, not something the City Council has control over, but something the general land office has control over. Something that the state can do something about. The original requirements, the mhMr solicitation were not sufficient. You have brought up a lot of points over the last few hours which should have been included in exhibit e or something very close to it. Talked about traffic. Traffic should have been included, drainage, neighborhood xait tiblt should have been included. They weren't, they needed to. That wouldn't have happened had the public been brought into the process from the very beginning, that didn't happen, it could be. It would save everybody a lot of time in the long run, finally, most importantly, there needs to be some enforcement. If the state has a program, if the state puts something like exhibit e together, it has to be willing to have the courage of its convictions to follow through on it and be willing to reject some proposals that don't actually meet those requirements. I think -- I applaud Mr. Terkel for having done as much as he could do with a starting point like this, but I don't think the state should have aloud him to start with this proposal. Mayor would a motion be in order?
>>Spelman: I move to deny.
>>Mayor Watson: motion made and I am assuming the motion to deny is made for all of the reasons that have been stated up to this point and following discussion under the statute we are required to indicate a reason, we have stated a number of reasons that I think for example fall under 13547 of the land development code related to over burdening our streets, zoning districts that need to be compatible under 13220, but the motion for all of the reasons that have been stated, the motion is to deny.
>>Spelman: yes.
>>Mayor Watson: is there a second?
>>Slusher: I will second, Mayor.
>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Slusher.
>>Mayor Watson: further discussion? Councilmember Slusher well, Mayor, I am -- I really love this town, it's a great town when you have folks that come out in the kind of numbers we did tonight that will study traffic plans and the -- the immense details of that. All of the other varieties of things to do with development. It's really because they love the town so much and I really want to compliment everyone on the hearing tonight. I know sometimes during the -- I guess year to 18 months this has been going on, the tenor got a little israel and unpleasant, but I think this -- a little shrill and unpleasant, but this has been really good. I want to compliment the neighbors who spoke in favor of it. I think you took a courageous stand. Mr. Terkel, he did change, make changes in the development responded to the neighborhoods, I think he was really sort of locked in by the state process and locked in by the anchors that he had from the very start. And might have been able to be more flexible if that wasn't the case. I want to say that I favor this area being developed and it being developed pretty densely. You know, I'm pretty familiar with the -- I used to work at the health department back a few years ago when I was going to the university of Texas and I would walk across there, perhaps I didn't see it being utilized as a park an awful lot, although it has been nice to have it for open space. But I think that here in Austin, as with our involvement in the City, that we are really growing in our thinking and our intelligence about what we are going to have to do here as City grows because it really is growing and it looks like it's going to continue to grow. I think these neighborhoods around here have always loaded in overwhelming numbers every time there was a chance to protect the edward's aquifer, to vote against urban sprawl, to vote in favor of social equity in the City, I think there's been some sentiment which I have shared in the past to try to limit the development, but we realize I think now that we can't do all over the place, we are going to have to develop densely in the central City. And I think that is a place that we can do that. I would like to see the Mayor and Councilmember Spelman, Councilmember Goodman several other have stated what they would like to see, I won't repeat all of that, I would like to see more residential. I think the Mayor's plan about more office and that decreasing the traffic I think that is a real smart, real smart growth. I would like to see more planning for light rail and assuming it's going to come, I think the state could do that. The one thing about when you are -- when you have public land is that the -- you can not only use it to make money for things like the mhMr, their clients, which is a very -- obviously very worthwhile, worthy, a nobel purpose, but you can also utilize the land in such a way as to bring about the public purposes that you might not necessarily just get out of private developers. I would like to see that happen on this tract. The state process has got to change. This Council has gone a long way towards healing a lot of the devices we have had in the -- divisions we've had in the City in the past, but one thing that remains unhealed and in a very bad state is the relationship between the City and the state and the way the state government treats the capitol City. I think this -- [applause] -- and this process is a very, very clear example of that and it's just got to change. I would hope that the state leaders would work with the city, with the residents of the neighborhoods around here, with the developers that are on board for the triangle to try to make this a great project because this -- this is a great City and this is a very, very key area to it and we won't get too many chance of in-fill development on this scale at this central and critical a location. So this has got to be a great development, I don't think the project that is on the table now is a on great development, but I think Austin working together can put a great development at the triangle. Thank you. [Applause]
>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Griffith?
