* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] ALRIGHTY. [Call to Order] WELL, IT'S, UH, TWO OH FOUR. LET'S CALL THE, UH, APRIL 12TH, 2021. UH, MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ORDER, UH, WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL? GEORGE PECK. PRESENT. CONNIE EZ. CONNIE GONZALEZ. JULIA CARILLO. PRESENT. IT'S JULIA CARILLO. HANES, BY THE WAY. JOHN JACKSON SYS. GAIL MCDANIEL. ANITA SHELL PRESENTS TEAL. ALISON COHEN. MELINDA SMITH. SUSAN WRIGHT. DOUG BENSON. HERE. JUAN FERNANDEZ. HERE. KARA ETT. KARA ETT. BOB LEEMAN. RYAN PAGANS HERE. YEAH. RYAN GANS. HERE. ROB LINHART. KEN BROWN. HERE. MICHAEL TAYLOR. ROBERT HENLEY. HERE. ROBERT RO. HERE. RE SPELL HERE. ROBERT TAPIA. ROBERT TAPIA. CASEY WINNINGTON. PHILLIP MANNA. PRESIDENT. JODY CHERYL. DEBORAH REED. BRITTANY DALE. PRESENT. JANE DAWSON. MICHAEL MOORE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A YES, WE DO. OKAY. JEFF, CAN YOU DO ME A FAVOR? CAN YOU READ OFF THE NAMES? I'M, I'M DOING THIS JUST SO WHEN WE GET TO, UH, QUESTIONS OF ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I CAN JUST GO DOWN THE LIST AND INDIVID AND, AND JUST KIND OF ASK, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OR NOT. CAN YOU GO DOWN THE LIST OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE JUST FOR MY INFORMATION? YES. YES, WE HAVE, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER PECK, WE HAVE JULIA CARILLO HANGS, ANISA, SHELL, BUCK BENSON, JUAN FERNANDEZ, RYAN GANS, KEN BROWN, ROBERT HANLEY, ROBERT WADO, CHERISE BELL, PHILLIP MANNA, BRITTANY DALE. AND THAT WAS MICHAEL MOORE AND MICHAEL MOORE. OH, MS. LINDA'S ON HERE. AND, AND ANISSA. SHELL, WHO IS, WHAT IS HER POSITION? I DON'T HAVE HER NAME ON MY CURRENT LIST. OFAC MEMBERSHIP. WHO? ANISSA. SHELL. IT'S ANISA. I'M ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. OKAY. WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHOSE NAME WE DID NOT JUST READ OUT? YES, THIS IS MELINDA SMITH ALTERNATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SETH NEIL. I, I JUST JOINED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. ALRIGHT, WELL, WITH THAT WE WILL GET, WE HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE'LL GET MOVING FORWARD. UM, NEXT [00:05:01] ITEM IS PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE MEETING THAT HAS A, UH, STATEMENT OR WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA BEFORE WE MOVE INTO OUR NEW BUSINESS? OKAY. HEARING NONE. [1. 21-2845 Nominations and Election of a Chair.] WE'LL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS. ITEM NUMBER ONE WAS NOMINATIONS IN THE ELECTION OF CHAIR. WE HAVE DEFERRED THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING PENDING THE OUTCOME AT, UH, THIS WEEK'S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOMINATIONS TO THE PC TECH. SO STAFF, IF YOU COULD ADD THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT THEN. YES, SIR. OKAY. [2. 21-2856 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT: Consideration of a request to amend the Major Thoroughfare Plan, a component of the City of San Antonio Master Plan, by realigning a proposed segment of Beck Road, a Secondary Arterial Type A requiring 86’ feet of right-of way, between existing New Sulphur Springs Road and existing Burshard Road. Staff recommends approval. (Marco Hinojosa, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner, (210) 207-4087, Marco.Hinojosa@sanantonio.gov, Transportation)] ITEM NUMBER TWO. UH, MAJOR THOROUGH, FAIR PLAN AMENDMENT. UM, AND DOES STAFF HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR THAT? YES, WE DO. UM, CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? YES, SIR. AWESOME. ALRIGHT. SO GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UH, MARK OSA, SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. ITEM NUMBER 21 28 56 IS A MAJOR THE FOR PLAN AMENDMENT TO REALIGN BECK ROAD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO, BECK ROAD IS CURRENTLY A SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION OF 86 FEET. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE CURRENT ADOPTED ALIGNMENT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP HERE IN BLUE, AND A DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING TO REALIGN THE ALIGNMENT TO MATCH THE LINE SHOWN IN GREEN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND HERE'S THE LARGER SCALE MAP SHOWING WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND HOW IT CAN EXECUTE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, SOME FACTORS THAT WERE CONSIDERED DURING STATS ANALYSIS. UH, THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE ALIGNMENT AS ADOPTED CURRENTLY BY SIX, APPROXIMATELY 470 FEET OF THE A HUNDRED YEAR FOOT PLANE. AND THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT WILL SHIP THE ALIGNMENT SO THAT IT REDUCES THE CONFLICT WITH THE FOOT PLANE TO APPROXIMATELY 240 FEET. ALSO, THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT WILL ALSO ELIMINATE THE PROPOSED FIVE POINT INTERSECTION FOR BURCHARD ROAD AND GARDNER ROAD THAT THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT CURRENTLY PROPOSES IF ADOPTED THE REALIGNMENT WILL CREATE A SAFER T INTERSECTION ABOUT 970 FEET EAST OF THE EXISTING INTERSECTION OF BURCHARD ROAD AND GARDNER ROAD. AND LASTLY, CURRENTLY THE NORTH SOUTH CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN BURCHARD ROAD AND US HIGHWAY 87 IS HANDLED BY FOSTER ROAD, WHICH LIES APPROXIMATELY 1.6 MILES FROM THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT. THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT WILL SERVE AS AN EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING BACK ROAD AND PROVIDE A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN 87 AND BURCHARD ROAD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO WE TOOK THIS I ITEM TO M P O M C B COMMITTEE ON APRIL 6TH. UH, WE ALSO SENT NOTICES TO 14 NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING THAT WILL BE HAPPENING, HAPPENING TOMORROW, UH, EVENING AT APRIL 13TH. UH, WE ALSO PLAN ON TAKING THIS ITEM TO PLAN COMMISSION ON APRIL 28TH AND CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL VOTE ON MAY 20TH. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED. NEXT SLIDE. THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND WE AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH CHAIRMAN. MUCH CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ONE QUESTION, UH, ON THAT SCHEDULE. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR PUBLIC HEARING IS AFTER WE MAKE A DECISION TODAY IS THE DAC, RIGHT? UM, IT'S ALWAYS STILL, IT'S GOING Y'S CALENDARS, BUT WE ALWAYS TRY TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ACTUAL PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN OUR, OUR RULE OF THUMB. SO WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE OF, OF DOING THAT, THAT, THAT PROCESS? UH, NOT AT ALL. UM, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD A PROCEDURE WHERE YOU ALWAYS GO TO HAVE THE PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMISSION. UH, BUT GETTING ALL ON Y'ALL, Y'ALL SCHEDULES, UH, PRETTY CHALLENGING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I GOT, CHAIRMAN. OKAY. THANK YOU, ROBERT. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE. I'LL JUST GO DOWN THE LIST. UH, WE'LL START WITH JULIA. CARA HAYNES. NO QUESTIONS FOR ME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SETH TEAL QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. GLENDA SMITH, NO QUESTIONS. BUCK BENSON. NO QUESTIONS. JUAN FERNANDEZ? NO, NO QUESTIONS. RYAN GAN NO QUESTIONS. UH, ROBERT HANLEY YOU GO. WAS THAT YOUR ONLY QUESTION? THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION, GEORGE. THANK YOU. YOU BET. UH, ROBERT GUDO, NO QUESTIONS THERE, BELL NO QUESTIONS. UH, PHILLIP MANNA? NO QUESTIONS. BRITTANY, DALE, I QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU. MICHAEL MOORE. JUST, UH, WONDERING WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT SOUTH OF THE, UH, BURCHARD ROAD. IS THERE GONNA BE [00:10:01] A FULL INTERSECTION THERE? IS IT JUST GONNA BE A DEAD END? T YEAH. SO, UH, IF YOU GO DOWN, UH, GARDNER AND THE BURCHARD INTERSECTION SOUTH OF THERE, IT'S ACTUALLY THE CALS POWER PLANT. AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT THAT ROAD LEADS DOWN TO. SO IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD, BUT ONCE YOU GET CLOSER TO POWER PLANT, IT TURNS PRIVATE. AND ALSO CALS LAKE IS ALSO SOUTH OF THERE AS WELL. THANK YOU. AND ANIS, SHE NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . ALL RIGHT. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THIS. SO IS THERE A MOTION? GEORGE? UH, ROBERT HANLEY, I MOVE. WE, UH, WE APPROVE THIS, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY ROBERT HANLEY. WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND. CHERISE SECONDS. I HEARD A COUPLE SECONDS. I HEARD CHERISE HAD A SECOND. YES. OKAY. UM, WILL, UH, STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL VOTE GEORGE PECK. AYE. CONNIE GONZALEZ? YES. JU YES. ANITA HAW. YES. SETH TEO. YES. MELINDA SMITH. AYE. BUD BENSON? YES. JUAN FERNANDEZ? YES. RYAN PLA YES. YES. KEN BROWN. YES. ROBERT HENLEY? YES. ROBERT RO? YES. SRE BELL? YES. DOES ? YES. BRITTANY DALE? YES. MOTION PASSES. AWESOME. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS ANOTHER MAJOR THOROUGH FAIR PLAN AMENDMENT. UM, EX EXCUSE ME. CHAIR. YES. THIS, THIS IS ROBERT TAPIA. I'M SORRY. I, UH, JUST CAME ON BOARD JUST AT, AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT, UH, LAST CASE. OKAY. I WAS HAVING COM I WAS HAVING COMPUTER PROBLEMS. IF, IF I'M ALLOWED TO, UH, SIT IN FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR LETTING US KNOW YOU'RE HERE. [3. 