Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 10/22/98

>>Goodman: let us start off. I apologize nor how long it's taken the Council to come out and start proclamations, but let us start with a very important and heart felt certificate of appreciation for walter high yatd. We do have friends here today that I would like to ask to come up here to the podium. Come on over here. There are of course a lot of legends no town and we are not always able to honor them with certificates of appreciation or other honors, but in this case a very well deserved certificate of appreciation will be read for walter hyatt. It reads: this is to certify that through his eloquent song craft, soul full voice, gentlemenly behavior and willingness to help other artists both emerging and established, as any good old uncle should, thereby inriching or musical heritage, walter hyatt as rendered valuable and distinguished service to the citizens of Austin, Texas and this certificate is issued in recognition of his birthday. And in appreciation for his many contributions to our community, dated this 22nd day of october, 1998 by the City Council of Austin, Texas and signed of course by our Mayor, Kirk Watson. And let us all show our appreciation. [Applause].

>> Well, we were all proud of walter. He was not only for his musical talents but just being a very fine human being. And on behalf of the hyatt family, I want to thank the City of Austin for recognizing him. Thank you. [Applause].

>>Goodman: and of course we wish walter were able to be here today. Our next proclamations are to offer -- flying honorary citizenship sz to the japanese state and local governmental dell nation and if they would join me, please.

>>Goodman: let me apologize in advance for how I may pronounce your names. What we have are honorary citizenships for the Japanese delegation, and I'm going to attempt to say your names correctly. I do apologize in advance. Mr. Masanoy Takuchi. Ms. Rico Rato. And Mr. Equi Nagamoni. For each of these three special people, we would like to say greetings in the name and by the authority of the City of Austin to all to whom these presents come, know ye on this day these three fine folks traffic policy division, planning and development department and the -- I know I'm going to miss this one, ishakawa are hereby commissioned for now and all time to come as honorary citizens of the City of Austin under the laws of this City with all rights, privileges and emoliments and shall enjoy a place of highest steam in the minds of the citizens in the capital of Texas and have been presented with this certificate of citizenship. We thank you very much for being in Austin and now that you are honorary citizens we hope you will be here often and enjoy our hospitality. Thank you. [Applause].

>> Thank you very much.

>> You have to say more than that. Come tell us what you have been doing.

>> Thank you so much. [Laughter].

>>Goodman: you are going to have to give the speech.

>> Thank you very much. I came here this -- last saturday. I enjoy this City, but three days -- four days rainy day. Today is first shiny day. I am glad and I want to go every place tomorrow. Thank you. [Applause]. [One moment please].

>> The small trees on the die whereas are for those who support re -leave week. Be it known by these presents, that I, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin, do hereby proclaim that today -- that april 24th, 1998 as re-leave week in Austin, calls on all citizens to join us in saying that trees contribute greatly to the ambience of Austin and this is the optimum time to plant trees in central Texas. And in recognizing tree folks as a local non-profit organization dedicated to the planting and care of trees, in recognizing the mission of tree folks, which is to promote community partnerships in the renewal, restoration and care of our urban forests through public tree plantings and education. In recognizing the thousands of individuals who have participated in tree folks sponsored tree plantings and educational programs and in inviting businesses, schools, governments, citizen groups and individuals to join us in creating a healthier environment and enhancing the quality of urban life. Everywhere that you go in Austin, these days, you will find evidence of the hard work of tree folks. One that comes to mind, of course, is stassney, from I-35 heading west. Without the help of tree folks, that's one median that would be bleak and totally unAustin-like. So on behalf of the folks who drive there every day and the many other places in town where improvements have been made, thanks to your work, let me say we do appreciate you very much. Thank you. [Applause]

>> thank you, Councilmember. And Councilmembers for this proclamation. My name is dennis brown, I am a board member of tree folks, a proud board member. I thank you on behalf of tree folkses and the hundreds of people that he takes to put on re-leaf every year. The trees who couldn't be with us today. I was able to persuade a new of our newest members to come up and participate in this proclamation. It's a good thing that the trees stayed out there on the job today. I think it is significant to point out some of the benefits of trees. The benefits they give Austin. During the sweltering times this summer when many of us were caught in traffic on streets across Austin, Austin energy was struggling to keep up with the demand. I wonder what the City would have been like without those trees, when the water distribution lines were straining to keep up with the demand for irrigation, I wonder what this town would have been like without the trees. On those days in which we had ozone action days, I wonder without the trees to sequester carbon, take care of greenhouse gases to some extent, what this City would have been like without trees. Even in the recent disastrous weather that we have had in central Texas, around the Austin area, the tons of soil that the trees held in place that could be washed out in agricultural areas where there were no trees, literally tons of topsoil were washed away. I wonder what this place would have been like without trees. So it's in times like this that we really use a venue like re-leaf week to celebrate trees and what they are all about. I would like to tell you what tree folks and re-leaf week is going to be like this week. We started on Monday, mother nature dealt us a blow.

We had plans to plant trees in several schools across Austin, smith elementary, alison elementary, Johnson high and travis high. Those will be planted, they will just be planted later at a more convenient time weather-wise for the students to participate with us in those plantings. We were going to plant a total of about 50 trees on those plantings. Tomorrow, friday, from noon to 1:00 p.m. At the corner of 6th and Congress, right there in front of star bucks, we are going to be giving away 400 seedlings like these up here, we invite you to come by, pick up one, find a place for it, plant it, make a contribution toward the City in that way. On saturday, october 24th from 9:00 until noon, we are going to be plant planting another 50 trees at the south Austin recreation center at south fifth and cumberland. We would invite everyone to come out and take part in that. And make it a community event as most of our tree plantings are. Councilmember Goodman alluded to stassney lane. She probably doesn't remember, but I remember standing on a median with her some 10 years as as we -- ago as we planted trees along stassney lane. I think that was one of our biggest planting events. We are really proud of that and what's occurred there. Tree folks didn't do that. Tree folks coordinatedded that. We helped with that. We are a facilitator. The thousands of volunteers that come out and help us do these things, we are pleased at that. I've had an opportunity over my tenure on the board in plantedding trees with I think many Councilmembers, many Mayors, I know Mayor Watson was at one of our tree plantings on Shoal creek. I had an opportunity to meet and plant tree with hem him. I would invite them, there won't be any ceremonial shovels with brassy handles, but it will be a better place for you being there, thank you very much. [Applause]

>>Goodman: is janet gallagher here somewhere and I am just not seeing her? she's not here? do you think she will come if we call? we will get her? okay. She works hard, she should be here for this.

>>Mayor Watson: representatives of the junior league here? come forward, folks. Sorry to keep you waiting. Good to see. A couple of things that I will say before we get to the certificate of appreciation. The Austin area garden Council has been awarded a $25,000 grant from the meadows foundation of dallas for the plant mobile, which is a classroom on wheels that brings hands on science and nature activities to area schools. This grant is in addition to $77,300 from the junior league of Austin, campbell industries inc. Donated expertise in painting the 24 foot vehicle with paint provided by plastics. Junior league members and garden club are participating in the interior design and plant mobile activities. This is one of those wonderful collaborative efforts in Austin, Texas, where we all gain and a lot of teachers now are eagerly awaiting the plant mobiles arrival at their doorsteps. In fact some teachers are saying that they don't have the budget for field trips or the time to put together this sort of program, but by having this classroom on wheels coming to them, it will put them in a situation where our kids will benefit and by that our entire City benefits. So one of the things we are going to do today is we are going to provide a certificate of appreciation. Let me read this. This is to certify that for their generous contributions toward bringing the plant mobile a mobile botany lab to Austinites of all ages, numerous other contributions to our community, the junior league of Austin has rendered valuable and distinguished services to the citizens of Austin, Texas, this certificate is issued in recognition thereof, dated this 22nd day of october, 1998, and it's signed on behalf of the entire City Council of Austin, by me, Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin, I want to thank you all very much, very, very much.

>> Thank you.

>> Step up and say a few words.

>> On behalf of the junior league, I am happy that we can provide the funds to the Austin area garden Council for such a great project. I want to introduce Dr. Molly ogerzolly the director of education for our Austin area garden Council.

>>Mayor Watson: please come up.

>> After she says a few word, she's much more knowledgeable than I am, we would invite you out to look out it. It's outside, it's very interesting, we would like all of you to have come out.

>> I want to thank you, introduce a few other people, Dr. Normal wagner the president of the garden Council, eileen fisher, our treasurer, and doug blatchey, you may know him of the blatchey butterfly trail down in the botanical gardens. We are all here. The truck is right outside. We wanted to invite you all, if it hasn't gotten too hot we have a number of catter pillars that can teach you about Mrurt flies, we are going to be teaching about the promotion of butterflies at all Austin area garden schools.

>> Thank you. [Applause]

>> this outfit, by the way, is what the pant mobile professors, volunteers who go out to the schools wear, it's not what I wear every day.

>>Mayor Watson: but very attractive.

>> Fully equipped. With butterfly --

>> what.

>> What a butterfly tongue looks like.

>> Well, I knew that. Monarch eggs, other things that the volunteers will show the area kids.

>>Mayor Watson: that's wonderful, thank you. You look great, thank you for being here. Now for a little bit of music. Erik moll is with us today, nourished by many years of activities as a singer song writer, cosmopolitan rambling man, musician, his voice takes you traveling through a charming, rootsy, blend of folk, country swing, blues and rock. He's performed in scandaniva, california, of course, Texas and has resided in Austin since '87. His songs have been featured on albums that went as high as double platinum. Now his scandanavian and fans will be able to hear him on his recently released album most of all, I am happy today to proclaim this as erik moll day in Austin. And I call on all citizens to join me in recognizing the many outstanding contributions by the local music community toward the development of Austin's social, economic and cultural diversity and in recognizing the dedicated efforts of artists which further Austin's status as the live music capital of the world, signed Kirk Watson, Mayor of the City of Austin. Folks erik moll. Thank you. [Applause]

>> thank you, hey, we did a sound check before today here. Did somebody turn it down? okay. Anyway, I'm very proud for this honor. I am proud to be part of the local community here. And I look for my name -- look for my name in the chronicle, around san antonio, Texas in general. I thought that I would play a song inspired by this last weekend of storms. ( (Music)
singing (Music)
(Music)
) [applause]

>> thank you. I play around town on a semi regular basis. I live out in the hill country, I'm playing tomorrow in san antonio and new braunfels on saturday and canyon lake on sunday and I play art's rib house about once a month here in town on south lamar. Kerrville folk festival sometimes. Anyway, thanks so much you all.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. [Applause] erik moll. We appreciate it.

>>Mayor Watson: before we start the Council meeting, I would ask that everyone please rise for a moment of silence, we've had a week where a lot of our friends and families and neighbors have suffered greatly as a result of the flooding that's occurred throughout central Texas. And not just in Austin, but throughout this region. And I would ask that everybody observe a moment of silence, just for the people that are suffering through this time. Nature thank you. At this time, I will call to order the Austin City Council for a regular meeting, it's thursday, october 22nd, 1998, we are meeting at the City Council chambers located at 307 west second street. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for regular meetings -- I am speaking slowly in hopes that I will see a fourth Councilmember. I see one coming. First item on the agenda is the approval of minutes for the regular meetings of october enand 8th 1998. I will entertain a motion to approve those minutes. Motion is made by Councilmember Garcia, is there a second? seconded by the Mayor pro tem. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no., motion carries with Councilmember Slusher and Councilmember Spelman off the dias. Next item is general citizens communication. I counted you as a yes vote on that.

>>Lewis: yeah.

>>Mayor Watson: the first person to speak is Gus pena, followed by dave schroeder, then Charles Waits, welcome Mr. Pena.

>>Pena: hello, Mr. Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: does anybody see any irony in the fact that my tree is the tallest and Councilmember Lewis's is the shortest.

>>Pena: you are privileged.

>>Mayor Watson: I think that I am going to have to made a trade here. [Inaudible].

>>Pena: you are an extremist. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, city Council members, first of all, I do echo your words, Mayor Watson, and our prayers to the people that were affected by the flood. It's all more important to remember that on the bond election on november the 3rd the people remember to vote especially for proposition number 5, which is funding to do repairs and purchase homes along onion creek and Williamson creek and do the necessary repairs to keep it from overflooding its banks. Impassing out a -- three sheets of information, one says indigent, lacking the necessities of life because of poverty, social injustices and indifferences. And then the health department has posted this informational sheet that says patients affected november the 2nd, 1998, payments will be expected before your clinic visit, but we will see as more patients being seen at brackenridge hospital will see the patients lose revenue and patients this will cause a fright flight of patients to brackenridge. Is this really the intent of the health clinics? change of procedure was mentioned by Mr. Lurery. Some are too ill to deal with the co-pay issue before they see the physician. Is this really proper? does this impact negatively the community and indigent people who see the physicians at the clinics? please very visit that Mr. Lurery and goggio. This payment plans states if you fail to make payments as agreed you cannot use clinic services until past due fees are received. Unacceptable, Mr. City Manager, Mayor and Councilmembers. It should be looked at again, thrown away, implement something better than you will not be able to use the facilities. Last item, Johnston high school and/or staying gaw elementary are having their cac meetings regarding the redrawing of the boundaries. It's very important people go to their particular campuses and dialogue on this issue and allow their input to be heard by the campus advisory Council's. Ortega is Monday, the 26th, at 6:00 at the cafeteria. Johnston, Monday, the 26th, 6:30 p.m. In the school cafeteria. Mayor Watson, I know you are not here, but you are probably hearing me, on behalf of the ortega community, thank you very much for the support that you gave to the pta over there, you and your wife and your family, god bless you all. We are indeed blessed to have a good Mayor and good Council. Again thank you all very much -- look into this clinic issue. Memorandum. It hurts. Thank you all very much.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Pena. David schroeder, followed by Charles Waits and then Robert l thomas.

>> It's dave slayedder. I have just spent five days translating with a delegation of mexican officials who are here about the sierra blanca dump siting. I am here with a with him sell request. I would like the City and I am sure a lot of us would like the City to look into buying a couple gigger counters and maybe a gross of docimeter for every fire station and police station in the City of Austin, because it looks like whether it's the andrews nuke dump site or the sierra blanca site or both, we may just end up being america's nuke dumping ground here in Texas. Other states made agreements, compacts to make their own so-called low level sites. They have fallen apart in the last year or two. Everybody has got their eyes on Texas. It's a criminal misnomer to call this stuff low level. Something that is deadly, let's see, it's -- it's four second exposure within 10 feet of some of this stuff is guaranteed agonizing death within a few days to two months. High level, but clouding around fuel rods is called low level. The control rod are called low level. The fuel rods go in once they are spent, fuel rods go into cooling pool and they are decaying into particles and the sludge from the bottom of these cooling pools is deadly. But it's called low level. The rosins from the filters is called low level. Every bit of this stuff, tonnage, barrels waiting to come to Texas by the thousands, is extremely deadly. Not as deadly as the highly irradiated pumps, piping, wiring, less radioactive are the thousands of tons of irradiated rebar, but it's the control rods and clouding and the filter rods, sludges that really concern me and I would like to see as a failure safe we do have hazmat, we have a good program of hazardous material response in Austin, but I think every place station and fire station should have a couple of geiger, counters, there should be training, they should be maintained and a box of personal dosimeters. Privatization of the automatic weapons labs, oak ridge, loss alamos will result probably, I want to say, in thousands of barrels coming through Texas on their way to probably the andrews nuke dump. And I thank you very much for this opportunity. Seeing the little chinkapin sweet acorn oaks does my heart good and hearing eric also was uplifting. Thank you.

>>Goodman: thank you, Charles waits.

>> I am charlie waits, thank you for allowing me to speak to you. I want to talk about discontinuance of the news conference that has been here for many years. I believe it was camille barnett who had the wisdom of allowing individual citizens to come to this dias, if they had something to say and communicate to the people of Austin. This was played live and then at a set time during the weekend it was replayed. And if someone wanted an extra tape to play through the act channels, that was allowed. -- Access channels, that was allowed. Seems like, as I recall, a little bit before the last school bond election that was discontinued. Then it was brought back where you could just talk 20 minutes and it went out live, I guess on wednesday morning, between 11:00 and 1:00. Very few people watched at that time and it was -- it was not repeated. So anyone that had sense enough to get out of the rain knew that it was senseless to try to communicate through such a medium and it kind of died out. I really believe that that's an excellent way to communicate. It also has some other things. It brings into play, I think there are a lot of citizens out there that have defined and offered to -- solutions to problems that do exist in the city. Another thing if you say two plus two is 10, times 10 is 100, anything that you do beyond the acceptance of the untruth, two plus two is 10 creates an explosion of untruth. And I think the citizens of Austin, if they could speak, would help you and make it more difficult to make some of the mistakes that are made. And I -- I really believe you would do yourself a service if you would allow the people to speak. One such thing, as I am clear, I am clear that the citizens of Austin do not understand the new bond election. We are asked -- we are asked to put liens against our homes for $700 million for 40 years. That's a long time and that's a lot of money. Folks, I don't believe -- I don't believe -- we can't speak to it. They have cut out the -- they have cut out the talk shows, the -- (buzzer sounding).

>> The -- newspaper is not -- there's no way to speak. There's no way to be heard.

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

>> Thank you, Mayor.

>> Mr. Thomas?

>>Goodman: Mayor, one issue that Mr. Waits brought up and I received a note from financial services which oversees Channel 6 is that they reprogramed air time in order to film more boards and commissions. Which also were considered citizen input.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mayor pro tem. Mr. Thomas.

>> Thank you, Mayor Watson, Mayor pro tem, members of the Council. I am honored to speak to you concerning the rosewood park and recreation center. I am Robert l. Thomas of the building and construction trade department of the laborers international union of north america. Texas AFL-CIO and the national football league, world football leagues and american football association. I am the advisory Council from the international rosewood revitalization project stemming from the renovation of 1987 administrative office building and the up and coming central City entertainment center. In the last meeting I had spoke of the termination of athletes in the parks and recreation department. The reason is very clear. At rosewood, there's need for advancement and culture. We need to address the time of -- of the existence of the present management what need to be done to try to bring some type of fairness within labor relations when negotiating with the parks and recreation department. The present management has been there about 14 years. In the span that I have known them that they have worked there, the facility has been torn down, it has been dilapidated, reneedal, we had to organize -- remedial, we had to organize land development. Our efforts to advance the facility has lasted for 20 years. In that span we have not been giving jobs to athletes. We came to the facilities with much better skills than what has been established for what they are doing now. Now, I say with the development of the central city entertainment center that we should have the job as site management of the facility at rosewood. Another job I want to discuss is directorship of the parks ruled by Jesus oliverez which is very corrupt. I have called his office many times, he doesn't return my calls. It's getting about time that we should discuss our achievements at rosewood, what we have done in the span of about 11 years, he wouldn't bring a construction review before us. So I -- I had to -- in the last meeting, I asked Jesus Garza to talk with him in revising the management, because we needed a chance to compete in sports there. Did you ever get around to doing it? you spoke to him? I called him, he didn't return my calls. So what I do is -- I don't know what to do now. I mean, what should we do in a case like this? [inaudible].

>> I will call down there and again and see if we can get with him, what he can do about it.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Thomas, richard knowlton, followed by mary Aleshire.

>> I am richard knowlton, a citizen of Austin for 25 years, a member of the Austin fire department for 20 years, several years as a vice-president of the firefighters association and am currently a vice-president. I will soon be giving up on that job to go after other pursuits, it will enable me to be even more forthcoming at these meetings than I have been already this year. I am not particularly pleased to be here today because I have gotten no answers to my satisfaction over the past year. And it stems from going back to the annexation hearings of last year. And my basic curiosity is who up there on the dias has been lying to the citizens of Austin? we were promised verbally and in writing over and over again the -- that existing public safety levels would not suffer, with the annexations which increased the size of the City by 5%. That's in addition to the City growing already by leaps and bound. We were told over and over and over again that the existing public safety levels of the city of Austin would not suffer and that is contrary to what has happened to the fire department. You opened up a new station the first of the year. Closed an existing first response unit. You took three lieutenants away from staff positions. Two from prevention, one from training. I bumped into a captain from fire prevention earlier, told him what I was talking about today and he said, yeah, we have got to take guys from the hazmat division to cover our positions. You took firefighters from units all over the City, already depleting their manpower. You opened up another station just a few months ago, took the truck company from northEast Austin, out of service to staff that new station and I just have great curiosity on -- on how you can say that the public safety of the fire department has not suffered in the past year. You have a bigger City, more traffic. Less units responding, less people responding. Did the Council lie to us? in fact during those annexation hearings as the City Manager and staff making a liar out of them, I just don't understand. Garza Garza garry warren is here if the Council would like a brief explanation in terms of how we have done the deployments and how the information that you provided to the community is not -- is inaccurate and the belief of Mr. Knowlton is simply not on mark.

>> I would like to point out not only has the City grown, but they have increased the service area with the contract to sunset valley. I don't know what to say. I know redeployment plans were already in place when the annexations were done, but the city gets bigger, I think you should scrap those redeployment plans. Because that means stripping resources not merely moving people from one resource to another.

>>Mayor Watson: what I would ask, instead of getting into a debate during general citizens communications is that you provide us with information in response to that, chief. And we may at a later date schedule an opportunity for you to come and make a presentation with regard to that. Mary Aleshire. Mary Aleshire. Ms. Aleshire in. Joseph chalko-bush. Followed by jimmy castro.

>> Howdy. And greetings honorable Mayor. Even though I know you are not here, only because the other fellow said so.

>>Mayor Watson: I am sitting right here.

>> You are here.

>>Mayor Watson: yeah, I am here.

>> Okay. I couldn't see you. Honorable Council men and Council women, before I begin, I would like to ask you, honorable Mayor, a reasonable request. In a friendly non-adversarial way, but I have to call on the provisions of the americans with disabilities act to make a reasonable request and that request is that since I can't see the lights that indicate my time, could someone give me a demonstration of them, please, if they are out in front of me.

>>Mayor Watson: they are down -- if you look to your right, I tell you what, hang on.

>> Could we substitute a noise.

>> You will hear a little beeper, a little buzz that will go off.

>> Oh, right here.

>>Mayor Watson: yeah.

>> There's a light on now.

>>Mayor Watson: a green light says talk, at one minute a yellow light that says sum up, when your time is up, a red light will come on, say stop. There will be a buzzer and I will help you out if you don't hear the buzzer.

>> All right. I got used to the buzzer. Okay, thanks a lot. Excuse the distraction. But why excuse it.

>>Mayor Watson: happy to help you.

>> That's part of what the americans with disabilities act is all about. Thanks a lot. All that I have is an invitation again. And this one has already been in the works to get to you in Written form, but I always like to eyeball to eyeball, face-to-face, so let's see, I have got to keep an eye on this light. I am going to read it. It says to each City Councilman/woman. You are herein invited to speak for up to 10 whole minutes, that ought to get some of your attention, on -- [laughter] -- november 11th, 1998, beginning at sundown and in parentheses it says -- hold on -- oh, that november 11th is the true authentic, original veteran's day. Where? at the gold star mother's monument, 11th street and Colorado. And just so nobody confuses it, that's the one with the soldier overlooking the capitol and this invitation begins from -- from sundown until taps, that's 11:00 p.m. You all, I am going to quit reading it because it did takes too long, I can't see it well anyway. But if you decide to speak, you have to confine your subject matter to the theme of the words that are Written on the monument. And those words are, if anybody hasn't been up there in a long time: "greater love hath no man than this ...".

>> Buzzer sounds.

>> Thank you very much for being here. Jimmy castro, followed by michael bonds.

>> Good evening, Mayor Watson, Mayor pro tem Goodman, I am jimmy castro, here to speak on my own behalf, I have also served as a former board member of the middle wood. I am here to encourage everyone to take the time to vote for the entire City of Austin bond package this tuesday, november the 3rd. From the earliest days of our country, pioneer families extended a helping hand to help their neighbors. They did so without expecting compensation or recognition. They knew that helping their neighbors ultimately would help them. This is what the City of Austin bond election is all about. This is what the Austin community is all about. When it comes to the mexican american cultural center and the george washington carver museum, it can be simply stated, it's time. When it comes to diversity, it doesn't matter if you are german american, african american or Mexican American. It doesn't matter what color of your hair, what color of eyes you have or even what color is out here. The most important factor of all is what is in here. This is the most important factor of all. When the millwood neighborhood association walked door to door during the 1992 bond election, it was for all the libraries or none at all. So all of our children can read, learn and dream because a City with dreams is a City with a future. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Castro, michael bonds. Followed by Dr. Faye.

>> Hi, Council, sorry to be up here again to come back to you on another issue that keeps coming up, we've had another cyclist killed in this City, we also have ronnie earle not acting on this. This is the 6th like kel list, six -- cyclist, six dead people, five of these people had alcohol or drugs a factor in the deaths. This is not just an Austin problem, all over the state. In 20 years, there has been two people prosecuted for killing a bicyclist, under intoxication manslaughter. None under manslaughter. A pretty bad group of numbers, particularly for Austin with a bike population of about 20,000, this is unacceptable. One of the statements in the paper, a young lady at the protest said that they were angry because they believed drivers have not been prosecuted often enough for fatal collisions involving bicyclists. Well, they haven't been prosecuted at all. I sent an e-mail talking to the Council and asking about policy, the woman at this particular accident ran a red light and killed someone. That's reckless. I don't know where we can go with that. Two years ago when thomas churchill was killed, the man that hit him hit him from the rear. That is a lack of observation, he had a .07 -- .07 blood alcohol. This person ran a red like, this is lack of observation, she was only given a field sobriety test. The state of Texas says that you will be given a blood alcohol test. It is up to the officer's discretion and since I have been talking to you all about getting a civilian review board, you know how I feel about A.P.D.'s ability to have discretion. It's very poor. Like I said, the same circumstances, one man had a blood alcohol test, this one didn't. Seemingly the people that would would be involved would also want this because it would clear them if it went to court. In these cases where someone could end up in prison, I invite the City Council to make this a mandatory policy for people if there's a traffic accident where someone dies, get blood alcohol that is a scientific and objective test. It can be repeated and duplicated. The field tests cannot. It is too subjective on the person being tested as well as the skill of the officer. This is just not acceptable. It wouldn't instant up in the court. I think the Mayor, as an attorney, you would probably want to know specific facts like that, it's helpful. The other thing that I would like to know is if you could somehow get ronnie earl to come out of his fiefdom and deal with this. A transcend was killed, hit a police car, the police were going to charge him because he was legally drunk. To date that has not gun gone to the grand jury. Why is that the case? if I can talk you all into riding a bicycle and I run over you, I can get away with murder in this City. Has conradt knee given you a response to any of your questions yet, bill?

>>Spelman: he has been telling me in response to the question that you asked me about, the bicyclist who was killed when the motorist ran through a red light, that the investigating officer is completing a investigation now and ronnie earle will be taking action after he's actually received the investigating officer's report.