>>Griffith: thank you, Mayor, I want to thank and you of the participants here tonight for your civility, for your poise and composure. I think this has been a very civilized exemplary evening, I want to thank you very much. I admire your style. I apparently want to thank the -- I especially want to thank the people from cencorp reality and from the general land office. You have spent so much time with me and members of my staff in working towards an agreement. I think that is not going to be possible at this time. I hope ultimately it can be. Mr. Terkel talked about what a steep learning curve he's been on. I think we all have. I think what I have learned is that the problem is the process. And if you will still talk to me at all, I would like to continue to work on that with you. Our City stated goals are to create a more sustainable community and to become the most liveable City in america. Yet as the City Council and citizens planning committee have recognized over and over again, we cannot have a more sustainable community without healthy neighborhoods. The citizens planning committee in its 1995 error report to the City Council specifically addressed the need for sustainable in-fill development. In the central City while encouraging the City to remove barriers to mixed use development in central Austin and provide, "incentives to move developers towards inclusion of an appropriate range of multi use development." the citizens planning committee stressed the need to, "protect viable residential neighborhoods within the urban core to retain their predominant character." and the area surrounding the triangle is one of the the most desirable, one of the most vital, one of the most character loaded neighborhoods in all of Austin. [Laughter]. In a value -- in evaluating --.
>>Mayor Watson: we can take that a couple of ways. [Laughter].
>>Griffith: it was not lost. In evaluating a proposal to develop any large tract within a thriving dynamic neighborhood, we should ask whether the development meets some very basic criteria for enhancing the livability of the neighborhood. I would like to suggest some. How compatible is the proposed development with the character of the existing neighborhood? will the development be inviting to nearby residents who may want to leave their cars at home and walk to shopping services and office space? does the development have a significant residential component that will help reduce the car trips? does the development avoid heavy increases in traffic from other areas of town by orienting its retail components towards serving the surrounding neighborhoods? is the development pedestrian friendly in the layout of the buildings and the parking? does the development provide public space that encourages the interaction of nearby residents? over 100 Austinites participated in a public planning exercise concerning the proposed transportation project that was like what the citizens planning committee recommended for assuring the compatibility of major development in existing neighborhoods. On november 15th, 1997, a design charette was held. The design team that led the charette spelled out the shortcomings of the plan in their report. These shortcomings included the absence of a walkable environment, an overreliance on surface parking in front of businesses and other buildings and inadequate effort to hide the parking lots behind the buildings. An insufficient residential component, the lack of high quality public spaces to provide a setting for neighborhood oriented activities and to provide -- provide what they said was really critical, which was a sense of place. Changes in the current site plan that effectively addressed these shortcomings would allow me to support this project. The charette leaders recommended changes were aimed at transforming the design of the project from a suburban model to a more urban one. Without such changes, the development will not reflect the goals this Council has made the cornerstones of our planninging and that's livability. [Applause]
>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? Mayor pro tem as the oldest Councilmember here I want to talk a little bit. A little bit different topic. That is what has happened to Austin 40 some odd years that I have been here, I came here in 5u7 57, I never intended to stay here, but as test taken would have it I did. It was a small City, racially isolated. Stoo sometimes in the mid '60s the Chamber of Commerce developed an economic plan for Austin, it was a diverse indication plan. They said the wheel, the economic wheel in Austin has two smokes, governments and university. Two spokes, we need to some more spokes, industry, ibm was the first one to show up over here, the rest fold. That implementation plan caught -- followed. The implementation plan caught fire in the '70s and in 1975, 1985 Austin went on a wild ride of major proportions. Industrialization, desegregation, somewhat white flight, some folks stayed, those of you are here. Urban sprawl, wrap around mortgages, billion dollar bond issues, closing inner City schools and opening elementary schools out in the suburbs and middle schools and high schools all over the periphery of the City. And what drove the equation was how to make money. How to make more money fast. Some people did, most of us lost our last pennies in that boom. That bust. The ride ended in 1986 with a massive head on collision. That sent banks to the advertising stores to buy banners so they could put them every time they changed their names. [Laughter]. We sold more banners -- I think one bank changed its name -- the biggest bank changed its name about five times in five years. But we learned a lot about how to do urban sprawl because everybody had land out in the per arrive free and they had paid a ton for it. Perifery, they had paid a ton for it, they had to develop it. They learned that from those guys that do strip malls. Strip shopping centers, one after the other. I get fascinated when I read that one of the guys, one of the groups that is against all this urban sprawl is the farmers. They -- the people that study this issue say by the year 2050 the United States will be importing -- be a net food importer. We will not be able to produce enough food in this country to feed our own people. And they are complaining. They say stop it, we have a few friend, the farmers are our new friend, anti-sprawlers, I think they have a very valid reason. But we never had a chance to stop and learn anything because we are moving so fast, when I came here 40 years ago, Austin had about 100,000 people. It now has over a million and we have never stopped really to figure out where we are going. We are just go, go, go, go, go, you know, that's been -- 40 years is a very short time period to do all of the things that Austin has done. Then all of a sudden we are saying, okay, now we are going to do smart growth. And we are going to put light rail -- and god bless the capital metro board, I see a bunch of members here -- where do you put light rail? go down the middle of the City, no, no, on the east -- all of these discussions that go on are nothing more than a manifestation of the frustration that we are feeling trying to make this city liveable. Trying to make sure that the air we breathe, of course Mexico is exporting some smoke now [laughter], as if we didn't have enough air pollution problems here. But we have to do something. I think the Mayor is correct in saying and in being -- what do they call you? charismatic --.
