[00:00:01]
GO? STAFF? YOU READY? ALL RIGHT.LET'S CALL OUR MONDAY MAY 9TH TAC MEETING TO ORDER.
WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL? MR. MOORE? HERE.
MR. FULLERTON? MR. HENLEY? HERE.
ALRIGHT, UH, MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
I KNOW WE HAVE SOME FOLKS SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
ARE THEY GONNA SPEAK AT THE TIME OF THEIR, OF THEIR, UH, UM, SO THEIR ITEM OR, OR, OR UP FRONT? WHAT WE'VE TYPICALLY DONE IS WE'LL DO THE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE FRONT.
WE ALSO HAVE ABOUT 14 VOICEMAILS TO PLAY.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE, WE CAN START WITH THE VOICEMAILS.
BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO, HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE OUR LAST MEETING OF THIS, UH, AMENDMENT CYCLE GUYS.
SO, UH, UM, BARRING ANY CONTINUANCES OR THINGS WE JUST CAN'T GET THROUGH THIS, THIS SHOULD BE THE LAST RODEO.
UM, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT.
I THINK WE'VE DONE A GREAT JOB.
SO, UH, ACTUALLY IT IS NOW, UH, 1230 AND ASHLEY IS ENTERED THE ROOM AND ALSO JULIA, 1234.
I HAD A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UH, TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
I HAD SENT AN EMAIL TO STAFF INQUIRING ABOUT, UH, DENIED AMENDMENTS COMING ON OUR AGENDA WITHOUT US CONSIDERING THEM OR TAKING ACTION TO BRING AN, AN AGENDA ITEM BACK THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DENIED BY OUR COMMITTEE.
THERE IS AN AGENDAS ITEM TO THAT, BUT I ALSO ASKED STAFF IN AN EMAIL IF THEY WERE WORKING WITH ANY OTHER APPLICANTS OR IF ANY OTHER APPLICANTS WERE EXTENDED THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR DENIED AMENDMENT COME BACK TO OUR COMMITTEE.
AND SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE OUR LAST MEETING, I'M JUST ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF ON THOSE TWO ISSUES.
THE EQUITY PIECE OF OTHER APPLICANTS WHO WERE DENIED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THEIR P TAC AMENDMENT BACK TO US.
AND THEN SECONDLY, IF STAFF WAS CURRENTLY WORKING WITH ANY OTHER APPLICANTS, UH, TO BRING DENIED AMENDMENTS BACK TO P TAC.
UH, YEAH, I, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
SO, UH, WE ARE NOT WORKING WITH ANY OTHER APPLICANTS TO BRING AMENDMENTS BACK BEFORE THE TAC.
UH, FOR THE, UH, MAJORITY OF THE OTHER EXTERNAL APPLICANTS.
WE ACTUALLY HAD ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS BEFORE THEY EVER GOT TO TAC SO THAT WE COULD WORK OUT CONCERNS BEFORE THEY GOT HERE.
UH, THE AMENDMENT THAT IS ON THE, UH, AGENDA TODAY IS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DENIED BY THE TAC.
UH, AND DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THAT ITEM, IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS CONFUSION ON THE INTENT.
SO THE APPLICANT, UH, REQUESTED, UH, THAT, UH, TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE THE TAC TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INTENT OF THAT AMENDMENT IS CLARIFIED.
UH, THAT'S WHY IT IS ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT THAT ONCE AN ITEM WAS DENIED BY PTAC, THAT IT WOULD NOT BE COMING BACK TO US.
UM, NOT JUST MYSELF, BUT I KNOW THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE AND PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE HAD THEIR AMENDMENT DENIED BY THIS COMMITTEE.
WERE AWARE THAT THEY COULD BRING IT BACK JUST AS WE ARE AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES TO BRING IT BACK TO ME.
SO STAFF AT NO POINT ADVISED ANYONE THAT AN AMENDMENT COULD NOT COME BACK BEFORE THE ATTACK.
MR. HANLEY TO, TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR, YOUR COMMENT.
BIANCA, UH, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND IF THERE'S A DENIED ONE, THEY WANNA RECONSIDER IT.
THEY CONSIDER IT AT THAT LEVEL.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT, LOGAN? CORRECT.
THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT FINAL DECISIONS.
SO WHETHER AN AMENDMENT WAS DENIED OR OTHERWISE, IT IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN THE PROCESS FOR REVIEW BY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COUNCIL COMMITTEE, AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL ITSELF.
IT IS 1237 AND KARA HAS ENTERED THE ROOM.
ANYTHING ELSE, MR. HANLEY? NO, THAT WAS IT.
I JUST SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO REHASH THINGS.
[00:05:02]
THERE'S STILL ANOTHER FLIGHT ULAR CONDITION.WHICH ITEM WENT TO THAT POINT? WHICH ITEM IS IT? UM, I REALLY WENT THROUGH A, THE THING REALLY, SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I DON'T HAVE MY GLASSES ON BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO PUT IT AT THE END OF THE AGENDA.
23 DASH FIVE IS THE AMENDMENT NUMBER.
UM, THE WHOLE BRING BACK THE NUMBER ALREADY DENIED.
OTHER, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY.
THAT'S, SO MY ONLY POINT IS THAT, I GUESS IN A PROCEDURAL WAY, WHEN IT DOES MOVE FORWARD.
SO DO YOU PRESENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WE DENIED THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR DOES OUR ACTION TODAY COMPLETELY REPLACE THE PRIOR ACTION THAT WE ARE TAKING? SO YOU DON'T PRESENT A DENIED AMENDMENT AND THEN AN APPROVED AMENDMENT, YOU'RE JUST GONNA PRESENT THE APPROVED AMENDMENT.
WE WOULD PRESENT THE MOST RECENT ACTION FROM THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WE DON'T WANT TO PRESENT IN A PUBLIC SETTING, OUTDATED OR INACCURATE INFORMATION.