>> This morning I lucked out and got that one officer and it was determined that they are still trying to do calculations and I withheld the idea to ask him if they were using an abacus. But Council please check into, this it's happening too often without anything occurring to help us. Thank you, again.

>>Mayor Watson: Dr. Faye.

>> Good afternoon, Mayor Watson and Councilmembers. I am Dr. Faye, entimologist, pest control business in the east side of Austin, the only one. I hope that you have the time to review the information that I put in the mail for you or I hand deliver it regarding roach and their -- their asthma incidents, especially in low income housings. Cockroaches are the second potential health risk to children after lead poisoning from painting. In the u.s. Alone, 15 million americans suffer from asthma. Among them five million children, 78% african american and 16% hispanics, up to 80% of them are exposed to asthma condition before the age of five years. From 1980 to 1993, asthma incidents increase the 118% in americans under 25 years of age. Study from several institutes show that roaches are to blame for the soaring asthma among inner City children. Roaches contribute more to asthma than any other factors. Expose allergy kill childrened, hospitalized 3.3 times more often than allergic and exposed to one. 1500 And more kids from seven cities, half of them had high level of roach [inaudible] in their bedroom, over 37% were allergic to roach, 35% to dust mite, 23 to cats. We have more than five species of roach, among them the german roach that is the one to really blame for all of this. Asthma trigger result from the air borne dead roach's particle, feeses, salivary see creations. One smear of degrees on the stove, a tiny little one can feed and sustain 50 roaches up to one month. I just was right there yesterday on -- east riverside, it was like rain, the roach dripping. Kids living in these conditions, not because they are filthy, because they cannot afford to pay for this. I am just in this business, I also need to do something. Something need to be done. It's just like treating for cancer, for aids. If you have kids crippled early in their age because of simple thing that can be managed, things need to be done, this is what I propose: (buzzer sounds.

>> Hopefully we have time to --.

>>Mayor Watson:.

>> We will look at what you have made available to us.

>>Slusher: can I ask the gentleman to briefly detail what that proposal is.

>> Thank you very much. My company will focus and provide, you know, at least this program. I think household sharing of roach control coasts should be met according to income level. The City funding to personally support a larger program like what they have in food stamp, wic program, all of those roach program or pest control programs should be vouchered. Identification of pest control companies willing to participate in the program at the most being h.u.b. Certified and provide a discount right for their service at the same time dealing with top quality pest control performance with respect to integrated pest management and reduced impact. And also any of these companies should be willing and obliged to prepare a progress report to City or whoever is endorsing or funding partially this program. I strongly believe this program should be seriously considered and accepted. I am committed to pioneer the project and to prove its efficacy against this low income that [inaudible] children's health. I have requested in my correspondence to you an opportunity to discuss the issue personally. And this is one of the newsletters that I would like to give everyone, if you have any questions please --.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you very much, Dr. Faye.

>>Lewis: Dr. Faye, do we have any county-wide or City-wide documentation on treatments at brackenridge or at the clinics for this?

>> well, I call several doctors in health department. Some are really interested in the issue, but they did not have anything pertaining to roach being case, I went to the internet and some other colleague that I had talked to, and who are in the roach business research, that's all these are cited and can be retrieved from the asthma centers. Around the u.s.

>>Lewis: all right, thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Dr. Faye. Neck item will be our squad. Let me read first the -- our consent agenda, let me read the items that have been pulled and see if there are any items that can be put back on the consent agenda. 13 A, 13 b, tell you what, folks, before I do that, let me run through the changes and corrections. Item no. 12 Is approve a contract with Austin filter systems, it should read funding was included in the 1997-you 8 capital budget of the watershed protection department. 7.9% M.b.e.. Item 17, approve a contract with rocal for purchase of yield signs is pulled, item 17 is pulled. Item no. 20, Approve a contract with konogo north american for installation of a security City at 19 branch libraries should read 6,675. 22, Approve a contract with pebsco fiduciary libt insurance coverage should read $8,400. 23, Approve a resolution authorizing amendments to the city of Austin's investment policy is pulled. Pending review by the audit and finance committee. 31, Approve a contract with Austin filter systems, inc., should read 37.2 w.b.e. Subcontractor participation. Item 3 2, approve first reading of an ordinance grantsing a franchise to link star is pulled. 33 Approve an agreement with metcalf and eddie should read 20% w.b.e. Subcontractors participation. Item no. 42, Set a public hearing on approvalling the proposed urban renewal plan should read suggested date and time december 3, 1998. At 7:00 p.m. 47 Through -- and 48, public hearing and action on issuance by abia of airport facilities revenue bonds should read $8,500,000.

>>Garcia: Mayor?

>> the backup also makes a change, that's -- those are the -- those are the tax free bonds. Then they have another in the backup of item 47. They have another item that changes the taxable portion from 250 to 375. Well, let's.

>>Mayor Watson: let's make a note of that so when that is called up, Mr. Brothers if you will make a note of that so we can address that.

>>Garcia: 48 does -- is not consistent with that, 48 has 8 and a half million and 250,000. I don't know whether that's a reason for that. We can talk about that when that item comes up.

>>Mayor Watson: items 57 through 60 are postponed until november 5th, 1998. 66 Is postponed to november 5th, 1998. 86 And 90, public hearing and action on a conditional use permit for slick willie's has been withdrawn by the applicant. 87 And 91, public hearing and action on alcoholic beverage waiver for west minister church is postponed to december 10th, 199 at 6:00 p.m. The tells pulped for discussion, 13 a -- pulled for discussion, 13 a, 13 b, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, item 36 is set for a time certain, 37 is set for a time certain as is 38, item 40 is pulled, item 4 1 is pulled for a time certain.

>>Garcia: that was pulled by Councilmember Spelman.

>>Spelman: we can put 41 back on.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Item no. 41 Will be back on the consent agenda.

>>Spelman: Councilmember Garcia will have a problem with the time certain?

>>Garcia: no problem.

>>Mayor Watson: 43 through 46 are set for a time certain. 47 And 48 for a time certain. Item no. 49 Has been pulled.

>>Lewis: you can put 49 back on, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. 101 Has been pulled and set for a time certain. Okay. Are there any other -- Councilmember Lewis, did you say something? Councilmember Spelman.

>> I am masquerading at Councilmember Lewis in my spare time.

>> It's either Councilmember Lewis or.

>>Spelman:.

>> I am trying to be all things to all people. I would like to pull items 53 and 55. I think we can combine the discussion of those two seems and come up with a synergy and proposal that will work better with the two of them than either of them separately.

>>Mayor Watson: okay.

>>Garcia: Mayor, 46 can go back on the consent agenda. It's time certain, but --.

>>Mayor Watson: I got you. Okay. Any other items that can be put back on the consent agenda? Councilmember Slusher?

>>Slusher: 13 a, and 33. Anything else?

>>.

>>Slusher: is 66 on for a two week postponement?

>>Mayor Watson: 66 is postponed until then. All right the consent agenda will be: 12, 13 a, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 39, 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, I will enobtain a motion.

>>Spelman: move approval.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made to approve by Councilmember Spelman, is there a second? seconded give Councilmember Garcia. A couple of people have signed up to speak. Let me call them up. On item no. 39, Mr. Jd porter. Followed by Mr. Bob livingston on item no. 65.

>> Thank you, I just wanted to indicate swac's support for that, provide any information that the Councilmembers may wish to have, available as a resource.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you, Mr. Port he. Mr. Livingston. He will be speaking on item no. 65. He will be followed by wayne gathright on 65.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council, I am bob livingston, chair of the Austin music commission. And we are trying to jump start the music industry loan program again. I know it's on consent. I think that you are going to look at it in the next 45 days, we would really very much like you to reimplement this program. It was a program began 10 years ago, loans to musicians and music-related firms, 100% pay back, 100% success, begin some of the most successful music related businesses here in Austin, the Austin rehearsal complex, rock and roll rentals, ray bentsen's bizmo studios, music lane recording, river City rehearsal, the last recipient was Austin City limits, I believe that's one of the reasons in a the loan program is no longer in existence because quite a bit of money was given to Austin City limits, I think something like $50,000. We want you to please look into the feasibility of this. I am going to read this really quick. The original intent of the music industry loan program is designed to expand and retain employment opportunities in Austin by providing financing for expanding music related firms that are critical to the growth and retention of music related businesses in Austin. The purpose of this program is to maximize the amount of music related activities, investment and employment in Austin. This is the live music capitol of the world. And appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Mr. Gathright do you need to speak or be shown in favor?

>> here's not here. Wayne nation gel also signed up to speak in favor of item no. 65. All right. Dawn harvey also signed up to speak on item 65. Do you wish to speak, Mr. Harvey?

>> yes, sir.

>>Mayor Watson: please come forward.

>> Mr. Mayor, City Council people. I would like to just tell you about how much the music industry loan program helped my business. In late 1989, my partner wayne nation gel and myself had a plan for -- nagle had a plan for a rehearsal complex modeled after complexes that my partner and I both worked in cities like l.a. And new york we wanted there to be a rehears sal facility here in Austin that was up to the high standards of other cities. We had a business plan that we took around to banks and we shopped around for loans and we didn't have any success. We learned that the City -- that the music commission had a music industry loan program that they were going to try and get passed by the City Council. And get funded. And I believe it was the economic development department at that time that was running it. We came down, it was almost -- I guess it was about nine years ago now that we came down and talked to Council about how important we thought it would be for our business. It turned out to be critical. We wouldn't have gotten started without it. Bankers that -- that may not have loaned us the money because their exposure was limited by the City, a portion of funding, weren't interested in helping us out. Our bank, the bank that loaned us the money, bank of the hills back in late 199 then went under and I think we've had nine banks since, but we are still in business. 1989. So I think that kind of makes the point. Our clientele goes anywhere from bands that you have never heard of that you -- that may be household names in five years to current household names. We've had internationally known performers like dolly part ton and natalie merchant, 10,000 maniacs as well as well known locals, jerry jeff walker, asleep at the wheel, joe he'll lee, eian moore. Joe ely. We work with these bands as tour manager and myself as a drummer. Anyway, just suffice to say it got us off the ground, got us going. I am hoping it gets reinstated to help future music businesses, thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Those are all of the people that have signed up to speak on the consent agenda. Motion made and seconded to approve the consent agenda as read. Is there any discussion?

>>Garcia: I would like to go ahead and put item no. 40 Back on the consent agenda. If I may.

>>Mayor Watson: item no. 40.

>>Garcia: I don't know if there's anybody here to speak on that item.

>>Mayor Watson: let me check. No, City Councilmember Lewis you made the motion to approve the consent agenda. Would you consider that a friendly amendment.

>>Spelman: I do, but only if I can be shown an obtaining on item 40 only.

>>Garcia: actually you probably shouldn't make the motion because are abstaining.

>>Mayor Watson: let's go ahead and pull it, I will before it up right after we do the consent agenda. That way you can abstain, clear abstention. Any other discussion?

>>Garcia: one other point, Mayor. On item no. 12, I don't know whether Mr. Heights is here, but this is money being spent to do erosion control on little walnut. The backup information says that we have about 1.1 million left over in this particular fund. I don't know if any of this money is to do detention. One of the things we said when they did this was that we would build the detention facilities before we do the -- my question question is have we doing -- finished doing detention facilities or is it bank restoration on this one?

>> Councilmember to answer your question, from the bond issue this past summer, we have one pond that we want to do on walnut creek, not little walnut, so we have not started construction on that.

>>Garcia: 12 is little walnut creek.

>> Some detention done in some of the areas, we have the will velocities at a slow enough rate it will not be destroyed because of later storm events.

>>Garcia: that's all of the questions that I have. Councilmember Lewis I have a question. Now, let me ask you a question. If you are going to do erosion, how far -- I know we bought out some property on little walnut creek.

>> That's correct.

>>Lewis: how far are you going to do.

>> We have broken down into different areas, where the most specific erosion is occurring. I can get you maps to show you those areas.

>>Lewis: from the looks of this, it looks like you will start at the headwaters, right.

>> That's correct.

>>Lewis: thinking about the fact that we are going to fix it at the head waters it's going to cause more erosion further down you go, right? am I correct in that?

>> no, not necessarily. According to different elevations that we have, different ways of different reaches, the way that they are -- the way they curve, and which natural areas they take, some areas are -- we have a swifter current than we do in others, so when we are going back, we are going to be armoring and protecting those areas, going back and eating into other people's property. So we will be protecting those. But overall, in the overall plan, these are the ones that have been identified for the solutions to be done first, then we will go back with the other items. These are the worst areas, we are not doing something. We are going to have to come back layer and do.

>>Lewis: what I am saying is, if I am correct, the area between 183 and 290, well, not 183. I guess it's -- yeah. 13 And 290 is some of the worst erosion along the creek, along the little walnut creek. If we are going to make some do erosion improvements north of that, wouldn't it increase the erosion problems?

>> no, not necessarily. Again before where we are eating into the property, we are trying to protect those areas, but that does not make it faster on the lower areas. It would not have an impact on that. It's the ponds that we put in that slow down the rate of the velocity within the streams themselves. The erosion doesn't change that. If we are do you know channelization, that's when you get the quicker stream flow because that way we are moving the conveyance faster down the extreme. It stops from the buildup behind that area. -- Down the stream. These are erosion controls, not channelization.

>>Lewis: all right.

>>Mayor Watson: are we going to pull this?

>>Garcia: no, one final question. This is it. This was posted before the saturday flood. Have we had any reports on little walnut?

>> I don't have -- I haven't gotten the report back on that. Staff is going back, we are going to all of the different areas where we had flooding, putting that report in place, I don't have anything on that Councilmember.

>>Garcia: my recommendation is that you consider postponing some of this project -- some of these projects if in essence you noticed anything that may have come out in the saturday flood.

>> Yeah, if we have new information that we hadn't planned on, we will do that.

>>Garcia: thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: [inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: oh, okay. All right. Is there any further discussion on the consent agenda? mercyfully hearing none -- I'm sorry, Councilmember Lewis.

>>Lewis: [inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: on the consent agenda?

>>Lewis: I will do it after.

>>Mayor Watson: is it an item that we are getting ready to pass?

>>Lewis: no, it's one that I wanted to put back on.

>>Mayor Watson: all those in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. That passes the consent agenda. Item no. 40, I will recognize Councilmember Garcia for a motion.

>>Garcia: move approval.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made by Councilmember Garcia to approve item no. 40, Is there a second? seconded by the Mayor pro tem. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. With Councilmember Spelman being shown abstaining. Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: [inaudible]. Nature motion made by Councilmember Lewis to approve item no. 25, Which he had pulled from the consent agenda. Is there any second? seconded by Councilmember Garcia. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye., opposed say no. Motion carries on item no. 25. Hang on one second, let me get through all of this. That will take us to item 101, I will recognize Councilmember Lewis.

>>Lewis: [inaudible].

>> Put your mike on, please.

>>Mayor Watson: I number of people have signed up to speak. If -- I guess if there's no need to have 15 minutes of speaking, based upon what it is you might want to say, we could save that time. Would you like to lay out what your thoughts are?

>>Lewis: [inaudible].

>>Garcia: put your mike on, please.

>>Lewis: oh, right, thank you. My thoughts on this is after talking to a number of other Councilmembers, that -- about it is that the matrix itself is something that we need to be concerned with and be about changing to some degree. Because reading the -- the evaluation criteria, what we have done with this contract, it don't meet the meaning of what is intended to be done with the matrix and the -- especially at points on the previous coa work. I plan to bring back to the Council a resolution to direct the City Manager to do a change on -- to do some changes on this. At that time I will have some -- some suggestions on varying the number of points, depending on the number of years, because it states it in the matrix at the present time but it's not so much number of years as it is dollar amount. Consideration of item 11. It goes from zero points to six points, but -- and the year starts in item 10, it starts from 1 points through 6 points, from zero to one year and 8 or more years. But we use the term of five years to give six points. So it's a conflict there. Are of what the matrix says and what we are doing in the -- what the matrix itself say and what the evaluation sheet shows in this present instance. If I understand from staff, we had a contract and I have some numbers that paige patterson had a contract that was -- page souther land and page had a contract that was approved for 5.5 million, and then another extension, I guess, for 4 million in 95, 1.5 million in '97 and another 2.7 million in 97. So question is at what point or at what point could one of these extensions or -- rebid it. If so, why can't we change the contractual date? because I know that the contract was changed and another one signed for the amount of money that is indicated because it had to come to Council for approval. Mr. Riggs said last week that the idea of the matrix is to spread the work around and from this -- from what I see here the matrix, we had a problem following the matrix and we had a problem in awarding the points per item no. 10. So -- but I will be bringing back a recommended change to the Council to direct the City manager to change this matrix.

>>Mayor Watson: as I understand it, Councilmember Lewis, with regard to item 101, what you are -- what you have indicate dwlourd discussion is that there will be a time when you will bring forward a proposed resolution, with regard to the specifics of item no. 101, Can I take that to be a motion to deny item 101 and so we deal with the specific item since what the Council did was approved a selection at a previous Council meeting, this would -- this as posted would call for a rescission, but I hear you saying that you want to evaluate it to make sure that it works in the future.

>>Lewis: well, my motion would be to pull this item from the agenda.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Which would put us in a position where the previous selection would remain intact. The motion has been made to pull item 101. Seconded by Councilmember Spelman. We have some people that have signed up to speak on 101. If they feel there's a necessity to speak on this item, let me call out their name. Jud markart. David powell here? all right. Markart you will have up to six minutes if you wish to use it

>> thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I am jud markart, partner of lmn architects and partner in charge of a team of consultants that submitted on the design services for the expansion of the convention center. Virtually all of our sub consultants are from Austin. In fact up to 65% of the total work on our team would be executed by Austin people. So this is not an issue of something related to local versus outsiders. I speak for our entire team in saying that the selection action of two weeks ago is a miscarriage of the process. Last week I forwarded to each of you a letter that outlined our position in this matter. Recapping that information, some of which Councilmember Lewis just shared with you, psp was ranked less than one point above lmn in a selection process that awarded up to a total of 125 points in 12 categories including interview. Lmn ranked equal to or superior to psp in 8 out of the 12 categories. We have no quarrel with any issue except this one issue of prior work. This category is such that the less work that you have done for the City the more points you get up to a total of six. There is, of course, the five year reporting period, the graphic that you have in front of you illustrates that issue. I am going to pass this down. There is the issue of whether or not amendments do in fact apply to a contract that was awarded before the five year period. This administrative policy exists -- exists despite the take account that the selection criteria, number 11, says that "the date of Council action is the measure of when that material ought to be consider the." this is only logical because particularly in large amendment amounts such as these are those monies aren't even identified or in hand at the time of the original contract. In this category, psp and lmn were both awarded the mac of 6 points, which is to suggest that there it's no discernable difference between lmn's past work record with the City and psp. Just so there's no misunderstanding about this, lmn has never done any work for the City of Austin ever. Contrast this with the record that you see in front of you. On the left-hand side of that chart is total value in millions of dollars, on the right-hand side of the chart are the threshold numbers of points to be awarded. Across the bottom of the years. Marked is the five year window within which you should report. Notwithstanding the fact that 5.5 million doesn't have to be identified because of a technical shift in the due date of the submittal. 8.2 Million dollars has been awarded inside the five year period. What's wrong with that picture? it matters not that past precedent seems to justify this procedure. It matters not that this has not past. I suspect it is the case that local consultants are reluctant to challenge a process in which they may well be subject to retribution by the very process in which they must participate. Our legal Council has looked at this question and would welcome the opportunity to formally challenge the interpretation or implementation of this criteria. You might ask in a larger scheme of things why does this matter, does it really matter to the City of Austin, does it really matter to you the Council? there is evidence to suggest that you are not receiving the rich mix of talent submitting for the work that you are asking to be done in Austin. And that exists both for local consultants as well as national consultants. That there isn't the full array of talent that you should be able to being from. Let me give you an example of this. When I leave here, I will go to san diego and speak this weekend on a conference on the planning and design of Convention Centers. I will be on a panel of four architects, each of which has been chosen from nationally recognized firms in this

Due to technical difficulties a portion of the closed caption broadcast was not captured

>>Lewis: all right. That's all I have.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion on items 36, 37, 38?

>>Goodman: yes. I wanted to get a good feel for what enter the premises means. That seems pretty broad. And also the item that Councilmember Lewis was speaking of, it's possible that I think better language can make that a little more civilized, like if we say something like City of Austin is to be notified if there is any change in reporting entity or something like that, point of reporting.

>> Are you talking about 123174?

>>Goodman: I'll look to our legal?

>>Mayor Watson: don't look to me to do it.

>> Can you repeat the language that you were suggesting?

>>Goodman: that the City of Austin be notified if there is a change in reporting entity or how --.

>> You're talking about the new provider notice, not the right of entry?

>>Goodman: well, I'm talking about two things, but they're separate. The premises thing, that's another thing.

>> Okay. So you're talking about a notification to the City if the provider is changed?

>>Goodman: uh-huh. And the reporting would come from a different place.

>> And you want the reporting to come from the licensed entity and not the owner of the complex?

>>Goodman: no, I'm not making any kind of judgment. I'm just saying if it's changing, that's what Mr. Rhodes was saying. The City wants to be apprised much a difference in where to get the data from, who will be reporting that data. So all we have to say is together with all -- you know, making sure about the provider or licensed, unlicensed owner, whoever is going to do it, if there is any change in that, then we be notified.

>> Okay.

>>Goodman: and that's way it's less big brother sounding.

>>Lewis: and the other places here it says that if a licensed hauler is doing the hauling, they will make out the reports. If it's a non-licensed hauler or if the owner is hauling it, then they will make out the reports.

>>Goodman: correct.

>>Lewis: what we're saying is the department only needs to know if it's a change in the reporting, not the person who's doing the reporting.

>> I think that's what it says, you just want different language; is that correct?

>>Lewis: no, it don't say that. It says that you will notify the department.

>> A new provider.

>>Lewis: if a new provider --.

>> Okay. So if this is what you want, I can certainly write that. You're suggesting -- sure, I can do that. Let me make sure I understand. That we don't get notified if they simply change from one licensed hauler to another, but only --.

>>Lewis: from a license hauledtory a non-licensed hauler. If the reporting stayed with the same person, there's no reason for us to know.

>> I think one of the issues that we had with this is we need to make sure where we need to get the reports from. So if they make that change from a licensed hauler to another licensed hauler, the department needs to know where the information is going to come from if we don't receive it.

>>Lewis: okay. If the reporting changed, then you're notified.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis, hang on one second. Instead of trying to fill the time when she's finishing drafting, which I sense is what is occurring here, how about we not vote on this item right now, I'll ask for the Mayor pro tem to make a substitute motion -- I will just not -- we'll wait, we'll recess the Council meeting, go to the other board meeting we have to have while she's drafting language. Welcome back and after we reconvene, we'll call this item back up, that way we can have a motion on the table and still be all right. I'll entertain a motion to recess. I'll bet the Mayor pro tem makes it.

>>Goodman: just a second. Don't forget the premises part. I just wanted a clarification on how open that was and after that I would make a motion to recess.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made to recess and seconded by Councilmember Griffith so that we can convene the board of directors of the Austin housing finance corporation. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries with Councilmember Slusher off the dias: we are in recess of the city Council. At this time I will call to order the board of directors of the Austin housing finance corporation. We will take up items 43 through 46. I'll recognize Mr. Hilgers.

>> Thank you, Mayor. Actually, item no. 46, We're requesting that at the request of the applicant that that item be pulled from consideration for a future date. So I would like to talk to you briefly about what items 43, 44 and 45 are. The first item before you requests the approval of a resolution to appoint four members to the Austin intercity redevelopment corporation, which is a 051 c 4 corporation to replace the four board members whose terms have expired. I'll just read through these and if that's okay with you.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll- % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % rental property.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Item no. 43

>> Item no. 44, This agreement needs modifications to modify the changes that have taken place in the Austin housing finance corporation which now helps with many programs. The additional funding sources which flow into the hfc, it has become necessary to splimp la phi the funds management agreement. You may recall that the City Council approved this item on behalf of the City. We're simply bringing that to the board so you can approve the item. And this approval will authorize the general manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the Austin housing finance corporation.

>>Mayor Watson: as I understand it, the City Council in its capacity, the Council has passed this once.

>> That's correct.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll entertain to motion to approve the motion. I'll recognize Councilmember Lewis.

>> Yes, sir.

>>Lewis: with the approval of this, is there any reason for any action to come back to the board or will the general manager have authority to make -- to approve transactions that now the board has?

>> no, sir. This is not giving the general manager any additional authority. As a matter of fact, it really stream lines the authorities and provides more authority to the board members than exists currently. Our practices are to bring issues before the board that the general manager actually had the authority to do without the board's approval before, so in essence we'll be bringing more issues to the board as a result of this management agreement.

>>Lewis: well, what I'm -- it says in the backup, with the increase in the housing Austin housing authority affordable housing program, the number of transactions has increased drastically. So if you're going to bring more of them back to the board, how is it streamlining anything that --.

>> If I may answer that, this agreement is between the Austin housing finance corporation and the City's treasury department. They're the ones that process all our payment requests, so this governs how they pay those items. Those items have already been approved by you or they're pursuant to a program in a budget that you already approved. They're merely expediting the payment request.

>>Lewis: that's what I'm saying. You're not going to bring those requests back to the board.

>> No.

>>Lewis: so --.

>> It's just when this agreement was originally set up, the Austin housing finance corporation deposited the monies with the treasury department that they received from the housing assistance fund and they had a very prescribed method of paying monies out of there. We now have so many transaction thas we're trying to streamline that process so that funds are paid out timely.

>>Lewis: let me ask another question. Will there be any commingling of transactions or commingling of authority of transactions between the payments. I mean, the director will have the authority to make payments from either source. Am I correct?

>> let me respond to you this way, Councilmember and I'll let Martin provide more clarification if we need to. The intent as I understood of our question is does this increase the authority of the general manager to make funding decisions that this board -- that would not have to be brought before the board. This is really a transaction funds management agreement between the City and the Austin housing finance corporation that handles the process for funds management. It is -- we would not be entering into relationships or into a contract or into any agreements that have not been approved by the City Council and the Austin housing finance corporation board of directors. So in that sense it does not give the general manager any more authority to conduct transactions than they had before. Is that the intent of the question?

>>Lewis: well, yeah.

>> And as far as commingling he would funds, it's a difficult question to answer because some of the projects that we have have some finance corporation money in it, some cdbg money in it, down payment assistance money, potentially some bond money, so I don't want to suggest to you that it may never have funds of different -- different resources brought to the table in different projects, but they would all be in an approved budget and approved by this board and by the City Council.

>>Lewis: all right. Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: any further questions or discussion? motion has been made and seconded to approve item no. 44. Will being no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. Oppose said no. Motion passes. Item no. 45, Mr. Hilgers.