>>Mayor Watson: short. [Laughter].
>>Garcia: they say in the article that appeared in the Austin business journal they were happy the City had a care makes tick Mayor that could oocharasmatic Mayor that can lead us into the next millenium, but he's correct in that we have to change the manner in which we do things. The only thing is we haven't had a chance to study all of the thing. I am glad we have a professor, a professor that specializes in urban issues. Whatever it is that you do. [Laughter].
>> I'm not glad.
>>Garcia: but it's going to take us a while, you know, my son lives in san francisco and when -- we love to go there. And that's a City where the planners did things differently. And I think that if we take some time to think this thing through, we can do it. And we will -- when we went to the retreat and spend, you know, the Mayor took us out to bastrop so we could get away from everybody and think for a little while, after we sat there for two days, what we came out with is the ideal neighborhood for the City of Austin is hyde park. We are going to make Austin like hyde park. [Applause] so here we are. [Applause] [cheering]. I happen to think that we have the brain power in this community to turn this City around and I think we should take our time doing it. And like Councilmember Slusher, my hope is that the state cooperates with us because I think Austin can be the model for how cities grow. If you go to other cities like laredo, el paso, san antonio, all those cities, dallas, houston, they may be -- they may have lost control, laredo if you go to laredo and laredo is not as big as Austin, you get on I-35, you have to get off about 3 miles before you get to your designation because there's 18 wheelers, you know, back to back all the way to the mexican border. I took my -- I told my wife, the last time in Mexico, they have an answer for this, they put a big flag. It's the biggest flag that you have ever seen, four miles from the border I see the flag. I said I wonder why Mexico put flag in the american side? it wasn't on the american side. It was on the mexican side. They are hoping that the people that are waiting behind all those 18 wheelers wanting to go to Mexico realize that Mexico is over there. So the flag, you know? [laughter]. All of those cities have problems. I think in this City we are thinking about how to do things better. But it is painful. I have seen this Council struggle with this issue, really in a most -- in the most earnest of margins and I have been here seven years and I -- Mayor I have to commend you, you have, you know, lead this discussion in a very, very mitt close and careful way. That's the -- meticulous and careful way. I listen to you people, tom and the people from hyde park. I think this issue has been thought out very well, but we need to do better. We need to start someplace and I think this may be a place to start. Since the City said Council says when we go to the retreat we want Austin to be like hyde park, let's start, let's start somewhere so that we can get to where we think we want to be and get there as soon as possible. [Applause]
>>Lewis: Councilmember Slusher brought it up about the hog farm. I just -- I don't know if we get another shot at doing anything in conjunction with the state property except one item over on springdale and it's a small one, I doubt we get to the airport before the legislature comes back into session. But, you know, this is the second time we've had state property and I would -- I am the kind of person that can make adjustments, I like to work things out where it's not a win-lose situation, I just hope that the people at the state, when we go to the next session, I hope they realize that we are doing what we feel is best for Austin rather than just trying to go against what the state is doing. I don't want them -- I'm hoping that they don't look at us in Austin like in -- when was it? '95, that Austin looked at the state that the state was bashing Austin. So I just wanted to say that before we take a vote.
>>Mayor Watson: a key point is that we are not against development of the triangle. And part of what I was trying to say is different approaches can achieve maximum results. One mix that I mentioned is a mix that reduces traffic, reduces parking, but actually increases the valuation. And if mycal consolidations are right, based upon what Mr. Drenner laid out, utilizing the sailt tax revenues that he talked about, there would be an increase in revenue based upon taxes on that piece of property. So it's not a question of being against in-fill development on that. It's trying to come up with a better approach. With that being said, any further discussion? the motion has been made, I want to make sure we are clear on the motion, made by Councilmember Spelman, seconded by Councilmember Slusher, the motion is to deny items 33 and 11. Is that correct, Councilmember?
>>Spelman: I didn't realize we were doing both at the same time. I will happily deny them both. If we deny one, we deny the other.
>>Mayor Watson: is that your second, Councilmember Slusher?