I AM A LITTLE, A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE'RE REVISITING DENIED ITEMS. I I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT'S KIND OF, I MEAN, WE COULD BE HERE TILL NEXT YEAR IF OUR DECISION THAT WAS ALREADY MADE ISN'T HONORED AND THAT YOU GET ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE.
IT'S, THAT'S PROCESS WISE, I FIND THAT CONCERNING.
I JUST, I MEAN, I'D LOVE TO HEAR MORE FEEDBACK 'CAUSE I THINK THIS IS BIG ENOUGH TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT, QUITE FRANKLY.
'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S NOT CERTAINLY THE PROCESS THAT I THOUGHT WE WERE FOLLOWING.
STAFF HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT? GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
UM, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A, A, AN AMENDMENT THAT, UH, IN DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT AND, UH, EVEN DISCUSSION WITH THE HOUSING COMMISSION ITSELF, UM, WE RECENTLY, THEY MADE SOME CHANGES TO IT AND WANTED TO, WANTED TO EXPLAIN IT TO ENSURE THAT IT WAS A TRUE DENIAL.
UH, THE OPPORTUNITY WAS THERE TO PUT IT BACK ON THIS AND IF THE GROUP WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER OR NOT DISCUSS IT FURTHER WHEN THE ITEM IS UP.
UM, I THINK THAT'S OKAY, BUT I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE, UH, TO PUT IT BACK, UH, AS, AS STAFF HAS ALREADY DONE.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE ITEM'S UP FOR A CONSIDERATION, UH, I THINK THE DISCUSSION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THEN.
WELL, BUT I'M ROBERT, I'M GONNA ADD, IT'S THE ONE ITEM THAT'S ALREADY DENIED THAT WE'RE REVISITING.
THERE'S ONE ITEM WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THAT WE'RE REVISITING.
SO I'M KIND OF LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE KEEP BRINGING, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TAKEN ACTION, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THESE THINGS AND THEN WE'RE TAKING ACTION AGAIN.
I MEAN, I, I JUST, IT'S A BAD PRECEDENT.
IT'S, AND WHAT ARE WE HERE FOR? IF IT'S NEVER GONNA END AND WE JUST KEEP REVISITING WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION NOT TO, NOT TO HEAR ITEMS PREVIOUSLY HEARD.
WE HAVE A MOTION WHICH CAN STAFF CLARIFY WHAT ITEMS THOSE ARE.
IT'S ITEMS, UH, 26 AND 27 ON THE AGENDA.
26 WAS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND 27 WAS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL.
UH, LET ME, LET ME CLARIFY AS WELL.
ADDITION, UH, ITEM NUMBER 25 FROM SARAH WAS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS WELL.
SO THERE'S ONLY THREE RETURNING AGENDA ITEMS. SO KEN, IF YOU COULD RECOMMEND YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE ITEM 25.
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE, IF YOU'RE GONNA MAKE A MOTION ON THAT, I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THOSE, UM, THOSE ITEM NUMBERS IN THE MOTION.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION NOT TO RECONSIDER ITEMS 25, 26 AND 27 SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO NOT RECONSIDER ITEMS 25, 26 AND 27, WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN HEARD AND ACTION TAKEN ON BY THET.
IS THERE A SECOND? BIANCA HAS A SECOND.
WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
[00:10:01]
MR. TAPIA? YES.MISS, IS MS. FAIRMONT HERE? YES, I VOTE YES.
[Public Comment ]
WITH PUBLIC COMMENT.I THINK WE'RE GONNA LISTEN TO VOICEMAILS FIRST.
HELLO, MY NAME IS CHRIS PRETY, C H R I SS, LAST NAME PRETY, P R I D D Y.
I LIVE AT 1 5 6 0 2 POWDER RIVER STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT TWO THREE TWO.
PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 854-8361.
AND I'M CALLING TO SAY I'M COMMENTING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR IN SUPPORT OF HILL COUNTRY'S ALLIANCE AMENDMENT NUMBER 25 1.
1603 TARTAN LANE 2 1 0 2 5 9 7 0 6 7.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS I'M CALLING TODAY IS PRESIDENT OF AND ON BEHALF OF NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ORGANIZED DEVELOPMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS NOD.
NOD REQUESTS YOUR SUPPORT TODAY FOR U D C AMENDMENT 16 DASH FOUR AFFECTING, UM, SECTION 35 DASH FOUR TWO OH OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD IMMUNITY PERIMETER AND SECTOR PLANS NOT EXPRESSED CONCERN DURING THE MEDICAL CENTER AND U T S A REGIONAL CENTER PLANNING PROCESS ABOUT THE ELIMINATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED IN COOPERATION WITH AND SUPPORTIVE PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS.
THESE PLANS REPRESENTED A MAJOR INVESTMENT OF TIME BY CITIZENS IN PROVIDING INPUT TO PROTECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE, THAT THE CITY RESPECTED THE TIME, UH, AND EFFORTS OF THOSE RESIDENTS AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD WORK TO RESTORE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AS THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE SA TOMORROW PLAN.
PLEASE SUPPORT AMENDMENT 16 DASH FOUR COL WAPAC 1603 TARTAN LANE 2 1 0 2 5 9 7 0 6 7 COMMANDING MEMBERS.
I'M CALLING TODAY AS PRESIDENT OF ON BEHALF OF NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ORGANIZED DEVELOPMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS NOD.
WE REQUEST THAT YOU SUPPORT PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENT 26 DASH ONE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, RELATED TO THE LOCATION OF GAS STATIONS, NEAR RESIDENCES, AND OTHER LOCATIONS SUCH AS SCHOOL, SCHOOLS, AND DAYCARES.
GAS STATIONS TODAY ARE NO LONGER THE SMALL, LOCALLY OWNED BUSINESS WITH A COUPLE OF PUMPS LOCATED AT THE EDGE OF TOWN.