>> Item no. 45 Requests approval of new rules issuance of the multi-family bonds for apartment complexes. It's our are recommendation and we are updating the current rules to incorporate consistency with compliance with such City policies as the recently passed disability ordinance, the voluntary compliance agreement and our green builder program. There are also some changes, including some modifications to the fee structures which are in your backup and for the sake of time I will go through if you would like me to lay those out or else I'll just let you vote on them.

>>Mayor Watson: anybody have any questions of Mr. Hilgers? Mayor pro tem?

>>Goodman: no, I was going to move approval.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made to approve item no. 45, Seconded by Councilmember Griffith. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item no. 45. Item none 46 has been pulled from consideration. I'll entertain a motion fa adjourn the board meeting of the Austin housing finance corporation. Motion made by the vice-president. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. That board is adjourned. I'll now call to order the board of directors' meeting of the abia corporation.

>> You have the purpose today to conduct a public hearing for the issuance of board by the abia development corporation. I'll first explain the numbers. You will recall that we had a public hearing previously on the eighth of october on this item. At that time the sizing of the bonds was believed to be 8.2 million for tax exempt and 200,000 for taxable. Because that was not finalized, we were unable to take action that day. The number, the size did change. We posted it, we did -- republished that notice at higher numbers to be sure that it was taken care of. The republication was at 8.5 million for tax exempt and 30075 million -- 375,for taxable. The thousand. The size is 8.5 for the tax exempt and 300,000 for the taxable. That's why you will see the differences in that regard. This hearing is because there is tax exempt financing involved and that's the reason for it to conduct the hearing. I would remind you that the facilities to be constructed are on land at the Austin-Bergstrom international airport under land leased from the City of Austin. The project skifs of two buildings, actually 57 thousand square feet of air cargo facilities or the belly port facilities, which the Council passed that last fall and 100,000 square feet facility for the facility which also the Council authorized -- also has authorized. Mr. Glen opal is here a if you have any questions and I believe also the develop certify here.

>>Mayor Watson: any questions? board member Lewis?

>>Lewis: thank you. I have a question why we don't receive a fee from the bond sales. And one of the answers or in the answer says the City approved the bonds and the purpose of the bonds is to promote economic development. I would like for someone to explain to me what economic development or how we can come up with economic development for something that's on the airport. And economic to who? because I don't know -- and my question if you mentioned the square footage, what is the rent that is received by the aviation department from the entity that's going to build -- build the buildings. When I read this answer, it just don't go hand in hand with the process of economic development.

>> Councilmember, I guess I'm the perfect one true toy to answer your question since I believe I gave you that response. The question is why doesn't the City of Austin require a fee for the issuance of bonds. Ilted assume that because they are using a development corporation act, the City decided to create this corporation permitting it to create tax exempt financing with the idea of having facilities at the airport, facilities which will ultimately be owned by the city of Austin, that there's no obligation on the City as far as reted payment of the debt, there's no obligation, but there's the benefits of it that they felt it was in the advantage to do this. So they did not require a fee. Your second question.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis, there is a chee chur of us. -- This is a creature of us. Lewis the other question was --.

>>Lewis: the other question was -- I understand what you're saying, but, you know, it eventually will be owned by the City of Austin, but at what point and at what -- I mean, I don't know what the lease agreement is, the length of the lease agreement or the amount of the lease agreement and what the life expectancy of the building that this money is going to be used to constructed is.

>> Let me see if I could answer those questions for you, sir. As I recall, the lease agreements to in the new airport are 25 years or 20 years? 25 years. And that's when they come back to the City. They do pay a ground rental. I think it's 265,000 square feet. And under the gse facility it's one had you hundred thousand square feet, it's the same rate.

>>Lewis: that's 27 cents per square foot per what, per year?

>>Mayor Watson: the idea was we wanted these things out there and that's why we did it that way. We have the land, we lease the land, the development comes back to us. From the economic development standpoint, the more air cargo we can get in here with other facilities that have air cargo, the more money that comes into our City. We've actually seen an increase on a very dramatic basis in the past several years in our air cargo because of our enhanced facilities and that's what it's all about.

>>Lewis: but the fact that -- one of the reasons that the cargo has been at the level that it is is because the aircraft that's coming into now Robert Mueller can't handle the size of cargo that some people in Austin or in surrounding areas would ship, but now that we have a 9,000 and 12,000 feet runways, the size of the aircraft that would be coming to Austin or that can come to Austin would dictate that in a lot of instances that dell or sematech or someone don't put their equipment on a truck and take it to dallas or to san antonio, to fly it someplace international. So it would just -- it would just be -- the factors dictate that at some point somebody would develop a belly port to handle this larger cargo. You know, that was my reasoning for asking what economic development do we get from it because right now some of the people here, manufacturers, they ship items by truck to dallas and san antonio to have it shipped international.

>>Mayor Watson: but certainly not all. I'm sure there's some that do that. The fact that we have seen an increase in air cargo in this area and at a growing community and a community where you have additional facilities, high-tech and otherwise coming into the area, part of the concept is if you're going to have a new -- world class airport, you're going to need to have certain types of facilities.

>> For clarification, I would remind you that this is actually for the belly port facility. That is the belly freight in the passenger airplanes. They are also servicing airplanes. It's not the cargo facility and the cargo area.

>>Lewis: that's what I'm saying. We'll have a lot more dc-10's and that's the aircraft coming in now that the landing strip is on.

>> I'm sure the rationale is these facilities will be needed at the time we opened the airport and the other idea would be for the City to build it.

>>Mayor Watson: we were trying to encourage it to happen at one point. Any other questions? Councilmember Garcia?

>>Garcia: are we in the public hearing?

>>Mayor Watson: yes: and there's no one signed up to speak, so as soon as the Council is done with the questions --.

>>Garcia: can we close the public hearing?

>>Mayor Watson: we can do that. Motion has been made to close the public hearing, seconded by Slusher. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. I'll recognize board member Garcia and item no. 48.

>>Garcia: can you tell us why the 300,000 dollar -- 350,000 dollar increase in the bond facilities, what brought that on? was that inflation.

>> We've been working with the builder of the project for some time now. I think what we've been working on is trying to nail down exactly what the scope of the facilities would be. I think the increase in the scope of the facilities that you've seen, you're seeing right now, that additional 300,000 is that -- is the result of negotiations with the United States postal service and them wanting more items put in by the builder into their facility and so it's a direct relation to the size of the bonds.

>>Garcia: okay. On this one the agenda lists 8.2 and 250 on item no. 48. There was no -- there was a change as to the 8.5, not as to the 250. Is it 300,000.

>> The size of the bonds will 8.5 million for the tax exempt fees and 300,000 for the taxable fees.

>>Garcia: so that's a change in the posting, Mayor. The second question thas has to do with green building. And Mr. Winstead sent me a fax talking about the fact that this particular project does not comply with green building principles, but it complies with sustain ability. And I saw someone here -- can anybody address that issue?

>> I'm David taylor, I'm the project manager on this project.

>>Garcia: do you work for the city?

>> no. I'm project manager for the owner on this project.

>>Garcia: we had our green builder coordinator here just a few minutes ago and I don't know where he went.

>> I spoke to mark this morning about -- got some more information from him. I think I've made some reasonable comparison there. I do believe it is true that this green builder program in november was put into place in november whereas the original proposal that we responded to were done before that in 1997. We have followed a similar program called the guideline for sustain able new airport both during the design of the process as we developed that design and of course it will continue into the construction and the operation of that facility. That included a lot of items that deal with sighting and water use, building materials, waste reduction and of course the biggest one of all is a lot of energy efficiency items that we feel like we have met the --.

>>Garcia: Mr. Richmond is here. My question, mark, is is there a significant difference between the sustain ability guidelines, guides for a sustain able airport and the green builder program.

>> Yes. That was the precourser of the program that was done five years ago and so it was very junior in terms of what we're looking for nowadays. What we had asked them to do years ago -- we asked them as much as they could do at that time and I think they complied with that. Today if we did it, it would be different.

>>Garcia: okay. The fact that you said to me, we're going to be operating and constructing within the green builder program guidelines, that's the fax that I got from you this morning. Can you elaborate on that, somebody?

>> well, in reading the checklist that I got from mark, there are, of course, many pages and lots of different items here, but it is a program designed to encourage both the construction and the operation of buildings and a lot of recommendation, some of which apply to specific kinds of projects and others that don't. To the degree that those apply to our light industrial building at the airport and our in truth very similar to those sustain able guidelines for things like the orientation of the building and the energy system and a long list that we have submitted previously to the new airport project team, we are complying with those guidelines as we would if we had had the opportunity long ago when we started the design work to work through those with mark and his team.

>>Garcia: how much would it cost you guys to add the green builder guidelines?

>> excuse me, to do what to the green builder?

>>Garcia: right now the guidelines that you're operating are the ones that Mr. Richmond referred to, which are the guidelines for a sustain able new airport and he said those are five years old now. If we were -- if I was to add a provision saying, you know, comply with the green builder program guidelines that we have now, how much additional cost would that -- would that incur? would you be incurring if we were to enforce that requirement?

>> I'm not sure I could say that to you exactly, Councilmember, but as I understand from discussions with mark, it's not necessarily a specific number. And given that we believe that we are complying to a large degree with many of the items, most of the items conceptually, the answer might be nothing.

>>Garcia: but I heard from Mr. Richmond that these guidelines are significantly less than the green builder guidelines, correct?

>> than the present day guidelines, yes. But I haven't looked at their plans and seen their things. They may be complying with it, but I have no education on that.

>>Garcia: who is going to be -- will you be involved in the approval --.

>> I can certainly be involved in any project.

>>Garcia: my motion, Mayor, would be then to approve this resolution, but make it conditional on our green builder coordinator reviewing the plans along with the new airport project team.

>> I don't think we have any problem with that.

>> I'm sorry, sir, I need clarification. Are we still in the abia development corporation meeting?

>>Mayor Watson: yes.

>> Your suggestion would be or your amendment would be to amend the loan agreement to put that in there because that's what they're asking for a financing?

>>Garcia: I understand. I'm saying that that financing is contingent on them including our green building coordinatedder in the review of the plans.

>> What we're suggesting then is that rather than the resolution being contingent, what you want to do is approve the loan agreement, adopt that resolution and approve the loan agreement, providing that we put into it a provision that they agree to say that they will be complying with the green builder program?

>>Mayor Watson: let me see if I can say this and then I'll ask if this is the motion. And that is to approve the resolution authorizing the issuance of abia development corporation of airport facilities revenue bonds for the airport project, the proper series in the amount of 8.5 million dollars and taxable series 1998 b in an amount not to exceed 375,000 dollars.

>> 300,000. Not to exceed 300,000. Mayor nair in an al amount of $300,000.

>>Mayor Watson: and that direction is given that the city of Austin green builder project director and the new airport project team review the plans of the development project. Does that get -- is that legally --.

>> We can take it that way or if you want to get it into the legal document that you're signing up the loan agreement, you can say direction be given that that provision be put in.

>>Garcia: we don't complicate the loan agreement. We could do it by letter from them to us.

>> That's fine. What I was trying not tow do was complicate the resolution.

>>Mayor Watson: and that's why I was trying to play with the language. If we could -- here's what I would -- along the lines of what you just suggested. Is the team director? can you come back up? while I was writing down what Councilmember Garcia was saying, I heard somebody say that's okay with us. Was that you?

>> we can certainly go through a review with mark. I'm confident that we can.

>>Mayor Watson: would you be willing since you said that on the record, would you be willing to send to the board of directors of the abia development corporation a letter that indicates that you will allow the City of Austin green builder project director and the new airport project team to review the plans?

>> yes, sir, we can do that.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. With that being on the record, could your motion just be to approve the financing?

>>Garcia: correct.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. Then the motion has been made to approve the financing of the 1998 a series would be in the amount of 8.5 million and the 1998 b in an amount of $300,000.

>> Correct.

>>Mayor Watson: is there a second.

>>Lewis: I'll second it for discussion.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll recognize board member Lewis.

>>Lewis: I need to ask some questions about -- Mr. Brothers gave us the square footage of the buildings. How many employees will this entity employ? do you have any idea?

>> I believe there's about 25 employees at the gsem building and probably about 75 or 80 total in the freight buildings that they work different shifts to some degree.

>>Lewis: will there be any new employees coming on?

>> certainly because these facilities are significantly larger than the ones that are at Mueller, there will have to be some additional new employees hired. There's actually even a couple of new companies coming.

>>Lewis: I remember in some of the public discussions when we was doing the Bergstrom redevelopment was the fact that the people in the area would be able to receive some benefit by some of the new jobs there's being opened up or being started at Bergstrom. Is there any provision to hire any of the people from the immediate area or not?

>> well, almost all of our tenants are the main airlines and I don't know what their arrangements are with the City, but we're talking about american, southwest, could not nen tall and delta. -- Continental and delta and the United States postal service. So I can't really answer for them. We don't have any separate employees on the project.

>>Lewis: can you answer into that at all?

>> I'm project director for the new airport. I believe that David was saying with respect to the employees, the employees he was referring to at the belly ported freight facility are primarily airline employees. They do not belong to the belly port. I understand your question correctly, the project in the new airport is being relocated in that part of the City, will there be any opportunity for people in that area to obtain work with the air carriers in that area; is that correct?

>>Lewis: yeah, from -- at any of the new jobs that was opened, that was started at the new airport, it was -- it was during the initial public hearings that we had, it was the fact that, yes, we will do our best to hire people from the immediate area that's most affected by the noise and the inconvenience and all by the new airport moving there to be able to get jobs there. And my question is has there been anything done in this area or any consideration given to that fact?

>> I really don't know the answer to that question. It's a question I can take back to the carriers and other tenants and pose to them as to what has happened with new employees and where are they coming from and has any consideration been given to the immediately affected area like that and get an answer back to you, but we haven't posed that question to them recently.

>>Lewis: well, -- because I was part of the redevelopment task force when we was doing the public hearings and that was one of the things that came up, that normally people move in and the employees come to work there and the people affected receive no economic benefit from the -- from all of the inconvenience. So I would appreciate it if you could take that back and at some later date give us some update on it.

>> I'd be happy to do so.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made and seconded on item no. 48. Any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item no. 48. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn the board meeting of the abia development korngs. Motion made by Councilmember Slusher. Is there a second?

>>Garcia: 47 and 48.

>>Mayor Watson: I understand. We closed the public hearing.

>>Garcia: actually, we're approving 47.

>>Mayor Watson: so your motion was on 47, 48. Before we go -- hang on one second. Before we go to -- before we go to the adjournment, Councilmember Lewis, was your second to 47 and 48?

>>Lewis: yes.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Just for purposes of clarity because I think I called out just 48, the motion was made and seconded on 47 and 48. I'm going to ask for another vote to make sure that we have a vote.

>>Garcia: we ae proved 47. We're in the meeting of the abia?

>>Mayor Watson: that's right.

>>Garcia: I'm going to move to approval of 47 and then we can do 48. I think 48 is the Council.

>>Mayor Watson: you're right. Item no. 47, And I think I called it out by calling out no. 48. So the motion has been made to approve by board member Garcia. Board member Lewis, will you second that? it's been seconded. Any further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item no. 47. I'll now entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting of the aft bia development corporation. Is there a second? seconded by board member Slusher. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries and so we are adjourned as the board of the abia development corporation. Now, --.

>>Garcia: 48?

>>Mayor Watson: I'll reconvene the meeting of the City Council of Austin, Texas. Councilmember Slusher, will you please withdraw your motion on item 36, 37 and 38 and we'll come back to it?

>>Slusher: yes.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Councilmember Lewis, would you withdraw your second?

>>Lewis: yes.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Now we will take up item no. 48. I'll recognize Councilmember Garcia.

>>Garcia: move approval.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been toyed to approve it in the amount of 8.5 period and 1998 b in the amount of 300,000 dollars. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Is there any discussion? hearing opposed say no. Motion carries on numb no. 48. Let me ask if we are ready with language on 36, 37 and 38. What? that means we're not ready. So we will go to items for right now -- items 68 through 82 and I'll recognize ms. Glasgow. Ms. Glasgow, what my plan will be to go through just the consent item, have you do the discussion, let us decide to the consent items and then if we can go back to 36, 37 and 38 items. Okay?

>> Alice Glasgow, City staff to present zoning cases. We'll start off with consent items. Those -- starting off with item no. 71. That's case number c 14-98-81. This case is located at 13043 north us 183. Social security owned interim rural residence and community commercial. The applicant is requesting that the property be zoned community commercial the Planning Commission recommended that request and it's ready for first reading. On item no. 72, C 14-98-'87, the zoning changes from interim single family two to gr, which stands for community commercial. The Planning Commission recommendation is to grant community commercial zoning. This case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 74. Located at ed bluestein boulevard. It was change a change from limited office to community commercial zoning. It granted -- this case is ready for first reading. Item no. 74. C 14-98-119 located at grand oaks drive. It is from interim single family two to p public. This is an area that we annexed last year. We -- we inherited or became the owners of some of the parkland and we're now going to zone if as p public. This case is ready for all three readyings. Item no. Survive, case c 14-98-120 also located at rustic drive. Zoned interim single family two to p public or parkland. The case is ready for all three readings. Item no. 76, Case c 14-98-121 located at the intersection of scotland well drive and spicewood springs road. The rezoning is from interim single family to p public. This case it ready for all three readings: item 77 is c 14-98-122 located at middle -- middlebie lane from interim rural residence to p public. This case it ready for all three readings. Item no. 78 Located at the intersection of scotland well drive and spicewood springs road. It is ready for all three readings. Tism no. 79 Is c 14-98 hundred 130 located at 704 and 7067 blackson avenue from single family three to community commercial. The Planning Commission recommended that zoning request. It is ready for all three readings. On item no. 80, Case number c 14-98-136, the applicant is requesting a postponement to november the 10th. It is the applicant's first request. Item no. 81, C 14-98 hundred within, both the applicant and the asigh lance have requested a post pointment to november the 19th. And this is the first request from both parties.

>>Mayor Watson: let me ask a quick question while we're on n. That one. Is Mr. Shull here? it's typical when there's been a first request for a postponement that it's granted to november 19th. You're the only person signed up on that item. Will you wish to speak? great. Thank you very much.

>> That concludes all the consent items?

>>Mayor Watson: what about no. 82?

>> It's going to be a discussion um item.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. [One moment, please]

>> it should be three readings.

>> Motion has been made on item no. 73, All three readings. Councilmember Garcia moves to approve the consent agenda as read with 73 being all three readings. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. On the consent agenda. Do we have language?

>> no.

>>Mayor Watson: ms. Glasco, help me, it's my belief, tell me if I am incorrect on this, item no. 82 Was a consent item until apparently very recently. Why has it been pulled for discussion?

>> 82?

>>Mayor Watson: yes.

>> I believe Councilmember Slusher has a question.

>>Mayor Watson: that ought to be one of the shorter ones in terms of discussion. If you all don't -- well, I am hoping. What I am going to suggest while we are waiting on that language is we go to item no. 82. The only reason that I say that is I know there are more people signed up to speak on some of these others, so let's go to item no. 82. I will recognize Councilmember Slusher.

>>Slusher: I would like a short explanation of the item.

>> Okay, on item no. -- Get my documents together. Item no. 82 Is a request to amend planned unit development case to allow for additional impervious cover. I have explained all that. It's case number c8 1-005. Located on candle ridge drive in far west boulevard. The request is to allow the pud to increase its impervious cover in order to allow for six lots that are currently undeveloped to be developed. This property was -- the planned unit development was created about 17 years ago, meadow mountain for planned unit development. It was approved for 23 single family lots. The plan that we have shown that is presented to you shows you the 23 lots. There was a -- a chart noted on the planned unit development plan that indicated the amount of impervious cover that would be allowed on the entire 7.89 acres. The total impervious cover apparently has been utilized so far by 17 lots. The developer did not create restrictive covenants or a document that allocated a minimum impervious cover for each lot. Therefore it was on a first come, first serve basis. At a point where we were tracking and reached a point where the maximum had been reached that accommodated 17 lots. So at that point we let the homeowners know that we could not issue any more permits because the impervious cover cap had been reached; however, there was still six lots remaining undeveloped that did not have any more impervious cover by which any homes could be built. The alternative was for them to seek an amendment to the pud approval to seek an additional impervious cover. We have assessed this request. He we presented it to the Planning Commission. We looked at the impervious cover presented to the City for approval in 1981. And the impervious cover excluding streets would have allowed a maximum of 2,233 square feet for each lot. For the entire 23 lots. What we are showing right now is that the existing 17 lots would have an average of approximately -- approximately 3,000 square feet, that excludes the private drive that currently exists. The applicant is asking, that's the neighborhood association, for a square footage in impervious cover for the remaining six lots to be at 3300 square feet. And also asking for the existing 17 lots, with homes, be allowed an additional of 294 square feet each. In the event that they might wish to add to the existing homes, that they might have additional impervious cover by which to allow -- that would allow additional development. The staff recommendation would be to only allow 2400 square feet for the 6 lots, remaining lots, which is slightly higher than what was previously allowed, which rounded it up from 22, 2300 to 2400, we do not recommend additional impervious cover for the existing homes. We, however, would recommend for those homes that might be below the 2400 that they might be allowed to go up to the 2400. The plan commission is slightly different. They recommend 3,000 square feet for the six lots. They recommend that there be no additional impervious cover for the existing 17 lots. That's basically a summary of the case in front of you.

>>Slusher: Mayor, let me ask a question. Ms. glasco, what happened here is there was a pud approved in -- do you know when it was approved?

>> it was approved in 1981.

>>Slusher: '81. The agreement at that time had a certain amount of impervious cover that was allowed and the developers agreed to that at the time.

>> That's correct.

>>Slusher: then they went and built the houses, the initial houses at such a size that they ran out of impervious cover before they filled up all of the lots.

>> That's correct.

>>Slusher: is this in the drinking water protection zone?

>> yes.

>>Slusher: if they had followed the agreement, which they entered into, they would have been able to get, if I am reading this chart right, a 2200, 33 square -- 2233 per house.

>> That would be the impervious cover.

>>Slusher: but to get to the impervious cover that they agreed to, they would have been able to build the houses at an edge of 2233 square feet.

>> That's correct.

>>Slusher: okay. They ran out with these six lots left. Because they went so far over. Now they are asking to build the rest of them to fill up those six lots, which the City could, if we wanted to, just say we are going to go by the agreement, they couldn't build on those six lots; is that correct? if we --

>> that's correct.

>>Slusher: if we took that hard line.

>> If Council were not to grant the request, then those six lots would remain undeveloped.

>>Slusher: okay. The applicants is asking for 3300 square feet per lot, which is over -- over a thousand square feet more than they should have built the houses at originally if they wanted to stay within what they agreed to.

>> That's correct.

>>Slusher: and the staff recommended 2400 square feet, which is a little bit above the average they could have gotten in the first place.

>> Correct.

>>Slusher: well, to me that seems lenient and fair to me to go with the staff recommendations, so I would move the staff recommendation.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made by Councilmember Slusher to adopt the staff recommendation on item no. 82. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Lewis. Ms. Glasco?

>> I think there's citizens signed up to speak.

>>Mayor Watson: I am going to do that before we vote. Simon vedoya, please come forward.

>> I would like to pass some photographs that were taken today of this subdivision, this pud. And also a signed petition by all of the homeowners and lot owners. I would like to start out by saying that as the Councilmember referred to as "they" the developer, we are not it. We are homeowners that --.

>>Slusher: sir, I said the developers and then used the proper known after that.

>> The -- the pronoun after that.

>> The reason that I am making that distinction is that most of the homeowners purchased these lots either from the rtc, from a bankrupt builder or from second parties. So we just kind of inherited this situation. I am one of the lot owners. I purchased a piece of land that I thought was perfectly legal to build on, if I am not allowed to do that, I have invested a considerable amount of money in it and I can't do anything with it. I have a house to the left of my lot, a house to the right of my lot. Why would I not be allowed to build? now, if I can please have the time to read a prepared statement. I am a lot owner of meadow mountain 4. I am also a home owner's board member of meadow mountain iv, which is a 23 lot pud with 17 houses already built. It is located in northwest hills off of mesa drive. The 6 unbuilt lots remain, according to City staff, they cannot be built on because of all of the impervious cover that was used up by unknown builders and different individual. This was not a concerted effort in any shape or form by any one individual to circumvent City restrictions. These regulations would render these six lots as unbuildable. All of the lot owners at this time are allowed to do is to pay taxes on them. My lot was last praised at $70,000. Appraised at $70,000. I cannot sell it, not build on it, also not recover my investment in it. The way we got to this situation is a comedy of -- comedy of errors that started in the '80s with the downturn of the economy, the s&l fees psycho, bankrupts by -- fiasco, bankrupts, also the City staff was not monitoring the impervious cover as each house was approved to be built. As it turns out, since I bought the lot, I have also found out that I have basically bought a whole bunch of obligations and no rights. I have to pay for maintains of the streets.

>>Garcia: please summarize.

>> Basically we have six lot owners that have had their property rendered useless. There is -- this is through no --.

>>Slusher: can I ask you a question. Try to balance this with what the City regulations allow there and what the agreement did with the owners. The 2400 square feet that staff is recommending, you consider that to render your lot worthless?

>> it makes the six lots, the stepchildren of the subdivision. The houses on either side have been allowed an average of 3,000 square feet. What's it turns out, I happen to own the largest lot left in the subdivision. 2400 Square feet, I have a degree in architecture, does not allow me to design a house comparable in value to the houses on either side of my lot. That's the reason why the Planning Commission has agreed with our case and accepted a compromise of 3,000 square feet, which is the average of all of the houses that are built on the site. I really think it would be unfair to single out these six lots for selective enforcement and somewhat belated enforcement of impervious cover issues.

>>Slusher: I get your point.

>>Mayor Watson: can I ask a question about that, you say belated enforcement. It would be enforcement of the subdivision based upon the agreement of the pud. Not really belated.

>> It is belated, sir, because the last house that was built on this property was completely less than a year ago. And it exceeds 4,000 square feet on a much smaller lot.

>>Mayor Watson: let me ask you this question, ms. Glasco. The agreement with the planned unit development was you get x number in terms of impervious cover, you get an amount of impervious cover. And that could be used in any way.

>> That's correct.

>>Mayor Watson: and it's not a situation where the City comes in and said, now, you need to be warned that you are building a 4,000 square foot house here, if you keep doing that, you willly you are not going to have any more impervious cover, that's not really the City's business, that's the developer's business.

>> That's correct.

>>Mayor Watson: you see my point.

>> I see your point and I agree with it. We just don't have a developer. We don't have a builder. These are individuals that have on their own from all walks of life wound up with 17 properties. 23 Properties. The original builder, apparently went bankrupt.

>>Mayor Watson: who, for example, -- let me ask this: do you know of the six lots that you are talking about, when were they bought?

>> I bought mine four years ago.

>>Mayor Watson: you are one of the six lot owners.

>> Yes, sir.

>>Mayor Watson: when did you first realize that you may have difficulty learning?