>>Slusher: yes, Mayor.
>>Mayor Watson: motion made and seconded, no further discussion, all in favor say aye, opposed say no, motion carries on a vote of 7 to 0. [Cheering]. [Yelling] [applause]
>>Mayor Watson: we still have public hearings to conduct. We appreciate everybody that's been here tonight, thank you all, as you leave, if you could do it quietly so we can continue our business, try to finish at a reasonable time.
>> I would like to quickly thank the Mayor and outline of the Councilmembers for their patience and their fairness and their consideration and for caring so much about the city of Austin. You guys are all heroes, when we get that debate development on the triangle, I want statues of each and every one of you on it.
>> Thank you, ms. Moffett. Number 39s is a public hearing on a variance request by alice fishel at 674 shady cedar drive in the 25 year floodplain. Hang on a second. Folks, if I could get everybody, including the media,.
>> That's me. Tell me. 3 Minutes.
>> Just getting your chance.
>>Mayor Watson: hey folks! folks! please honor our requests to conduct your conversations outside. Thank you, we are on item no. 39.
>> Mayor, members of the Council, alice fishel is requesting a variance to construct a 10 by 14 storm shed at 6704 shady cedar drive in the 25 year floodplain. Chapter 136 of the land development code prohibits building in the 25 year floodplain and the watershed protection department and development review and inspection department are recommending that the Council deny this request for the following reasons: one, perming the construction would increase the risks to property due to flooding or erosion damage, two permanenting the -- perming the construction could crease the susceptible of the structures and its contents to flood damage, permitting the construction would increase the rick of materials being swept on to other lands and causing injury to others, and/or their property and 4, access to the lot is subject to flooding which would affect ordinary and emergency vehicles access in times of flood, emergency vehicles could not respond to an emergency during a flood because of high water in the streets and any rescue attempt would subject emergency personnel to dangerous conditions. Mr. George oswald from the watershed protection utility is available to answer your questions and the applicant is present this evening.
>> Could.
>>Lewis: could I get him to read that last one again about the things being swept on to other lots?
>> permitting the construction would risk -- would increase the risk of materials being swept on to other lots and causing injury to others and/or their property. Meaning the building could be swept downstream or on to adjacent lots. The storage shed.
>>Lewis: the shed?
>> yes, sir.
>>Lewis: all right. I have some other questions. But I will ask them later.
>>Mayor Watson: does anybody have any questions of City staff at this point? I am going to ask the applicant to come forward. Loose I can ask them now. What else is on this lot? what's on there at the present time?
>> currently a manufactured home on the lot.
>>Mayor Watson: is that in the floodplain?
>> yes it is.
>>Lewis: what size is the home?
>> the owner can probably answer that for you, I don't have that information.
>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis, why don't we have the applicant come forward and make a brief presentation. Are you ms. Fishel. Please come forward, ma'am. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make.
>> I understand that I have 3 minutes.
>>Mayor Watson: we don't have a lot of folks signed up, we want to make sure we do fair by you. If you want to, make a presentation and if you don't mind we may just stop you and ask you some questions about it.
>> Okay. That sounds fair enough.
>>Mayor Watson: good.
>> Thank you. I'm the property owner at 6704 shady cedar and I have requested that I be able to construct a storage shed on the property. I have a copy of my deed restrictions here and it says th detached storage buildings may be constructed or placed on the lot when in strict conformity with Austin building code. I have also been told since this lot is in the 25 year floodplain that the building code in the 25 year floodplain is that there is no building at all aloud for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Herst, I have also been told that the building of this constructed shed will probably be denied at this hearing. Sop I would still like to construct it, though. I -- if the City denies my property right according to my deed restrictions, then I feel that my constitutional rights of amendment 5 of the united states constitution that says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall a private property be taken for public use without just compensation, I believe that I have been denied property use, if I am denied the building of this storage shed. And if the City denies my property right, for public issues such as public liability and damage control, similar to those on the Shoal creek flooding in 1980, and the flooding of the sixth street businesses that occurred in the City, this is due to poor engineering for city flood control and poor planning or incorrect planning for growth and for annexation. These are all public issues that are involved. Onion creek has been under rezoning since 1993 to the 25 year floodplain. And if the -- there's been no resolution to this 25 year floodplain rezoning. I can't using my property. Use my property. So -- I am asking still that the City allow me to build this storage shed.
>>Mayor Watson: can I ask you a couple of questions?
>> yes.
>>Mayor Watson: currently, what is on the property?
>> a manufactured home, a 14 by 70 lavelle mobile home.
>>Mayor Watson: do you live there?
>> I do not live there.
>>Mayor Watson: somebody resides there?