21-2873 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT: Consideration of a request to amend the Major Thoroughfare Plan, a component of the City of San Antonio Master Plan, by realigning a proposed segment of East & West Connector, a Secondary Arterial Type A requiring 86’ feet of right-of way, between existing Graytown Road and existing Abbott Road, and designating an existing segment of Abbott Road as a Secondary Arterial Type A, requiring 86’ feet right-of-way, between approximately 3,250’ feet north of the existing intersection of Graytown Road & Abbott Road and existing FM 1346. Staff recommends approval. (Marco Hinojosa, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner, (210) 207-4087, Marco.Hinojosa@sanantonio.gov, Transportation)] [4. 21-2874 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT: Consideration of a request to amend the Major Thoroughfare Plan, a component of the City of San Antonio Master Plan, by realigning a proposed segment of Graytown Road, a Secondary Arterial Type A requiring 86’ feet of right-of way, between approximately 3,290’ northwest of the existing intersection of Graytown Road and Freudenburg Road and approximately 1,240’ southwest of the existing intersection of Graytown Road and Freudenburg Road; and realigning a proposed segment of East & West Connector, a Secondary Arterial Type A requiring 86’ feet of right-of way, between approximately 4,840’ feet east of existing Schuwirth Road and existing Graytown Road. Staff recommends approval. (Marco Hinojosa, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner, (210) 207-4087, Marco.Hinojosa@sanantonio.gov, Transportation)] ALL RIGHT. SO ITEM NUMBER THREE, WOULD STAFF, UH, HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THAT ONE? YES. AND FOR THE RECORD, THIS WILL BE ITEM THREE AND FOUR. UH, SO FOR THIS PRESENTATION, THERE ARE TWO MAJOR, THEREFORE PLAN AMENDMENTS IN THE SAME AREA THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING AT THE SAME TIME. OKAY. AND FOR THE RECORD, ITEM 21 28 7 3 IS A CITY INITIATIVE AMENDMENT TO REALIGN THE EAST WEST CONNECTOR AND DESIGNATE ABBOTT ROAD. AND ITEM 21 28 7 4 IS A DEVELOPER INITIATIVE AMENDMENT TO REALIGN GRAY TOWN ROAD AND THE EAST AND WEST. EAST AND WEST CONNECTOR. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE EAST AND WEST CONNECTOR, GRAY TOWN ROAD AND ABBOTT ROAD. UH, THESE ARE ALL CURRENTLY SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A'S THAT REQUIRE A MINIMUM RIGHTWAY DEDICATION OF EIGHT, SIX FEET. MARCO, REAL QUICK, I THINK, I THINK WE HAVE THE, THE DIFFERENT PRESENTATION THAT, OH, THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT ONE. UH, FOR STAFF MARCO, THIS IS BUCK BENSON. CAN I ASK YOU, THE DEVELOPER IS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT? UH, WE CAN PULL IT UP IN A SECOND. UM, OKAY, COOL. THANK YOU. UH, YEAH, I CAN PULL IT UP AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION IF THAT'S OKAY. BUCK. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE NOT SELECT I, I, I, AFTER , HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE DOESN'T HAVE TO RECUSE. OH, OKAY. UH, MALLORY, DO YOU GUYS MIND MENTIONING WHO THE REPRESENTATIVES, MARCO, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR RECORDS? YEAH, I DO. LET ME, UH, GET IT REAL QUICK. SO FOR THIS ONE, THE, UM, THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT IS LISTED UNDER ONE SECOND. IT IS B E K R E FUND L L C. AND THE REPRESENTATIVE WE HAVE ATTORNEY RIGHT NOW IS WITH KIMLEY HORN. OKAY. I'M GOOD, THANKS. OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD. UH, THANKS FOR LETTING US KNOW. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. [00:15:07] SO THIS IS THE MAP, PLEASE STATE INITIATE AMENDMENT. THE CURRENT ADOPTED ALIGNMENT OF THE EAST AND WEST CONNECTOR IS SHOWN ON THE MAP HERE IN BLUE, AND THE CITY IS REQUESTING TO REALIGN THE ALIGNMENT TO MATCH THE LINE SHOWN IN GREEN. AND WE ARE ALSO DESIGNATING OR ADDING A PORTION OF ABBOTT ROAD TO THE M T P AS SHOWN IN PURPLE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS A MAP OF THE DEVELOPER INITIATED AMENDMENT. THE CURRENT ADOPTED ALIGNMENT OF THE EAST AND WEST CONNECTOR AND GRAY TOWN ROAD, AGAIN ARE SHOWN IN HERE IN BLUE. AND THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING TO REALIGN THE ALIGNMENT TO MATCH THE LINE SHOWN IN GREEN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND HERE'S THE LARGER SCALE MAP SHOWING WHAT BOTH MAS WILL LOOK LIKE AND HOW THEY CONNECT TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. YES. SO FOR THE CITY IN ASIA CASE, UH, THESE ARE SOME FACTS FACTORS THAT WERE CONSIDERED DURING STATS ANALYSIS. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE ALIGNMENTS AS ADOPTED CURRENTLY DO NOT FOLLOW THE EXISTING GRAY TOWN ROAD AND ABBOT ROAD. AND THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT FOLLOWS THE EXISTING ROADS AND MAINTAINS THE EXISTING GRAY TOWN A ROAD INTERSECTION. THE DESTINATION OF AN EXISTING SEGMENT OF ABBO ROAD IS MEANT TO PROVIDE A BETTER CONNECTION BETWEEN FM 1346 AND FM 1518. CURRENTLY, THE APPROXIMATE RIGHT OF AWAY LENGTH OF ABBOTT ROAD IS 55 FEET AND DEC ABBOT ROAD AS SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A. AND THE M T P WILL REQUIRE ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE EXISTING ABBOT ROAD TO DEDICATE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM 86 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE M T P. AND THIS INCREASED RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH WILL ALLOW FOR FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS SIDEWALKS, BIKE FACILITIES, AND TRITON LAKES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NOW, WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEVELOPER IN ISSUE OF THE CASE, THE ALIGNMENTS, AGAIN, DO NOT FOLLOW THE EXISTING GREAT TOWN ROAD. AND AS CURRENTLY SHOWN, THE ADOPT ALIGNMENT SET UP A POSSIBLY DANGEROUS ROADWAY NETWORK IN THE FUTURE. AND THE REALIGNMENT WILL BRING THE ALIGNMENT UP NORTH TO MATCH THE EXISTING ROADWAY. THE CURRENT ADOPTED ALIGNMENT BY SIX AND NEWLY DEVELOPED SARAH PROPERTY, ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY AND APPROACH REALIGNMENT AVOIDS THIS POTENTIAL CONFLICT. THE CURRENT ADOPTED ALIGNMENTS ALSO DIVIDE MANY ADJACENT PARCELS INTO IRREGULAR COMPONENTS. THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT WILL LEVERAGE EXISTING RIGHT AWAY AND PROVIDE FOR THE MOST USED BY THE MOST PARCELS WITH FEWER DIVISIONS LEAVING UNUSABLE LAND COMPONENTS. NEXT SLIDE. SO WE TOOK THIS ITEM AS WELL TO THE M P O M C COMMITTEE ON APRIL 6TH, AND WE SENT A JOINT NOTICE TO 85 NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING THIS THURSDAY AT APRIL 15TH. AND WE PLAN ON TAKING THESE ITEMS AGAIN TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 28TH OF THIS MONTH AND CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON MAY 20TH. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WORKERS APPROVAL OF BOTH ITEM 21, 28, 23, AND ITEM 21 28 74 AS PRESENTED. NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND THE CITY AND ARE ALSO AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF, IF I MAY, REAL QUICK, UH, THIS IS, UH, LOGAN, I IN THE MEMBERS OF THE, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR CAMERAS ARE TURNED ON FOR ANY MEMBERS OF MAY. I APPRECIATE. OKAY, THANK YOU LOGAN. ALRIGHT, THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS. DO WE, CAN WE MAKE A MOTION FOR BOTH OF THESE AT THE SAME TIME OR WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THEM SEPARATELY? SEPARATELY? THE MOTION SHOULD BE MADE SEPARATELY. OKAY. EVEN THOUGH THE PRESENTATION WAS COMBINED, WE STILL, WE'LL DO SEPARATE MOTIONS. YES, SIR. ALRIGHT, WELL, WE'LL, UH, DISCUSS ITEM NUMBER THREE FIRST. UH, SO WE'LL MOVE ON QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE. WE'LL START WITH, UH, CONNIE GON OKAY, WE'LL, WE'LL MOVE ON TO JULIA CARILLO HAYNES, NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANKS CON. JULIA, NO QUESTIONS FOR ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, LET'S SEE. UH, SETH TEAL, I NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MELINDA SMITH. NO QUESTION. ANISA, SHELL, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. CHUCK BENSON, NO QUESTIONS. JUAN FERNANDEZ? NO QUESTIONS. RYAN GANS? NO QUESTIONS. TIM BROWN? NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT HANLEY? NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT GUDO? NO QUESTIONS. THERESE BELL? NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT TAPIA. [00:20:02] UH, QUICK QUESTION. THE AREA IN THE BLUE IS THAT, UH, FLOOD PLAIN AREA? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AND NO ISSUES WITH, UH, CROSSING THAT? NO. WELL, THERE'S ISSUES, BUT, UM, WITH DEVELOPMENT COMES, ANY TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MADE THEN. UH, BUT, BUT AGAIN, BOTH THOSE, UH, ALIGNMENTS RIGHT NOW ARE EXISTING ROADWAY. THANK YOU. UH, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. PHILLIP, MAD NO QUESTIONS. BRITTANY, DO NO QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU. MICHAEL MOORE, NO QUESTIONS. I HAVE A, UH, CAN YOU PULL UP THE MAP THAT HAS BOTH OF THE, UH, ITEMS THREE AND FOUR ON ONE PAGE? I JUST WANT TO GET A BETTER LOOK AT THAT. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UH, SO HEARING NO QUESTIONS, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ROBERT IN A MOVE APPROVAL OF, UH, THE BOTH AMENDMENT, I GUESS WE NEED TO DO 'EM SEPARATELY. SO I MOVE APPROVE, I DO APPROVAL FIRST OF THE ITEM, 21 DASH 28 73. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 3 21 DASH 28 73 BY ROBERT HANLEY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM CONNIE GONZALEZ? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM CONNIE GONZALEZ. WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE GEORGE PECK. YES. CONNIE GONZALEZ. YES. JULIA CARILLO HAYNES? YES. ANITA SHELL. YES. THAT'S TEAL. YES. MELINDA SMITH? YES. BUD. BENSON? YES. JUAN FERNANDEZ? YES. RYAN GANS. YES. KEN BROWN? YES. ROBERT HANLEY. ROBERT RO. YES. BELL? YES. YES. ROBERT TAPIA. YES. PHILLIP MANNA. YES. BRITTANY DELL. BRITTANY DELL. OKAY. MOTION PASSES. GREAT. NOW WE'LL HEAR A, UH, MOTION FOR NUMBER FOUR. YES. GEORGE, THIS IS CHER. I'M SORRY, WE, I THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA ASK QUESTIONS SEPARATELY FOR NUMBER FOR EACH OF THESE. I DID HAVE A QUESTION. OH, OKAY. OKAY. THE DEVELOPERS. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE FORWARD, UH, WITH QUESTIONS FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR. WE'LL START WITH, UH, CONNIE GONZALEZ. NO QUESTIONS. JULIA CARILLO. HAYNES, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , SETH TEO, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MELINDA SMITH. NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANISA. SHELL N NO QUESTION. THANK YOU. BUCK BENSON. NO QUESTIONS. JUAN FERNANDEZ? NO QUESTIONS. RYAN PLASS? NO QUESTIONS. KEN BROWN? NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT HANLEY? NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT GOHAR. ROBERT GOHAR? NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. SO IN THE DESCRIPTION THEY TALKED ABOUT THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS 55 FEET IN LENGTH, WOULDN'T THAT BE WIDTH? AND THEN HOW DOES THAT 55 IN LENGTH CORRESPOND WITH THE 86? IT WASN'T MAKING, UM, SENSE TO ME. YEAH. UH, SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO RIGHT NOW, ABER AS EXISTING, THE ROADWAY, THE RIGHT OF WAY LENGTH IS 55 FEET. UH, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE MISSION, THE PLAN, ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES ALONG, AB ROAD HAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DEDICATE 86 FEET. BUT BECAUSE 55 FOR YOU MEAN IN WIDTH, NOT LENGTH. IT'S 55. RIGHT. WIDE, NOT LONG. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. SO THE ROAD EXTENDS A LONG WAYS. IT'S ONLY 55 AND RIGHT OF WAY AND THEY NEED TO GET DEDICATE 86. CORRECT. RIGHT. AND BE, AND BECAUSE, UH, IT'S ALREADY EXISTING, ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEDICATE AS MUCH AS THEY WOULD IF IT WAS JUST VACANT LENGTH. COMPLETELY. OKAY. [00:25:01] SO, UM, WHEN YOU TAKE THAT FORWARD, YOU PROBABLY WANNA MOVE THE LENGTH, REPLACE LENGTH WITH WHIP. WILL DO. AND THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHER. OKAY. UH, ROBERT TAPIA, NO QUESTIONS. PHILLIP MANNA? NO QUESTIONS. BRITTANY, DALE. QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU. MICHAEL MOORE. NO QUESTION. GREAT. UH, NOW WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR, JOSEPH JULIA SOMO. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY JULIA REHAN. UH, WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND BY CHERISE. SECOND BY SECOND BY CHERISE BELL. WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE GEORGE PECK. YES. CONNIE GONZALEZ. JULIA CARILLO. HAYNES. YES. ANISA? SHE? YES. DEB TEAL. YES. MELINDA. MELINDA SMITH. YES. YES. DOUG BENSON. YES. JUAN FERNANDEZ. YES. RYAN PAGANS. YES. YES. KEN BROWN. YES. ROBERT HANLEY. YES. ROBERT RO. YES. SRE BELL? YES. ROBERT TAPIA. YES. SO MANNA? YES. YES. BRITTANY. DALE. BRITTANY DALE? YES. MOTION PASSES. GREAT. [5. 21-2877 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT: Consideration of a request to amend the Major Thoroughfare Plan, a component of the City of San Antonio Master Plan, by realigning a proposed segment of East & West Connector, a Secondary Arterial Type A requiring 86’ feet of right-of way, between existing Cagnon Road and existing Loop 1604. Staff recommends approval. (Marco Hinojosa, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner, (210) 207-4087, Marco.Hinojosa@sanantonio.gov, Transportation)] WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS ANOTHER MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT. STAFF HAVE THEIR PRESENTATION. YES. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THIS IS GREG RONER HERE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. UH, THIS WILL BE SIMILAR TO KIND OF HOW MARCO JUST PRESENTED. WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE, UM, ONE CITY INITIATED AND ONE STAFF, UM, APPLICANT INITIATED AMENDMENT HERE AS THEY BOTH, UM, ARE IN THE SAME AREA JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER. UM, SO HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EAST WEST CONNECTOR. ITEM NUMBER 21 2 8 7 7, AND THE OTHER EAST WEST CONNECTOR. ITEM 21 2 8, 7 9. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE EAST WEST CONNECTOR OUT IN FAR, UH, SOUTHWEST BEAR COUNTY, WHERE WE HAVE A SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A REQUIRING 86 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO FOR THIS FIRST SECTION HERE, WE CAN SEE 1604 ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN RUNNING NORTH AND SOUTH. UH, SO WE CAN SEE THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT HERE IN BLUE AND THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT HERE IN GREEN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. I'M GONNA RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS ONE. I'M ALL RIGHT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPER INITIATED SLIDE, UH, OR AMENDMENT HERE. SO THIS IS JUST WEST OF THAT. UM, WE HAVE THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT HERE IN BLUE ON THE SOUTH AND THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT HERE IN GREEN ON THE NORTH. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO AS A WHOLE, WE CAN SEE BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS TOGETHER HERE. UM, THE BLUE LINE AGAIN BEING THE, THE, THE SOUTH LINE, THE STRAIGHT ACROSS EAST WEST CONNECTOR IS ADOPTED. UH, THE GREEN LINE THAT'S JOGGING KIND OF NORTH THROUGH THE FLOODPLAIN OR, UH, NORTH OF THE FLOODPLAIN HERE AND JOGGING BACK DOWN TO 1604 IS THE, UH, THE WESTERN SIDE IS THE, UH, APPLICANT INITIATED. AND THE, THE EASTERN SIDE IS THE STAFF INITIATED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS WITH THE CITY INITIATED ONE. THIS IS THE ONE, THE EASTERN PORTION. UH, SO THE WESTLAKES MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED, UH, BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT ON JUNE 8TH, 2018. UM, THEY ADOPTED MP M T P ALIGNMENT WITHIN WESTLAKES DEVELOPMENT WAS REALIGNED ON THE OLD DECEPTION THAT AN ALIGNMENT CAN BE ADJUSTED ANYWHERE ALONG A PROPERTY AS LONG AS THE CONNECTION WAS MAINTAINED. UH, THAT'S WHY WE SEE IT RUNNING NORTH OF THE FLOODPLAIN THERE. SO THIS ALIGNMENT AVOIDS THE CON. THERE'S A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. HOWEVER, UM, IT DIDN'T GO THROUGH A FORMAL M T P PROCESS, UM, AS IT STILL CONNECTED THE SAME SIMILAR PROPERTIES. AND IT REMAINS ON THE MAP AS SHOWN JUST STRAIGHT EAST WEST. SO THE CITY INITIATED PART OF THIS REALIGNMENT WOULD, WOULD MATCH IT TO WHAT'S SHOWN THE WESTLAKE M D P, WHICH IS WHAT WE SHOWED IN GREEN. UM, THE REALIGNMENT ALSO [00:30:01] MOVES IT SIGNIFICANTLY OUT OF THAT LARGE FLOODPLAIN, UM, SHIFTING IT NORTH OF THE FLOODPLAIN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPER INITIATED, THIS IS THE WESTERN HALF OF THE, THE, UH, AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. UM, SO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES HERE IN THIS AREA, INCLUDING THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN. THERE'S A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND OTHER PHYSICAL FEATURES ON THE GROUND THAT ARE EXISTING. UH, THERE'S A CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT RUNS THROUGH HERE THAT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. UH, THE, THE CURRENT THOROUGHFARE DOES CROSS DIRECTLY THROUGH THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, UM, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FLOODPLAIN. UM, SO CURRENTLY THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT, UM, BISECTS A PORTION OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT NEAR THE MEDINA RIVER. UM, HOWEVER, THERE ARE GAPS, UH, WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT NORTH OF THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT. UM, THIS IS WHAT WE WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO, UM, AVOID AS MUCH CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS POSSIBLE. SO THIS REALIGNMENT, UM, IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF SOME OF THESE GAPS AND WEAVES THROUGH THEM TO AVOID AS MUCH CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS POSSIBLE. UM, THERE ARE SOME CLIPS IN ORDER TO MEET THE U D C FOR AN ARTERIAL, UM, WITH THE RADIUS. SO THERE ARE SOME CLIPS THAT WE WILL BE REQUIRED, UM, TO FIT THE ROAD WITHIN THAT EASEMENT. UH, THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED ALIGNMENT ALSO CROSSES APPROXIMATELY A ONE MILE STRETCH OF THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN. UH, SPANNING THIS WOULD REQUIRE A BRIDGE APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE LONG, AN ESTIMATED COST OF $30 MILLION. REALIGNING THE AMENDMENT FURTHER NORTH AVOIDS THIS SCENARIO OF THE, A VERY COSTLY BRIDGE. UM, SO DESPITE THE CONSTRAINTS IN CONSTRUCTING THE FUTURE ROAD, UH, THIS PROPOSED REALIGNMENT CREATES A MORE FEASIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALIGNMENT. IT ALSO MAINTAINS THE PURPOSE OF THE EAST WEST CONNECTOR TO PROVIDE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXISTING LIPSTICK UNIT FOUR AND FUTURE EXPANSION OF TEXAS TWO 11. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, LOOKING AT OUR TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS, WE ARE HERE AT, UH, WE HAD M T P COMMITTEE BACK, UH, APRIL 6TH, UH, PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS, APRIL 12TH, PLANNING COMMISSION TECH, UM, ALSO APRIL 12TH, PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 28TH. AND FINALLY, CITY COUNCIL IS, UM, SCHEDULED FOR MAY 20TH AS OF RIGHT NOW. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO AGAIN, THERE IS A, A LOOK AT THE MAP IN GENERAL FOR Y'ALL TO SEE, AND THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. AND WE ALSO DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON HAND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. STAFF. THANK YOU. OKAY, CHAIR PECK, THIS IS, THIS IS KEN BROWN, WHO IS THE APPLICANT? THE APPLICANT FOR THIS IS, UM, UH, THE APPLICANT IS TONY ANO, AND THE DEVELOPER'S NAME IS CALLED BIGELOW POST. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU STEPH, YOUR PRESENTATION. WE'LL DO WHAT WE DID ON THE LAST ONE. WE'LL HEAR EACH ONE OF THESE HAS, UH, ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. SO WE'LL START OFF WITH ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO QUESTIONS. SO CONNIE GONZALEZ, NO QUESTIONS. JULIA CARILLO HANGS. I DO. UM, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO THIS EASTERN PORTION THAT'S CURRENTLY DISPLAYED ON THE MAP RIGHT NOW, UM, IS THAT, UM, FARMING PROPERTY THAT THAT'S PROPOSED TO BISECT? UM, AND WHY WAS THERE NOT CONSIDERATION TO MOVE IT FURTHER SOUTH? JUST RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN, NO PROBLEM. UM, SO THAT IS A NURSERY, UH, A, UH, COMMERCIAL NURSERY. UM, SO MOST OF THIS PROPERTY HERE IN GREEN FROM 1604 TO THAT NURSERY HAS ALREADY PART OF THE M D P. SO WE WERE TRYING TO CONTIN MAKE IT AS CONTINUOUS AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT AS MANY CURVES IN THERE. UM, AND THEN JUST TRYING TO AVOID AS MUCH FLOODPLAIN IN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS POSSIBLE. AND ALSO TO, TO TIE IT BACK IN TO WHERE, WHERE WE WANNA SEE THE WESTERN PORTION COME IN FROM THE DEVELOPER INITIATED. OKAY. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. UM, S TEAL, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MELINDA SMITH, NO QUESTIONS. ANISA, SHELL, NO QUESTIONS. UH, JUAN FERNANDEZ? NO QUESTIONS. RYAN GANS? YES. UH, THEY MENTIONED THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OR REALIGNMENT CROSSES OR CLIPS, PORTIONS OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY LINE WORK OR MAP SHOWING THAT WE DON'T HAVE IT ON THIS MAP? I THINK WE, WE DIDN'T GET IT TILL AFTER WE ALREADY HAD SENT THIS [00:35:01] IN. UM, I, I DO HAVE A, AN EXHIBIT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR ME TO SHARE THAT. UH, GREG, ACTUALLY, THE REGIONAL MAP ACTUALLY SHOWS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARIES. OKAY. IS THAT THE FIRST MAP OR THE LAST ONE? UH, THE ONE AFTER THE DEVELOPER INITIATED. IT'S, UH, OKAY. WE'LL BOTH AMENDMENTS TOGETHER. YES. SO IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE TOUGH TO SEE. UM, ACTUALLY IT'S THE OTHER ONE, RIGHT? MARCO? IF YOU GO BACK ONE, I THINK WE WERE JUST THERE. UM, I SAW IT. IT WAS THE ONE. IT HAS, IT HAS BOTH AMENDMENTS TOGETHER. THAT ONE HERE. UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO, IF YOU GO BACK, IS IT POSSIBLE TO ZOOM IN ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? I KNOW WE CAN, WE CAN MANUALLY DO IT AS WELL, BUT, UM, IF YOU LOOK WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN, UM, YOU CAN SEE ANOTHER LINE THAT'S CROSSING THROUGH, UM, KIND OF NORTH OF THE GREEN OF THE DEVELOPER INITIATE ON THE WEST. UH, NORTH OF THAT YOU CAN SEE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT THERE WITH THE KIND OF BLUISH WHITE OUTLINE, AND THEN IT'S CROSSING THE, UM, IT'S HARD TO, I WISH I COULD USE MY MOUSE AND EXPLAIN. DIDN'T MAKE IT EASIER. UM, BUT IF YOU, I SEE IT. SORRY, CAN ZOOM IN. IT'S, IT'S ON THERE. UH, AND THIS MAP WAS ALSO, UH, SENT OUT INDIVIDUALLY, UH, BY MONIQUE, I BELIEVE, UH, LAST WEEK OR, YEAH, LAST FRIDAY I BELIEVE. AND THEN IS THERE ANY, I GUESS, PROPOSED EXCHANGE FOR WHAT'S BEING DISTURBED TO BE, UM, RE I GUESS, UM, ADDED BACK INTO IT SOMEWHERE OR NOT AT THIS TIME? UM, RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT, AT FUTURE DEDICATION WHEN THAT COMES ALONG. UM, AS WE CAN SEE, IT ALREADY CROSSES IT HERE, SO WE WERE TRYING TO FIND A LOCATION WHERE IT'S MORE OF A CLIPPED AND JUST STRAIGHT ACROSS. UM, BUT WE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. KEN BROWN? NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT HANLIN? NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT RETA? NO QUESTIONS THERE. SPELL YES. OKAY. COUPLE OF THINGS. UM, THERE IS A SECTION CALLED FISCAL IMPACT AND A FISCAL IMPACT CAN ACTUALLY BE A SAVINGS. SO, UM, THE REPORT MENTIONED THERE WAS A $30 MILLION SAVING IF A BRIDGE, UM, WASN'T BUILT, UM, ON THE KER ALIGNMENT. UM, THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE TO KIND OF NOTE THAT. UM, HAVING SAID THAT, LOOKING AT THE MAPS, UM, IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW WHERE THE DEVELOPERS, UM, YOU SAID IT WAS ALREADY APPROVED SUBDIVISION OR A PLAQUE? U D P? YES. IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S HERE KIND OF BETWEEN 1604 IN THAT NURSERY. BUT YEAH, NEXT TIME I'LL MAKE SURE WE, WE NOTE THAT SO IT'S A LITTLE MORE CLEAR. YEAH, SO, UM, THE MAPS AND THEN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT USING THAT, YOU KNOW, PALE BLUE LINE. I MEAN, RED WOULD BE BETTER, PURPLE, ORANGE, SOMETHING MORE BRIGHT SO WE CAN, UM, LOOK AT THESE THINGS, UM, AND ABSOLUTELY MAKE SOME NOTATIONS ON THAT. UM, AND NOW HAVING SAID THAT, HERE'S MY QUESTION. I DON'T LIKE, UM, THE, UM, THE ROAD . I DON'T WANT IT TO GO THROUGH THE BOTTOM EASEMENT WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY AT, AND I DON'T LIKE THE NEW, UM, ONE THAT'S PROPOSED BY THE CITY GOING THROUGH JUST A PART OF IT. SO IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO ADDRESS LIKE HOW YOU WOULD JUST REMOVE A SECTION OF THAT ROAD FROM THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN? BIG QUESTION. UM, NO, IT'S A BIG, UM, I MEAN OUR, OUR PURPOSE WA I MEAN, WE KNOW IT'S OVER THREE MILES BETWEEN ANOTHER EAST WEST CONNECTOR IN THIS AREA. AND UNFORTUNATELY, SO THE THOROUGHFARE WAS PUT IN HERE I THINK IN 1986 AND THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT CAME IN 2014. AND, UM, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2014 WORKING ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. I WASN'T AWARE OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT COMING IN. UM, IT, IT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE AT THE TIME IF WE COULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AND WE COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT WE CAN FIND A WAY THAT WE COULD FIT THIS RIGHT OF WAY NEEDED. AND STILL KIND OF BOTH PARTIES CAN AGREE TO THAT. UM, BUT IT WAS OUR, OUR GOAL TO NOT HAVE OVER, OVER THREE MILES OF NO EAST WEST CONNECTIONS IN THIS AREA. UM, I, I KNOW STAFF CAN OR DEVELOPERS, ANYONE CAN, CAN COME IN AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL, BUT I THINK WE WANT WITH, WITH A THREE MILE CONNECTION HERE, WAS, WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO, TO HAVE SOMETHING EAST WEST IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. AND YOU SAID IT'S THREE MILES FROM BOTH [00:40:01] EAST WEST ROAD? UM, YEAH, SO, UH, HIGHWAY 90 IS JUST NORTH OF HERE, JUST OFF THE MAP. AND THEN, UH, I THINK IT'S MC MCDONOUGH LACOSTE IS IN EAST WEST ROAD THAT'S JUST SOUTH OF HERE. UH, I THINK IT'S ON THE BIGGER REGIONAL MAP. AND WE SHOW THAT IT'S, IT'S ABOUT 3.2, 3.1 MILES, UM, FROM YOUR NEXT EAST WEST CONNECTION. AND WHAT, WHAT AGAIN IS THE DISTANCE THAT YOU PREFER THE INTERVALS TO BE ONCE WE START? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY WE'RE A LOT TIGHTER, UM, THE EXISTING ROADWAYS, BUT IDEALLY ABOUT A MILE OR SO WOULD BE IDEAL. OKAY. SO THIS KIND OF SPLITS INTO THAT MILE AND A HALF, UM, WHICH IS FOR THIS AREA WITH THE AMOUNT OF FLOOD PLANE, LIKE I SAID, THE AMOUNT OF CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN THIS AREA, I THINK IT, IT SPLITS IT EXPLICIT WEALTH. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, WHEN I LOOKED UP TO FIND OUT WHERE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS, I THINK THE MAP THAT I, UM, GOT WAS OF THE WHOLE LIKE 792 ACRES OF THAT, UM, OR PARCEL OF LAND. UM, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE CONSERVATION, UH, EASEMENT IS JUST AROUND THE, UM, WATERWAYS, IS THAT MM-HMM. CORRECT. HOW I'M INTERPRETING THAT THE, THE PORTION AT LEAST THAT WE WOULD BE CROSSING, UM, WITH THE BLUE LINE WOULD BE CLOSER TO JUST WHERE THE, THE WATERWAY EXISTS. UM, AT LEAST THERE, IT DOES SEEM TO KIND OF MEANDER A LITTLE BIT. UM, BUT I, I CAN'T, IT, IT, IT VARIES WITHOUT THROUGHOUT THE, THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, BUT THE, THE PORTION WE WERE AT WAS CLOSER JUST TO THE RIVER RIVER. UH, LET ME RESTATE MY QUESTION. OKAY. I'M SORRY. THE, THAT'S OKAY. THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS NOT THE ENTIRE PARCEL, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. OKAY. UH, ROBERT TAPIA, UM, NO QUESTION. IT'S JUST A COMMENT THOUGH. I, I'D LIKE TO SEE A SMOOTHER FLOW, UM, IN THE ROAD. UH, THERE'S A, A COUPLE OF TIGHT RADIUSES, MAYBE LARGER RADIUSES MIGHT BE BETTER. UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. HELLO, AMANDA? YES, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO, UM, IF WE GO BACK TO THE WEST, UH, VIEW OF, I GUESS OF THE PROPOSED CONNECTION THERE, UM, YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE PICTURE. THERE WE GO. SO, SO THERE'S, UM, THE DOTTED BLUE LINE THERE, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED LINE, UM, BASICALLY FLOATING ABOVE THE, THE EARLIER DOTS OF ALIGNMENT. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, WHY DID WE NOT, YOU KNOW, UM, GO OVER TO THAT BLUE LINE, RIDE IT OUT VERSUS RIDING ACROSS THE, THE WATER AREAS AND THAT, AND, AND SO, AND IT MAY BE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 'CAUSE I, I, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHERE THE LINES OR BOUNDARIES WERE, BUT I GUESS MY POINT IS, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THE PATH GOING GREEN TO THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, WOULDN'T BE OVER WATER AND, YOU KNOW, WOULD SEEM MORE EFFECTIVE TO ME. I DON'T KNOW THAT CANAND YOUR QUESTION. UM, SO I KNOW THAT I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M ANSWERING THIS CORRECTLY IN THE RIGHT ORDER. I KNOW THAT THIS IS KIND OF THE, THE NEXT ONE FOR Q AND A. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON HAND. DO YOU WANT THEM TO HELP ANSWER THAT? NOW I KNOW THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON, UH, REVISING THE FLOODPLAIN, SO IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA COME OUT A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THIS AND IT'S ONLY ABOUT A FOOT OR TWO DEEP, I THINK AT THE DEEPEST POINT HERE WHERE THE GREEN LINES GOING THROUGH THE FLOODPLAIN HERE. BUT I'M NOT SURE IF, UM, IF STAFF CAN LET ME KNOW IF WE WANT THE APPLICANT TO HELP ANSWER THAT HERE OR AT THE NEXT ONE. I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS. WE CAN ANSWER IT WHEN WE, UH, HAVE QUESTIONS ON ITEM SIX. HOW ABOUT THAT THEN? WE'LL, I'LL, I'LL HOLD OFF FOR THAT FOR THAT PART THEN. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SURE. NO OTHER QUE NO OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. OH, UH, BRITTANY DALE, NO QUESTIONS. MICHAEL MOORE? NO QUESTION. UM, I HAD JUST A QUICK QUESTION. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WELL I GUESS IT KIND OF RELATES TO BOTH OF 'EM. SO I'LL JUST ASK IT. SO THE PARTS WHERE THIS MAJOR, THE REPAIR IS GONNA CROSS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, ARE YOU SAYING THAT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN THERE IS GONNA GET WORKED OUT LATER? IS THAT WHAT THE PLAN IS? YES. CORRECT. SO RIGHT NOW, UM, THE WAY IT'S ADOPTED RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THE MAP. SO JUST, JUST UM, TO THE NORTHWEST OF WHERE IT SAYS KAON ROAD THERE YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT CROSSES IT DIRECTLY. UM, IT'S A LITTLE TOUGH TO SEE. IT'S KIND OF RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MAP OF THE BLUE LINE. YEAH. UM, AND WHERE THE GREEN LINE IS, IT'S, THERE IS AN EASEMENT THROUGH THERE. UM, THAT'S NOT QUITE WIDE ENOUGH FOR AN ARTERIAL. SO THERE ARE SOME CORNERS THAT WE'D HAVE TO CLIP TO KEEP THE MAXIMUM OR THAT MINIMUM RADIUS FOR THE ARTERIAL. UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WORK OUT ONCE WE GOT TO THAT PHASE. [00:45:01] SO IT WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF NEGOTIATION OR A LAND SWAP OR SOMETHING, I GUESS IS HOW SOMETHING ALONG, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, AND THIS IS JUST A GENERAL COMMENT, ESPECIALLY ON ONE THAT'S AS COMPLEX AS THIS, AND I THINK WE TOUCHED ON THIS AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE HAD A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT WHERE THE MAPS WERE KIND OF ZOOMED WAY IN AND IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE THE WHOLE STORY, BUT I THINK THE SAME NOTE APPLIES HERE AND THAT THE, THESE MAPS MANY TIMES, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE GET TO SEE THIS AND PROBABLY THE ONLY TIME, BUT THE MORE INFORMATION YOU GUYS CAN PUT ON THESE MAPS, THE BETTER OFF IT IS FOR US AS A COMMITTEE TO UNDERSTAND TRULY WHAT'S GOING ON. UM, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT CHERISE WAS SAYING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE DEPICTING THIS, THIS, THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT A LITTLE CLEARER 'CAUSE WITHOUT MM-HMM. THE VERBIAGE IN THE TEXT ABOUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, I WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN EVEN WHAT TO LOOK FOR. ABSOLUTELY. AND I STILL DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS ON THAT MAP. I HAVE NO IDEA. AND THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, LIKE SHOWING THE M D P ON THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS MENTIONED IN THE TEXT ALSO WOULD BE A HUGE HELP BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE MAP IS PRETTY RUDIMENTARY AT BEST. AND THE MORE THAT CAN BE PUT ON THERE, THE, THE BETTER OFF WE ARE. OKAY. NO, I APPRECIATE IT. I KNOW, UM, I KNOW YOUR COMMENT FROM LAST TIME ABOUT ZOOMING OUT. I KNOW WE TRIED TO DO THAT ON A FEW OF THESE, INCLUDING THE FIRST ONE THAT WE MADE SURE WE HAD TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS, BUT, BUT WHAT WE APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S COMMENTS WE'LL CONTINUE TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET TO ADDRESS THEM. SURE. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. NO, OF COURSE. GEORGE. GEORGE, CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES. SURE. THANKS. UM, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, UH, IF YOU CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. SO YOU'VE HEARD SEVERAL, UM, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE T NOW THIS IS FOR STAFF, UM, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, IN TWO WEEKS, NOT, NOT THIS WEEKS PLANNING COMMISSION. SO IN THAT TIME, DO YOU MAKE REVISIONS BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE HEARD TODAY OR WHAT IS, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR STAFF FROM TAC TO PLANNING COMMISSIONS? MARCO, DO YOU WANNA, ARE YOU STILL ON? DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT ONE BECAUSE ? YEAH. UM, SO WE TRY TO SPACE THESE MEETINGS OUT ACCORDINGLY SO WE CAN MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. UM, THERE IS FROM DEADLINES WITHIN CITY PROCESSES THAT WE HAVE TO UPLOAD CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AT CERTAIN TIMES. UH, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE, UH, WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM Y'ALL, UH, FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. SO POTENTIALLY AT PLANNING COMMISSION WE COULD SEE A SLIGHTLY MODIFIED, UM, UH, THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT, OR NOT NECESSARILY YEAH, WE CAN CHANGE THE ALIGNMENTS PER SE, BUT WHAT WE CAN IS ADD MORE INFORMATION LIKE MAKING THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT RED OR DIFFERENT COLOR AND AS MAY THEY MAY PROVIDING A, UM, EXTRA MAP AT A MORE REGIONAL SCALE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MARCO. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THIS? ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE. UH, CHAIRMAN PECK, I I HAVE A QUESTION. THIS IS CONNIE GONZALEZ. SURE. THANK, UM, DID, DID YOU, UH, DID YOU ALL DISCUSS, IS THERE ANY NEED TO, UM, OBTAIN ADDITIONAL LAND FOR THIS, UM, AND, AND MAY IT RESULT IN IMMINENT DOMAIN? DID Y'ALL TOUCH ON THAT? WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED ON THAT. I KNOW IT'S, IT'S AN OPTION, UM, TO FIT THROUGH THE EASEMENT BETTER. I KNOW THAT, UM, I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE IN PARKS THAT HAVE, HAVE USED THAT BEFORE OR THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, IT'S NOT THE IDEAL SITUATION, BUT, UM, IT'S AN OPTION IF WE NEEDED TO CLIP ANY CORNERS IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. SO THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS WHERE IT'S, IT'S LOOKING LIKE A POSSIBILITY AND, AND LIKELY REQUIRED. I, I WOULD SAY IT'S AN OPTION, CORRECT. YEAH. IT'S ON THE TABLE FOR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT WE NEED IN THE FUTURE TO CONNECT THE ROADWAY. OKAY. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS THAT WE WOULD HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT OR IS THAT TOO EARLY? UM, I'D HAVE TO CHECK AND SEE, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UM, AS TO WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION THEY CAN PROVIDE FOR US. BUT, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL CHECK AND SEE AND WE'LL SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ADD TO THAT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. OKAY, THANK YOU. NO MORE QUESTIONS. CHERISE HAS ANOTHER QUESTION. OKAY. CHERISE, GO AHEAD. SO WHAT HAPPENS IF WE JUST BUILD THE EAST PORTION WITH IT STOPPING AT THIS, UM, NORTH SOUTH ROAD AND DENY THE CHANGE TO THE OTHER SIDE? I THINK THEN WE JUST, WE LOSE OUR CONNECTIVITY FROM THE, FROM THE WESTERN SIDE. UM, I, I'LL ALSO SAY THAT THERE IS A, A DEVELOPMENT, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE BLUE AND THE GREEN MERGE ON THE WEST SIDE, SO THERE, WE, I BELIEVE THERE IS A, MARCO, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG TOO, BUT THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY DEDICATING THE THOROUGHFARE THROUGH [00:50:01] RIGHT HERE ON THAT LITTLE GRAY SLIP, UH, PART BETWEEN MONTGOMERY ROAD AND, UM, YOU SEE MONTGOMERY, IT'S AN EAST, IT'S A NORTH SOUTH ROAD ON THE, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE MAP. YES. SO THERE'S A LITTLE GRAY PORTION TO THE RIGHT OF THAT BETWEEN THERE AND THERE THAT'S BEING DEDICATED ALREADY. UM, AGAIN, UH, BACK TO YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT ADDING SOME STUFF TO THE MATH AND SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PROBABLY DO AS WELL, JUST TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR SO THAT PART'S ALREADY BEING DEDICATED. UM, BUT WE WOULD JUST LOSE OUR, OUR CONNECTIVITY GOING EAST, WEST, UM, AGAIN THEN INSTEAD OF FROM 1604 TO MONTGOMERY, UM, HAVING THE, THE OVER THREE MILES, THEN IT'S FROM, FROM CAGNO TO MONTGOMERY OF HAVING A LITTLE OVER THREE MILES OF, OF NO EAST WEST. BUT THAT WOULD, UM, WITH THAT SUBDIVISION THERE, THERE WAS NOT AN EAST WEST CONNECTIVITY THAT KIND OF GIVES THEM THAT GREAT GREEN BELT AND KIND OF ENSURES THAT THIS AREA WON'T OVERDEVELOP. SO THERE IS, UM, NO, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND I THINK, SO WE DO HAVE STAFF ON THE LINE FOR THE NEXT ONE AND I THINK THEY CAN REALLY ADDRESS THAT QUESTION WELL WITH, WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT. BUT I, I, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE? OKAY. WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. ROBERT HANLEY MOVE APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY ROBERT HANLEY, A SECOND, SECOND, COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES, UH, STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL VOTE GEORGE PECK. YES. CONNIE GONZALEZ. YES. JULIA CARILLO. JUHAN? YES. AN SHE? YES. SEV TEAL. YES. MELINDA SMITH? YES. YES. JUAN FERNANDEZ. YES. RYAN GAN YES. YES. KEN BROWN. YES. ROBERT HENLEY? YES. ROBERT RO YES. STREETS? NO. ROBERT TYA? YES. DOES MANNA NO. BRITTANY DALE? YES. MOTION PASSES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'LL MOVE [6. 21-2879 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT: Consideration of a request to amend the Major Thoroughfare Plan, a component of the City of San Antonio Master Plan, by realigning a proposed segment of East & West Connector, a Secondary Arterial Type A requiring 86’ feet of right-of way, between approximately 1580’ east of existing Montgomery Road and existing Cagnon Road. Staff recommends approval. (Marco Hinojosa, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner, (210) 207-4087, Marco.Hinojosa@sanantonio.gov, Transportation)] ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX AND WE'LL START RIGHT IN WITH QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE. UH, START WITH CONNIE GONZALEZ. NO QUESTIONS. JULIA CREO HAYNES, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. TEAL QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MELINDA SMITH. NO QUESTIONS. ANISA SHELL, NO QUESTIONS. JUAN FERNANDEZ? NO QUESTIONS. RYAN PLAGUE? NO QUESTIONS. KEN BROWN? NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT HANLEY? NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT GUDA. ROBERT GUDA? NO, NO QUESTIONS. OKAY, THERESE, BE, UM, I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE HAVE A CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN FOR THE CITY AND 34% OF OUR, UM, THE EMISSIONS ARE FROM PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION, WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY ROADS. AND THAT ONE OF OUR GOALS IS TO PROMOTE BIODIVERSITY AND HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS BY PRESERVING EXISTING NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS. AND I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO LOOK AT BOTH THE PROPOSED AND THE ADOPTED, UM, STREET HERE AND MAKE A CHANGE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU CHERISE. UM, ROBERT COPIA, NO QUESTIONS. MANNA. SO DO I NEED TO REPEAT MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT WITH REGARDS TO WHY THE CHOSEN PATH VERSUS THE ADOPTED ALIGNMENT? SO IF THEY COULD ADDRESS THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT. OKAY. [00:55:01] SO WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON HAND, UM, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO JUMP IN AND EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. UH, HELLO, JOHNNY CLAYTON WITH THAT ASSOCIATE, UH, DESIGN CONSULTANT FOR BIGELOW HOMES. UH, THE CURRENT ADOPTED ALIGNMENT BISECTS THE STRAND RANCH DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS A SINGLE, SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT, INTENDED TO BE A WALKABLE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED COMMUNITY. UM, BISECTING THE COMMUNITY WITH AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY DISRUPT THE WALKABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY, THEREFORE, THE REASONING FOR PROPOSING ALIGNMENT OR REALIGNMENT TO THE NORTH AROUND THE BORDER OF THE THE DEVELOPMENT. DO WE NOTE THE INTENDED, UH, WHAT'S PROPOSED TRAFFIC PATTERN IS GONNA BE ON THIS PARTICULAR ROADWAY? UH, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT, UH, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THERE. UM, WELL, IN MY COMMUNITY WE HAVE, WE HAVE A PRETTY MAJOR ROAD IN THE MIDDLE OF MY COMMUNITY THAT, THAT BISECTS IT AND, AND WE HAVE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ON BOTH SIDES AND ACROSS IT. SO, SO JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GET, GET A SENSE FOR HOW BUSY THIS ROAD'S GONNA BE AND IS BISECTING A PROBLEM? UNDERSTOOD. UH, TONY, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? I'M, AND IF I COULD STEP IN, I I COULD ANSWER THAT. TONY SPANNER WITH BIGELOW HOMES, UM, WE WILL NOT BE CONNECTING TO THIS ARTERIAL ROAD WHATSOEVER. THE, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL, UM, WILL BE PRIVATE STREETS. UH, AS, AS JOHNNY ALREADY MENTIONED, IT'S A HIGHLY WALKABLE COMMUNITY. AND WE'VE GOT, WE, WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY FROM SAWS, OR WE'RE PURCHASING IT FROM SAWS, AND WE PURCHASED IT WITH A 40% SETASIDE. UM, SO WE HAVE 40% SET ASIDE OPEN SPACE, AND WE, WE, THAT THE, THE REAL REASON WE WANNA MOVE IT TO THE NORTH AND OR TO, TO, TO ELIMINATE THE BIFURCATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T SEE CONNECTING TO IT WHATSOEVER. SO ALL TRAFFIC THAT WILL USE THIS WILL BE TRAVELING FROM OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO 1604 OR VICE VERSA. OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? PHILLIP? JEFF, UH, BRITTANY? GO. WHAT? FREEZE. WAIT, WHERE'S THE DEVELOPMENT AGAIN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS ALIGNMENT? SO THE DEVELOPMENT AND, UM, IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO JUMP IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW TOO. UM, IS THIS PORTION THAT'S KIND OF OVAL SHAPE? UM, IT'S, IT'S THE, FROM THE VERY WESTERN TIP. YOU A CURSOR. WE COULD SEE SOMEONE'S CURSOR POINTING AT IT EARLIER. OH, I'M OKAY IF THE, IF STAFF CAN HELP ME POINT IT OUT. UM, YES, CORRECT. FROM HERE HEADING EAST TO THE, WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN IS, UM, TO THE EAST. UM, SORRY. NO, GO TO THE RIGHT . I SEE YOUR ARROW. UM, SO YEAH, THAT, THIS IS THE PROPERTY HERE. UM, SO THE, THE VELVET WOULD BE TYING IN, UM, SOUTH OF HERE TO MONTGOMERY ROAD THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY. THIS IS TONY SPANO AGAIN. THE, THE DEVELOPMENT IS THE PENINSULA THAT THAT PROTRUDES, UM, FROM WHERE THE GREEN LINE AND THE DOTTED LINE SPLIT FROM THAT POINT ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST TO THE FLOODPLAIN. THAT'S, THAT'S THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, CHERISE? I THINK SO, YES. OKAY. OKAY. BRITTANY, DALE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , UH, MICHAEL MOORE? NO QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? I GOING WHAT? THIS IS CHERISE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE CHANGE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM CHERISE BELL [01:00:01] TO DENY THE MAJOR THOROUGH REPAIR PLAN AMENDMENT. ITEM NUMBER SIX. WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. WHO WAS THE SECOND NANA? OKAY, SO WE HAVE A SECOND BY PHILLIP MANNA WITH STAFF. PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. GEORGE PECK. NO. UH, CONNIE GONZALEZ? NO. ANITA SHOW. UM, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY IF I VOTE NO. AM I VOTING TO DENY OR AM I VOTING? ? IF, IF YOU VOTE AGAINST THE DENIAL, IF YOU VOTE NO. YOU ARE VOTING AGAINST THE DENIAL IF YOU VOTE YES. YOU ARE VOTING TO DENY. YES. I VOTE TO DENY. OKAY. ASSESS TEAL. NO. MELINDA SMITH? NO. JUAN FERNANDEZ? NO. RYAN GAN? NO. KEN BROWN? NO. ROBERT HINLEY? NO. ROBERT RO NO. SRIS BELL? YES. ROBERT TEYA? NO. IS IT MANNA? YES. BRITTANY DALE? YES. YES. MOTION FAILS. OKAY. UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. THIS SAYS CONNIE GONZALEZ. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UM, AS STAFF RECOMMENDED. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. ROBERT HANLEY. I'LL SECOND IT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY CONNIE GONZALEZ TO APPROVE THE MAJOR THIRD AFFAIR PLAN AMENDMENT. AND ITEM NUMBER SIX AND A SECOND BY ROBERT HANLEY. WAS IT? YES. OKAY. SECOND BY ROBERT HANLEY. STAFF, PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. OKAY. UH, GEORGE PECK. YES. CONNIE GONZALEZ. YES. JULIA HAN THIS, I'M SORRY. YES. ANISA SHELL? NO. THIS TEAL? YES. MELINDA SMITH. YES. JUAN FERNANDEZ. YES. OBJECTION. RYAN PAGANS. YES. KEN BROWN. YES. ROBERT HANLEY. YES. ROBERT RO. YES. SRIS BILL? NO. ROBERT TAPIA. YES. SO THAT MANNA? NO. BRITTANY? DELL. BRITTANY DELL. YES. MOTION PASSES. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT, MOVING [7. 21-2880 Consideration, discussion, and make recommendations on amending the Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws.] ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. SO, UH, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, THIS IS JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS. WHAT, WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS, UM, WHEN WE FIRST WERE LOOKING AT THE EXPIRATION, UH, DATES FOR ALL THE FOLKS ON THE TAX. YES. YES. UH, WHAT WAS THAT? UH, I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. UM, SO EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT THE, UH, THE FOLKS WHO ARE EXPIRING FOR THE TACT THIS APRIL. UM, OUR INITIAL, UH, GLANCE AT IT WAS THAT WE HAD A WHOLE LOT OF FOLKS EXPIRING. THEN WE REALIZED THAT MOST OF IT WAS GONNA BE THE FOLKS ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. SO IT WASN'T AS BAD AS IT SEEMED, BUT IT RAISED A QUESTION OF OVER TIME, THINGS DO GET A LITTLE SKEWED IN THAT, UM, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE MAYBE ALL THE ENGINEERS OR ALL THE COMMUNITY REPS OR ALL THE ARCHITECTS EXPIRING AT ONE TIME JUST BECAUSE CERTAIN PEOPLE LEAVE OR, YOU KNOW, THEY MOVE SO THEY HAVE TO GET OFF THE TACK OR THEY RESIGN OR THINGS HAPPEN. UM, SO WE BEGAN TO DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENS IF A UNBALANCED AMOUNT OF FOLKS, UH, UM, TERMS EXPIRE IN, IN A GIVEN YEAR, OR IF AN UNBALANCED NUMBER OF ONE CATEGORY EXPIRES IN A GIVEN YEAR. SO [01:05:01] IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY ON ATTACK, WHICH AS WE ALL KNOW, IS VERY IMPORTANT. 'CAUSE A LOT OF WHAT WE TALK ABOUT IS, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU HAVE TO REFLECT BACK ON, ON DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE BEFORE. WE NEED, YOU KNOW, KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE THAT, THAT, THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE CODE AND WHAT SOME OF THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WERE. SO YOU TRY TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY ON THE CODE, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE GOT THE, THE, THE TERMS, UH, EXPIRING, YOU KNOW, OVER, SPREAD OUT OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS. SO WE BEGAN TO THINK ABOUT THAT. WELL, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD PROBABLY INSERT SOME LANGUAGE INTO THE TAC BYLAWS THAT ALLOWS, UH, PEOPLE'S TERMS TO BE EXTENDED BY ONE YEAR TO, TO REBALANCE OUT THE EXPIRATIONS. UM, AND THE WAY WE KIND OF STRUCTURED IT, YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE LANGUAGE IN BLUE ON THE ATTACHMENT IN YOUR PACKET, IS THAT WE RESTRUCTURED IT. THAT, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE ONE PERSON FROM EACH CATEGORY CAN, CAN BE EXTENDED ONE TIME IN THEIR TERM. I THINK THERE WAS TWO CATEGORIES, THE ENGINEERS AND TO THE COMMUNITY REPS WHO HAD, UH, THE, THEY HAVE MORE, UH, MEMBERS ON THE TECH THAN ANY OTHER, UH, CATEGORY. THEY CAN HAVE TWO FOLKS EXTENDED, BUT EACH PERSON CAN ONLY BE EXTENDED ONCE PER TERM. SO, UM, WE KIND OF WROTE UP THIS LANGUAGE AND, UH, PUT IT IN HERE FOR YOU TO REVIEW. UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE WHOLE, THE, THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY. UM, SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH? DOES STAFF HAVE ANY, UH, ADDITIONS TO MY COMMENTS? WERE THEY SUFFICIENT OR, UH, GEORGE, I THINK THAT WRAPS IT UP PRETTY WELL. UM, YOU KNOW, IF NEEDED, WE CAN CERTAINLY READ WHAT WE HAVE HERE ON THE SCREEN, BUT IF EVERYONE'S ALREADY HAD A CHANCE TO VIEW IT, CERTAINLY SAVE TIME. OKAY. UH, WE CAN GO THROUGH AND DO QUESTIONS, UH, LIKE WE DID ON THE OTHER ITEMS TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY COMMENTS OR ISSUES WITH THIS, AND THEN WE'LL, UH, MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. SO CONNIE, WE'LL START WITH YOU AGAIN. UH, YES, SIR. CAN YOU RE-CLARIFY? YOU SAID, CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR REASONING ON, ON HAVING EXTENSIONS JUST FOR SOME OF THE CATEGORIES VERSUS ALL? WELL, ALL THE CATEGORIES ARE ELIGIBLE TO HAVE ONE PERSON EXTENDED EACH TIME. OKAY. THERE'S TWO CATEGORIES THAT HAVE MORE PEOPLE THAN THE REST. THERE'S THE ENGINEERS HAVE FOUR AND THE COMMUNITY REPS HAVE, I THINK FOUR OR FIVE HAVE FIVE. SO BECAUSE OF THE, THE LARGE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THOSE TWO CATEGORIES, THOSE TWO, THERE CAN BE TWO EXTENSIONS IN THOSE. THE OTHER ONES ARE ONLY LIKE THREE PEOPLE. SO IF YOU JUST EXTEND ONE, YOU CAN REBALANCE IT OUT. OKAY. I SEE. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK FOR THE CLARITY. UH, JULIA CARILLO HAYNES, NO QUESTIONS. THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, BOTH FROM YOU AND, UH, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. YOU BET. UH, SETH TEAL, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , MELINDA SMITH. NO QUESTIONS. ANISA, SHELL, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. BUCK. BENSON BUCK TOOK OFF. OKAY. JUAN FERNANDEZ? NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. RYAN GANS? NO QUESTIONS. JIM BROWN? YEAH. UM, I, I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE ELSE HAS ALREADY SAW IT AND I HAVE JUST READ IT, BUT ON 12, UH, THE EXTENSIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED DURING U D C AMENDMENT UPDATES, U D C AMENDMENT CYCLES OR DURING ANY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENTS LIKE TODAY? WELL, I MEAN, WE HAVE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENTS ON EVERY MEETING, IT SEEMS LIKE. WELL, YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S WHEN WE'RE NOT IN THE UDC YEAR. THAT'S THE, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE DO BASICALLY. UH, FOR THE MOST, THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF OUR MEETINGS. YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT I THINK THE INTENT OF THAT STATEMENT IS JUST TO SAY THAT IF SOMEONE'S EXPIRING IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ONGOING THING, YOU CAN EXTEND, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN EXTEND TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY. LIKE IF YOU HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE EXPIRING DURING THE MIDDLE OF A U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS THAT YEAH. YOU, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT. NO, I, I GET THE FIRST TWO. I, I, I DON'T GET THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY SAYING YOU CAN HAVE THE EXTENSIONS ANYTIME, I GUESS IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, THAT'S OKAY WITH ME, BUT, WELL, AND, AND PART OF THE REASON THAT THAT LANGUAGE WAS ADDED IS SUCH THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OCCASIONALLY TIMES WHEN THE T DOES NOT MEET FOR MONTHS ON END. RIGHT. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THIS IS NOT A PROCESS THAT HAS [01:10:01] TO BE ENTERED INTO, UH, UPON ANY, UH, EXPIRATION OF AN EXISTING MEMBER. SO ESSENTIALLY, IF THERE'S WORK FOR THE, TO CONSIDER, THIS IS AN OPTION ON THE TABLE IF THE DETERMINES THAT IT'S NEEDED. OKAY. I'M, I'M OKAY WITH IT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS READING. OKAY. THANKS KEN. MM-HMM. , UH, ROBERT HAMMICK, UH, I'D WANNA JUST COMMEND EVERYBODY WHO WORKED ON THIS TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. GEORGE, UH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT KEN WAS SAYING, BUT THIS IS A, A ONCE A YEAR OR ONCE A MEETING THING. WE'RE NOT GONNA BE DOING EXTENSIONS QUARTERLY OR MONTHLY AT OUR MEETINGS. AND I DID, I DID LIKE THAT AT THE END OF ARTICLE 13. IT DID SAY THAT BOARD COMMISSION APPOINTING ARE INELIGIBLE FOR THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION. SO, UH, OTHER THAN THAT, I JUST, I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT YOU'VE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION, UH, IN, IN THIS CONDITION SO THAT WE, WE DON'T HAVE A, A HIGH AMOUNT OF TURNOVER. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . THANKS. I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, ROBERT GUA, NO QUESTIONS. SPELL NO QUESTIONS. ROBERT KAIA, UM, NO QUESTIONS, BUT FOR PRESENTATION PURPOSES FROM YOUR END, CAN YOU BLOW THAT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE OR INCREASE THE TEXT SIZE, I GUESS? THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. THAT'S GOOD. NO, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. SO AMANDA? YES. I HAD, UH, I GUESS TWO QUESTIONS. SO, SO, UM, CONTRARY TO WHAT KIND OF KEN TALKED ABOUT, YEAH, I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON 13 WITH REGARDS TO, UM, THE CHAIR, UH, OR THE, UM, BOARD MEMBERS, UM, AND COMMISSION APPOINTEES BECAUSE I, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THEY ROTATE OUT TOO AND OR THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY LEAVE. AND SO WOULD THAT LEAVE OPEN SPACES, UM, IN THE, IN THE TAC YOU KNOW, THAT WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO HAVE. AND SO I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHY, WHY THAT WAS INCLUDED, YOU KNOW, JUST IN GENERAL. SO THAT WAS ONE QUESTION. UM, AND THE SECOND QUESTION, AND UM, YOU KNOW, IT TALKS ABOUT A ROTATION HERE AND, UM, DO WE HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE EVERYONE IS IN THEIR ROTATION? SO IS THAT WELL PUBLISHED AND WELL KNOWN SO THAT ALL OF US AS MEMBERS KNOW WHERE WE ARE IN THEIR ROTATION AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ARE WE TRULY KEEPING IT BALANCED? YOU KNOW, AND WHO AND WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO KEEP