THE CURRENT MODEL IS MORE OFTEN A LARGE CORPORATE OWNED FILLING STATION WITH DOZEN OF PUMPS COMBINED WITH A CONVENIENCE STORE WHERE MANY CUSTOMERS PULL UP AND LEAVE THEIR ENGINES IDLING AS THE PASSENGER RUNS IN TO PURCHASE THEIR WARES.
THIS MODEL RESULTS IN INCREASED TRAFFIC, NOISE, FUMES, AND LIGHT POLLUTION, OFTEN 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
THESE FACTORS PRESENT AT AN INCREASED RISK TO VULNERABLE POPULATIONS WHEN LOCATING NEAR RESIDENCES, SCHOOL DAYCARES, AND OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE INDIVIDUALS SPEND EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME.
AS OUR CITY STRIVES TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BY REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOSSIL FUELS, THE NEED FOR GAS STATIONS SHOULD DIMINISH ENSURING THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT AREAS TO DEVELOP NEW STATIONS WITHOUT LOCATING THEM IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.
THE HELP OF OUR CITY'S CURRENT CHILDREN IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS ENSURING THE HEALTH OF FUTURE GENERATIONS.
PLEASE SUPPORT U D C AMENDMENT 26 DASH ONE.
MY ADDRESS IS 2 2 0 0 A D O LANE IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
UH, EACH COURT AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS COURT AMENDMENT 26 DASH ONE.
[00:15:01]
UM, I DO NOT WANT LARGE INTENSE GAS STATIONS BUILT NEXT TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD.I WANNA PROTECT MY NEIGHBORHOOD FROM A FUMES AND TRAFFIC OF MEGA GAS STATIONS THAT THEY COME WITH.
AND I DO NOT WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES REPLACED BY A GAS STATION DO NOT NEED TO INCREASE TRAFFIC, GARBAGE OR CRIME THAT THESE STATIONS ATTRACT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
SAN OWNER NEEDS A PLAN FOR FUTURE INCAPABLE IN FIELD DEVELOPMENTS LIKE GAS STATIONS.
WE NEED TO GET AWAY FROM BUILDING THESE GAS STATIONS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
I ASKED, I ASKED THAT AMENDMENT 26 DASH ONE, THE CITY COUNCIL.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ELAINE FLANAGAN AND MY ADDRESS IS ONE TOWERS PARK LANE, APARTMENT 1604.
I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF ITEM FIVE AND SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT 26 DASH ONE.
I'VE LIVED IN A, IN DENTON, TEXAS, WHERE THEY PUT IN A HUGE, HUGE GASOLINE STATION, WHICH INCREASED THE TRAFFIC TO BE UNBEARABLE.
BUT WHAT WAS ALMOST WORSE WERE THE FUMES.
THE FUMES REALLY PENETRATED A DISTANCE AND I DON'T THINK THE CHILDREN THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ADULTS THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD HAVE TO SMELL THOSE FUMES.
SO I JUST AM CALLING TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I SUPPORT ITEM FIVE, THE AGENDA, AND I SUPPORT AMENDMENT 26 DASH ONE.
I LIVE AT 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE STREET, SEVEN EIGHT TWO ONE TWO.
AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 223-2814.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
I SUPPORT LIMITING GAS STATIONS, UH, WHERE GAS STATIONS CAN BE BUILT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
GAS STATIONS ARE A SOURCE OF CONSTANT NOISE TRAFFIC AND BOTH AIR AND GROUND POLLUTION.
AT PRESENT RESIDENCE WITH COMPATIBLE BUSINESS.
NEXT DOOR CAN HAVE A GAS STATION REPLACE IT WITHOUT REZONING.
SIMPLE DISTANCES FROM SCHOOLS AND HOMES OF LESS THAN HALF THE CITY BLOCK ARE NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK.
AGAIN, I SUPPORT LIMITING WHERE GAS STATIONS CAN BE BUILT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
MY NAME IS GEMMA KENNEDY, 5 0 9 RIVER ROAD, 2 1 0 4 9 3 9 2 4.
I SUPPORT AGENDA ITEM FIVE AMENDMENT 26 DASH ONE.
AS OUR CITY GROWS, WE FREQUENTLY FIND NEW GAS STATIONS ARE BEING BUILT ADJACENT TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY HEARD ABOUT THE 24 7 ACTIVITY, LIGHT POLLUTION NOISE, INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT GAS STATIONS BRING WITH THEM THAT HEALTH ISSUES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
DESPITE ALL THE MODERN HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDELINES, GAS STATIONS MUST FALL.
THEY STILL POSE SIGNIFICANT HEALTH HAZARDS TO NEIGHBORHOODS AND ESPECIALLY CHILDREN.
ALL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS NEED TO BE VENTED, RELEASING FUEL VAPORS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
THESE VAPORS CONTAIN BENZENE AND OTHER CANCER CAUSING COMPOUNDS.
THE LARGER THE UNDERGROUND TANKS, THE MORE VAPORS ARE RELEASED.
ALSO, THESE COMPOUNDS ARE RELEASED WHILE PUMPING GAS AND FROM CAR EXHAUST.
RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT INCREASING THE DISTANCE OF GAS STATIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS CAN DECREASE AIR POLLUTION THAT RESIDENTS RECEIVE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS A FIRST STEP IN REDUCING THE NEGATIVE IMPACT GAS STATIONS HAVE AND OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND OUR FUTURE NEIGHBORHOODS.
PLEASE SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
MR. FULLERTON HAS ENTERED THE ROOM.
I LIVE AT NINE 18 WEST MULBERRY AVENUE, 7 8 2 0 1 SAN ANTONIO.
MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 6 0 2 0 5 9 7.
I OWN SEVERAL RENTAL PROPERTIES IN MY BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I FULLY SUPPORT AGENDA ITEM 12.
I DON'T WANT MASSIVE GAS STATIONS POPPING UP NEXT DOOR TO MY HOMES AND RUINING MY PROPERTY VALUES.