>> it is lived in.
>> Okay. And so that I am clear on what it is that you want to do, you want to build a storage shed on that same piece of property.
>> Yes, sir.
>>Mayor Watson: for what purpose?
>> to put lawn mowers and different material that this person wants the shed for.
>>Mayor Watson: could you read for me again the deed restriction that you mentioned at the beginning?
>> it says that under land use and building type. It says detached storblg buildings may be constructed or place odd a lot when in strict conformity with Austin building code and after approval of architectural control committee.
>>Mayor Watson: okay. My question to you I guess when I hear that language, if the building code does not allow for building under this set of circumstances in the 25 year floodplain, then I'm curious how you think that you could satisfy your deed restriction because there is no way to be in strict compliance with the building code if you build something. Help me with that.
>> I'm not sure I understand your question.
>>Mayor Watson: let me -- I may be asking a poor question. But your deed restriction said that you cannot build a shed unless it is in strict compliance with the building code. Right?
>> that's correct.
>>Mayor Watson: and the building code said you can't build a shed.
>> That's correct.
>>Mayor Watson: and my question to you is what is your interpretation, even if the Council were to grant a variance, -- I guess that --
>> I see where you are coming from. When I bought this property it was in the 100 year floodplain and building was aloud. And according to this deed at that time I would have been aloud to construct because at that time and he -- allowed to construct because at that time there was an Austin building code in the 100 year floodplain because I put a mobile home on there, which I am not aloud to do now.
>>Mayor Watson: it may not be in of our business anyway if you are in violation of the deed restriction, I want to make sure that I am clear on what your position is. Mayor pro tem?
>>Garcia: when that house was put there, was that area inside the City?
>> yes, sir.
>>Garcia: it was? well, maybe we will annex that area later, but maybe not.
>> In 1978.
>>Garcia: if it was inside -- stuart? if this that land was inside the City limits, how does they get the permit to put that house on there?
>> the floodplain maps at that time showed it to be in the 100 year floodplain. As ms. Fishel indicates our building code does allow homes to be placed in the 100 year floodplain to be placed if they are elevated but not in the 25 year like the other properties in onion creek that changed in '93. So if the storage shed had been built a few years ago, we would have -- if the application had come in a few years ago when the maps were different, we would have permitted it.
>>Goodman: Mayor can I ask a question. The storage sheds that you go out and buy, they are prefab? huh? oh, yeah. Morgan.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. You wouldn't need a permit to buy one of those and put it on your lot, would you?
>> under the building code provisions governoring floodplain all construction -- all building construction in the floodplain requires building permits. So, yes, there is a general exemption up to -- up to 120 square feet, but there's a specific exemption based on our participation in the federal floodplain insurance program that requires all of those improvements to go through our permitting process. So if someone puts one of those small buildings out there, and we get a complaint, we take enforcement action.
>>Goodman: what was that you just said about the exemption.
>> The general exemption is up to 120 square feet you can put a shed or small outbuilding on a residential property. But the floodplain provisions of the building code specifically require all of those improvements to go through our permitting process. That's how we verify whether they are in compliance or not.
>>Goodman: okay, are you saying you could or could not put a 10 by 12 in the floodplain?
>> no. You could put it in the 100 year if you elevated it appropriately and built the right kind of foundation, but you couldn't put it in the 25 year, which is what she has on her lot.
>> The exemption applies for other pieces of property.
>>Mayor Watson: non-floodplain property. You then have an exemption.
>> But in this case, 25 years, she's not covered by the exemption.
>>Goodman: it does seem a little odd because you are sort of grandfathered if you were there before you became part of the 25 year floodplain yet this is not a huge increase of impervious cover yet you can't do a regular accessory home thing.
>>Mayor Watson: if I might following up on what she just said, let me make sure, it doesn't strike me as so much the impervious cover problem as it is whether or not from a health and safety standpoint we should grant a variance for a -- for something to be put on that in the 25 year floodplain in an area or on a piece of property where there's already something where people are living, we are talking about a storage shed. Am I wrong about what I am --
>> you are right, Mayor.
>>Mayor Watson: what it comes down to is this Council's determination about whether with perhaps proper cav I can't tells, warnings, -- caveats and statements of concern expressed deeply, whether or not it's willing to say go ahead and build a shed, but know that you are probably -- you have a high likelihood of having that shed flooded and damage done to that property but -- but it's your deal.
>> That's one of the issues, the other issue that we face is that literally the building can become a projectile. It literally in the 25 year floodplain floats downstream so it's not just the risks to possible damage on this property but the risk of that building going downstream and hitting other people and the issues associated with our emergency personnel trying to do rescue because people sometimes go back for their belongings.