THAT BALANCED? UH, I, I CAN JUMP IN FOR BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS. FOR THE BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, UH, WE, WE ADDED HERE THAT THEY'RE INELIGIBLE FOR THESE ONE YEAR EXTENSIONS BASED UPON THE APPOINTMENT, UH, AND EXPIRATION CYCLES FOR THOSE INDIVIDUAL BOARDS. UH, AS IT IS TODAY, LET'S SAY WE HAD SOMEONE FROM THE CITY'S ZONING COMMISSION AND THEY WERE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, NO LONGER ON THE ZONING COMMISSION, THAT BODY COULD REAPPOINT SOMEONE ELSE TO THE TAC AT ANY POINT IN TIME. WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE FULL TERM TO EXPIRE. UH, AS FOR YOUR SECOND QUESTION, WE DO HAVE A RUNNING LIST OF ALL THE CURRENT TECH MEMBERS AND THEIR EXPIRATIONS. UH, WE CAN CERTAINLY SEND THAT OUT TO EVERYONE, UH, SO THAT EVERYONE HAS THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION WHEN TERMS DO EXPIRE, IS THAT INFORMATION PUBLISHED FOR, FOR PUBLIC SO THAT THEY, THEY KNOW THAT AS WELL? WE DO NOT HAVE THE EXPIRATIONS OF ALL THE TAX MEMBERS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE, BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THAT. YEAH, I THINK IT MAY MERIT DIALOGUE, YOU KNOW, SIMPLY SO THAT AS OTHER, WELL, SO WE'LL SAY COMMUNITY AT LARGE MEMBERS, THEY KNOW THAT THERE MAY BE A POSITION COMING OPEN SO THAT THEY COULD EXPRESS INTEREST, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THEY HAVE THAT DESIRE. UM, AND, AND IT VERY WELL COULD BE, YOU KNOW, JUST AS A REMINDER FOR OTHER GROUPS AS WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT, UH, THAT THAT MAY BE THERE. AND, AND THAT MAY BE THE ONLY MEANS THAT THEY'RE MADE AWARE OF THAT. SO, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, BRITTANY, DO BRITTANY DO NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY. MM-HMM. , MICHAEL MOORE. NO QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE ITEM OF, UH, GEORGE? I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S CLEAR, BUT AREN'T WE ALL, I, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTEES ARE INELIGIBLE. BUT FOR INSTANCE, AREN'T I AN APPOINTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEING THE A I C P REPRESENTATIVE? AREN'T WE ALL APPOINTEES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DONE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, APPOINT ALL THE COMMUNITY AND YEAH, BUT YOU'RE REPRESENTING A CERTAIN CATEGORY. THE, THE INTENT IS FOR THE ONES THAT ARE REPRESENTING CITY BOARDS SUCH AS PLANNING COMMISS. I JUST, [01:15:01] IF IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYONE ELSE, THEN THAT'S FINE. I JUST, OKAY. UH, IF IT COULD BE CLEARER, UH, MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD TAKE A SHOT AT IT. HI, THIS IS KAT. MAYBE THE WORD MEMBERS INSTEAD OF APPOINTEES ARE INELIGIBLE FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. YEAH. YEAH. WE, WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE. YEAH. BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE INELIGIBLE FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION. THAT WOULD BE CLEAR. I THINK. YEAH. THIS IS ANISA SHELL. I, I JUST, UM, WONDER IF THAT WOULD CREATE MORE CONFUSION. FOR EXAMPLE, MR. MANNA SITS ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BUT HE'S REPRESENTING COMMUNITY ON THE, ON THIS BOARD OR, SO WE WOULD WANNA SAY SOMETHING LIKE BOARD AND COMMISSION. UH, MEMBERS. MEMBERS. OR MAYBE IT WASN'T THAT, MAYBE IT WASN'T MAYBE, MAYBE TAC TAC ME TAC MEMBERS REPRESENTING A BOARD OR COMMISSION. GEORGE. THE, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE ZONING, THEY ARE ONES WHO NOMINATE THAT PERSON TO SIT ON TAC. SO THAT'S REALLY APPOINTED BY A BORDER COMMISSION. SO IN PHILIP'S CASE, HE WAS NOT APPOINTED THE BOARD OF . HE CAME IN AS A, A COMMUNITY MEMBER. I, I THINK, UH, IF YOU WANNA SAY IT, BORDER COMMISSION APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE TAC 'CAUSE HE DOESN'T REPRESENT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN HIS PO, HIS POSITION AS A, AS A PCT MEMBER, REPRESENTATIVES OF A BOARD OR COMMISSION, OR APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OR COMMISSION. THAT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME ANOTHER OPTION. THIS IS SUSAN GWYNN, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU COULD ALSO SAY BOARDING COMMISSIONER COMMISSION MEMBER REPRESENTATIVES. YES. YES, YES. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. LET'S DO THAT. THANK YOU, SUSAN. OKAY. EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT LANGUAGE? ARE YOU GONNA PUT THAT IN THERE WHILE WE'RE SITTING HERE? VERY GOOD. DONE. MR. BROWN. HAPPY NOW. THERE WE GO. YEP. THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT, KEN. ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK SOMEONE ELSE HAD A QUESTION. WAS IT, UH, WAS IT PHILLIP? HE ASKED HOW BALANCED IT IS RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW WE'RE ACTUALLY PRETTY BALANCED, UM, WHEN YOU DON'T CONSIDER THE BOARDING, THE BOARDING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES. UM, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A FAIL SAFE IN CASE WE BECOME UNBALANCED. HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE SIDE OF NOW WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. THIS IS CONNIE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION WITH THE CHANGES AS NOTED ON THE SCREEN. THIS IS KEN. A SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY CONNIE GONZALEZ FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED ON THE SCREEN AND A SECOND BY KEN BROWN. UH, WE'LL, STAFF, PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE GEORGE PECK. YES. YES. CONNIE GONZALEZ. YES. JUA HAN? YES. ANITA SHELL. YES. THAT TEO MELINDA SMITH? YES. YES. DOUG BENSON. JUAN FERNANDEZ? YES. YES. BRIAN PAGANS. YES. KEN BROWN. YES. ROBERT HANLEY. YES. ROBERT RO. YES. CHERISE BELL? YES. ROBERT . YES. PHILLIP MENA. YES. BRITTANY DALE? YES. MOTION PASSES. GREAT. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. UM, [8. 21-2881 Approval of minutes from the March 8, 2021 meeting.] MOVING ON TO OLD BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT, OR ANY COMMENTS? GEORGE? I HAVE A, THIS IS MICHAEL MOORE. I HAVE A COMMENT IF YOU RECALL. I CAME IN LATE AND MENTIONED TO YOU THAT I SHOULD BE LISTED. OKAY. UM, WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE. RIGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE MINUTES? [01:20:03] UH, NO AMENDMENTS, BUT THIS IS CONNIE I'LL ABSTAIN. I WAS ABSENT. OKAY. WITH, UH, MR. ROBERT HANLEY. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES, UH, FROM MARCH 8TH, UM, WITH THE AMENDMENT, INCLUDING MR. MOORE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES. I HAVE AN AMENDMENT. OKAY. MY LAST NAME NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. THAT'S MY ONLY AMENDMENT. OKAY. WE'LL MAKE THE CHANGE. THANK YOU. OKAY. DO YOU WANNA AMEND YOUR, UH, YOUR MOTION? I ACCEPT THAT I, I THIS ROBERT HANLEY, I ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY ROBERT HANLEY FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO ADD MICHAEL MOORE AS PRESENT THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE. UH, JULIA CREO. HAYNES TO CORRECT. JULIA CREO HAYNES LAST NAME. AND FOR A, UM, WELL, CONNIE'S ABSTAINING MANNA FOR A SECOND. WE PHILLIP MANNA FOR A SECOND. UM, CAN WE JUST DO IT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. I OPPOSED. HEY. MOTION CARRIES. UH, SINCE THERE'S NO NEW BUSINESS ON HERE, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I DO KNOW THAT BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 78, THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN WAS APPROVED AND IT DIDN'T, DOESN'T IDENTIFY SPECIFIC ROADS. IT TALKS ABOUT TYPES OF ROADS AND RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND STUFF. AND I'M JUST WONDERING FOR A 43 YEAR OLD DOCUMENT WHETHER THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE REVIEWED OR AT LEAST MAYBE GET A BRIEFING FROM STAFF AT SOME FUTURE PC TAC MEETING ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF IT. BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE, THEY SAY ADOPTED IN REALIGNMENT OR PROPOSED, THOSE THINGS ARE NOT ETCHED IN STONE WHEN THEY SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY HAD IN IS, IS WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS BECAUSE, UH, THE DOCUMENT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO IDENTIFY. YOU TRY TO FOLLOW MA THE ROADS, BUT, UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT ON THE ABSTRACT. YOU'RE FOLLOWING CLOSELY TO A ROAD, AND I JUST, I THINK A 43 YEAR OLD DOCUMENT MAYBE NEEDS TO BE REVISITED. IT IS, THIS GOES BACK TO TRANSPORTATION. SO IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE FOLKS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ARE OFF THE CALL, BUT I WILL GLADLY RELAY THAT MESSAGE TO THEM. THANK YOU, LOGAN. UH, REQUEST THAT THEY PREPARE SOMETHING FOR THE TAX. YEAH, YEAH. I, I JUST, THAT WAS JUST A THOUGHT THAT I HAD. LOGAN, I W I ALWAYS GO, GO BACK AND I SAY, OKAY, THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND THE ROAD IS, IS CURRENTLY HERE AND IT'S GONNA BE REALIGNED THERE. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT, IT, IT'S NOT THAT SPECIFIC IN WHAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER OF 78. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, JUDGE. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, ROBERT. APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP. ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? IF NOT, IT IS 3 27 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.