AMERICA'S AMERICANS WON'T GIVE UP THEIR SUVS, BUT THEY WILL
[00:20:01]
GIVE UP THEIR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS WHEN EVERY CAR COMPANY IS SELLING THEM IN A DECADE.SA TOMORROW WILL NOT BE A CITY THAT RUNS ON GAS.
WE NEED TO DEVELOP THE CITY FOR THE FUTURE AND START CONTROLLING BETTER WHERE GAS STATIONS GO.
IF THE CORNER UP THE STREET IS A GOOD PLACE FOR A GAS STATION, THEN IT IS A GOOD PLACE TO DESIGN ONE THAT FITS THERE AND FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
LET'S PLAN BEFORE TOMORROW COMES, PLEASE SPONSOR THIS GAS STATION AMENDMENT.
HELLO, THIS IS GREG SMITH AGAIN AT NINE 18 WEST MULBERRY AVENUE.
MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 6 0 2 0 5 9 7.
AGENDA ITEM FIVE IS WHAT I WAS CALLING ABOUT EARLIER.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ERMA HOFFMAN AND I LIVE AT 30 11 WHITETAIL DRIVE.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 430-4536.
I AM CALLING TO SUPPORT ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND AMENDMENT 26 DASH ONE.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND, WE DO NOT WANT GAS STATIONS BUILT NEXT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD YARDS OR NEXT TO OUR SCHOOL YARDS WHERE OUR CHILDREN PLAY.
WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR CHILDREN, FROM HIGH TRAFFIC AND HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS, GAS VIEWS, GARBAGE, AND ALSO CRIME THAT ATTRACTS, UH, THAT IS ATTRACTED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH THESE GAS STATIONS.
SAN ANTONIO SERIOUSLY NEEDS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTIVE PLAN FOR FUTURE AND COMPATIBLE INFILL DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS GAS STATIONS.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WE THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO THIS VERY IMPORTANT PLEA THAT WE HAVE.
PLEASE SUPPORT ITEM FIVE AND AMENDMENT 26 1.
HELLO, MY NAME IS MOBY WARREN.
I LIVE AT 1826 POPPY PEAK STREET IN SAN ANTONIO.
I'M COMMENTING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE'S AMENDMENT NUMBER 25 1.
THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO ENHANCING AND PROTECTING DARK SKIES.
UM, DARK SKIES ARE ESSENTIAL TO ALL OF US.
THEY BRING BENEFITS TO HUMANS, ANIMAL PLANTS, AND INSECTS.
WHENEVER LIGHT POLLUTION IS DIMINISHED OR BETTER ELIMINATED ALL TOGETHER, UM, NOT ONLY ARE DARK SKY PROTECTIONS ESSENTIAL TO MILITARY OPERATIONS, BUT THEY'RE REALLY IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US.
I'M REALLY EXCITED THAT SAN ANTONIO CAN PLAY A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN ENHANCING OUR DARK SKIES.
AND SO I AM CALLING TO EXPRESS MY VERY STRONG SUPPORT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR FOR THE AMENDMENT NUMBER 25 1.
HI, MY NAME IS MICHELLE MOLINA.
I LIVE AT 6 2 4 KONTS POINT BULL, TEXAS SEVEN EIGHT ONE SIX THREE.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 663-6196.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SUPPORT.
I'M COMMENTING ACTUALLY ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCES AMENDMENT NUMBER 25 DASH ONE.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ROLAND MOOKA.
I LIVE AT 25 11 MONTEREY STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS IN THE 7 8 2 0 7 ZIP CODE.
AND I'M CALLING TO ADDRESS THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ZONING, THE P C T A C COMMISSION.
AND I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF AGENDA ITEM FIVE AND IN, IN, IN PARTICULAR, AMENDMENT 26 1.
AND THAT DEALS WITH LARGE GAS STATIONS, UH, BEING BUILT IN, IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, THIS IS A VERY DENSELY POPULATED AREA AND, UH, WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH TRAFFIC AND FUMES AND TRASH THAT IS GENERATED ON
UH, I DO NOT WANT A BIG Q GAS STATION COMING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND CAUSING EVEN MORE, UM, DISRUPTIONS TO TRAFFIC AND FUMES AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF.
I THINK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
[00:25:01]
OUGHT TO HAVE A, UM, DEVISE A PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES ALL THOSE AREAS THAT ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR, FOR COMMERCIAL LARGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, IN PARTICULAR LARGE GAS STATIONS SO THAT, UM, THEY CAN BE, UH, IDENTIFIED AND, AND MAPPED OUT.AND SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THESE, THIS KIND OF INFILL PROBLEM.
SO PLEASE, WHEN YOU SEE, WHEN YOU GO TO CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE RECOMMEND, UH, AGENDA 26 1.
MY NAME IS STACY SWANS AND I LIVE AT 2 0 3 RADIANCE AND I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF AGENDA ITEM FIVE.
I MOVED TO SAN ANTONIO SIX YEARS AGO BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE A BIG SMALL TOWN, AN EASY PLACE TO LIVE WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSES IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS INSIDE FOUR 10.
WHAT I NEED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONLY A SMALL CONVENIENCE STORE WITH JUST A COUPLE PUMPS TO REPLACE THE ONE THAT WENT OUT OF BUSINESS.
I DO NOT NEED A GIANT GAS STATION THAT'S TOO DANGEROUS TO WALK TO BECAUSE OF ALL THE TRAFFIC THERE.
PLEASE KEEP THE GOOD PARTS OF SAN ANTONIO AND DON'T LET IT LOOK LIKE HOUSTON OR DALLAS.
ASK YOU TO PLEASE MAINTAIN THE CHARM AND PROTECT MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER OLDER URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS BY SPONSORING THIS AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE LOCATION OF GAS STATIONS ACCORDING TO THEIR SIZE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND FOR SPONSORING THIS REALLY IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS.