>> after about a year of owning the lot when I started inquiring boo the possibility of building on it. They have since -- the City has since approved an application for construction of a house that I can show you a picture of, just completely covers up the lot. That's why I think it's selective enforcement. And, again, we are talking about 6 property owners that are being individually damaged.

>>Mayor Watson: did you -- I am not going to ask you who you bought your lot from, but did you buy your lot from a developer?

>> no, I bought it from an individual that chose to refrain from telling me everything that was involved.

>>Mayor Watson: I understand. That's kind of what I was asking about.

>> The realtor, too. chose to keep some information from me at the time that I bought it. The situation, sir, is that none -- I don't think this can be blamed on any one individual. I don't think anybody intended for this to happen. There was a lot of circumstances that, including lot number one, which is the general common area, the streets, being on the auction block, we actually had to pool our resources, go to auction and purchase our only street. Our own street because it was on the auction block for unpaid taxes. This is a recommend plant from all that went on in the '80s.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. Thank you very much.

>>Slusher: ms. Glasco.

>>Mayor Watson: we have one other person signed up to speak by the way. So ... Hang on Councilmember.

>> Okay.

>> Charles crossman.

>> I am Charles crossland an architect here in Austin, Texas. My mother is one of the six lot owners, she's owned her lot for about four years. I wasn't really prepared to speak. I thought this was going to be on consent. But she bought the lot, I have designed a house, it has a footprint of about 3,000 square feet. She has not been able to build on it. Her lot has been basically confiscated for the last 12 months, she's 68 years old, very frustrated with this situation. It's my understanding some of the other house, the most recent one built, they got a variance to the impervious cover from the City ordinance, the staff has not been keeping track of how these buildings have gotten the variances, they have ticked away at the impervious cover at lotted to this whole subdivision, there's no way an individual lot owner could have done that. Basically my mother felt very comfortable about the 3,000 square foot solution, impervious cover, she's worked with staff, been in on the board meetings. She would be very disappointed if you reduce that at any point because she would not be able to build her house she currently has designed.

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Crossland all that I will say about that is when these agreements are made, this is something we need to be very concerned about, you as an architect I am sure get involved -- you ever design homes for people?

>> absolutely.

>>Mayor Watson: one of the things that we have to be concerned about is a situation where when you create these development agreements like this, they basically have a bucket of impervious cover there. I suppose they could go in and build all of it, use one building to cover -- meet all of their impervious cover requirements. And that's really not the job of the City to then say -- to start sending you a warning or your mom a warning, but I am real sympathetic. I want to make it clear that implicit in what you are saying is that somehow because of a variance being granted, that is okay, it may cause other problems.

>> Not if he uses all of the impervious cover up that's not okay.

>> What I am saying is that may mean you have some rights against him.

>> The developers does not exist any longer.

>>.

>>Mayor Watson: that's --

>> the problem is.

>>Mayor Watson: I agree that is a very big problem.

>> The problem is there does need to be a mechanism if a developer does fall out. It's not dissimilar to a shopping center where you have a mick of retail and office tenants let's say. They come back in and double check the parking count to make sure it's right.

>>Mayor Watson: I agree with you.

>> It's not much different than that situation that the city monitors.

>>Mayor Watson: I agree we need to have a situation in the future. What I am trying to suggest is while I am very, very sympathetic to the individual lot owners, that I feel like have been wronged in this situation, I am trying to suggest that it's not necessarily the wrong ever the city, it's the wrong of someone who has eaten up a bunch of impervious cover based upon an agreement that they had a limited amount of it. That's all that I am trying to suggest.

>> I think we have a flawed system, especially if you have your developer go bankrupt and nobody monitors it. But I have a 68-year-old mother wanting to build her final house, it put an extreme hardship on her, very testing on her emotions, so I hope we get it resolved tonight.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Garcia?

>>Garcia: Mayor, I think you indicated that the City had done what they had to do, I think that's more or less the way you phrased it. When they filed this pud, did they have specific impervious cover amounts for the lots, 2200 --2233?

>> no, sir, not at all. They just had a bucket of impervious cover. We just summarized that for you so you could understand how it has been broken down over the years. The plan in front of you, I have it here, simply has a summary of here are the requirements, here is the total amount, here's a bucket full of impervious cover, that's it. It does not indicate a minimum allocated to each property. The charity we did ideally should go on all planned unit developments, we will begin requiring that in the future so future home buyers are not caught in a bind.

>>Garcia: say that again.

>> What we would like to do in the future as we look at and receive new puds is that we are going to insist that there be a minimum allocation of impervious cover. You may have a total maximum for the entire development, what we would like to see is that for each lot shown on the planned unit development that there be a minimum allocation for each lot, so the minimum you know I have so much square footage. So much impervious cover.

>>Garcia: does that require amending an ordinance?

>> it doesn't at all. It is merely going to be part of a planned unit development processing as it comes through. This project is unique in that most pud's we have in plas, davenport ranches, other pud's, the developers who initiated that development are still the owners of that development, so they have created their own monitoring system, they have the minimum allocation and then a general pool that they can pull from for those who need to exceed. This is 17 years old, 17 years ago patternly the developer then did not even create a homeowners association to take care of the open space so there would be maintenance of common areas. And typically the homeowners association would have been in control of how the development progressed and how much impervious cover was being allocated to each home owner.

>> I also want you to know that we recognize that this is a problem. One of the develop -- when the developer goes, the trail begins to get cold, it's one of the things that we are looking at in the land development code task force, the environmental group. It has this --.

>>Garcia: this is not the first one that happens this way.

>> No, it is not.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: [inaudible].

>> About a year and a half ago it was brought to my attention, I met with the majority of the property owners currently because the last lot had just come through a process, I would like to clarify the previous speaker indicated that an exemption was provided. That is not correct. The record kept a tally of -- that's how we came to know that the impervious cover had been exceeded, lot no. 17 Came in and would we issue for single family development is an we do not require -- site plans for single family development. We issue an exemption from having to file a site plan ford to get a building permit. A waiver for an impervious cover cap, not at all. At the time lot 17 came into obtain a building permit, that's when the red flags went up, we said this is the last lot that can be built because the total impervious cover for this planned unit development has been exhausted.

>>Lewis: [inaudible]. (No microphone) similar situation because those people after they purchase property -- [inaudible] (no microphone).

>> Because if -- if all of the -- all of the impervious cover was used up, regardless of whether it was a 4,000 square foot house or 5,000 square foot house on a lot, it's -- it's something that -- as far as I am concerned, there's nothing the City could do about it. Is there any contributing, is there any -- tributaries, any creeks or anything in that area, ms. Glasco, do you know?

>> not that I am aware of.

>>Lewis: it would be the same thing. If fema came in and declared this area in the 25 year floodplain, whoever owned the property wouldn't be able to build on it. So I don't see any difference in that and the situation that we have that was down south where the people purchased the lot and we wouldn't -- couldn't issue them a permit because of the situation. So ....

>>Mayor Watson: I would suggest one difference. That is fema and the floodplain situation does create a difference in what we are probably prohibited from being able to do and what we can do in a situation like this. And I am -- my personal belief is that we need to have a process that probably provides some greater protection not only in term of impervious cover, but also for our citizens. By my questioning, really all that I am trying to get at it, it may be the lawyer in me, there's somebody real responsible in my view, for some wrongs here. And that creates some difficulty for people who currently own property. But I personally don't see people who are probably victims of being in a bad situation, even though I would like to see us be able to enforce these planned unit developments in a way where the bucket of impervious cover is the bucket of impervious cover and no more is used, I would suggest that -- I would not vote for the motion because I think it does create a situation where somebody who is an innocent victim of the situation gets banged on. -- All that I was suggesting is that the City isn't the one that did anybody wrong on these deals.

>>Garcia: Mayor, a question, the 3,000 square feet, that includes driveways and garbages and -- garages and everything else?

>> yes, it does.

>>Lewis: you know, we wound up, the City wound up being a victim of a situation where the developer used up all of his impervious cover and decided he should be able to continue to build on the remaining lots. We went to great lengths to resolve that situation. I just -- I, of course, you know, you people -- people buy property all of the time that -- that don't have all of the facts to it. And sometimes it gets them in trouble. I can't -- I can't support -- I can't support the motion. Even though I seconded it.

>>Slusher: let me ask a question and then I want to make a statement. Ms. Glasco what would be the impervious cover allowed under the bull creek ordinance?

>> let me check.

>>Slusher: square footage. Staff is going to run some calculations.

>>Mayor Watson: boy was I wrong when I said this could would be a quick one. Man, sometimes instincts are everything, aren't they?

>>Slusher: I want to know where the exact situation of the homeowners -- I was aware that once again some developers haven't kept their word to the City. I would say it really bothers me, the inclination to always blame the City for everything that happens to anybody in the city, if I could finish, I would appreciate it. So I am very sympathetic to the individual homeowners who bought this without knowing it. And I am going to withdraw the motion because I don't think it's really fair to them. But I think that once again the -- what happened here is not the City messed anybody around. What happened here is the City home buyers, lot buyers got ripped off by developers. And now they are coming to the city to ask the City to bale them out of that situation. It is exactly the opposite of the City of Austin having done anything to anybody. What we are trying to do here is to protect the water supply for the entire area. So I will withdraw the motion. But I would ask that at least you grant us that in your future analysis of the acts of the City of Austin.

>> Councilmember Lewis? you made the second. Do you withdraw your second?

>> yes.

>> It's there an alternative motion? Mayor pro tem?

>>Goodman: I move the plan commission recommendation.

>>Spelman: second.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Motion made and seconded by Councilmember Spelman to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, any further discussion? Mayor pro tem? I will call on Mayor pro tem and then you.

>>Goodman: I was going to say had Councilmember Slusher not said that at this point I would have.

>>Garcia: thank you, Mayor. Ms. Glasco, this is a total of 23 lots?

>> yes, sir.

>>Garcia: okay. Now, they were allowed 87,000 square feet total. And you say that for 17 lots, the average impervious cover is 3,000. That doesn't get to 87,000 feet.

>> I will tell you what we did, a little magic there. The 2233 is based, or the 3,000 is based on 51,360 square feet. We subtracted the private street which is not part of the lot. If you add the private street to it then it does go up. But to give you a fair assessment of the individual lots, without the internal private street, then you would be using the 51,360 square feet to base your average per lot.

>>Garcia: the houses that are there average 3,021 square feet including driveways.

>> Correct and walkways, everything that is not part of the street, your garbage, anything that is paved. The house -- your garage. Your average house would be 1800 square feet.

>> -- Public streets?

>> it's 36,155 square feet.

>>Garcia: thank you. My further discussion? motion made and seconded to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, hearing none, all those in favor say aye., opposed say no.,.

>>Lewis: no.

>> Motion carries with Councilmember Lewis voting no and Councilmember Slusher off the dias. We have language, right?

>> yes. Go back to items 36, 37, 38. I will recognize the Mayor pro tem.

>>Goodman: was there a motion on the floor, Mayor?

>>Mayor Watson:, yes, there was a motion on the floor, it was withdrawn in order to do all of the -- that's right. Maybe I ought to recognize Councilmember Slusher? I didn't realize you were off the dias, Mayor pro tem?

>>Goodman: I would move to adopt the ordinance with one amendment which is the change in 12-3-174 relative to change of provider notice. And these additional a, b and c provisions in brief say: a business, building or multi family complex, et cetera, must notify the department if they stop self hauling and contract a service provider; b, they must notify if they contract with a new recycling service provider that is not licensed; and, c, if a contract with a new recycling service for a provider that is licensed; and, d, is that 30 days after the contract is executed, the City must receive that notice. That's the motion.

>>Mayor Watson: is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Is there any discussion?

>>Lewis: Mayor? what about 12-3-175. The second --.

>>Goodman: that was --.

>>Lewis: are you going to adopt it, also?

>>Goodman: let me be clear on that with I guess mitzy. Was b not in their? I mean is this a re --

>> the only real difference is taking out the hang about the premises being unoccupied since whether they are occupied or unoccupied the inspector should still make an effort to locate the owner and get approval to enter the premises. It's a legal change.

>>Goodman: okay. That was yours, so if you are comfortable with that, Councilmember Lewis, that would be part of this.

>>Mayor Watson: that's the motion, Councilmember Spelman you made the second. Do you accept that? all right the motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no., motion carries on 36, 37, 38 on a vote of 7 to 0. Let's go back to zoning items, we will take up item no. 68.

>> 68 Was supposed to be the easier simple one.

>>Mayor Watson: I am not making any judgments.

>> Item no. 68, Is a case that you postponed from your agenda about a week ago in order to give Council the time to look at the impervious cover situation. This is case number c-14-98-0029 located at the 7800 block of north capital of Texas highway. The applicant is requesting that the property be zoned to limited office, with a conditional overlay as recommended by the planning commission and staff. At your last hearing, the Councilmember Slusher had inquired as to the possibility of requiring the impervious cover be capped at 25%. The applicant has since then filed a site plan that we have looked at and the impervious cover on the next -- on the site currently is at about 16%. We have the site plan mounted in front of you. The area in pink shows the building location and the area to the rear of the building that is shaded shows you the different slope radians. About over half of the site cannot be developed because of the top graphic restraints. The area sloped is closer to loop 360, that's where the bulk bulk of the development will take place. The impervious cover will be -- transfers would be at approximately 51%. The ordinance allows a maximum of 55%. That concludes staff present staying, we will be glad to answer questions.

>>Goodman: okay, as I recall, I guess I was wrong. Did we not have a hearing on this already?

>> you had a hearing, then postponed. You heard from laura troops representing the owner regarding the impervious cover.

>> Okay. So we did have a hearing, did we close it?

>> I'm not sure if you closed the public hearing. I think you made a motion to postpone.

>>Goodman: I don't know if we have any speakers, but if we do ... We have no speakers, so it's Councilmember Slusher's suggestion that led us to all of this. Would you like to hear anything from anybody, questions?

>>Slusher: yeah, I have some questions. Mr. Goss, I saw you out there, didn't I? he's right behind you.

>> Yes, he is. He's coming forward.

>>Slusher: Mr. Goss, just a second, let me get to my question and answer section here. A question was asked would crossing bull creek with the wastewater line be necessary if the property were built out under the currentsome 2 zoning, would the 8 inch main be sufficient. Basically the question was does doing this zoning this way, this site plan would require building a wastewater line under the creek; is that accurate?

>> well, it could go either way is my understanding that you don't have to build it under the creek, but it would require a as much as extension, several hundred feet of a service extension to tie back into another line. It would have a limited capacity going back to the other way. I am going to say -- that there you very much. -- Thank you very much. Hang on one second here. An 8 inch wastewater main, 350 to 375 feet to the south, they would need to file a service extension request and build that off-site main.

>>Slusher: they would need to build that, right?

>> the developer.

>>Slusher: totally their expense?

>> that's correct.

>>Slusher: near 360, not back by the creek?

>> it not cross the creek, let me put it that way. The other direction, right. I am trying to get my directions. You say not near 360.

>>Slusher: where is this -- what happened to this. Oh, there it is. Why don't you show me on this or that one with the creeks on it.

>> The tract that's being talked about is here. The question is whether or not the 8 inch would have to go underneath the creek. There is another 8 inch on this side here. That could be tied to it going away from the creek.

>>Slusher: okay.

>> But as I said, it would require installation of several hundred feet of line to get to that point.

>>Slusher: that's a considerable amount of construction?

>> 350, 375 feet, 8 inch line, you could maybe average -- this is dangerous, but 50 -- $50 a foot.

>>Slusher: and if there was some other -- any other use the same thing is going to have to happen; is that correct?

>> I will imagine so. It depends on the amount of development that would be there. Most developments on this size, if it's a normal development, I would say an 8 inch would serve. If you get into mass density, then, yeah, it might increase that size. But I was trying to find my number. I think we had -- was it 275 units? single family? I couldn't find that number; is that right?

>> we had it earlier, a discussion with water and wastewater, that that main can serve up to 275 units.

>>Slusher: what would serve 275 units?

>> the 8 inch wastewater line.

>>Slusher: this tract is -- you can't get 275 units on this tract. That would be pretty dense.

>>Slusher: thank you, you have answered my questions. You said about half the site is undevelopable because of the hillly terrain.

>> You may not be able to see maybe the map in front of me, it might be oriented away from you.

>> This one.

>> Yes.

>>Slusher: I can see it. That is the site plan that was just -- that has been received recently for review.

>>Slusher: so I can understand the -- the developer representative's arguments that there's so much of the tract that's undevelopable that they are really getting a fairly small impervious cover. But the reason that it's undevelopable is because it's hillly terrain that's not suitable for development, it's right by bull creek. Our drinking water supply, those factors were all in place at the time of the investment. So what I am going to do is to say I can't -- I can't vote in favor of this. The proximity to the creek, the urban sprawl, traffic, those things keep me from being able to vote for it. Let me ask you one other question. This site plan would require a variance from the hill country roadway ordinance?

>> we have not completed our review at all. It requires planning commission review of the hill country roadway order man. We will assess it, based on the hill country requirements and that's just filed recently, we have not concluded our review.

>> Can you assess, well, I don't want to call her up yet. I changed my mind, sorry. Ms. Glasco from your judgment of the proximity to 360 and this site plan, would that require a -- a variance?

>> a variance that I can think of would be the 100 foot setback from loop 360. The highway vegetative buffer. The ordinance requires that land along the hill country roadway have 100 foot undisturbed vegetative buffer, excepting for ingress and egress points. The setback appears to be a proximity to the hill country roadway from that -- from this point of the building. It appeared that there might be a variance required from that point. But there's -- it appears to be enough setback from this point here.

>>Slusher: okay, that would require a variance then? in your estimation?

>> right.

>>Slusher: okay.

>> I am assuming this plan is not dimensioned.

>>Slusher: not what?

>> it does not have dimensions on it. Most show the hill country roadway setback. I probably need to take a look at that so I am not misrepresenting the plan.

>>Slusher: okay. I am going to get a copy of the hill country site plan.

>>Slusher: let's say if there was a need for a variance, what would be the process? who would that be up to?

>> that would be up to the Planning Commission. The hill country site plans go to the Planning Commission. For approval. We will assess the site plan to determine if it complies with all of the hill country requirements, those requirements are height, square footage, floor to area ratio, setbacks, highway vegetative buffer, 40% of the site is supposed to remain in its natural state, that includes the 100 foot highway vegetative buffer. The other setbacks have to do with the number of driveways to the site. It appears they only have one driveway, that would have been compliance. The flow to area ratio appears to comply under the hill country ordinance and requirements here. So the only thing that might appear to require a variance would be the highway vegetative buffer.

>> I was just shown something that shows basically the corner of the building, that would be the northwestern corner, 100 foot, but the rest of is is not. Okay, that's all that I have.

>>Goodman: do we have any other discussion, questions, or -- a motion?

>>Spelman: motion. Move approval of the planning commission recommendation.

>>Goodman: there's a motion to approve loco as recommended by the commission. Is there a second?

>>Griffith: second.

>>Goodman: and a second. We don't have enough people out here to do anything except talk at the moment. The Mayor won't be back for a while. I'm not sure where our other two luminaries are.

>>Griffith: do you want us to go hustle some Councilmembers up?

>>Spelman: actually we can't because then there will not be four of us here.

>> Marty has to be the hustler.

>> I am going. As long as I get to chair, I will say one thing, one thing that makes this different from some of the others where you wanted the 25% and the one saving grace is that it's no longer gr, it's not a magnet, for me the nuance that's here that allows me to be able to support the planning commission recommendation is that the fact that it's lo, that is not a regional draw. But I respect your right to do that 25%.

>>Slusher: vice versa.

>>Griffith: is there anything that has to be done with the variance from the hill country roadway ordinance?

>>Goodman: as far as I know there is not actually one yet to be talked about. Is that right?

>> that would be addressed at the Planning Commission. That's one of the items the Planning Commission would look at. We would identify all of the hill country roadway requirements and let them know how the project meets or does not meet those requirements. Those that don't meet the applicant would have to specifically request a variance and also provide supporting documentation as to why it should be considered. Just for your information, highway vegetative buffers, typically if they have been previously disturbed, sometimes the commission does take that into consideration in assessing whether we can allow the minimum setback and require revegetation to the natural character that was previously there.

>>Griffith: may I ask one more thing?

>>Goodman: yes, please.

>>Griffith: for for whatever reason that variance, if it were denied, then what would happen?

>> it can be appealed to the city Council. Any ago griefed party can appeal that variance, the commission's decision to the city Council.

>>Griffith: thank you.

>>Goodman: okay. Pardon? there's a motion on the floor. Does that also include closing the public hearing?

>>Spelman: you read my mind, Mayor pro tem. Motion by Councilmember Spelman, seconded by Councilmember Griffith to close the public hearing and approve plan commission recommendation.

>> On all three reading.

>>Goodman: well, do we have enough?

>>.

>>Spelman: can we do that with only five people present?

>> yes. Minimum of five.

>>Goodman: five positive votes or just five votes?

>>Goodman: five positive votes. Okay.

>>Spelman: first reading only, Mayor pro tem.

>>Goodman: further discussion? all those if favor please say aye. Opposed?

>>Slusher: no.

>>Goodman: with Councilmember Slusher voting know, that's first reading. Item no. 69.

>>Goodman: we will go to item no. 69, Case number c-14-9879. This case has a lot of history, it's located at 1518 west Koenig Lane. Typically I keep my presentations very brief. However, this case has a lot of history, so if you can bear with me, I will going to -- my presentation is going to be rather lengthy. But to the point. Since the mid 1950s zoning along company nation lane between some of these uses include restaurants, automobile sales and repair, service stations, convenience stores. The zoning use districts range from single family 3 to cs 1 with commercial services. Historically the area west of wood row avenue towards burnet road developed primarily as residential except for a few tracts near the intersection with ben white boulevard -- with burnet road. In the early 1970 s, the fabric of the street began experiencing changes as properties were converted to office uses. The staff's position was to recommend changes to office, but not to recommend use districts more intensive than office unless the properties were located at major intersections. In 1981, the Koenig Lane area study was conducted, as a result the Koenig Lane guidelines were adopted by the city Council and revised on may 22nd of 1982. The study recommends an orderly transition of parcells fronting on Koenig from single family to office zoning. Further the guidelines stated that rezoning requests for community commercial, neighborhood commercial and commercial services will not be favorablyly considered and will be strongly discouraged. The subject tract and the adjacent tract to the east [inaudible] application for he -- were part of an application for rezoning under and the change was from single family 3 to neighborhood commercial. The City Council approved limited office zoning for both tracts on first reading. However the subject tract did not add all pending conditions, therefore second and third readings were never concluded and the case mained its s.f. 3 Zoning. In 1995 the applicant applied for another zoning change to commercial services, cs, ford to allow the use of the site for assembly and sale of trophies and plaques. The cs commercial services zoning was required because the assembly of trophies has been classified as custom manufacturing. The cs zoning district is the first district in which custom manufacturing is permitted. The applicant was -- the application at that time was amended by the applicant to neighborhood commercial with the applicant agreeing to conduct the assembly work off-site at another location and only use the site for the sale of the trophies. As indicated at that time. The Planning Commission on october 17th of 1995 recommended the neighborhood commercial zoning request and in order to allow the sale of uses that were prntsed at that time. With a rollback provision to limited office if the retail use ceased for more than 0 days. On october 3rd of -- more than 90 days, on october 3rd the city Council heard it and granted the request with the same rollback provision. After the City Council approved that zoning changes, a lawsuit was filed against their realtor and the appraiser in turn filed a lawsuit against the City of Austin. The judge released the City of Austin from the lawsuit and said since the 195 zoning request had been amended from commercial services to neighborhood commercial, that the City Council had not acted on a request, representing commercial services zoning, and therefore the judge directed plaques plus to file another zoning case as an attempt to exhaust that avenue of legislative action. That has occurred. That's why we are in front of you. Both the Planning Commission and staff recommend denial of the zoning case because we believe in the previous case the agreement was to zone the property neighborhood commercial, consistent with Koenig Lane guidelines, and that the assembly of the uses would occur elsewhere so that there would not be a proliferation of intensive zoning along Koenig Lane. The map in front of you just highlights where commercial services zoning exists and in everything else zoning has been maintained at a relatively less expensive district. That concludes staff presentation, I would be glad to response to questions.

>>Goodman: do we have questions before we go to the applicant? okay. Let's ask for Mr. Suttle's presentation.

>> Can I have a minute to set up my props, then I will start.

>> Mayor pro tem, members of the Council, my named is richard subtle, here on behalf of plaques plus tonight, it's a case that point out something we may want to look at in your land development code as maybe something that is a candidate for some change. If -- if as a business owner or a awards company owner, if I wanted to sell this trophy or this plaque or this paper weight, I can do it in lr or gr zoning. But the minute that I want to put your name on it, or your soccer team's name or your little league's name or the minute you ask me to build a 10 inch trophy and basically what I do is I just take the marble, all of the little parts, kind of piece them together, I am not going to go ahead and put it together, but basically that screws on there, you put the date in here, I take a piece of sticky back tape, stick I don't your name in here, the minutes I do that, I can no longer do that activity in gr or lr, I have to go to cs zoning. What has happened to plaques plus, they are on Koenig Lane, been there about three and a half years, you hear the story about how they got there, got to where they didn't get the right zoning, agreed to something they probably couldn't do anyway, the judge told them you didn't even try to get cs, you didn't give the city the opportunity to to give you cs, go back through the mick, that's why I am here today. Like I said, in order for this to be etched with your name or have your logo on it, it requires cs. Additionally, other things that are made are plaques like this, I didn't know this, but the way these are done basically is they have a laser printer like you might have at home, prints out on a piece of heat sensitive paper, you stick it on here, put an iron to it, you have a plaque, that, too, requires cs zoning. For plaques plus to remain in business at Koenig Lane they need to have cs to be able to carry on their business. Plaques plus is a neighborhood business. I think if you were to talk to people in the neighborhood, nfbs the opposition here tonight said at the planning commission, they don't oppose the use. It's cs on Koenig. We are asking cs only to allow plaques plus to remain in business. Like I said, it's supported by the residents of Koenig and brentwood. Plaques plus has adopted all of the neighborhood schools in the area. All of the schools in the area use them for their award. It's just not appropriately zoned. My client plaques plus is at this point flexible as to what they can do, but we have boiled it down to all they can do is ask for cs. I have passed an option out for you that might work. An option would be to do maybe some zoning like we do for certain cs-1 uses that is zone the footprint only. The existing building, which is -- used to be a house, fronts on Koenig, at the corner. Across the street from cs. Footprint zone it cs. There wouldn't be any expansion, they could continue their business, they can continue people continue to stop there on the way home from work, ride their bikes to work, whatever, keep it in the neighborhood. There wouldn't be any expansion. Put in there a co that says we are not doing anything else other than this use, custom manufacturing in this building, do a restrictive covenant that says the owner will not object to a rollback back to lr, back to what they have when and if the code is ever amended to allow this kind of neighborhood manufacturing to occur. That option was kicked around at the plan commission, but what it ran into was the strict interpretation of the Koenig Lane guidelines, we never really got to flesh out the option, that was at the plan commission, we are here tonight thinking this is an appropriate use, we can't shoe horn it into our code. It didn't seem to make sense to me to require them to manufacture off-site, bring it in by truck or car, whatever, add an additional trip to the neighborhood that wouldn't necessarily be there, only to be turned around right there in the same shop and sold just like this, which is what they can do anyway. We are here tonight asking for cs, flexible on how we get there, and hope that we will get favorable consideration from you to fix this problem. So plaques plus can stay in the neighbor as a neighborhood business. Thank you.