>>Goodman: let me follow up one more then. I don't understand the 5.3 feet, the 10.1, but are you saying that she could build a shed if it were elevated and out of the floodplain?
>> no. Our agreement with fema, our particular agreement with fema says that she couldn't do that without a variance from you all.
>>Goodman: not even if it was attached.
>> Even if it was attached. Our particular agreement with fema says that we are prohibiting all construction in the 25 year floodplain unless the Council grants a variance. If this lot was just in the 100 year floodplain, like it was when she bought it, she could elevate it above those levels. But since it's not, it can't be done without a variance from the Council.
>>Lewis: let me ask you a question: do we have any determination on whether or not property goes into the 25 year floodplain?
>> we know that the last map --
>> who does the map?
>> fema does the maps.
>> We don't have any control over it?
>> you have to adopt the maps to remain in the federal floodplain insurance program.
>>Lewis: so if we don't adopt the maps, it's still in the 25 year floodplain as far as fema is concerned, but we just don't recognize it; is that what you are saying?
>> no, sir, what I am saying that is we have to abide by fema standards in the -- and the fema standards in Austin are the one that's the Council approved which require us to meet those standards and that means that we are supposed to be prohibitsing construction in the 25 year floodplain.
>>Lewis: I am saying the 25 year floodplain changes, right?
>> yes, it does.
>>Lewis: fema is the one that determines where the lines are, where the 25 year floodplain when they change it.
>> Yes, sir, they do.
>>Lewis: correct?
>> yes, sir.
>>Lewis: so if someone has a building in their own lot and it changes to 25 year floodplain, we don't go out and tell them they have to move it, correct?
>> no, sir, we don't.
>>Lewis: why is that? if it's a portable building it would still meet the same criteria which you said would endanger rescue people and become a projectile and all of that, why don't we have them move it?
>> because we have been specific -- a retrofit ordinance that allows us to do that. We haven't declared that as a danger of a commune as a community, that's not something the City has ever done in the past loses loose let me ask you this: what constitutes an improvement on the property?
>> it can be parking lot, a building, it can be a porch, anything that you physically construct on the land is an improvement. Sometimes it's paved parking and --.
>>Lewis: okay. But if you bring a box on to the property, is that improvement to the property?
>> if it's a structure, yes, sir.
>> But I am saying what constitutes a structure? what size? if I bring a 3020 by 20 crate on [inaudible] 20 by 20 crate, it not necessarily a structure, right?
>> a building code designs a structure as anything that's built up. A storage box is not considered a instructedture, but if you build something or place something out there that's considered a structure laws loose let's say I get a jeep.
>>Lewis: let's say I get a jeep and it comes in a box I take the jeep out of the box and I use the box for storage. Would that be considered a building?
>> it's not a structure, it's not an improvement under the building code.
>>Lewis: you know, I mean --
>> all right. Get you a box.
>>Mayor Watson: one man's box is another man's castle.
>>Lewis: in other words what I am saying is if I bring it on there and it's not considered a building, then I can use it.
>>Mayor Watson: we are clearly talking about -- she's not talking about a box.
>>Lewis: I am trying to get to the point we are talking about things that's going to be dangerous. If she's going to use it to store lawn mowers and that type of equipment, it's going to have to be put someplace and they --.
>>Mayor Watson: the point is not on this property.
>>Lewis: I have a problem with this changing -- I have a piece of property and all of a sudden I get a notice saying it's in the floodplain. Well, you know, I mean -- I am saying who is going to pay the flood insurance? somebody else put it in the flood pain it wasn't -- it hasn't flooded, what am I supposed to do?
>>Mayor Watson: this is a tough deal, the bottom line is if it comes down to it is in the 25 year floodplain, wave specific agreement with fema, and the recommendation to deny the variance because of different safety issues. It's that simple we can vet one way or another on that. It really is that simple when you are dealing with a building code situation.
>>Goodman: Mayor? maybe in the future if we have any options at all for some fine tuning, maybe we can look at this because there's a vast difference between appear shed to put your lawn mower in, I mean especially if we are talking about debris, it's okay for the lawn mower to get washed down and hit somebody without the shed? it's somehow much worse if it does? anyway, if somebody is grandfathered there must be some qualification we could get into.
>>Mayor Watson: any additional questions? motion has been made by the Mayor pro tem, second by Councilmember Slusher to close the public hearing? any discussion, hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Public hearing is closed. Take takes us to item no. 4 3. I will entertain a motion with regard to the substance of item no. 4 3. Mayor pro tem I move to deny it.
>>Mayor Watson: motion to deny the variance. Seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. How did you vote Councilmember Lewis?