THOSE ARE ALL THE VOICEMAILS WE HAVE FOR TODAY.
AND I KNOW THERE'S A FEW PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AS WELL, CORRECT? YEAH.
AND AGAIN, DID WE WANT TO TAKE THOSE NOW OR DID WE WANT TO TAKE THOSE SPEAKERS WHEN WE GOT TO THAT AMENDMENT? WE, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
WE CAN DO IT WHEN WE GET TO THE AMENDMENT FOR THOSE.
UH, ACTUALLY LET'S ADDRESS THE MINUTES.
UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING? IF HEARING NONE, TAKE A MOTION.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA.
AYE, MR. UH, GARCIA? MICHAEL GARCIA HAS RECUSED FROM THAT COURT AND MYSELF AS WELL.
IF I WAS ABSENT AND JULIA ALSO WAS NOT PRESENT.
OKAY, MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE,
[New Business ]
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 20 DASH FIVE.UH, COREY EDWARDS, OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
UM, THIS AMENDMENT AND THE ONE AFTER IT WERE BOTH PRESENTED IN MARCH AND AT THAT TIME REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT SO THAT WE COULD MEET WITH A FEW STAKEHOLDERS.
UH, WE ENDED UP NOT MAKING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE CONTENT.
YOU DID GET AN UPDATED VERSION LAST MONDAY THAT JUST HAS, UH, SORT OF REFORMATTING AND GETTING THINGS IN THE RIGHT ORDER.
UM, I CAN SHOW YOU WHERE WE DID MAKE A COUPLE OF MINOR CHANGES SINCE THE LAST TIME.
IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, UH, TO CRITERIA RIGHT THERE, UH, THERE ON, UM, ITEM C, WE ARE STRIKING THE WORD CRITERIA AND CALLING IT EVIDENCE.
UM, WE'RE CALLING THIS ENTIRE SUBSECTION CRITERIA, SO IT'S REDUNDANT.
AND ACTUALLY THIS SECTION SPEAKS MORE TO THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT COULD BE PRESENTED FOR MEETING THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS TO THE H D R C.
UM, AND THEN AT THE VERY END OF THIS, UH, AMENDMENT OF THE, YEAH, LAST PAGE, UM, WE'RE ADDING REFERENCES TO, UH, 35 6 0 8, WHICH IS THE C O A PROCESS.
THIS SECTION IS ALSO A REQUEST FOR A C O A.
AND SO THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION SCOPE OF APPROVAL RECORDING PROCEDURES ARE THE SAME AS A, A NORMAL C O A REQUEST.
SO JUST ADDING THAT CLARIFICATION.
SO FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE ONE THAT YOU'RE TR ATTEMPTING TO GET APPROVED TODAY IS THE AMENDED VERSION OF 20 DASH FIVE, AND THAT'S WHAT'S ON SCREEN.
YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IT MONDAY.
SO THE ONE THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PACKET IS NOT THE ONE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO GET APPROVED, CORRECT? WE HAVE TWO VERSIONS, CORRECT.
THIS IS THE CORRECT VERSION ON THE SCREEN.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS BIANCA.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK O H P I.
I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THEY BEGAN THEIR U D C AMENDMENTS IN THEIR PUBLIC PROCESS OF AMENDING THEIR AMENDMENTS BACK IN 2019.
AND THEIR AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN POSTED ON THEIR WEBSITE SINCE THAT TIME.
AND THEY WENT THROUGH SEVERAL RENDITIONS OF MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND EVEN HOLDING OFF IN THE EVENT THAT THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP MAY HAVE WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING MORE, BUT INSTEAD TURNED INTO ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION.
SO FOR THAT REASON, AND FOR YOUR ROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, I RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED OR AS AMENDED TODAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM BIANCA FOR APPROVAL AS SECOND AMENDED.
I HEARD A SECOND MS. SECOND FROM MR. MANNA.
NUMBER TWO IS, UM, ACTUALLY A NEW SECTION.
AND WE'RE MAKING THIS THE NEW LOCATION
[00:30:01]
FOR EVERYTHING ABOUT THE DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS.THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY IN ARTICLE FOUR.
AND SO I REMEMBER IN FEBRUARY WE STRUCK ARTICLE FOUR TO MOVE A LOT OF THAT LANGUAGE.
AND SO THIS NEW SECTION IS REALLY JUST THE RELOCATED LANGUAGE, BUT REORGANIZED AND IN THE SAME KIND OF, UH, FORMAT AS THE OTHER SECTIONS.
THIS IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH A REGULAR NON HISTORIC DEMOLITION PERMIT IS REVIEWED.
THE SECTION YOU JUST APPROVED WAS HISTORIC LANDMARK DEMOLITION.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM FOR THE SAME REASON? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED MOTION FROM BIANCA FOR APPROVAL.
AND MR. CHAIR, IF I CAN ASK A FAVOR, I ALSO HAVE ITEM 16 TODAY.
UM, IF THERE'S ANY WAY, AND IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THOSE WAITING FOR THEIR, FOR THEIR, IF WE CAN HEAR THAT ONE.
SORRY TO SPRING THAT ON EVERYONE.
UM, SO THIS IS, I BELIEVE, OUR LAST AMENDMENT.
SO THIS IS, UM, IN THE APPENDIX FEE FOR APPLICATION MATERIALS.
UM, SO THIS IS AN UPDATE ADDING CLARIFICATIONS TO THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR C O A FOR DEMOLITION PERMITS AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT ARE REVIEWED BY O H P.
UM, SO FOR ANY C O A REQUESTS, UH, THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SCOPES OF WORK THAT COULD BE REQUESTED.
WE CALL IT ALL THE SAME THING, BUT THE TYPE OF MATERIALS THAT NEED TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW OF THOSE WILL VARY WIDELY JUST DEPENDING ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING REQUESTED.