>>Goodman: is this from you, richard, is this possible solution from you?

>> yes.

>>Goodman: okay. We only have one person signed up in opposition and that's don layton burwell from the neighborhood.

>> Minor, City Council, I am don layton burwell. I am with the brentwood neighborhood association. And I am an architect here in Austin. I am representing here tonight a unanimous vote of the steering committee of the brentwood neighborhood association. As Alice said, this case has been around since 1995. At that point in time, the neighborhood association brought it to the City's attention that plaques plus was illegally using a residential zoned property and when they got the lrco at that point in time, they actually got a more permissive zoning than the neighborhood wanted. We were advocating no afford lo at best. No and lo at best. The zoning, obviously if you come back every two years, you have the potential by law to whittle away at Council and continue to try to get more and more permissive zonings. It was agreed to as was stated that the cs uses would be taken off-site. That was never done. That was an empty promise on the part of the applicants. It has been illegally used since the granting of that zoning and the enforcement has been on the back of the neighborhood association. As is the case in many zoning cases. As Alice mentioned, this -- the reason this is before you is because of the litigation that is going on. The reward that these folks are going to be getting is likely dependent on what this Council decides. So whether or not they get enough money to move or whatever may be reliant on whether or not they are deb united this zoning -- denied this zoning at this time. Again this is not about plaques plus, I appreciate richard's audiovisual exercise to show us about what plaques plus does. But it is not about plaques plus. You know the zoning runs with the property. Cs is inconsistent with Koenig lane guidelines, it's incompatible with s.f. 3, Not recommended by City staff, unanimously denied by the Planning Commission. More permissive zonings in this area are, you know, approximately 30 or more years old. To do a -- to try to solve this did with a spot zoning is really just sugar coating a bitter pill. I will guarantee you that we will be back here in a few years if cs gets on to this property with somebody else going, well, you know, I have a little cs use that I would like to have, too. Basically we are tired of fighting that battle. If you see it --

>> buzzer.

>> If I might just finish.

>> If you see in your wisdom to change the ordinance to allow uses like plaques plus, fine, we certainly can address that. But given the ordinance the way it is now, the staff recommend dating, we ask that you support the neighborhood position, City staff and your own Planning Commission and deny this request.

>>Spelman: Mayor pro tem, I would like to ask him a question or two, if I could. What kind of costs does the existence of that custom manufacturing use on this corner pose for the brentwood neighborhood?

>> there have been historically, this has not been in recent months which I have shared with richard, there have been complaints by some of the adjacent neighbors about fumes and noise. That is -- has not been actually in recent months. But, again, plaques plus is not the issue as much as, you know, do we want Koenig Lane to be cs zoning. Right now that's a really treacherous neighborhood. Cs zoning as a predent allows for a lot of more expensive uses with traffic and other things like that that would horribly exacerbate the problems on Koenig Lane where people are going 55 miles an hour at this intersection. In answer to your question, there is no direct detrimental affect that is readily apparent.

>>Spelman: so hype threatally, if there were a way of --

>> if there was an architect's office or attorney's office, it would be completely acceptable because it meets the ordinance requirements and, two, it's a non-invasive use.

>>Spelman: the kind of materials that Mr. Suttle was demonstrating a few minutes ago would not be out of place in an architect's office for example, I can imagine the same level of fumes, noise, you are moving physical objects around, assembling them to put your balsam wood bottles together. No direct and detrimental affect then?

>> in recent months I have not been aware of any neighbor complaints.

>>Spelman: if there were hip threatally, a hype threatally, to allow this continue use to continue at this location, if and when they decided to leave for that location to revert to its current zoning, would that be okay with the neighborhood, do you think?

>> that has been proposed with conditional overlays that basically said plaques plus is the an no, ma'am plea -- anomaly in this zoning category. The reason that we have continued to oppose it is that it still puts cs on this map. We don't have plaques plus zoning category. If you want to do that, we might be able to see something. By as long as it's cs, we just have had bad experiences in the past of allowing these special cases.

>>Spelman: I understand your concern about setting a precedent which is one of the reasons why I was asking about costs that you all are incurring by having these guys here. If there were a noise problem, a fumes problem, hazardous materials problem, something else like that, then that would be one thing. If a similar case came up, you complained about hazardous materials and fumes, for example, then that would distinguish that case from this one here. If a very similar case came up where some existing manufacturer were not posing problems from the neighborhood, asking for a similar deal from us, I would imagine us extending the same deal, sure, you are not posing any problems for the neighborhood, we will allow you as an individual user to be able to continue using here, but that's distinguishable from a case where an identical using is posing some sort of a cost to the rest of the neighborhood.

>> Sure. If this were a part of a smart growth innovative mixed use looking at the compatibility that would be wonderful. But the truth is Koenig Lane has been under siege. That's why we have relied so heavily on the Koenig Lane guidelines and why staff has embraced it as much as it has. It's a bad situation for plaques plus, there's no question about it. But I can honestly say they have not shown good faith in, you know, getting site development perm or other things like that they have basically been backed into the corner by the neighborhood saying, wait a minute, aren't you supposed to have a conventional parking lot instead of just throwing gravel in your back yard and mowing down trees. It's not been like they have shop a lot of good faith in terms of this effort. These are always last ditch efforts to try to come into compliance after they have been caught.

>>Spelman: what other concerns do you have. You mentioned the parking lot, the first that we have heard about that. Anything else that you want to get on the table that they need to do?

>> no.

>>Spelman: thanks.

>>Lewis: Mayor pro tem?

>>Goodman: Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: let me ask ms. Glasco a question. What type of parking is required, ms. Glasco? do you have any idea?

>> I will ask Mr. Zapalac to give me an idea on how many spaces would be needed.

>> They would be required to provide one parking space per 200 square feet of the building.

>>Lewis: what's the size of the square feet on this building?

>>Garcia: 2300 square foot building.

>> 2300 Square feet, so that would be -- 11 --12 parking spaces. Loose lies is the building situated on the lot such that you could get 12 parking spaces?

>> yes, sir, there has been a plan drawn that would accommodate 12 spaces on the site. It's an approved site plan. Loose lums

>>Lewis: how many cuts off of Koenig Lane.

>> The entrance would be off a different street, not come anything lane. No curb cuts on to Koenig Lane.

>>Lewis: okay.

>>Goodman: would the applicant like to take his rebuttal time.

>> Quickly, Councilmember Lewis, I haven't been involved in this case very long, but from what the engineer tells me, plaques plus is in the business of making plaques, not in the business of development. They got busted. They didn't have a site plan or parking. But once the neighborhood got them, they went, did a site plan and now their parking is in compliance, they have a little parking lot there with code som appliance, today everything is in code compliance except for the zoning. The plaques plus folks they saurt the Koenig Lane guidelines, they fit into the neighborhood, they support the guideline, they are caught in this box because of our code. When they did have some complaints, months ago, about the fumes, although there weren't really any fumes per se, what they did was they put an exhaust vent where they clean with this stuff, which is citrosol, which they get at whole food. An exhaust fan now goes into their at Texas tick, there haven't been any complaints in a long type. What we are saying is that you have to move out of the neighborhood to have this kind of neighborhood business unless we change the code or change the zoning. I was involved in the discussions when we got co added to zoning. Used to you had your zoning and it showed up on the map just as cs 7 then you had to rely upon a restrictive covenant to go find it. Many times, people came to town, they said cs, great, let's do cs next door. The reason we went to cs, co, whatever, is so that it's on the map, when somebody comes to look, they go cs, but co, I had better go look and see what the provisions are. Plaques plus is willing to do anything that it takes in the co to narrow it down. They just want to stay in the neighborhood. They want to stay there, service the brentwood school, mccallum high school, all of the soccer teams, little league teams they have adopted, caught in this regulatory problem. That's why the scenario I laid out where there's a footprint zoning with the agreement that a rollback would not be opposed if the code is fixed is something we will sign on to because they just want to be able to stay where they are. That's all that I have, I will be happy to answer any more questions that you might have. I have other examples of kind of things that go on in this heavy manufacturing area and I want it for the record that I am here representing a case in the desired development zone. Thank you.

>>Goodman: thank you. Are there any questions? yes, we do. Is there a motion to close the public hearing.

>>Garcia: so move. Power.

>>Goodman: second?

>> second.

>>Goodman: all those in favor please say aye. Okay. Does anybody have questions, comments or a motion?

>>Lewis: I have a question. Can they use lr -- lr parking with the cs -- for cs zoning?

>> yes, sir, they can. The parking is based upon the use, not upon the zoning. And I do have one other correct, it's actually 11 spaces rather than 12 that are required. The actual dimensions of the building are about 2200 square feet.

>>Lewis: that's all that I have.

>>Spelman: I have a question of ms. Glasco, if I could.

>>Goodman: please go ahead.

>>Spelman: one way of attempting to narrow of the range of uses on this lot that would allow plaques plus to continue operation would be to provide cs-co with the co being the only cs use that would be aloud would be custom manufacturing -- allowed would be custom manufacturing, what is custom manufacturing.

>> That's correct, custom manufacturing is a broad definition in the code. Custom manufacturing means an establishment primarily engaged in the onsite production of goods by hand manufacturing, which involves only the use of hand tools or domestic mechanical equipment not exceeding two horse power, has to do with what they proposed. If you indicate allowing custom manufacturing will cover -- that definition will end cover the use they are proposing.

>>Spelman: when you say hand tools, do you mean non-power tools?

>> two horse power. That's why they are classified under the custom manufacturing, being commercial services.

>>Spelman: would it be possible for you to give me a couple of other examples of custom manufacturing?

>> typical uses include ceramic studios, candle making shops, custom jewelry manufacturing. Those are examples of uses, typical uses. Does that help you?

>>Spelman: I don't know, we will find out.

>>Lewis: may I ask a question. Ms. Glasco, could I do welding at that --

>> your limitations, the power tools that you use, you are allowed to have two horse power.

>>Lewis: a welding torch is not rated in horse power.

>> That would be fine.

>>Lewis: so I could actually start a welding shop there and make artifacts with -- out of iron.

>> Under cs?

>>Lewis: under this.

>> Custom manufacturing.

>>Lewis: under cs-co on custom manufacturing.

>> If you don't exceed the two requirements on your horse power. Obviously if you don't have horse power with your tool, because cs is rather permissive.

>> Councilmember Lewis, we will be happy to put within the co that any custom manufacturing has to be done in this building, I would suspect you probably wouldn't be welding inside of a building. Most welding shops I think occur outside. We would be happy to put a restrictive covenant on co can only happen within the existing building, which wouldn't be set up for a more obnoxious use.

>>Spelman: make kind of a building -- what kind of building is it?

>> an older house that's been remodeled.

>>Spelman: wood frame, pier and beam?

>> yes, wood frame.

>> We know that you are not going to be welding in a wood frame house.

>> Right.

>>Lewis: let me ask you something, if you put that in there and this house happened to have a fire or something and have to, demolished, would would -- we are saying that it has to be inside of this building, that building if it is no longer there, then what happens?

>> we need to put something in the co that it's this existing building. If it burns down, then it comes back, we would have to do a restrictive covenant so that it's a plaques business.

>>Lewis: all right.

>>Goodman: I have one question. I may have seen this in the minutes of the planning commission and just not remembered it. When the applicant bought the property, do we know if the applicant was aware that the zoning did not allow the use?

>> given --.

>>Goodman: anybody who may remember if the subject came up.

>> Given -- there was a lot of discovery in the litigation, those of us who were involved in that did testify. The indication was that, yes, at some point when the applicant came in, while the map might have been confusing, it was indicated that they would require a different zoning district in order to be able to do what they are doing. But I think there was confusion, that's why the owner sued the realtor, I don't think the realtor conveyed the correct information to them. Councilmember Garcia?

>>Garcia: excuse me. Thank you Mayor pro tem. One question for Mr. Zapalac. For people that are trying to access this business, if they are coming south on arroyo seco, how do they get to the building?

>> it does have a median in it, so they would not be able to academic it from the southbound direction. They would -- to access it from the southbound direction. They would have to turn around somewhere and go back north and turn into the project.

>>Garcia: the only entry and exit -- the only entry is for the northbound traffic on that street.

>> That's correct.

>>Garcia: how far is the entry from the intersection?

>> it appears to be about 100 feet, 125 feet.

>>Goodman: is there a motion?

>>Spelman: Mayor pro tem?

>>Goodman: yes, Councilmember Spelman.

>>Spelman: I am intrigued by Mr. Suttle's suggestion, in part because my appointee to the Planning Commission seems to have thought of it first, let me see if I can frame the word to work around this. [Inaudible] depends on what the brentwood neighborhood association does with me after I am done. I propose that we footprint the zone as recommended here, that it be cs-co, with the following provisions: that all site development standard be lr, that the only cs use permitted would be custom manufacturing and as me glasco mentioned that includes such uses as candle making, jewelry assembly, plaque making, what was the last one?

>> the last one had to do with ceramic studio.

>>Spelman: with a small kiln. If you want to just refer to the definition of custom manufacturing. I wanted to make sure that the camels of clear to everybody. Custom mafrg of that kind, all lr uses would be permitted. Basically this is lr zoning with the one provision that they could do custom manufacturing as just defined. If you remember that the -- any custom manufacturing use only be conducted inside of that existing structure,.

>>Garcia: would you include in your motion that if this use end that it would revert?

>>Spelman: for a 90 day period to stop doing custom manufacturing, we will end up with lr zoning?

>>Garcia: however long a period of time.

>> If we were informed that the use has creased for more than 90 days, then we will begin the process of filing a rezoning case to roll back the zoning back to the current zoning district, is that what you would like, Council? so you want a rollback provision.

>> That would also need to be included in the restrictive covenant?

>> in the covenant or conditional overlay.

>> You have a restrictive covenant going anyway. The question that I have is do you also intend to include the last restrictive covenant -- oh, I'm sorry. Never mind. It's -- that's exactly the one we were just talking about, I apologize.

>>Goodman: there's one extra thing. If the City code is amended to allow operation in lr, the rollback.

>> The rollback would be a dual one. If there's an amendment, then we would bring it back to give it the appropriate zoning if Council amends the code or if that doesn't occur, the use ceases for more than 90 days, we would still end up with the same situation.

>>Goodman: okay, that's a motion by Councilmember Spelman and a second by Councilmember Garcia. Do we need to repeat that or does everybody have it?

>>Spelman: don't make me repeat that.

>>Lewis: I would like to ask a question. Is it possible to do a -- a conditional use permit for this site to allow them to continue operation without changing the zoning? them once they move, whether it be for a day or once they cease operation, whether it be for a day or what, it would automatically become -- I mean the zoning would be in place, so anyone that wanted to continue some use would have to come in for a -- for a conditional use perm or do something under the lr zoning.

>> That would have to be Written into the restrictive cough nent -- covenant that if the event that occurs, that that would to go the planning commission with a conditional use permit. That can certainly be accommodated in a restrictive covenant.

>> I think that's what I heard the neighborhood saying that they -- it's not the operation that they oppose, but just the -- the -- they appear possess changing the zoning to -- oppose changing the zoning to trigger a cs along that area, because once you start, you know, someone else fwigs to come in. And if you do a conditional use, allow that use to continue, that's what I was asking.

>> Councilmember Lewis, now that you have restated your question, my understanding of your question is can they conduct their business without changing zoning, is that your question?

>>Lewis: can we authorize the conditional use permit?

>> no, sir. The zoning change is needed at this.because they have exceeded what is allowed under the corner zoning district. So to be able to do custom manufacturing, the way the code is structured, you need to go up to the next zoning level.

>>Lewis: all right, thank you.

>>Goodman: what you could do, of course, is institute an amendment process for either one of those things. Either a zoning that allows a certain level of -- of manufacturing with -- with really clearly defined criteria within lr, and/or an amendment to the code which would -- would impose a conditional use permitting process on to the existing zoning category.

>> That's correct, Mayor pro tem.

>>Goodman: we could do that actually at this moment if we wanted to, right?

>> we -- we will accept -- although you are not posted for it, we will --

>> the direction would --

>> we would proceed with your directive. Trying to fine the appropriate terms to use. Find the appropriate terms to use. For.

>>Goodman: for the moment the motion on the table is the one by Councilmember Spelman and seconded by Councilmember Garcia which does not have the direction to the staff to do that in it. And before we vote on it I will just say if it was in the process, if we were already working on these some smart growth and then the land development code revision, I would vote for it, too. But if I didn't know before how iffy the process is, certainly since we got into the smart growth focus group in subcommittee, I do know that things are moving very slowly. I know the neighborhood has worked diligently to keep that precedent as much as possible out of the neighborhood so that they can have the kind of uses and although this is exactly compatible with the kind of small business uses that they wanted in their mixed use makeup, this cs is still at this moment not quite qualifiable. So with that, are there any nor comments before we vote on the motion? city Councilmember Lewis?

>>Spelman: quickly to reiterate what a said a moment ago. Had there been a cost associated with this particular business or this particular use in this particular location to the neighborhood, I wouldn't have brought up this suggestion for rezoning. It's the fact that it does not fit lr zoning, but that continuing this use would not appear to cause few problems, noise problems, other problems for the rest of the neighborhood, fumes problems, I think that would cause this not to be a precedent.

>>Goodman: right, this is on first reading. Councilmember Griffith? [one moment please]

>> I also have that the restrictive covenant would also include that the custom manufacturer would be within the house.

>>Spelman: actually, I may have changed the terms a little bit. The footprint would be for the house itself.

>> I think that would cover it.

>>Spelman: it's a simpler way of accomplishing the same thing.

>> Okay.

>> I have a quick question.

>>Garcia: in a situation like this where the City initiates a roll back, can the owner file a valid petition?

>> yes. Gar is there any 28 wai to prohibit that?

>> I believe in the restrictive covenant, and she can let me know, because the owner of the property is going to sign the covenant that runs with the land, any owner or successors to sign would not -- they would give up the ability to oppose the zoning change.

>> They would be bound by that restrictive covenant. It runs with the land and therefore the owners, the valid petition will not work.

>>Garcia: okay.

>>Slusher: do you concur with that interpretation?

>> yes. What it says is in the event of a roll back, the owner or subsequent owners will not object to it, so there's no valid petition problem.

>>Griffith: Mayor pro tem? this is a very creative thing that's been produced here. I'm concerned about the enforceability of it and about who's going to be running things in the future when -- when the things that are triggered are going to be called for. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty, so I -- I've got a problem with it.

>>Goodman: Alice or marty, do you have anything to say on that?

>> I was going to say that you may try to explain how it could or would be monitored or enforced.

>> How it would be monitored or enforced is needless to say the City would respond to any -- the City would respond to advice by someone that this use has ceased. In other words, we would take public information. And when we make that determination, then we would initiate the rollback pursuant to the restrictive covenants. And the fall back position is ultimately is that the enforcement mechanism is that this is a restrictive covenant, it runs with the land and it is enforceable in a court of law.

>>Griffith: if you review the valid he petition?

>> well, the valid petition is when there is a change in zoning. There's certain limits that are in the local government code, which is not, of course, the City code, but it's a local government code. There are certain limits and once those are triggered by the valid petition, then that -- that means it would take a super majority on the part of the Council to change the zoning. So in this particular instance the restrictive covenant would prohibit the landowner from doing a valid petition because -- for example, he violated the restrictive covenant, he, she or it, violated the restrictive covenant, then that could be sued upon in a court of law. The other thing is I would suggest to you that if an owner came in here, attempted to file a valid petition on a restrictive covenant that had been agreed upon, I don't think that this Council would be real excited about not approving the rollback. In other words, I think you could get six votes. Because if I were -- if I were a Council member, I think I would be real unhappy when a landowner who was violating a restrictive covenant when I had previously agreed that I would -- that when the land use changed that I had agreed that the use would be rolled back. So there's any number of ways. First of all, the voting mechanism at Council, Council can seven force it. In other words, -- seven force it. If the valid petition is triggered, it's exposed. It's a dead issue. Or Council could enforce the restrictive covenant at the courthouse and, you know, those are the options that are there for you to go forward with. So I think the -- I think the remedy is there. I think the piece that perhaps you may be concerned about is how do I find out if the use changed? well, it is the same way we find out whenever we do these restrictive could have nants with roll back provisions. We rely on what we know, what the staff knows and what we are advised by the neighborhood.

>>Griffith: Mayor pro tem, what kind of confidence do you have in this approach?

>>Goodman: I have a lot of confidence in us, should it ever come back up for a vote; however, I'm not voting for the motion for other reasons. Okay. If there's any other discussion? all those in favor please say aye opposed no? so that is two --.

>> Three.

>>Goodman: three. So it goes no where. Three to three. Do we have a substitute motion?

>>Griffith: Mayor pro tem, I would move the staff and the Planning Commission recommendation.

>>Goodman: which is the motion to deny. Any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? two to three. That one didn't go anywhere. Do you want to postpone this?

>>Lewis: I'll make a motion to postpone.

>>Griffith: second.

>>Goodman: are we naming a date to postpone it? when do we -- well, how about -- we have a lot of stuff on the 19th.

>> There's going to be a lot of items on december 3rd. There are a lot of items on that agenda. November 5th. [Inaudible].

>> I think november 19th is cancelled. You have a few cancelled meetings.

>>Goodman: november 12th is cancelled. November 19th I think is still on. Okay. Do we want to try november 19th?

>>Lewis: yes. I'd make a motion to postpone it to november 19th.

>>Goodman: there's a motion. Is there a second?

>>Griffith: second.

>>Goodman: motion by Councilmember Lewis, seconded by Councilmember Griffith. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? thank you. Before we go on to the next item, you may notice that our visitors that we had yesterday, you knew that they were going to go before a commission today. And if we would allow me a personal point of privilege for just one moment, something happened there that they would like to tell us about.

>>.

>>Garcia: (speaking in spanish).

>> Ladies and gentlemen, we are very honored to be here with the City Council and we really appreciate that you let us to be here for a minute. And we would propose to thank you for all your kindness, your support that we had yesterday. We really are really very surprised to see how nice you have been with us in this particular program that we have and the things that we are so happy that -- as a result and we are happy to go back to Mexico knowing that the sierra blanca program for the moment is finished. And not because of this particular dump, nuclear waste, but also because we believe it is the beginning of many more on the border line with Mexico and it affects both sides of the border. So we really want to thank you and we hope to see you soon in our City Council of juarez to share with us maybe. And here with me there are three City Congress people who I'd like to introduce to you because we are representing the whole Congress since they are of different parties. Here is pablo gomez from the green party and Mr. Domingez and alma gomez. So thank you very much and we are very happy to go back in these conditions since we know that this will help us to maintain good relationships between the United States and Mexico. Thank you very much. And I think that the Congressmen want to thank you very briefly.

>> (Speaking in spanish).

>> He says I don't speak english, but I am going to try something in spanish. (Speaking in spanish) (speaking in spanish) (speaking in spanish) (speaking in spanish).

>> Do you want me to translate or if it is okay with you?

>>Garcia: why don't you go ahead.

>> Okay. He says that he wants to thank you for all your kindness and all your moral support that you give us yesterday and also because your attitude that it was so straight and so clear, and he say that he's very happy that this nuclear dump is not going to be installed there and that he say that he thinks that we must try in order that no nuclear waste -- the industry doesn't make any more nuclear waste because this represents a serious problem to solve, so that there are other ways to have energy that is not just nuclear waste the only one. So he says thank you again and we hope to see you soon in Mexico. Thank you very much.

>>Goodman: thank you.

>>Slusher: thank you, Mayor pro tem. You can sit down if you want. I just wanted to say that I think this is a great victory for the citizens of both sides of the border, in Texas and Mexico and that in this case it was truly a victory of the citizens of the country who are up against -- the City of Austin has been against this for a long time, but it was against some very powerful and determined forces and people working on both sides of the border for able to make this happen pd. And I hope that it won't end there, but we will continue to work together on this wide array of issues.

>> Thank you very much.

>>Goodman: thank you.

>>Garcia: I just wanted to translate what darrell said. (Translating in spanish). [Applause].

>>Goodman: thank you. For those who are watching and didn't understand, the up shot was the commission voted unanimously to deny in sierra blanca. Okay. Next item is number 70, which is an almost identical situation to the one we just had.

>> Yes, it is the item no. 70 Located at 6515 levine road. The property is currently zoned rural residence. The applicant is requesting cs with a conditional overlay. And this is for general commercial services. The Planning Commission and staff recommendation is to deny the applicant's request for commercial services and instead grant community commercial conditional overlay. That would be the gr designation. This property was annexed last year. The use was already in existence upon annexation. It was to obtain the appropriate zoning that would keep the use from forming and be able to expand as needed. The Planning Commission and staff recommendation recognized that while the use is there, that use can continue indefinitely and therefore there would not be any argument in the ability to continue conducting the business. So that is the difference than drawn between this case and the previous case. But it would remain a nonconforming use, a legally nonconforming use. There can be remodeling to the interior of the building. There cannot be any expansion, however, of the development under the zoning recommended by staff community commercial. We feel that given the scenario we recently annexed, we would like to maintain certain level of zoning district so we're not overly intense phing zoning in the area. And the concerns would be to limit the zoning to community commercial that would allow for a lot of uses in the area which has some residential uses, a variety of other retail types of uses and other uses. And we feel that an introduction of commercial zoning here would again set a precedent for similar requests that we have -- are beginning to see in this general area that we recently annexed. That summarizes the planning commission and staff recommendation and we would respond to questions as they arise throughout the hearing.

>>Goodman: okay. Thank you, Alice. Is the applicant --.