>>Mayor Watson: I didn't hear you.
>>Lewis: I understand what the procedures are, so I will vote yes.
>>Mayor Watson: the vote is 7 --.
>>Lewis: I don't like it I tell you that.
>>Garcia: I don't like it either, we need to work with fema and other agencies to address this issue.
>>Lewis: it's one of those things that don't make sense.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much for understanding and you understand the position that we are in, we appreciate you being here, appreciate you waiting for as long as you did. Thank you. That takes us to item no. 40, Which is public hearing on the propose annexation of the motorola lease consolidation project site. Look whos here? [laughter].
>> This is the final public hearing slated for action on june the 4th. It's 450 acres of limited purpose, the owners have agreed to waive the requirement to convert to full purpose annexation after three years, the intention is to full purpose annex the area after five years. And limited purpose status. We have a planning study and regulatory report that has been available since publication of notice on april 25th. And basically that's -- that's an overview of the annexation.
>>Mayor Watson: questions of Mr. Parmer? there has been no one signed up to give public input on this annexation hearing. Motion has been made by the Mayor pro tem to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Slusher. Is there any discussion?
>>Garcia: when is the item going to be on the agenda for action?
>> it will be on your june 4th agenda. June 4th. No discussion on the motion to close the public hearing, I will all in favor, opposed say no., motion carries, close the public hearing, takes us to item no. 4 1. I welcome Mr. Hilgers.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate it. Mayor and Council, the public hearing this evening is on the proposed reprogramming of community development block grant program funds. We have given you a backup, we began this process back in early March by analyzing our budget, taking a look at what money would be available that needed to be used this year, we have given you a backup that outlines what the purpose of the reprogramming is, we've had a meeting of our community development commission to go over that, essentially the four major areas that we are focusing on are increasing our commitments to accessibility, and architectural -- through our architectural barrier removal program. We are taking 11th and 12th street revitalization money that has been earmarked for debt service and using that for activities that we believe will enhance that development. We are recommending a program with community policing with the Austin housing authority, and we are recommending that we use some funds additional funds top expand our home maintenance program to deal with that. That's the major categories that we are looking at. The cdc also made a recommendation to expand our commitment to youth services. So that will give you five Mayor.
>>Mayor Watson: actually it gave me six. But I have to be clear on what I am doing [laughter].
>> This is just a hearing tonight, you will have another hearing next week, the public has a chance to provide input to these -- how these programs are funded and what funds are made available to the community, any questions?
>>Mayor Watson: questions of Mr. Hilgers at this time?
>>Lewis: I have a question. These funds that reprogramming, will they be spent in a timely manner or is it for something that's projected?
>> yes, sir, they will be spent in a timely manner. The actual impact on the spending ratios about $400,000 of this money will definitely impact our spending ratios, the $300,000 that we have taken from debt service, we propose to take from debt service to spend on the central City entertainment center would be an immediate expenditure, the other funds actually would impact not only the spending ratio problem, but will allow us to spend them over the course of the time as particularly on 11 and he and 12th street redevelopment plan becomes finallize, some of those would actually be spent beyond the july 31st time frame. Also the architectural barrier removal program and home maintenance program would also allow for expenditures to expand those programs and those would also be monitored and be done on a timely basis.
>>Lewis: I see here we have a $200,000 for 11th and 12th street infrastructure. Wouldn't that premature to do the infrastructure before we do -- we do the master plan.
>> Let me explain that category for you, sir, that infrastructure is actually a loan to the drainage utility department to begin the process for architectural and engineering studies that will be done prior to the moving of a large storm water system. If we wait until that is approved through the bond issue in september, then it would be another six months to wait for that funding to go forward. So we have been requested by staff to make that funding available so we could expedite that process. And that is a storm water system that is proposed not only for the 11th and 12th street revitalization, but also for the skip two project that would allow for the proper drainage after we do those revitalization efforts, but it is also a loan and will be repaid back in next year's budget.
>>Lewis: okay. I am -- I need to -- we will have another public hearing.
>>Mayor Watson: yeah. This is though the an action item tonight.
>> Council will take action on june the 11th is when they are scheduled to come up again.
>>Mayor Watson: Mayor pro tem?
>>Garcia: I call on the -- this one, did we send out a request to anybody to -- or advertise in the paper about people sending in proposals?
>> no, sir, this is not like the reprogramming we did last year in that we were soliciting ideas for how to spend the money. Although we have gone to public hearings at the cdc, we've had more than one public hearing at cdc and we've had public input on how and proposed recommendations -- represented uses for these funds, it was not the way we solicited for them last year. But we have had public hearings appeared we've had proposals for people on how to spend the funds.