SO THE DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT THE SAME AS, UH, FOR CHANGING A ROOF OR CHANGING THE COLOR OF SOMETHING, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO, UH, JUST ADDING CLARIFICATION TO WHAT IS REQUIRED, WHEN TO COMPLETE APPLICATIONS.
UM, THIS IS LARGELY CLARIFYING.
AND THEN THERE ARE SOME OLD FORMS THAT NEED TO BE STRICKEN.
DID WE REPLACE THOSE FORMS? UH, WE PREFER NOT TO HAVE.
SO IF WE HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE D C, THAT IS OUR PREFERENCE.
AND THEN IF WE EVER NEED TO REFORMAT OR ADD A FIELD TO THE FORM, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY.
I WAS GONNA MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
AND SINCE THIS IS YOUR FINAL AMENDMENT, JUST WANNA SAY THANKS FOR A REALLY SUCCESSFUL HISTORIC HOMEOWNERS FAIR THAT YOU HAD OVER THE WEEKEND TOO.
UM, WAS THAT A MOTION, BIANCA? YES.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
OKAY, BACK TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C M M ITEM 17 DASH ONE.
THIS IS S COMMUNITY PLANNER, J B S A AIR US AIR FORCE.
SO, AND WE ARE ASKING TO AMEND, UH, THE, THE MOS LAYER TO BE ALIGNED WITH AQS, UH, AIR INSTALLATION, UH, AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE, UH, USE ZONES.
UH, WE HAVE AN, UH, UPDATED STUDY, UH, PUBLISHED IN 2019, UH, THAT A STUDY, UH, REGULATE THE LAND USE NEAR THE MILITARY BASE.
WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE, I I THINK WE, WE SEND A PRESENTATION, WE'RE GETTING IT SET UP, BUT WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY.
SO WHAT'S A K S A K A PROGRAM IS D O D, UH, PROGRAM GOALS TO PROTECT THE, THE HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING NEAR THE, UH, AIR, AIR BASE ON THE OTHER HAND, TO ENSURE SUSTAINING THE MISSION, UH, THE FLIGHT MISSION, UH, ON THAT AIR BASE.
SO THE MAIN, UH, THE MAIN DOCUMENT, THE PIER, I WOULD SAY IT'S A F I 32 DASH 10 15.
AND THIS SLIDE I WANNA TALK ABOUT LA LACKLAND ACRES REPORT.
THAT REPORT IT'S PROVIDED, UH, IT PROVIDES, UH, ANALYSIS OF FOUR MAIN ELEMENTS.
[00:35:01]
I WOULD SAY OPERATIONAL NOISE FOOTPRINT, ACCIDENT, POTENTIAL ZONE HAZARD TO AIRCRAFT FLIGHT AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATION.IT'S AN ADVISORY, UH, AN ADVISORY PLANNING DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESENTED FROM THE AIR FORCE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
SO HERE, THE FIRST ELEMENT I WANNA TALK ABOUT IT, NOISE CONTOUR, WHICH ON, ON THIS IS FROM
UH, IT'S FOR THIS AREA GONNA BE EXPECTED TO, TO HAVE, UH, D L N D N L HIGHER THAN 65 D N L, WHICH IS THE DAY NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL.
UH, I THINK MOST OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT TERM, WHICH IS A PERSON'S CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE TO SOUND OVER 24 HOURS PERIOD.
SO, UH, D O D NO, D O D DOES NOT RECOMMEND PLACING ANY RESIDENTIAL, ANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN 65 DP OR GREATER THAN THAT.
THE ELEMENT HERE, I WANNA TALK ABOUT IT.
CLEAR ZONE AND ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE.
SO WE HAVE THREE ZONES BASED ON THE, I WOULD SAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN.
SO CLEAR ZONE, IT'S, UH, SQUARE 3000 BY 3000 A P Z ONE, IT'S 5,000 BY 5,000, AND A PZ TWO 5,000 BY, UH, 7,000.
SO THOSE ZONES BASED ON THE, UH, ACCIDENT DIVERS, DIVERS PATTERNS, AND PERSON OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS.
HERE, I WANNA TALK ABOUT HAZARD TO AIRCRAFT.
THE THIRD ELEMENT, WHICH IS, UH, WHICH IS BASED ON THE LAND USE AND ACTIVITY AND ACTIVITY POSE, POTENTIAL HAZARD TO FLIGHT, SO SOMETHING LIKE HEIGHT OF OBJECTS, UH, LIGHTNING LIGHTING, E M I, ELECTRONIC INTERFERENCE.
AND LAST THING WE WANNA TALK ABOUT IT.
SO THIS IS BASED ON THE, THE, THE POPULATION BASED ON US CENSUS BUREAU 2017.
AND ON, ON AC ACRES REPORT, YOU'RE GONNA SEE, UH, LIKE THE ZONES, I WOULD SAY ACRE AND POPULATION.
SO SINCE WE ARE HERE ON OUR AMENDMENT, WE ARE ASKING TO, TO JUSTIFY APZ ONE AND APZ TWO.
SO, SO I WOULD SAY THE TOTAL AREA WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS AMENDMENT GONNA BE THOUSAND AND 600 ACRES.
UH, THE FIGURE BELOW IS SHOWING JUST THE TREND OF FLIGHT OPERATION BETWEEN 2004 AND 2018.
HERE IS THE SUMMARY FOR THE, UH, THE REVISIONS SO FAR, WE ARE ASKING TO, UH, TO ADJUST LAND USE, UH, 111 LAND USE TYPE, WHICH PERMITTED IN A P Z ONE.
AND NOW WE ARE ASKING TO RESTRICT THESE LAND USE THREE LAND USE, WHICH WERE PERMITTED IN AZ TWO.
AND NOW WE ARE ASKING TO RESTRICT THEM FOUR TWO, WHICH WERE, WERE PERMITTED IN A Z ONE AND APZ TWO, AND NOW WE ARE ASKING TO RESTRICT THEM.