>> Guess what? my name is richard subtle, I'm here on behalf of the applicant on this case too. And it -- while it's got similar problem on the cs, it's not an identical case. This is a case where they have a one acre tract. They're across the street from li zoning. They're next door to self storage. They're cs and gr up and down and I just don't know where the recommendation came from that this may be an injection of cs. But the difference in this case is that there is an elaborate neighborhood agreement worked out. The surrounding adjacent landowners or adjacent homeowners support this case with the conditions that are in your packet. The neighborhood association supports it and frankly they thought it was kind of silly too that we had to come up here and ask for cs zoning for such a neighborhood use. The agreement that was reached with this neighborhood group basically limits -- it's the same thing that we talked about in the last case. It limits the harsher uses. This case needs cs because this business plans to expand on the last case they were limited to that house and the footprint zoning was fine. I don't have the flexibility here to go that because this business wants to expand and frankly the neighborhood wants to see them expand. Again, it is an identical case. Some of the things you see up here, it's a mix of both neighborhood businesses. So tonight, we're asking tonight on this case, we're asking for cs zoning subject to a conditional overlay that incorporates the agreements that we have with the neighborhood. If we start varying from that, then we're put in a position of not being able to honor our agreement with the neighborhood. And so we would ask that cs, subject to the neighborhood agreement. And just a brief aside about the Planning Commission vote, the Planning Commission vote occurred at about 1:30 in the morning on a night when there was only five people sitting and if you go back and look at the minutes, the presentation basically consisted of it's late, we have neighborhood support, we'd like you to support it too and everybody bleer ri eyed looked and they had already been through the other case and gr is better. I tell you that gr is more intensive than what the neighborhood agreed to. So it puts us in a box. We'd like to, tonight, for one, renew our request that we -- and maybe even a request from Council to staff to look at the code. I mean, it's just ridiculous that we have to spend the hours that we spent on this and see if we can amend it to allow this type of use in something less than cs, but do it tonight so these people who are newly annexed, new citizens of our City, can continue to operate their business without the fear of not being able to expand and give them the appropriate zoning. Thank you.

>>Goodman: Councilmember Spelman?

>>Spelman: what kind of site development standards do you need here? could you live with li site development standards on this lot?

>> we've never looked at them. I know we could live with the gr because we've compared that and the gr site development standards works.

>>Spelman: okay. And so far as you know, there's no objection from the neighborhood to gr site development standards?

>> correct. If you look in your packet, there's a whole bunch of letters from both surrounding landowners and the neighborhood supporting exactly what we agreed to.

>>Spelman: in our packet there's an exhibit a, which is a list of prohibited uses. What are the permitted uses?

>> bairvegly a gr use is with the -- basically a gr use is with the ad add custom manufacturing. It's basically exactly what you attempted to do here. It's just in the reverse. They wanted it spelled out what we're disallowing as opposed to what we're allowing.

>>Spelman: this is everything except for custom manufacturing.

>> And many of the gr uses.

>>Spelman: okay. Thanks.

>> Richard, could I ask you something? if you really only need gr, why are you asking for cs.

>> We need cs.

>>Goodman: I thought staff said you could have this use in gr.

>> Because we would be a legally nonconforming use. But what would happen is they could never expand and they have a one acre site here and they have plans for expansion.

>>Goodman: okay. There's nobody signed up from surrounding areas or anybody, so we can go ahead and if we have -- we do have four. We can close the public hearing.

>>Lewis: I move to close the public hearing.

>>Spelman: second.

>>Goodman: all those in favor please say aye. Then we could use a motion.

>>Lewis: Mayor pro tem, I move that we granted cs with the co -- with the co stipulated in the Planning Commission's recommendation.

>>Spelman: actually, there is no co of that kind.

>>Lewis: right. Well, with the neighborhood's -- the planning commission recommended that we grant gr/co. My motion is for cs/co.

>>Goodman: with the list of prohibited uses and --.

>>Spelman: shown in exhibit a.

>> The motion is to -- I'm assuming ha what you want to state is to grant commercial services with a conditional overlay that prohibits the uses that the neighborhood has referred to under exhibit a and to also add what the Planning Commission recommended for conditions that development is limited to those uses that do not generate over 2,000 trips per day.

>>Lewis: yes. With the co that's recommended.

>>Goodman: okay. Would that include the gr development standards?

>>Lewis: yes, yes.

>>Spelman: second.

>>Goodman: okay. There's a motion and a second --.

>> Mayor pro tem, I would like to point out that one of the letters from the neighborhood requires a 10-foot fence. The ordinance requires a maximum of eight foot fence. I mention that had to Mr. Suttle earlier and I want him to exceed that they will knoll exceed the ordinance requirement, otherwise they would have to go to the board of adjustment to receive a variance under the code.

>> The fence has already been built. It is not 10 feet and we've taken care of their concerns and so I think the fence part can come out.

>>Goodman: okay. So the motion is I think cs/co with the prohibition on uses as listed in exhibit a in our backup agreed to by the neighborhood gr development standards and --.

>>Spelman: 2,000 feet.

>>Goodman: right. Generation of no more than 2,000 trips per day. Further discussion? all those in favor, please sayu aye.

>> Aye.

>>Goodman: did Gus vote aye? gus, did you vote aye?

>>Garcia: yes.

>>Goodman: okay. So that's -- wait. We don't have the documentation ready yet, do we?

>> this is first reading only.

>>Goodman: okay. That's with Councilmember Griffith temporarily off the dias and the Mayor temperaturely absent. Are we through?

>> that concludes all the zoning cases. Thank you, Council.

>> Mayor pro tem, members of Council, we talked after the hearing and we're trying to figure out a way the map that bothers the neighborhood. Is there any way that we could initiate the code change that would allow them to operate where they are? between now and the 19th even because that's -- again, it's not the use, it's that map designation that's killing them.

>> I would like to respond to his request. Staff had already begun from initial work in regarding this particular topic. What we're going to do is present this as part of the smart growth. We have one other amendment that we have presented to the Council task force and we could possibly roll that into that since it woulding coming forth fairly quickly as part of the package on the smart growth code amendment.

>> How quickly, Alice?

>> quickly? we're hoping we would have that to Council by the end of the year. If Council desires to separate that from the other amendments? the reason I offer that, we are in the process of writing the plain english version and the amendments need to be tracked in accordance with those aementd amendments. Thank you.

>>Goodman: okay. Council, if you look to your left, you will see some young folks who are continuing their civic education, and they are thinking about membership in the junior league. And we certainly hope we can enrich your understanding of civics and thank you for being here. Okay. Toby, I'm not actually sure what item we need to go back to right now. 34? Oh, thank goodness you're back, Mayor. We sipped right along and did a couple of things while you were gone. [Laughter].

>>Mayor Watson: I'll call up item no. Thrirn b and I'll recognize Councilmember Slusher. 13 B and I'll recognize Councilmember Slusher.

>>Slusher: could I have a staff person here and probably legal? there you are. So my understanding is this is currently not in compliance because we haven't dedicated the parkland. This would dedicate more than they're required to under the original?

>> Councilmember, I'm going to have to find awe real lawyer. I'm just a zoning lawyer. If you can give me a few minutes, a few seconds, I am sure that there is a lawyer rushing up here who is knowledgeable and can answer this question.

>>Slusher: I'm sure the Mayor would drive forward on another item and come back.

>> Yes. Let me find you a real lawyer.

>>Mayor Watson: item no. 26, I'll recognize Councilmember Lewis.

>>Lewis: thank you, Mayor. If I could get one of the staff members, they gave me some information on this fire protection systems. My question is sole source system in one of our health centers.

>> Are you going to handle this or is peter?

>> I'm from the health department.

>>Lewis: thank you. You have it listed as a sole source item. And I understand that that's because you're using part of a system now and you just wanted to continue to use it to increase that system.

>> That's correct. The panel that we put on the first floor when we renovated the tb clinic is expandable enough to be able to wire the rest of the building. There's three more floors that need to be wired into this one system. So whatted we'd like to be able to do is get in compliance with ada, with the fire code as well because right now we have a temporary building permit until we complete the rest of the building.

>>Lewis: how much of this -- do you have any idea what the panel' the first floor costs, the one that we're using?

>> approximately. I don't have the exact dollars, but it was something around 15,000 or so.

>>Lewis: okay. So we got one of those low bids then. And do we have this type of system in other health clinics?

>> we have other -- we have this type of system in probably two clinics, but we also have probably six or seven other fire alarm security systems in other buildings that are other brands or other types. They either came with building when either they were built or upgraded.

>>Lewis: but this system that's -- that we have, part of the system, it only operates -- we can only extend it with this?

>> that's correct. It's only for the rbj building.

>>Lewis: yeah, but I'm saying that the only type of equipment that you could match it with is the one that's there already?

>> that's correct.

>>Lewis: is that the reason for the sole source?

>> that's correct. I just hope they don't try to charge too much down the road and make us change out the whole system. I move approval, Mayor.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made by Councilmember Lewis to approve item no. 26. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Garcia. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries with Councilmember Spelman off the dias. Item no. 27? I'll recognize Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: I just received a letter from Mr. Riek or ms. Cat trel, I guess. This letter says that we're going to design a pedestrian bicycle sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. Which part of the roadway were we making reference to? is that from 183 to east or 183 west or what?

>> it's just for the section of the roadway that the design applies to, phase 1, which is between, plus me, -- excuse me, I change mid backup my backup. It's between crystal brook drive and Texas new orleans railroad.

>>Lewis: let me ask you a question. If we're going to design -- we didn't have any -- in the old design we didn't have any pedestrian sidewalks designed along that roadway?

>> I believe that's correct.

>>Lewis: and since there's nothing built on that side of the roadway, no development at all between crystal brook and -- well, I don't know. Does that include the creek also? because crystal brook comes out east of the creek.

>> The creek is included in this.

>>Lewis: what?

>> the creek is included in this portion of the project.

>>Lewis: so my question is doing things the smart way, since there's no development there, why would we not just put the -- put the money, hold the money in advance and wait until some development is done because if we design it, then build it, then they develop the south side of the roadway, then they break up the sidewalk and then we have to go in and put in some more because they won't be -- the builder won't be responsible for the sidewalk if it's already in, right? it's our sidewalk, correct?

>> correct. But if they cut into it or they damage it, they would have to repair it.

>>Lewis: but I'm saying if we -- if we don't put it in, then once it's developed, it's their requirement to install it, correct?

>> that is correct; however, Councilmember, Council has passed the bicycle plan part one and two. Part of the plan or part of the plan is that on all new roadways or roadways -- roadway improvements of the kind that we are performing at loyola road include sidewalks and bicycle facilities. So Council bypassing bicycle plan part one and two has basically mandated to us that on those kind of projects that we include sidewalks and bicycle facilities.

>>Lewis: what about on the north side? this says design changes will add a 10-foot pedestrian bicycle sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. Additional street width to accommodate marked bicycle lines for commuter bicycles, bus turnouts and disability access improvements as well as development and landscaping plan for landscaping the right-of-way and median after the street construction. So the -- my question is are we going to design the landscaping for the right-of-way without any construction -- without any development being there.

>> That's correct.

>>Lewis: but don't that defeat the purpose just a little bit? because if I go out and decide to construct something and I want to do a three feet infill, wouldn't that just kind of defeat the purpose of the landscaping that was already designed?

>> yes, however, the landscaping is not just limited to area outside the curb, but also includes the median and we have to -- we sat down with the parks department because one of the problems that we have is that landscaping that is in the median or along the rie of way -- right-of-way typically looks pretty crummy and we have during annexation hearings frequently heard that we don't maintain our facilities very well in that regard. What we're working on is to come up with a landscaping plan that is relatively maintenance free and has an acceptable or good appearance on a continual basis. And so rather than letting this project overgrow by happenstance, we would like to provide for an acceptable visual appearance.

>>Lewis: so are we doing the same thing on this -- on the north side of the roadway?

>> yes. On the sidewalk, I believe we have a five foot sidewalk or six-foot sidewalk on the north side, but I would have to verify that. I don't have that information right now with me.

>>Lewis: well, any improvement on loyola lane would definitely be welcome by the people that travel that roadway, but my theory is if we spend $80,000 to design it and then it goes in and someone goes in and changes the whole landscaping, we've just -- we've probably wasted most of the money and plus we spent money putting in a sidewalk that no one is going to use because no one uses the south side because there's nothing there. I mean, you go no place, you start no place and you end no place from the railroad track to the -- to 183. It's one building and there's -- in that mile -- one point something mile stretch on the south side. So what I would like to see is us design something along the roadway east of the railroad track to decker lane. That's where the pedestrian traffic is. I don't know. I look at this and I know that sometimes in the '80's after the bonds was passed, we did some design for this roadway.

>> Correct.

>>Lewis: and I don't know what's changed because none of the land terrain has changed out there. The only thing that's changed is the flood control at the creek, which from there east nothing has changed. And I don't understand why we can't use the plan that we had then or -- you know, because I understand according to the bonds in 1982 it was for four lane divided highway -- roadway. And I don't understand what's changed so much that we have to redesign it.

>> Well, there are several items, s, we're changing the roadway with in order to accommodate better pedestrian facilities and also bicycle facilities, so we're including our pedestrian and bicycle facilities as two additional or changed items. We are revising the median width in this design change. We're adding bus pullouts for capital metro at Johnnie morris as they have requested. We're providing landscaping, as I mentioned. And we're changing the phasing limits for the next two phases a little bit and make adjustments. We're revising a water detention pond to accommodate a future church driveway and to avoid some existing trees. There's a number of relatively minor changes altogether, but nonetheless they come light to some money in order to complete this project.

>>Lewis: well, you know, looking at this -- and I know -- what did we get for the 318,000 dollars that we spent already doing this design?

>> a complete set of construction documents which had to be set aside until we had the money to actually fund the construction.

>>Lewis: well, this is getting into one of Councilmember Slusher's numbers. I don't know which one. Probably six. But I talked -- spoken with the City Manager some time ago because I know -- I was looking at the -- some of the budget documents. We have over five million dollars from the 1982 bond sales or 1984 bond sales for this project that we've been sitting on, you know, and we have another, what, four years to pay them off if we sold them in '94, we have six more years and we haven't used it. And it bothers me that we put things off to this point and then come back and redesign the whole process all over again because the people out there woven joyed the design that we had in 19 -- in the 1980s had it been installed sometime earlier. But this is the type of thing that I constantly get calls about as to why we go back and redesign something that supposedly was paid for and design on initially because at some point someone has to decide how much money is going to be decided that something is designed because they came up with a dollar amount.

>> Councilmember, there were several projects in the '94 issue and the '92 issue in which when we began the design work it was clear to us that we didn't have enough money. Mccarty lane is one of them. We began to work on it. We had some two million set aside on it. We tried to find out what we needed in terms of right-of-way, in terms of drainage work on it. It was a 20 million dollar project. We had no way that kind of money to work on that project. And we moved that money to some other project to be done. What also happened is that -- almost a billion dollar issue was predicated on an economy that would continue to grow. And may the mid 80's it fell off the charts and we didn't have the capacity to sell debt. This is one of the projects where we thought it would be worth so much as -- as I recall, it ran into drainage issues, it just -- with the money that was authorized by the voters, there was not enough dollars to complete it. What we're trying to do with staff is get this designed, taking into account some of the drainage improvements that will be done. I think you've even moved the limits of this. It's not just what we signed back in 85, but it takes us further, it puts in pedestrian facilities that are part of the policy of the Council and get the project moving. And I understand people's frustration and your frustration. It's just that the matter of how the numbers work on some of these projects. We understand that.

>>Lewis: well, you know, you say in 1985 design. The bonds was passed from 183 to decker lane and I think it was 6.3 million dollars' worth of bonds that was passed for this project. And now we're breaking it up in phases but we haven't attempted to use any of the money before to do the east part of it, you know, which is -- don't have a drainage problem or the last information that I got, we had problems getting right-of-way. And they purchased right-of-way from me east of the railroad tracks some three years ago, so I know that wasn't a situation that precluded doing some design and some building of it. I'm not going to take up any more time. Thank you Mr. Riek. If no one else have any questions, I move approval.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made by Councilmember Garcia, seconded by Councilmember Slusher to approve item no. 57. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Oppose said no. Motion carries with the Mayor pro tem and Councilmember Spelman temporarily off the dias. Let's go back to item no. 13 B and recognize Councilmember Slusher.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. I'll go to another item. Item no. 34, And I'll recognize Councilmember Garcia.

>>Garcia: thank you very much. I have questions for staff on this one. I noticed that on this particular one the staff chose not to do an interview, even though the top two firms were in the 88.67 points greater. Who makes the decision whether to interview or not interview?

>> typically that decision is left up to those -- to the members of the evaluation panel. They decide. --.

>>Garcia: they decide?

>> typically, yes. In some instances if there is a question whether it might be beneficial to have an interview, there are further discussions beyond the panel. In this case the panel felt that both of the firms were in essence local firms. We knew their capabilities and what they can perform on this project and the panel felt that because of the information provided in the proposals and what we knew about both firms, an interview was not necessary.

>>Garcia: did the fact that this was reported to our office -- and I want you to confirm or deny this. Did the fact that parsons brinkerhoff is the manager, project manager of the airport, have any effect on this other than previous work? the comment that was made was that the airport -- the new airport project team was not going to release parsons brinkerhoff. I didn't think that was something that was appropriate because I think parsons brinkerhoff is a worldwide firm.

>> That's correct.

>>Garcia: they wouldn't be bringing the same people to do this project that they have at the airport. Was there concern expressed during the process; do you know.

>> I have no personal knowledge of this. There was a person from the airport project team on the evaluation committee. I don't know that this person discussed and made this issue a matter of his own personal review, but I can tell you -- I cannot tell you whether in fact this was an issue that may have been in the reflection of the panel. And I would personally feel that in all likelihood this was not, at least for the non-aviation participants on the panel, an issue that would have driven that decision. Our evaluation panels are asked to decide on the merits of the proposal, not on any other facts that they may want to include.

>>Garcia: well, in looking at the -- what I considered to be the meaty parts of the matrix, which is experience of the project manager, experience with the executive in charge, something called prop staff, proposed staff and prime comfortable project experience, parsons brinkerhoff scored significantly lower, even though, you know, they're a world class firm. And I was wondering was gilbane's proposal just better? I can understand that. On some of this there were they were two points below, as much as two points below the other ones. And the comment that was made was that some of the -- some of the members of the evaluation team may have been included by the fact that the airport, new airport project team, would not release parsons brinkerhoff, which shouldn't with affected it. But you don't have any knowledge of that?

>> no. I usually try to stay away from this, Mayor pro tem -- Councilmember, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Old habits are sometimes hard to break. But if in fact this would have been a preconcluded issue to the panel, it would be my expectation, have having in past participated in these type of evaluations, that anybody who had that outcome in mind would have made sure -- and of course, there was a reasonable separation between the preferred firm and the less preferred firm. I would not think that 2.67 points as is spread would give an indication that there was a preconceived negotiation that parsons brinkerhoff should not be considered on this project based on any kind of considerations relative to the new airport. So my perception of this is that that was not a factor. And again, I think what I also would like to stress is that this is the recommendation from staff. Council makes a decision on what is the most qualified firm for this particular project. This was the evaluations panel's evaluation --.

>>Garcia: all I'm doing is I'm making sure because every time we have one of these, we have a lot of calls from people saying that the process was unfair, blah, blah, blah, all that stuff, and I just want to make sure. And I don't remember ever selecting a firm for any large project where the issue of the matrix did not come up by somebody. You know, we discussed earlier the page, southerland and page and the lmn proposal, and in that one base page, southerland and page was no. 2 Going into interview, but they decided to interview and in the interview, csp went ahead by a large margin. My idea is when you have those situations and you do this one when you don't do an interview, even though they're close, it casts a shadow over the process. And I think we need to have better reasons other than the staff decided or the interview panel decided not to interview. It sends the wrong message I think to the people that make proposals and I don't want firms in the future to say, well, you know, in Austin things are wired and therefore I'm not going to propose. I think that did he priefs us on quality proposals -- owe dpriefs us on quality proposals. That's all I'm trying to do is that the process maintains integrity that the Council incorporate intood it when we approved the matrix.

>> Mayor, if I may just add one thing that may provide a little bit of an explanation. The interview for the architecture selection in part was also caused by the part that lmn is an out of town firm that we didn't have any local knowledge of in terms of their performance and it was felt that an interview in this particular case was appropriate to make sure that we understood what the disabilities and the personalities involved in this project for this particular firm were. In this case we're dealing with two firms that are in essence local, have local presence, have worked on local projects before so o., so there was a different basis for a decision on interview or not interview.

>>Garcia: I think the gilbane firm was here from about 1991?

>> I think the last contract was awarded in --.

>>Garcia: '88?

>> yes. I believe that's correct.

>>Garcia: Mayor, I think there's two people signed up to speak.

>>Mayor Watson: we have two people signed up, one to speak and one in opposition, but supporting the parsons brinkerhoff, but not speaking. Mr. Barrera is signed up against and supporting parsons brinkerhoff. And bobby enrique? [one moment, please] is extremely important and could be a factor in whether a contract is awarded one way or the other. Being that these two competitors did come in as close as they did and looking at the areas where those point spreads were, one of the other places that I also found some question was in the area of prime's expertise in Austin's issues. Of course we've many times discussed this is a subjective category. In this case because gilbane has not had a City of Austin contract of this magnitude in the last recent years, and parsons brinkerhoff has. I was surprised to see that brinkerhoff came in just a little bit lower in the matrix than the gilbane company did. One of the other areas that I also looked at was the issue of a critical 55-inch waterline that is going to have to be relocated prior to the construction phase of this project. Had that interview process happened, had it taken place, this issue which is a very critical issue could have been a deciding factor. Parsons brinkerhoff, as you well know, has its bread and butter from waterline engineering, pipeline engineering. They recently completed a project in dallas that had a very similar phase to their project as this, moving and relocating a major waterline. In this case one that is critical to our fire department, to the convention center itself, to the sheraton hotel and of course to all the businesses in that area. The fact that they have been here in Austin over the last five years working on a project like the airport project, I would assume that they would know how to handle that in a successful manner.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you.

>> Thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll entertain a motion with regard to item 34.

>>Garcia: let me ask peter one more question.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Garcia.

>>Garcia: the point that she made with regard to the point -- points allocated to the interview are significance, 25% of the -- 20% of the total 25% of the 100 points assigned to the others, how long would it take for them to do the interview?

>> well, typically it would take us about two weeks to call them in for an interview to allow them enough time to schedule and make sure that everybody is available potentially, particularly if some out of town folks are involved as was in this case. And then another -- I mean if you really push it, at least another two weeks to get the item on the Council agenda and in this particular case as we have a very spotty Council schedule through the rest of the year as far as weekly meetings is concerned, that is difficult to predict depending again, on when we would have been successfully able to schedule the interview. So we would have lost --

>> about a month.

>> Yes.

>> We could accommodate it very quickly, Councilmember.

>>Garcia: we could place out the agenda the 19th?

>> provided the I wanted views are done by then.

>>Garcia: the first meeting in december? Mayor, my concern on this one is that this is a large project. The decision was made by staff. I don't particularly see that a few weeks delays this project significantly, and I would like to move that we send this back to the staff so that they can do the interviews. To see if there is any -- anything that needs to be done to this particular process. It is imperative that the people that bid on this project have faith in the process, and I think this particular process was you might say shortened by a decision whether the two top vote getters were not that far apart. And when you consider 25 points, I can see that, you know, it could have a affect. So my motion is to send it back so that the staff can do the interviews.

>> Councilmember, could I ask for some assistance in clarifying something that I'm a little bit concerned about and just want to make sure that my concerns are unwarranted? I'm not sure we got -- regardless of what the outcome is of the interview process that if the same members again are on the evaluation panel that there may not be a perception of bias or of generating possibly a certain outcome that may be expected by somebody, and so my question to you is would you be aagreeable if we -- or would it be a preference to change the evaluation panel?

>>Garcia: put it to you this way, I'm not telling you how to do the interview. That's not my job. That's fundamentally the job of the City Manager. All I would like to do is to complete the project so that the integrity of this process can be, you might say, completed, and that we don't damage it in any way. I think there are some feelings that we short-cutted this one for whatever reason, and you know this -- these things get very emotional and there's all kinds of comments that come which, you know, if I were to list them all, we would spend here the rest of the evening here talking about those things. I don't want to do that. Instead I would like so that everybody is satisfied that we completed the whole process, that we select an evaluation group of five or six people, interview those two and bring back, and whatever comes outcomes out.

>> Okay.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made to send back for interviews by staff inaccordance with the matrix. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Lewis. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item no. 34. That takes us back to item 13-b. I'll recognize Councilmember Slusher.

>>Slusher: thank you, Mayor. This is the senna hills mud. Mr. Cookens would you get the map up there? first of all, the developers of the mud are coming soon to the Council for approval of bonds. Is that correct?

>> yes, sir, that's correct.

>>Slusher: okay. And -- butted those bonds will not be backed by the full faith and credit of the City or backed by the City in any way.

>> These are district bonds, and we would only assume these bonds upon annexation of the district. If you like I could show you just how far the far western edge of our etj.

>>Slusher: sure. Go ahead. Right there.

>>Slusher: okay.

>> That spot right there is senna hills mud.

>>Slusher: and why is it that the City has to be involved at all?

>> well, we have a mud consent agreement with sen in a, the developer of the senna hills. They -- as prior to the agreement they come to us for our approval of their bond issues. In this instance when we reviewed the bond issues, and we reviewed all their dedication requirements and all their obligations under the agreement, we noted that they were out of compliance on the park land dedication ordinance. Excuse me, park land dedication requirements. So we brought that to their attention and came up with new language to bring them back into compliance.

>>Slusher: and they are about three years behind on that; is that correct?

>> yes, that's correct.

>>Slusher: okay. And as far as the ordinances that -- with which they have to comply, they are partially in the lake Austin watershed and partially in the barton creek; is that correct?

>> correct. Let me show you where that break is.

>>Slusher: okay.

>> That line I just noted is the barton creek-lake Austin watershed divide.

>>Slusher: barton creek being on the south and lake Austin on the north.

>> Excuse me, lake Austin -- [inaudible].

>>Slusher: and do you have the map that is in the backup showing what is platted and what is not?

>> yes. Essentially this area here is platted, going up [inaudible].

>> Could you get the microphone up there so you could be on the record?

>> first, the entire project is covered by an approved preliminary. The recorded areas go from here and then work their way back up.

>>Slusher: now, maybe this might be for the attorneys, but -- yeah. There he is. [Laughter].

>> The real lawyer is here.

>>Slusher: since the mud is not in compliance with the consent agreement, are we under any obligation to approve this here or later approve the bonds?

>> well, the current item before you is not for the approval of the issuance of the bonds. The current application is for approval of an amendment to the consent agreement that would modify the park dedication requirements to change the timing of the dedication of the land and the timing for their construction of the park improvements. The short answer to your question is no, you don't have to approve the current item if you don't want to.

>>Slusher: okay. And would we -- are we under obligation to -- I'm sorry, excuse me, -- to approve the bonds if they were not in compliance with their consent agreement?

>> no, the water code states that a -- in one sense it says a mu nis palt cannot approve issuance of district bonds and we would consider those park dedication requirements to be a long standing and valid requirement of the agreement.

>>Slusher: Mayor [inaudible] -- it's getting late and I had some questions about this that I didn't [inaudible] an answer until after the meeting started today. So if we could postpone it for a couple weeks. I would appreciate it.

>>Mayor Watson: motion is to postpone for at least two weeks. I would ask that the City manager look at the agenda and see.

>> We have a very easy agenda on the 5th of november.

>>Mayor Watson: I bet that's right.