>>Garcia: are any of the proposals that were received by the cdc incorporated into reprogramming?
>> again what happens with the cdc is they recommend program categories, of course not specific programs to be funded. In that regard, what they did was they looked at our community policing proposal and reduced our recommendations by -- original recommendation of $100,000 down to $75,000 and recommended that we spend another $25,000 on our -- youth services, but their particular request and recommendation was for us to spend that money on our story program.
>>Garcia: the amount is 1-9 now instead of 1-5.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Because of the central city.
>> And additional $100,000 that we recommended that we spend from the ncnp program and bring that to the shawl minority business assistance effort. Small minority business.
>>Garcia: have we removed the freeze on ncnp?
>> yes, sir, we are getting ready to staff that program up and have it operational by june 1st again, yes, sir we have looked at reinstitute thank program after we have done some pretty thorough analysis of why we were where we were.
>> Okay. Xwaurs that's all that I have Mayor.
>>Mayor Watson: any additional questions of Mr. Hilgers at this time. We have 13 people that have signed up to speak. Let me call out your name, if you will come forward, jim hargrove.
>> I promised jim, I would tell you he was here earlier, he will be here next week to speak about the community policing program.
>> Nicole utzy. Welcome.
>> Good evening. Mayor, Councilmembers, I'm nicole, I think throughout time I have probably sent you all these green brochure for our center, I am the founder and executive director of our story, a non-profit youth organization, we do programs in East Austin, we serve a variety of children this a -- in different areas ortega, black sheer, norman, sims, maybe people wood, dobie, kealing, reagan, so we serve a voter of populations and for this particular reprogramming funding we are doing a collaboration with imagination and Dr. Walker teaches at maple wood. These cdc meeting on tuesday, the youth services category that you now see was a public services category of $12,000. The cdc at that time asked specifically for our story to receive the $12,000 and went back and asked to -- for the additional 25 to be added, so that $37,000 that you see was when I was there it was a specific request for our story to receive $37,000 in reprogramming funds and the cdc voted on that recommendation for the our story and image nation proposal that we -- imagination that we want to do to gear more with national efforts as well as state efforts to reprogram monies to help youth in k through 3 to that youth are reading and involved in science and technology by grade 3. So the special reprogramming money we are asking for is for arts, science, reading camps for our story and image neighbors and imagination and it was my understanding there was a specific recommendation because they went through the process and came up with the 37,000 and asked for it to be given to our story and this project.
>>Mayor Watson: [inaudible] we have a -- is hnovelle here. Rachel gonzales? rachel gonzales? Dr. Pauline walker? welcome Dr. Walker.
>> Thank you, Mayor and hello Councilmembers. My name is Pauline walker I teach at maple wood elementary school. And arsonic coal stated we are combining our two programs, which is imagination and our story and I am one of the founders of imagination. The reason imagination is offered to the young children in East Austin and any child who is interested in gaining hands on science activities before they enter middle school, especially kealing, our school is a feeder school into kealing and I found out that most of the children in East Austin are not taking advantage of the kealing science magnet school. So therefore I set up a hands on science lab for the children there. So that they would have an excellent background and a foundation so when they get to kealing they can participate in the science magnet school. We would like to have a program this summer in hands on science for young children and technology. We use technology along with the science activities, the children are taught how to use a computer, how to use their journals, make -- write journals on the computer, using the claire ris word program. Thank you. Claris word program. Thank you.
>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Dr. . Kathy morton eslanas. She wrote unfortunately I am unable to to stay and speak, I strongly suggest the amount of $37,000 is -- $37,000 is not sufficient having worked several years in adult literacy centers. I am well aware our youth if educated properly will not need to participate in adult literacy programs. Namely science -- I'm not sure. Programs assist our community in helping our youth. Please vote for item no. 4 1. She signed up representing our story/imagination. Kren craig wrote as a firm believer in after school programs, mentoring, arts and sciences can bring power and magic to the lives of young people, I believe this program should receive at least the stated $37 amount. I can't think of any investment that would net a greater return. Dan grantham? nancy grantham? kristine -- I believe it's graner? chris steer grainer? ann merryl. Indicated she did not wish to speak but is for. Mary anderson. Mary anderson. Was for. Terrameden and lee frasier did not wish to speak is for our story and image jaix. Imagination. Those are all of the people. Mayor pro tem moves to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The motion carries. Item no. 4 1 The public hearing is closed. There being no further, to come before the Austin City Council. At this regularly called meeting I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Made by Councilmember Griffith, seconded by Councilmember Goodman. No further discussion, all in favor say aye, opposed say no., the motion carries, we are adjourned. Mercifully.