THIS IS BASED ON AQS REPORT, AGAIN, PUBLISHED IN 2019.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION, I'D LIKE TO HAVE, UH, MR. MOORE KIND OF GIVE US, UH, HE SPENT MORE HOURS THAN ANY HUMAN ALIVE PROBABLY TALKING TO ABOUT THE JLU STUFF AND WORKING ON THESE THINGS.
SO I'D LIKE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM
[00:40:01]
HIM ON THIS ITEM.ANYBODY ALIVE? CAN HE SAY? WELL, AT LEAST ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM,
UM, I, I HAVE SPENT OVER, OVER A HUNDRED HOURS IN VARIOUS COMMITTEES DEALING WITH, UH, THE, UH, JOINT LAND USE STUDIES AROUND SAN ANTONIO.
AND RELATIVE TO THE, THE GENESIS OF THE ACOS, UH, IT WAS DONE ON A, BASED ON A 25 YEAR OLD STUDY CONDUCT CONDUCTED BETWEEN 1970 AND 1995.
AND WHAT THEY FOUND WAS THAT WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE AIRPORT, THERE WERE 800 PLUS ACCIDENTS.
IN THAT 25 YEAR PERIOD, 27% OF THE ACCIDENTS WERE IN THE CLEAR ZONE.
10% WERE IN THE AP PZ ONE ZONE, AND, UH, 6% IN THE APZ.
UH, CURRENT, CURRENT STATISTICS ARE THAT, UM, OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN AN AVERAGE OF 27 CLASS A ACCIDENTS, WHICH ARE CLASSIFIED AS ACCIDENTS RE REQUIRING MORE THAN TWO, $2.5 MILLION WORTH OF DAMAGE, LOSS OF LIMBS, LOSS OF LIFE, AND LOSS OF PROPERTY.
UM, AND, UH, IT WAS, IT'S, I THINK, IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT KELLY FLIGHT OPERATIONS, UH, OPERATE OFF OF A SINGLE RUNWAY.
AND, UH, THEY GENERATED IN 2021 69,904 EVENTS, AND THAT'S CATEGORIZED AS EITHER TAKEOFFS OR LANDINGS.
AND IF YOU CONSIDER THAT, UH, COMPARED TO RANDOLPH, RANDOLPH HAD OVER 250,000 TAKEOFFS IN LANDINGS OR EVENTS, UH, EVERY YEAR PROBABLY GONE UP SINCE THEY DID THE LAST, UH, PROBABLY THE LAST NUMBERS.
UM, AND I THINK, UH, IF YOU CONSIDER THE, THE AMOUNT OF ACCIDENTS BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF FLYING TIME WORLDWIDE FOR AIR, AIR FORCE PLANES, IT'S VERY LITTLE, VERY LITTLE, UH, CHANCE OF, OF ANYTHING HAPPENING.
OBVIOUSLY WHEN SOMETHING DOES HAPPEN, IT'S CAN BE CATASTROPHIC, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT OFTEN.
AND IF YOU GO THROUGH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TODAY, UM, THERE WERE, THERE IN OUR CHART, THERE'S LISTED 7 317 ITEMS. THERE ARE 210 CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED.
UM, THERE, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TYPES OF, OF DELETIONS IN, IN AMENDMENTS, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE INCLUDING NOW FLOOR AREA RATIO, WHICH I HAVEN'T TALKED TO ANYONE YET THAT KNOWS HOW TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT SERVES OR HOW IT WORKS.
AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOMEONE DO THE MATH FOR ME.
BUT, UM, TYPICALLY, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT, AT THE CHARTS ON PAGE, UM, UH, THREE, YOU HAVE A MACHINE SHOP, FOR EXAMPLE, A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.28 AND ZONE ONE, WELL, ZONE ONE IS 3000 BY 5,000.
THAT'S 15 MILLION SQUARE FEET.
UH, WHAT, WHAT'S A 20.22 FLOOR AIR RATIO GONNA DO? I MEAN, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE, UH, COMPARISONS BETWEEN WHAT'S BEING CHANGED AND WHAT'S BEING LEFT IN, IN, UH, ZONE TWO, UH, TO ME THAT IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
AND, UH, I'M, I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW THAT IF ANYONE FROM THE J B S A CONSULTED WITH ANY OF CITY STAFF OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE? I WAS SO I'LL, YEAH, SO I'LL, I'LL LET THE APPLICANT CLARIFY THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SHIFTING FROM SIMPLY PERMITTED, NOT PERMITTED TO A FLOOR AREA RATIO, BUT GENERALLY THE WAY A FLOOR AREA RATIO WORKS IS YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE RATIO TELLS YOU WHAT THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING CAN BE.
SO IF YOU HAD A ONE ACRE LOT AND YOU WANTED TO DO A MACHINE SHOP IN ZONE ONE, A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.28 WOULD PERMIT A STRUCTURE OF 12,196 SQUARE FEET MAX.
AND HEY, THE ARCHITECT'S IN THE ROOM, IF I REMEMBER FLOOR AREA RATIO.
SO IT EXCLUDES NON-USABLE SPACE, BUT IT IS ALL FLOORS COMBINED.
SO YOU COULDN'T SAY, I'M GONNA DO A WAREHOUSE THAT'S THREE FLOORS OR TWO FLOORS TO GET MORE USABLE.
IT IS ALL THE USABLE FLOOR SPACE THAT GOES INTO THAT.
SO EVEN IF I DO A SMALLER FOOTPRINT WITH MULTIPLE STORIES, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
[00:45:01]
CORRECT.SO THAT DICTATES YOUR MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL FLOORS OF A BUILDING USABLE SPACE.
AND IF I CAN CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT CHAIR, WE CURRENTLY USE, UH, THESE RATIOS IN SEVERAL DISTRICTS.
SO OUR M I ONE M I TWO DISTRICTS, WHICH ARE FLEX BASED DISTRICTS, ALSO HAVE A FLOOR AREA RATIO THAT'S USED, UH, FOR CERTAIN USES.