>>Mayor Watson: for at least two weeks and look at it and seconded by Councilmember Garcia. Is there any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item 13-b. If Councilmember Spelman is within the sound of my voice, I would encourage him -- is he yes. I'll call up items 53 and 55 and recognize Councilmember Spelman.

>>Spelman: marry had a clever idea but it didn't pan out and as a result I'm going to move approval of both 53 and 55.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been maded. Who seconded it? Councilmember Garcia seconded it to approve items 53 and 55. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on items 53 and 55. At this time I will entertain a motion -- we got public hearings, don't we? hang on a second. Let me double-check something. We will go to item no. 83. A public hearing on a variance request to allow replace many of manufactured homes on Johnny morris road in the flood plain. Do we -- do we need a staff presentation? 6 Mr. Nias your timing couldn't -- I was good about to say, I-on.

>> The defense rests, sir.

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Nia why don't you come forward this. Is a tough time to have this issue up in front of us.

>> I agree.

>>Slusher: I'm going to be off the dias momentarily but I will be listening.

>> Thank you, Mayor. I do -- I am here tonight representing chris and marie who are seated here in the gray and black sweaters respectively who are the owners of the Austin hills mobile home estates. They've been the owners for 17 years of the 25 years it's been in existence. And over at my firm they are calling me the kami-kizi lawyer because I know the timing couldn't be worse.

>>Garcia: meet logically.

>> I initially thought myself I must be crazy but the more I thought about it what better time sg there to have a frank discussion about these issues. It's no revelation there has been flooding along little walnut creek periodically over the years. This park has been there 25 years. It went through the memorial day floods of 1981, the 1991 christmas floods and the floods of last weekend. We are pleased to report that last weekend our damage was really pretty minor.

>> Is this little walnut or walnut?

>> it's little walnut.

>>Garcia: the backup says walnut.

>> This is little walnut.

>>Garcia: if this is where I think it is --.

>>Lewis: that's on walnut creek.

>> I think that's the watershed. I believe the creek we're on I believe is little walnut, but --.

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Hyatt, can you help us?

>> it's my understanding it was on walnut creek.

>>Lewis: little walnut creek and it's walnut creek north rt trailer park.

>> I'll stand corrected on that. Mary harper is also here as the resident manager and she reports that actually we didn't get water in any of the homes and I went out the next day and we didn't have any homes knocked off their blocks no skirts were lost. And one of the reasons we're lucky in that regard is because we are in the part of the -- although it's considered to be the 25 year flood plain we're in the overbanks, on the other side of Johnny morris road, not actually in the main channel. So the velocity there isn't white what it is. So we've -- and we have three or four feet of water but relatively minor damage as we have in the other storm events. We had three bad days in 25 years, about 9,000 good days provided housing for lots of people. On balance that's not bad. But we were advised about a year ago that the maps had been changed. We're now in the 25 year flood plain. We can't replace mobile homes when people move out because even though it's an existing park and person moves out of existing space and moves in an existing space in an existing park it's called new construction under the City's definition because of permits issued to hook up electricity and plumbing and that's really it. And I would just ask you that the result here is the elimination of a lawful use by regulation and eventual displacement of a lot of people. I would ask you if that is a result. I would ask you to compare that with the businesses along lamar that also get flooded in these major events but aren't put out of business. I would ask you if you are going to tell the people in the single family homes, are they not going to be able to rebuild their homes, are they not going to be able to get permits? I don't know what you are going to say on that but our request is to be able to replace mobile homes to same standards standards alud by fema based on fema regulations for existing, not new development, but existing parks that were in existence when the fema regulations went into effect in the first place. We are asking to be judged by the same standard, be regulated by the same standard as fema regulates the exact same situation. That is it. I know that's a tough issue. Appreciate your -- no matter what year vote is and I've got an idea. I appreciate your time.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you. Appreciate your approach to it and your presentation. Those are all the people signed up to speak on item 83. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Motion made by Councilmember Garcia, seconded by -- you pick somebody. All those in favor say aye? opposed. Motion carries with Councilmember Slusher off the dias. The public hearing is closed. Councilmember Slusher is here voting in favor of. That takes us to item 88. Let me ask a couple questions. Mr. Hyatt, can you come forward real quick. I want to make sure I understand how the -- -- I'm sorry?

>>Lewis: you said you are going to 88?

>>Mayor Watson: yes, 88 would be the substantive --.

>>Lewis: okay. All right.

>>Mayor Watson: -- item for the public hearing on 83. I hear Mr. Nias when he says that in this incident we've had here in the past week there was not flooding in these homes. Let me make sure I understand how some of this works. If you are in a watershed, with it -- be it walnut or little walnut, there would be times when you might have major flooding in the area such as we have certainly had, but some watersheds that are capable of flooding and impacting the 25 year flood plain will still not flood and that's a function of sometimes where -- which -- where those storm cells hover, where they spend time and where they actually dump the kind of water that causes the flooding. Is that right?

>> exactly.

>>Mayor Watson: so, for example, in parts of the onion creek watershed, and you had significant flooding, but in some instances it didn't rise into some people's homes where when we were out there we even expected to see it in some of those homes. Is that right.

>> That's correct.

>>Mayor Watson: and that's -- is it still in the flood plain still greatly at risk for devastation of property and life, but just at that point in time the good luck, if there was good luck under those circumstances, there wasn't more water in that watershed.

>> That level of intensity was not there.

>>Mayor Watson: the other question I've got is what he's saying -- I'm not sure I'm understanding all he's saying about the fema situation. Explain to me what the rules are with regard to fema and people being able to rebuild under those circumstances.

>> The -- I think the main issue in the fema requirements ask that a manufactured home be built at the 1 hundred year flood plain. However, if a park had been constructed for a period of time -- and I don't have the exact amount in front of me, but for a period of time which this one qualifies, then those manufactured homes either have to be built at the 1 hundred year flood level or three feet above the current grade. Now, that still puts some of these homes anywhere from four to seven feet below the 100 year level. The City of Austin ordinance we require that all structures be one foot above the 1 hundred year flood plain. So that portion of the fema requirement both in the three feet and that we -- and at the 1 hundred year, we are more stringent. We ask for a foot above the 1 hundred year and we do not allow the three foot allowance that people in a allows. As you know in other discussions we've had about yuck and some of the other areas, as a result of that, and we've been pretty stringent in enforcing these, we have 15% discount on our flood insurance program Citywide.

>>Mayor Watson: any other questions of Mr. Heights? I'll entertain a motion with regard to item 88.

>>Garcia: Mayor?

>>Mayor Watson: yes, Councilmember Garcia.

>>Garcia: I move we deny this request.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made by Councilmember Garcia to demy the request for a variance. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Griffith. Any constitution? Councilmember Garcia.

>>Garcia: Mr. Nias mentioned there has been three days in which there has been flooding in that area and those three days, the flooding could have come in like it came in victoria and if it had been in the middle of the night lives would have been, you know, much in danger. Could have been lost. So these are serious situations and given all the climate change events we're seeing or events that seem to be related to climate change, I wouldn't want to put people in harm's way in that manner. I understand the issues of the going concern. I understand the reasons, you know, that Mr. Nias has put forth to provide affordable housing, but the people that least can get -- take a blow like this are the people in the lower sos yo economic because they don't have the funds to move and if they lose they don't have much in the way of resources to replace them so I think that for those reasons I would want -- I will ask the Council to vote for this proposition -- for this motion.

>>Mayor Watson: let me just say that I'm very sympathetic to the -- to you all's situation too, but particularly with what I have seen over the past week and actually being in people's homes, I don't -- I would not feel comfortable voting for a variance under this set of circumstances. Councilmember Slusher?

>>Slusher: I share a similar concern including some flooding of my -- some of my neighbors down a few blocks down, -- this weekend, but I just wanted to point out that the City has other programs where we're trying to deal with these problems both through structural -- structural aapproaches to get houses out of the flood plane and purchases so we are continuing to move forward on those type of programs.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? Mayor pro tem?

>>Goodman: when we met the other day with Mr. Nias and the applicants, what I also thought that it might be worthwhile to do is check with our engineering with Mr. Heitz or whomever to see if there is any strategic alteration of the flood plain where they are any possible structural mitigation that they might consider that might be economically feasible for them

>> Mayor pro tem, as you know, we are working on our master plan at this time and there are some different proposals that we have. Some of those are some ponds, some are buyout areas and we will be bringing those recommendations to you in the very near future.

>>Goodman: thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? Councilmember Spelman?

>>Spelman: if I may follow up on that. I realize that the effects of that master plan are contingent on exactly what it is you select to do. Is there a possibility that once the master plan in little walnut has been implemented that it would reduce the size of the flood plain at the point at this particular manufactured home park were no longer in the 25 year flood plain?

>> Councilmember, this is one of the parks that we've been targeting to either remove the area from the flood plain in different -- different scenarios. We just haven't come to a final solution of that, but we have been working on that.

>>Spelman: so at that point where you could be assured you hadn't installed whatever you are going to install and they are no longer in the 25 year flood plain, then they could come back and say we're no longer in the flood plain. Could we start to replace these houses at that point?

>> absolutely because once the different structural controls we could then change the boundaries and in some of these areas if not all could be removed from the flood plain.

>>Spelman: about how long is your time frame for construction of those?

>> we'll hoping we'll have final recommendations as it pertains to this particular area probably in the next six the seven months and from there we start implementing some plans.

>>Spelman: we're talking two, two and a half, maybe three years out.

>> I would like to say that might to be worst case scenario.

>>Mayor Watson: motion has been made and second to do deny the request for variance. Any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries with Councilmember Griffith had voting no.

>> Appreciate the discussion.

>>Mayor Watson: thank you all for being here. Item no. 84, A public hearing on a variance request to construct a roof over an existing patio and screen in -- and screen in the existing patio at frank and and gee's restaurant located at 508 west avenue in the 25 year flood plain. We have one person -- is danny lucas here? danny lucas. Danny lucas. Mr. Lucas signed up representing himself and indicated he was for. There are no other people signed up to speak at this public hearing. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

>> So moved.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made by Councilmember Spelman seconded by Councilmember Lewis. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries of the the public hearing is clouds on item 84. Item 89 is action on that. Staff recommends approval but recommends denial of the request for a screen understand porch. Mr. Heitz, would you like to describe the reason for that briefly?

>> yes, Mayor. Basically we have a 30 by 30, 30 foot by 30 foot patio that is behind this existing restaurant. It is not in the actual stream or the flow of the creek itself, it is an area that in a flooding event would be a ponding area. The area is currently occupied but the roof on -- will not add occupancy to it, we feel this does not increase any dang tor the occupants of the area. We feel because it is out of the stream area, it would just be in the ponding area that the risk of the roof structure coming loose and becoming a obstacle downstream would be very limd and we are in favor of moving forward on this project.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll entertain a motion. Motion made by Councilmember Lewis, seconded by Councilmember Garcia to approve the staff recommendation. Discussion? Councilmember Griffith.

>>Lewis: Mr. Heitz, let me ask you a question. You are recommending the roof but not recommending the screening.

>> That's correct.

>>Lewis: well, what -- I mean if it's not going to add any more occupancy for the roof to be there, only thing the screen is doing is what, keeping out the mosquitoes? I mean --.

>>Mayor Watson: that's different -- go ahead.

>> I was going to say in a flood event the screen can clog with different debris from leaves to mud to other areas. When it does that it could cause displacement. When it starts displacing water around that area it could cause flooding elsewhere. So that's why we're not in favor of the screening.

>>Lewis: but -- but I'm saying --

>> it could displace water because it could become like a barrier.

>>Lewis: but you are saying this is a ponding area so the only thing -- I mean if it's screened, it wouldn't -- if it's a ponding, it wouldn't -- I mean surely the water would go through it. I mean unless we have one of these --

>> it goes through it for a certain period of time, but as we witnessed, as we went through some of the flood areas last week where we saw different finances where they were clogging with twigs and leaves and other areas, it collects water or keeps water out. So when you have a displacement of water, one of the things we always ask when people are asking for something in the flood plain is see what the structural stability of the building is going to be and second, what kind of displacement could this structure be on other areas. If you have a 30 by 30 area which could displays x amount of water that water could go somewhere else and cause flooding and so that's why we're against the screening.

>>Lewis: thank you.

>>Goodman: Mayor? could I follow up on that, mike, please? they have these days , I don't know if they have an official name, but it's soft screening, and it's a roll, it rolls up if you so choose. So if they were to use something like that or some other regular screening but with temporary weights at the bottom or something and roll it up in storm events, would this preclude them from doing that?

>> that could be something we could look at in the future. I don't think that was recommended at this time. If this had been in the stream area we think the screening of course would have been ripped out. Because it is ponding again, we have the displacement problem. If they could get there in time to make sure all the screen would be rolled up then we wouldn't have that problem. So we would have to look at different ways to achieve that.

>>Goodman: okay.

>>Mayor Watson: on this item motion has been made to approve the staff recommendation. Is there any further discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item no. 89. That will take us to no. 85 A public hearing on the proposed amendments to the community development program of the consolidated plan to reprogram $445,000 in cdbg funds. Mr. Hilgers? Mr. Smith, if you will please give us a brief plention.

>> Yes.

>>Mayor Watson: by the way, no one has signed up to speak on this item. At the conclusion of Mr. Smith's presentation I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

>> I'm greg smith, with the neighborhood housing community development office. This is the first of two public hearings that are scheduled before you regarding the reprogramming of funds. We are having a public hearing with the community development commission on next tuesday where they will put their recommendations, we'll bring them forward to you. We are scheduled -- there is no action today, nor is there an action to be taken on november 5th. We will bring this item back to you to take ax on december 3rd, which at that time we could give you a full presentation on the reprogramming.

>>Mayor Watson: I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item 85. Motion made by Councilmember Garcia seconded by the Mayor pro tem. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Public hearing is closed. I'll entertain -- Councilmember Garcia.

>>Garcia: just a request, they sent us a brief explanation of the use of funds. If you could send us a little more detail. Just a paragraph, write us a little more detail for justification.

>>Mayor Watson: at this time I'll entertain a motion to-at this time I will entertain a motion to recess to go into executive session, purpose of the executive session would be to engage in a private consultation with our attorney pursuant to section 551.071. We would discuss legal issues regarding City of Austin versus club resorts ning case no. 9 8-00248, This litigation concerns development applicable in the barton springs zone. We would discuss ls ranch limited et all versus City of Austin on cause no. 9 97134, We would discuss gored and did you knowaway cause no. 97124334 In the 261st judicial district of the this litigation concerns development regulations applicable in the barton springs zone. We would also discuss real property pursuant to section 551.072 of the government code and we would be discussing real property acquisition with proposition 2 funds and it's posted at proposition 2 barton springs clean drinking water funds, this is related to proposition 2 on the may 2nd bond election.

>>Garcia: we have item 30.

>>Mayor Watson: did I miss one?

>>Garcia: yeah.

>>Mayor Watson: no. I don't think so.

>>Garcia: Councilmember Lewis pulled that.

>>Mayor Watson: I'm sorry. It didn't indicate on my notes that he had pulled it yesterday. And it wasn't indicated -- it is not on the list. I see what you are saying. Okay, well, then let's -- before I take that motion let's go back to item 30. Councilmember Lewis? it's not on changes and correction, I apologize. It was not on my notes and I apologize. Councilmember Lewis?

>>Lewis: I had spoken with some people from the library --.

>>Mayor Watson: could you turn on your microphone please.

>>Lewis: I had spoke with the people on the -- from one of the people from the library about this item, and it's a couple of things that bothers me is the fact that the state law changed in '89. We've been in this facility since '85 and for seven she eight years we hadn't seen fit to make a move. My question is to the City manager is since this place don't meet the requirements, what -- and I understand that they are trying to make some arrangements with the county to on do interlocal agreement for them to help to store the items and store items in their facility, but if this don't work out, what is our -- our plain? because for eight years, seven years, we've been here in this place that don't meet the state requirement.

>> Let me say that --.

>>Mayor Watson: hang on one second. I'm going to entertain Councilmember Lewis's as a motion to reconsider item 30 which pass odd consent agenda. Is there a second? secretaried by the Mayor pro tem. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries for reconsideration. I'll recognize the City manager.

>> Because of the questions he's asked and we've not been able to provide the kind of information he needs what I would ask is a delay of two weeks, we'll bring this back november 5th and try to address the question of how this building has not met the standards we continue to utilize. Plus the long range plans we've had because there have been other attempts for us to try to achieve this through different ways so let me get a report put together and we'll bring this item back in two weeks.

>>Lewis: okay. But I understand that the people that are working with the county to try to reach an interlocal agreement as far as the storage goes, but my question is, and I don't know if this is facts, but it's the way it's stated in the backup that it don't meet the requirements. So that was my question.

>> What requirements because I don't --.

>>Lewis: the state rirlts. It says it don't meet state requirements.

>>Mayor Watson: would you entertain taking it off the -- cover that in the next two weeks?

>>Lewis: yes.

>>Mayor Watson: all right. Will you make that as a motion.

>>Lewis: yeah, I move we postpone it for two weeks.

>>Mayor Watson: motion made to postpone for two weeks seconded by Councilmember Garcia. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries on item 30. It's postponed for two weeks. I'll entertain a motion to recess to go into executive session but because we are going into executive session I'm going the read again why we would go into executive session. First would be private consultation with our attorney pursuant to section 551.071. We would discuss legal issues regarding City of Austin versus club resorts inc. Cause no. 90001248. This litigation concerns development regulations applicable in the bart sprins zone. Marta cotera versus state of Texas et al. In the United States district court for the western district of Texas Austin division. Ls rnch lmentd versus City of Austin cause no. 97 Is 13949 in the hays county district court. Gordon did you know also away et al. Versus City of Austin, cause no. 9712434. This litigation concerns development regulations applicable in the barton springs zone. We would also be discussing real property matters pursuant to section 551.072 of the Texas government code to discuss real property acquisition with proposition 2 barton springs clean drinking water funds. This would be consistent with proposition 2 on the may 2nd bond election. May 2, 1998 bond election. I'll entertain a motion to go into executive session. Motion made by the Mayor pro tem. Is there a second? seconded by Councilmember Spelman. Any discussion? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. We are recessed to go into executive session.

>>.

>>.

>>.

>>

>>Mayor Watson: I'll call back to order the Austin City Council. We will go to item no. 98, Which is consideration of the settlement proposal of City of Austin versus club resorts inc. In the Travis County district court. This litigation concerns development regulations applicable in the barton springs zone. What I will do is -- so that people will know what happened, is the City of Austin started some litigation geps an entity known as club resorts, inc.. That was filed in cause of action numbers 98 oo 248 in the judicial district court of Travis County, Texas. The suit was based upon issues that affected the proposed development of club resorts property in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction near barton creek. And it is what many people refer to as barton creek clubhouse area and the golf courses and proposed and developing golf course ns that area. And the issue that came up in that lawsuit are issues that involved the application of city rules and rglation to that development. -- Regulation to that development. That lawsuit was filed at a time where we also sought to stop any of their activities until there was an opportunity for the City to address what it was they were doing with those golf courses and they stopped activity out there and there's been some discussion about how we might resolve our differences with them. One of the attorneys that's been representing us in the case is casey dobson, and I would call on Mr. Dob son to come forward and bring us up to date and to discuss a proposal.

>> Mayor, Councilmembers, as the Mayor said, after we sued club resorts, they initiated settlement talks with us and those have proceeded for several weeks. And what we've got this evening is what a lawyer would call a term sheet, a fairly detailed outline for a settlement to settle this litigation with club resorts. And I think the first thing I can do is run through the term sheet and then I can answer any questions that y'all have about the term sheet or about the litigation itself and how these terms, the settlement compares to what we had hoped to achieve with the litigation. What this term sheet is is an october 21st letter from me as the City's attorney to David armbrust, who is the lawyer representing club resorts. And the major components of the settlement are as follows

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Dobson, before you do that, if you could, before you get into it, I talked about the fact that a lawsuit had been filed. If you would start with how and what the basis was for even being involved in some -- the purpose of the public discussion an entity that's outside the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the court, for example, discuss the idea about where they were located in terms of the former water quality protection zone, the status of that litigation, because we're involved in litigation that this impacts. And I think it would be important for you to briefly run through some of that too.

>> Right. When I say we sued club resorts, what we did was add them as a defendant to the existing lawsuit called City of Austin versus horse thief hollow ranches, limited. The City prevailed on summary judgment in that lawsuit last summer and that was the lawsuit, of course, where we sought a ruling that house bill 1017 passed in the '95 legislature codified the Texas water code 26.179 dh allowed private landowners in Austin's extraterritorial jurisdiction to basically exempt themselves from our water quality ordinances and a wide range of municipal authority. We sought to have that statute declared unconstitutional. We won that case in front of judge Paul davis here in Austin. That summary judgment victory is now on direct appeal to the Texas supreme court. In fact, the other side filed their briefs yesterday and that matter is going to be argued at the supreme court on december 9th. So we're going to have a final answer in a few months on the constitutionalty of the statute. All of the barton creek development was in the barton creek water quality protection zone, including all the property that we're talking about with club resorts in this settlement. The projects that they wanted to do out there they designed to comply with the water quality plan of the barton creek water quality protection zone. Once we won our lawsuit, obviously it's been our position that anybody in that water quality protection zone or former water quality protection zone or any other needs to comply with all our ordinances and regulations. We sued club re -- club resorts was not part of the original suit. We sued them when staff learned that they were working on a -- had begun construction on a project out there after we won the horse thief lawsuit. And they weren't in compliance with our regulations. So we sued them saying you're in our etj, you're not in a water quality zone, comply with our regulations. And we did not have to get an injunction. They stopped what they were doing that we objected to after we sued them and came to us with an invitation to enter into settlement talks. So this lawsuit against club resorts is still in district court because they weren't a party to the case when we got summary judgment, but obviously it is impacted by and ultimately going to be decided by if it's not settled, what happens at the supreme court. If the City were to lose at the supreme court, water quality protection zone comes back and the City's municipal authority in this area is ee advice rated.

>>Mayor Watson: then before you get into any terms, describe the project that club resorts is involved in.

>> Okay. The main one that I think got staff's attention a few weeks ago that caused us to file the suit is called the owner's club condominium project. That is about a 36 unit conned dough project out there -- condo project out there at barton creek. That's one thing they've got going. Another thing they've got going is building the fazzio two golf course and that has been under construction for some time and related facilities such as the clubhouse. The third thing they've got going is relocation and expansion of the barton creek tennis facility. And we understand that's going to be located somewhere near the clubhouse for fazzio two. And finally they've got the expansion of the existing barton creek conference center. And those are the four projects that we were -- that we were looking at as we began these discussions with club resorts. [One moment, please] our current code absent some kind of an agreement. But basically you are talking about -- all that I could hope to accomplish at the courthouse is current code compliance. That would entail them changing the scope of some of these projects and adding water quality controls to some of these projects. That would be the -- that would be the goal of the litigation and that is what I could hope to accomplish in the litigation and that is, of course, assuming Councilmember, that the supreme court sides with us on the appeal or otherwise I am out of business in district court. Lewinsky all right, thank you.

>>Mayor Watson: why don't you give us the terms.

>> The first term of the deal is that club resorts will either purchase at our direction or make available to us the funds to purchase mitigation land such that the impervious cover limits under s.o.s. Would be met. Let me explain that briefly. If we do this deal, we will allow them about five more acres, rough numbers, about five more acres of impervious cover than s.o.s. Would allow them. So what we are getting in this deal is enough money to purchase enough mitigation land for that five acres such that when you add the mitigation land to the acreage they have got out there, it gets down to 20%, which is s.o.s.. That's the mitigation land concept. The second major cop point of this deal is the addition of water quality control features to owners club and the new tennis facility. The owners club as it was designed had no water quality pond such as the City would normally require. Under the proposed settlement, the club resorts is going to build a said mentation filtration pond with a capture volume of seven inches at the end of the barton club drive extension, they are also going to make changes to their design for the street extension such that runoff feeds into the new pond. They are also going to pull two units that were in the 400 foot water quality zone out of the water quality zone. They are also going to build for those condo units whose runoff isn't going to go into the pond landscaped vegetative buffers for runoff control. And the basic design of those has been reviewed by staff in discussions with their engineers. At the tennis facility, club resorts had proposed no water quality controls, except whatever may be on the ground out there built by stratus, which, of course, owns the land out there that club resorts doesn't. They said they were just going to use the stratus water quality controls. This deal requires them to build an s.o.s. Water quality pond, for the tennis facility. We might give them under the deal we might give them some credit, so to speak, for whatever water quality capture or runoff volume capture is already out there in other ponds, but the bottom line is you are going to have to meet s.o.s. Requirements for water quality controls at their new tennis facility. The fourth item in terms of the health of barton creek, probably the major item, is extensive improvements in environmental management practice, practices at lost creek country club, at corporate affiliate of club resorts, manages lost creek country club, to go back to Councilmember Lewis's question, this is certainly a category of items that I could not -- I could not get at the courthouse. The City doesn't have any cause of action against club resorts presently to make them do anything at lost creek country club. But as part of these negotiations, we are getting it. This is a very technical area. The technical details will have to be set forth in the full settlement agreement. But briefly the improvements will include an integrated pest management plan, a new irrigation program, which minimizes water use runoff, which minimizes water use runoff and leeching from excessive irrigation, establishment of buffer zones, along the banks of barton creek where no fertilizer or pesticide use would be permitted except under especially defined circumstances that will be set forth in the agreement. And then finally lost creek will seek audobon society certification in several areas where the audubon society offers certification for golf courses, thus subjecting them to the inspection and audit procedures that the audubon society has. As part of this part of the agreement, the City and club corp will agree to a maximum of five monitoring sites on their property where our staff or your staff can go out and sample water quality on their property. Finally, there is going to be part of this agreement, what we have called an access acknowledgment. Presently the -- the barton creek greenbelt basically ends at the low water bridge where lost creek country club starts. They are going to make changes to their property, including moving some things around and building a bridge, such that if people get to the low water bridge and they want to continue up barton creek, threw club resorts property, they will be able to do so. And I imagine that will be implemented by some kind of a sign much obviously that has to be consistent with the recreational uses out there, which is primarily golf, and respectful of that, but club corp has agreed to acknowledge a right of access through that area for the public as part of this deal. Finally, we are going to get, on the impervious cover part of the deal, we are going to get what we call a conserve rages easement. And the idea here is to give the City not just a contract, but a property right, a deed, something we can go down and record at the Travis County courthouse. What it's basically going to do is to deed the City the right to build any more impervious cover on their property in excess of what's already out there plus what's allowed under this agreement. So if we were to -- if we were to have some unfortunate legislative developments in the future, we would have a property right. If somebody wants to try to retrade this deal with the city in the future, they would have to buy our property right. If some future Council wants to do something different with this deal, they would have to sell or convey a property right. It is -- it's insurance, basically, to try to -- to try to lock in for the future the benefits of this deal to the city. All of these items, the term sheet is very explicit. All of these items obviously are going to be the subject of drafting to make sure that they are implemented with all of the technical detail necessary for both sides. And that is going to happen over the next two weeks. There is a deadline in the term sheet of november 4th to complete the papers to do the deal. I may have failed to mention monitoring, but we did get a right in here to go out and do monitoring. Water quality monitoring on their property at sites to be determined by our technical staff wherever they figure would be most van tejeda joys to us to take -- advantegous for us to take samples and he will go through that with club resort.

>>Mayor Watson: does anyone have any questions of Mr. Don'tson, if not, I will ask les tull to come forward. Thank you, Mr. Dobson. Mr. Tull?

>> good evening, Mayor, Council, I am les tull, an engineer with the water quality section with the watershed department. What I would like to do is go over our findings and calculations regarding pollutant loadings as a result of the proposed deal and two other scenarios that we examined in order to determine what we felt was the acceptability of this. Of this proposal. What I have put before you tonight is a chart indicating pollutant loadings on an annual basis, that is in pound per year for three different pollutants that we evaluated. The top chart is for total nitrogen, the center chart is for total suspended solids and the lowest chart is for herbicide called bendolyde, commonly used in golf courses, for each of these we analyzed under each of the scenarios the results of the agreement or what we felt would be the results if the agreement was not met. The first scenario is one that we use based on full compliance with s.o.s., essentially saying our regulations are upheld, we go to court, we do not have any -- are not overturned by the legislature, no water quality protection zones are created. The center column on each chart reflects the proposed deal. And the third column represents basically what would happen, we estimate if we lost in the legislature, if we lost in court, essentially no City regulation for this area. For each of the scenarios, we were looking at the impacts of pollutant loads from essentially four areas, casey has basically gone over these, I would like to mention them again, the owner's club site, the condominium site, in addition to the barton creek resort at the country club, a proposed new tennis facility and the lost creek golf course and proposed improvements. What I want to explain first is --.

>>Mayor Watson: if I could interrupt you, I apologize, when you say we analyzed this, who is included in we?

>> that was the staff, myself, hazel mcclintock, also Dr. Lauren ross and several other staff at the watershed protection department.

>>Mayor Watson: what is ms. Mcclintock's background?

>> ms. Mcclintock is a biologist.

>>Mayor Watson: okay. Sorry to interrupt you.

>> No problem. I want to explain what the conditions were we used in evaluating each of the scenarios. For scenarios one for compliance with s.o.s. The assumptions were that the owners club development would be severely limited probably in the range of five to seven units and that it would comply with s.o.s. Controls so there would be no increase in pollutant load as a result of that. For the barton creek resort addition, we assumed that it simply would not occur. The level of development currently on those lots was such that it could not comply with any additions under the s.o.s. Ordinance. For the tennis facility, we assumed that it would be built in compliance with s.o.s., with controls that met the no increase in loads. And for scenario 1, which is full compliance with s.o.s., there would be no proposed improvements to the lost creek golf course. Jump to scenario 3, no City regulation, in this case, the owners club would occur as proposed with no treatment. The barton creek resort would occur with no additional treatment. The tennis facility would occur with no additional treatment and there would not be any improvements to the golf course. For the proposed deal, we have the owners club where the development is provided with a sand filter system for about two third of the site and the roof tops for the remaining portion are drained to infiltration terraces. The barton creek resort addition conservatively we assumed it would not have any controls. For the tennis facility, per the agreement, we have assumed that it would have water quality controls that comply with s.o.s., such that there would be no increase in loads. In addition we would have under the deal improvement to the golf course at lost creek, which are reflected in the pollutant loads. What I would like to indicate on the charts, if you can see, is that for total nitrogen, top chart, for the benzolide, the lower chart, we are predicting a very significant improvement in terms of annual loadings --

>> if the camera can come up, the top chart is the one that he's talking about. Not me. There you go.

>> In that case the top chart being total might again, we see a significant reduction in the range of 1200 pound per year of nitrogen as a result of the improved management practices that we are proposing to have implemented at the lost creek gofm course. I should also point on that chart and tss chart under the third scenario we have made estimate of pollutant load under the scenario where the city has no regulation and at this point we feel that there is a possibility under the -- under a scenario where the city does not regulate that there would be considerably greater impervious cover and load than we indicated here. I would like to final -- make my final statement with regard to these, answer any guess that you may have in discussing the issue of mitigation lands. We have not included any benefits in this chart for the deal because of the purchase of mitigation lands. The variety of things that we feel are very important benefits, some of which could not even be quantified on this chart, but I think is important to note that by not having 27 acres of net site area developed, there will be benefits in term of the hydrology of the resulting creek that would receive the runoff from that, and in addition we would be avoiding pollutant loads associated with construction that would not occur. Glad for answer any questions.

>>Spelman: be sure that I can work through this chart. For each of these three charts there are three options. And if we choose today to go with the deal, we can lock in option number 2. We could pick door number two and keep it.

>> That's correct.

>>Spelman: if we don't pick door number two, and we go to court, then we have a chance of getting door number 1, that first bar on the left, but we lose in court or if we lose the water quality protection zone in the -- or lose at the legislature we might get bar number 3. On the first chart, bar number 2 is clearly better than one or three. Nitrogen is lower because it's the only way we can get at lost creek golf course. In the second chart, the dissolved solids are lower for going to court and winning than for taking the deal. Both of those are a lot better than if we go to court in lewd. In this case your dissolved solids we are a little bit better off going to court if we win. How important are solids relative to nitrogen?

>> I will give you my answer, also let nancy mcclintock speak to it, because in many ways are talking about stream biology and issues that I don't feel qualified to speak to. My personal opinion regarding the total suspended solids in barton creek and the impacts on water quality here are that nitrogen is the most significant or is much more significant than total suspended solids in this case. Total suspended solid, because of the large drainage area in barton creek to the point that we are talking about are dominated especially during storm events by loads that are coming down the creek already, this would represent a very small increase in total suspended solid at that point. in terms of the issue of nitrogen load and its impact and ability to pretty well promote the growth of algae, it would be much more significant in terms of those small storms that are dumping in that load and again I am getting a bit out of my field here. But that's my basic understanding.

>>Mayor Watson: let ms. Mcclintock answer his question, too.

>> You are right. What we are trading off here is a potential to not have this tss increase for the sake of getting this nitrogen decrease. I would like to show you a little bit of the information that we looked at that helped us support this proposal. In 1988 the Council authorized us to start doing research in barton creek and specifically one of the things that we did was to start looking at the amount of algae that occurs in barton creek all the way from the head waters down to the recharge zone. These bars represent different sites that we had in barton creek. All the way again from the headquarters to the recharge zone. The height of the bars indicates the amount of algae that was in the creek. Percent of al glee cover. Right here algae cover. Right here a right line indicates the concentration of nitrate in the creek at those same sites. This represents five years of data, quarterly observations, we actually have data all the way through right now, this just shows through you 5, but the trends remain the same.

>> So in those cases when those pools where nitrogen is high, algae is high, too?

>> right. What you see the lost creek golf course is right in between pool 7 and pool 8. So what you are seeing here is a significant increase in the amount of algae that we have been observing in barton creek over the years. We can't say specifically that this increase is the result only of the lost creek country club. There's other golf courses that come in this stretch as well as other developments, the lost creek development itself. But our feeling is that a retrofit of the lost creek golf course would give us significant benefits. In fact this amount of benefits. We actually got this number here by looking at some improvements that we had done in our own City golf courses, and are predicting to get these decreases in nitrogen from those studies. That was allocated the same amount of decrease. I guess that's the main point that I would like to make regarding why we think this decrease in might again is so important. Another way we look add the it to try to get our arms around it as well as to talk to you about it is we looked at the amount of impervious cover that it would take to generate this much might again and it turned out to be about 100 square feet of impervious cover. That would be equivalent to -- from a 250 to a 350 acre single family development. One way you could look at is is getting this decrease in nitrogen would be equivalent to it two fitting say about 75% of the lost creek subdivision with s.o.s. Controls for nitrogen only. To the s.o.s. Standard. So we would love to see this nitrogen reduction.

>>Spelman: I believe you misspoke, you said 100 square feet. I think you meant to refer to 100 acres. That difference between --

>> I'm sorry, 100 acres, thank you.

>>Spelman: let me ask you a very quick question about that third chart, which is under the bar chart that you have got there. That's about herbicides. Same deal, herbicides it looks like would be cut in half through this deal, presumably because we are reducing the amount of herbicide use in the country club.

>> Not just the amount, but how you apply it, when you apply it, the frequency with which you apply it, how far from the creek you apply it.

>> On balance then, comparing the benefit of the top chart, the benefit of the bottom chart, we are taking a small loss in the middle chart, but you are more worried about nitrogen and about herbicides than you are about suspended solids?

>> we have identified nitrogen as a problem in this stretch of the creek, so yes.

>> On balance then what it sound like you are saying is that taking bar number two is going to get us better results for the creek than taking our chances on either bar number one or bar number three.

>> Yes, sir.

>>Spelman: thanks.

>>Slusher: Mayor and ms. Mcclintock, on -- do you think that nitrogens even if we were to bale in the lawsuit, get the development under s.o.s., that still would not have an impact on lost creek.

>> Right. S.o.s. Simply does not give us -- compliance with s.o.s. Will not give us a tool to get a retrofit of the golf course. The only way we get that is through the deal.

>>Slusher: that's in your opinion that's much more significant than the increase in suspended solids?

>> right. This increase is in suspended solid, I don't mean to discount it because the whole basis of non-point source pollution is that every increment counts. But this increment relative to the tss load that's in the creek is simply a much -- it's much less critical than this amount of nitrogen.

>>Slusher: okay.

>>Mayor Watson: any other questions of ms. Mcclintock at this time. Do you have anything that you want to add before I call and ask Mr. Tull if he has anything he wants to add.

>> I think that's it.

>>Mayor Watson: does anybody have any questions of Mr. Tull? do you have anything more that you want to give us?

>> I would like to point out one last fact again, not reflected in any of these loading calculations. I see tremendous benefit in terms of water quality from the fact that through an agreement, having the City's regulations in place, having our inspection forces in place, will allow us to look at erosion controls on a regular basis that would not be there under any other scenario and that through that mechanism we will be significantly reducing the potential for heavy sediment loads and other construction related impacts on the creek.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Slusher?

>> Mr. Tull, I want to get ms. Mcclintock back up. Let me ask you first. Over all, which way do you think the creek will be cleaner? if we pursue and win the -- to get the owners club development under s.o.s. Or if we do this deal right here?

>> I believe that through the use of the deal, with the improvements that we can get through this agreement with regard to the lost creek golf course, the creek water quality will be better.

>>Slusher: ms. Mcclintock, could you answer that?

>> I agree. Once again we have identified nitrogen as a problem in the creek here, that reduction would be the most beneficial for the creek.

>>Slusher: thanks. Nature let me ask a couple of questions about the ponds. First of all, let's just walk through the various facilities -- I recognize what you are showing me on those charts, but on the tennis courts, if -- if risk is taken and the -- we don't prevail, adopt win and they build the tennis facility, they would not be required to put up in sort of quarter quality pond, right?

>> what we -- quarter quality ponds.

>> I can answer that in the sense of they would have to comply with any regulations that might have been imposed on them such as through a water quality protection zone if that was the case. We do not know what future legislation would call for.

>>Mayor Watson: in this proposed agreement, what will they be doing with regard to water quality ponds at the tennis facility?

>> at the tennis facility they are required to provide yols that will achieve no increase in pollutant load requirements of s.o.s..

>>Mayor Watson: no with regard to the owners club, they have -- the proposed agreement would have them in a situation -- first of all, currently when -- at the time we filed suit, they weren't going to have a water quality pond; is that correct?

>> that's correct, there were no controls associated with the owners club.

>>Mayor Watson: so if we were to take the risk and lose or not prevail, we would be in a situation where at least we know that the current plans were have to have no water quality pond.

>> Correct.

>>Mayor Watson: this pond proposed in this agreement for the owners club, as I understand it, does not meet the technical requirements of s.o.s..

>> That's right. It does not have the same capture volume or exactly the same treatment requirement.

>>Mayor Watson: would you talk to me a minute about how you feel about it in terms of its capture capability and the impact that it has on the creek.

>> We have done annals of the two types of controls that are included for -- analyze of the two types of controls proposed for the owners club, I have had discussions with the owners' engineers about this. There is a proposed sand filter system with increased capture volume that is to be designed to capture all of the driveway area and those condominiums which drain to that driveway area, approximately about two third of the impervious cover on the site. That system we replaced at the low end to capture that area and we asked that the outflow from the sand filter, not be discharged just directly to the creek, however will be spread and will enter into a vegetative buffer. So we would be getting additional treatment over and above what has been honey on this chart. We should have what should be a very effective water quality control for that area. For the remaining condominiums, which are located downhill of the driveway, what we have prepared are terraces to be constructed, revegetated, so the roof runoff can be directed to those areas where it will infiltrate and nutrients can be taken up by the plant materials there. Based on the calculations that we have done, the effectiveness of that, we have controls that are approaching s.o.s. Quality in terms of their treatment level.

>>Mayor Watson: let's talk about mitigation land for a second. Part of the proposed agreement is that -- just for purposes of clarity we will divide s.o.s. Requirements into two things. One is what we have been talking about here for just a second, which is some sort of controls, and the second will be impervious cover. And I think a lot of people when they think of s.o.s. They first think of impervious cover. As I understand what Mr. Don't son said, he said this proposed agreement would allow at the site there, club corp site, more impervious cover than would be allowed under s.o.s..

>> That's correct.

>>Mayor Watson: but they will as part of this proposed agreement, they would purchase or pay us an amount of money to allow us to purchase property so that we get to an I have lent of the impervious cover limitations.

>> That's right.

>>Mayor Watson: now, in your calculations here, have you made any -- any provisions for any benefits that would be obtained from the purchase of mitigation lands?

>> no, Mayor, we haven't. Again, in doing these calculations, we tried to be as conservative as possible, to not paint the deal in a better sense than it might be. And certainly there are benefits to the purchase of that mitigation land which are not reflected here.

>>Mayor Watson: let me ask about that. If there is land to be purchased in the area covered by s.o.s., that is subject to s.o.s., which would allow a certain amount of impervious cover to be put on it, which is purchased and taken out of development so there wouldn't even be what s.o.s. Allows in terms of impervious cover, from an engineering standpoint and I will ask ms. Mcclintock if she needs to answer, too, from a biological standpoint, what impact does that have as compared to s.o.s., even?

>> what the benefits you would accrue as a result of that are in several areas. First of all, by not placing impervious cover on a site, it allows it to continue to function in its natural sense proposing recharge, base flow, for the creeks, which would provide clean water in the creeks in terms of the runoff coming from that site. Secondly, again the issue -- I wanted to mention the base flow aspect of it. By not putting impervious cover over it, we have the ability for water to soak in, enter the creeks in base flow which is really the main source of clean water in the edward's aquifer. We also avoid construction impacts. Any time a site is disturbed, there is going to be pollutant loads, especially total suspended solid loads associated with that. We would avoid those as a result of purchasing the land for mitigation.

>>Mayor Watson: okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions? thank you, Mr. Tull. Mr. Dobson.

>> Yes, Mayor.

>> As I understand the proposed agreement and proposed ordinance, if we pass this ordinance tonight, a couple of things would occur. One is that it would be an ordinance that would say -- we would enter -- we are agreeing to the terms of the term sheet that we have here and that it -- that we would be passing that on three readings saying that we agree to the terms that you have outlined that are set forth in this document and what we would be doing would be saying that the City manager through his lawyers and you, I suppose, would go forward and negotiate the final details of what is set forth in this term sheet and that we would bring that back by -- on november 4th, 1998.

>> That's right, your honor -- I mean, Mayor. [Laughter].

>> That's all right.

>> I am used to another forum. [Laughter].

>>Mayor Watson: I like it, Mr. Dobson. [Laughter].

>> That's exactly right. As I understand it, you are passing it on three readings tonight. You are giving the City manager, City attorney and outside counsel instructions to go forward and implement the term sheet by drafting the detailed settlement document necessary in conjunction with club resorts Council, to implement this. And then if we get an agreement that's acceptable to both sides, it will be -- it will be done, we will bring it to you on the 4th. Nature thank you.

>> The agreement is automatic. If it's no deal, we are done.

>>Mayor Watson: with that being said, I would entertain a motion with regard to this agenda item. Item no. 98. Is there a motion?

>>Garcia: yes, Mayor, let me just move approval on all three readings of the ordinance that you referred to and to the attachment and if there's a second, I would like to just make a couple of comments.

>>Mayor Watson: seconded by Councilmember Spelman. I will recognize Councilmember Garcia.

>>Garcia: one of the things that we were -- we would like to do, that I would like to do is instruct our staffs, our legal staff, to get any advice they can from the interested groups, focus groups, so that he with get the best agreement. This is a framework that we agreed to. The details need to be worked out. I would hope that, you know, we can get the best minds in this community to help us put it together what we can consider to be the best protection for our creek.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion?

>>Slusher: do we have speakers. One speaker that's signed up, I don't see her, mary Arnold. Mary Arnold? ms. Arnold? she didn't indicate either for or against. I'm sorry, I don't have a card, if you want to come forward, Mr. Bunch, you are welcome to.

>> Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. Bill bunch here on behalf of the save our springs alliance. We communicated to you earlier today on you, just now got a copy of the Written outline of settlement. As we mentioned earlier, we are against you all approving this settlement at this time. We believe that this is a matter of extreme public interest and that there should be a public opportunity to review and comment on this very important matter, which as you all know, has a long history of intense public interest. And so we feel for that reason alone that you should not make this vote tonight. A few other points that I would like to point out as -- as very serious concerns that we have. On the nitrogen and pollutant loads there, with and without the deal, what you should be clear about is that right now you have the opportunity to challenge those permits which are up for renewal at lost creek in administrative hearings and to go to the courthouse for illegal discharges to barton creek. Those rights should not be given up in this agreement. If in any way you are giving up those rights by entering this deal, this is not a good deal because you need to lower those pollutants even further. And you have to preserve that. There's a very strange clause in here that wasn't mentioned by Mr. Dobson about transferring impervious cover if they don't use it to other projects. Could they transfer that to, say, the terrace pud or some other silent some other site. I have never heard of that. I didn't hear it mentioned at all. What is that about? enforceability. This scenario looks good. And I commend that your staff, I think they have done a hard, you know, some hard work on this. Obviously there's a lot more to come. But if you can't enforce it, then it's just on paper. It doesn't translate on the ground or in the water quality. So I urge you to be clear that you expect the final document to have enforcement mechanisms that are actually usable. Those are just a couple of my points. We had some others for you and I appreciate this opportunity to speak.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Slusher?

>>Slusher: I just wanted to ask the attorneys to respond. Mr. Dobson come on up.

>> Let me respond to two of bill's questions. One on the transfering of impervious cover, that is not -- you can take your impervious cover anywhere in town. What that is is the deal assumes that -- the deal is that they are going to get a maximum of 20.23 acres of additional impervious cover out there. If -- they think that's going to be the impervious cover amount to finish those four projects. If they finish those four projects and it ends up that it only took them 19 acres, they asked if as part of the deal they could use that left overimpervious cover to build other structures out there at their project. And I don't want to say the club resorts is tied to this, but the examples that they gave the City attorney and I was like decks, sidewalks, something like that. I think they anticipate frankly using almost all of their 20.23 on the four projects that are in the deal. But their thought was, if we end up using 18 or 19, can we use the one or two left over to do some small things out there. And since the whole deal assumed 20.23, we said yes. If you use less than 20.23 on these projects, then on other lands you own out there, you can get up to 20.23 doing some little things. By it was not meant to be and won be any kind of a right to take an impervious cover right and buy land and jump around town with it. That's not what it is.

>> It's only for the land that they currently own that is the subject of this agreement.

>> Right. It's going to be for the land where we are deeded, and you of the impervious cover rights that exceed 20.23 acres. That it is the land where it's going to be.

>>Mayor Watson: please address the issue about the permits.

>> This agreement does not address tnrcc issues. And the City is not giving up any rights it may have the tnrcc, whatever rights the city has to participate in the tnrcc process. We are going to have, after we have this deal. That's simply that that's not something that we were asked to give up to make this deal. It's simply not a part of this.

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Dobson, how would this agreement help or hinder any limits on expanding the total amount of wastewater irrigation that can occur in the barton creek watershed?

>> how would it help or hinder?

>> any effect, topside or bottom.

>> I just don't think that that is addressed here, Mayor. We are adding the specific development that they want to do out there at the barton creek resort on their property. In return for some extra acreage that they wouldn't get under s.o.s., the City is getting the benefits, I have outlined, and we are locking those in no matter what happens to us at the courthouse or the state house.

>>Mayor Watson: from a legal standpoint, do you see entering into this agreement being one that creates any press den for other situations, other -- press den for other situations, other puds or s.o.s. Amendments that are using land or cash as a substitute for s.o.s. Compliance, anything like that?

>> Mayor, speaking as one of the City's lawyers on a series of related lawsuits, the club resorts isn't the only party that we are dealing with on these irs, this situation in my mind as your counsel is unique. I don't mean it's unique in either a good or a bad way. It is unique in the sense that I don't think you can lift the terms out of this deal and say, okay, we will do a deal like this with the next person or somebody could come in, say, okay, you did that for club resorts, do this for me. This is a -- a -- club resorts has a unique set of things to offer us in this deal. And we have a unique set of demands on club resorts. There certainly could be components of this in other agreements we might reach, but I view this as a fairly unique situation. And I -- as your lawyer, I don't see this as precedent setting other than the precedent that when somebody sits down with us and in good faith we will sit down with them and try to make a good deal.

>>Mayor Watson: Mr. Bunch also mentioned the necessity of enforcement. Does entering into a contract agreement under this set of circumstances contemplate enforcement?

>> that's what it's for, Mayor, that's why we are going to enter into a -- a technical detailed settlement agreement and what that is going to be is a contract and if they violate that contract, me or or your in-house lawyers or some other outside lawyer you hire will sue them.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Lewis asked a question earlier about going to the courthouse and it was early in your discussion. If we were to go to -- if we were to continue with the lawsuit and we won in supreme court? Councilmember Garcia did you have something? [inaudible].

>>Mayor Watson: okay.

>>Garcia: I wanted to remind you of the clock.

>>Mayor Watson: I understand. I am trying to make sure we address Mr. Bunch's concerns. I appreciate your input. [Laughter]. Of course now I don't recall what I was asking about. If we were to go ahead and let's assume what I would consider to be the best case scenario, let's assume that the supreme court rules in our favor on the case, by the way, there's another case involving water quality protection zones, that was the one in hays county, right.

>> Yes.

>>Mayor Watson: we didn't prevail in that one.

>> We lost.

>>Mayor Watson: but let's assume the supreme court says the City of Austin wins on the water quality protection zones, let's assume that nothing happens at the legislature that would have any impact, let's assume that we win in our lawsuit against club resorts, unthat set of circumstances would we be able to obtain all of the things that are set forth in this term sheet if we won?

>> Mayor, we would not be able to obtain hardly any of them. We would not be able to obtain mitigation land, we would not be able to obtain improvement at lost creek country club, we will not be able to obtain an acknowledgment of the public's right to access through club corp's property, we would not be able to obtain a conservation easement, which is a property right in the city's favor. We would not be able to obtain a right for our staff to take water quality samples on their property. I cannot accomplish any of that for you at the courthouse, all I can accomplish at the courthouse is making them refigure their projects so as to comply with our code.

>>Mayor Watson: Councilmember Garcia pointed out the lateness of the hour to me, so I will stop asking questions. Any further discussion? oh, wow, Councilmember Slusher he will start talking to you, Councilmember Slusher?

>>.

>>Slusher: watch the clock for me, Mayor pro tem and Councilmember Garcia. I have been involved in this issue for quite some time. Really since it first came up. I think I was the one that brought it to most people's in Austin the development that this was part of. It's not the whole thing that we had on the agenda back in 1990, when we were down here about six hours from now, I'm not going to talk that long. But so I have been involved in it a long time. I agree with Mr. Bunch that it's an issue of immense magnitude and I have certainly treated it that way while we are in these negotiations, I agree that the public needs to have a say in this. I have consulted with members of the public and key players in -- on this issue as these negotiations took place. And I think the public is going to be involved in making sure this framework is implemented where it does what we talked about on those charts, which it makes the creek cleaner than it is now as a result of this. You know, I have a -- I've opposed fairly strongly previous settlements that I don't think were approached this. I don't think they would have made the creek cleaner, that's the bottom line for me, even though I have some skepticism about this deal, this agreement, I have some misgivings in what would really be the appropriate way I think to go about it or for everybody involved would be if club corp would just clean up the pollution that's going into the creek from the lost creek country club. But I don't realistically I don't think that's going to happen. It's a little distasteful for me to trade that for the parts of this development that are going to go forward, but it's still comes back to the same, keep coming back to the same thing, which way is the creek going to be cleaner? and I think it's going to be cleaner as a result of doing this agreement. I want to say that we had member of the City staff who came to that conclusion and they worked very hard on it. Frankly I observed these proposals before and it's my very firm opinion that in the past years the members of the city staff were pressured to say the proposed deals would not pollute the creek when in fact they would have. This is -- has caused the City a lot of problems, beside just for public distrust, it caused us some problems in court. The s.o.s. Case. I think it's never good to put staff members under pressure to say something they don't believe is true because they might be in fear of their jobs. I frankly think that happened in the past and I just want are don't think that's right. The only pressure that I have seen staff members under during this negotiation, during this time was the pressure to tell the truth and to tell your professional opinion to us about what you think this will do and what this will mean for the creek. And I think that you have done a good job. It gives me some solace in coming to my decision. So the framework that we are going to do pittation, there will be mitigation land purchases, ponds to mitigate pollution runoff from the -- from the development, the lost creek cleanup, which is going to be the hardest part to implement, into the final -- into the final agreement, the property right that locked this in even if we suffer setbacks in the legislature or the courts, the monitoring, which I think is going to be very significant because we will be able to see what's happening with this development, and what's really amazing the access issue, I am really surprised that that's happened as a parted of this. And people will be able to pass through. It holds open at least the possibility of eventually the dream wouldn't die from the people back in the early '70s, late '60s, that people could actually go from barton springs to highway 71 along this creek. This provides this opportunity. It's a very tough decision, for me, I know for every Councilmember up here has to vote their conscious, in what conclusion they have come, but I have decided I think the creek will be cleaner as a result of doing this agreement than if we don't.

>>Mayor Watson: any further discussion? motion has been made and seconded, to pass the ordinance on all three readings, there goes no further discussion in favor say aye, motion carries on a vote of 7 to zero. Being no further business to come before the Austin City Council at this regular scheduled meeting I will entertain a motion to adjourn, motion made by Councilmember Slusher, seconded by the Mayor pro tem. There being no discussion, those in favor say aye, opposed no. Motion carries, thank you all.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log