WE ALSO USE IT IN OUR FORM BASE CODE AS WELL, UH, SO THAT, UH, STAFF IS CURRENTLY FAMILIAR WITH IT.
SO I THINK MICHAEL'S QUESTION THAT LOGAN, YOU KNOW, DEFERRED TO THE APPLICANT.
MY QUESTION AS WELL IS, WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THESE FLOOR AREA RATIOS? BECAUSE IN MY OPINION, THEY'RE EXTREMELY LIMITED AND EXTREMELY SMALL.
AND WHAT COORDINATION WAS DONE WITH ORGANIZATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THESE WERE APPROPRIATE OR NOT? AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT WHAT, WHY, WHY SINGLE OUT SOME OF THE USES AND NOT OTHERS? LIKE WHY, WHY IS AN ABRASIVE MANUFACTURING THING HAVE NO REGULATION, BUT THEN AN ARTIFICIAL LIMB ASSEMBLY DOES? I MEAN, WHAT, WHO CAME UP WITH ALL THAT? OKAY, SO SIR B, BASED ON AQS REPORT, AGAIN, AS A COMMUNITY PLANNER, WE SIT TOGETHER AS A TEAM.
WE TRY TO ALIGN THE AQS REPORT WITH THE U D C, WHO IS WE AS A TEAM, I MEAN J B S A COMMUNITY PLANNERS, BUT J B S A COORDINATED WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OF J B S A.
SO WITH ACOS TEAM IN THIS CASE THAT WHO IS ON THE ACOS TEAM? OKAY.
ANYONE LOCALLY OR JUST J B SS A? OKAY, SO HERE'S MY MONEY JOB
I KEEP HEARING J B SS A OR OTHER REPS.
I, OKAY, UH, LEMME INTRODUCE MYSELF FIRST.
I'M WITH, UM, JOINT BASED SAN ANTONIO.
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMMUNITY AND MISSION INTEGRATION.
UH, PART OF OUR OFFICE IS WE DO THE INTERFACE INSIDE THE FENCE LINE AND OUTSIDE FENCE LINE.
SO MANY OF YOU HAVE, UM, MET ME ON, UH, SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ACO AND BEING COORDINATED, UM, WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO IS THOSE PLANNING FACTORS.
EVERYTHING THAT'S DICTATED IN ACOS, THAT'S HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE.
I THINK WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAID EARLIER IS THIS IS, THIS IS A AIR FORCE WIDE PROGRAM FOR ALL, UM, D O D FACILITIES.
I UNDERSTAND ACOS, I THINK MANY OF US IN HERE DO AND HAVE BEEN WORKING AROUND THE BASIS FOR YEARS.
THIS QUESTION STILL GOES TO WHO OUTSIDE OF THE MILITARY, WHAT ORGANIZATIONS, THE CITY, WHAT DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, WHAT BUILDING ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRY, YOU KNOW, WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THESE STANDARDS? OKAY.
SO WHEN YOU SAY DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDARDS, UH, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
WHEN YOU SAY THE ADOPTION AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE STANDARDS, UH, THAT I CAN'T ANSWER.
SO WHEN THE ACU STUDY IS DONE, WE, WE BRING IN AS MANY OF THE LOCAL AS WE CAN.
WE SIT DOWN, WE GO THROUGH, WE LAY OUT ALL THE INFORMATION, AND THEN, UM, AS WE GET READY TO PRESENT THE ACO, WE ALLOW EVERYBODY TO COME BACK IN.
NOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT'S INPUT THAT'S GOING BACK AND FORTH.
SO THE ACOS IS PRESENTED TO THE OUTSIDE.
SO THERE IS A SECTION WHERE WE OPENLY PRESENT THE ACOS OUTSIDE, BUT THEN THE ACO IS ADOPTED BY THE CITY.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION OR NOT, BUT THAT, GO AHEAD, MA'AM.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, UM, IS THE JOINT LAND, THE J L A THAT HAD DEVELOPED JOINT NEW STUDY, THAT HAD ALL DISCUSSED ALL OF THESE THINGS PRIOR, DID THAT GROUP OR A, A NEW GROUP LOOK AT THESE RECOMMENDED CHANGES? YES, ANYTIME WE DO A J L, THEY PULL IN ALL THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS IN THAT PARTICULAR, AND ACUS IS ONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.
SO THE J L IS MUCH BROADER THAN THE A, UH, ACO.
THE ACO ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE INSTALLATIONS WITH FLYING MISSIONS.
THESE REQUESTED CHANGES HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE J LS? NO.
WHAT THE, WHEN THE J THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
SO WHEN THE J LS WAS, UM, FORMED AND THEY, AND THEY DID THE STUDY, THEY USE THE ACO AS THAT'S YOUR STANDARD DOCUMENT THAT YOU START WITH.
SO WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY USE THEIR STUDY, THEY BASED ALL OF IT OFF OF THE ACO.
WELL, SO HEY CITY, I MEAN, WHAT HE'S BASICALLY SAYING IS THE ACOS FOR LACKLAND HAS BEEN APPROVED
[00:50:01]
BY THE CITY AND INCLUDED THIS INFORMATION.CAN Y'ALL TELL US YES, NO, WHEN THAT WAS, WHEN THE ACOS HAS BEEN ADOPTED? WELL, THE, THE, UH, NONE OF US GO AHEAD IN, IN EACH OF THE A, UH, JLAS, UH, THE, FOR THE AIR FORCE, THE APPENDIX A LAND USE COMPATIBILITY TABLES ARE THE SAME, ALTHOUGH THEY CAN BE MODIFIED BY LOCATION.
THESE JUST, THESE ARE JUST STANDARD DOCUMENTS THAT COME OUT THAT ARE BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE J LUS WITHOUT ANY REALLY MUCH CONVERSATION WITH THE LANDOWNERS OR OUR LOCAL OFFICIALS, OTHER THAN TO SAY YES OR NO.
BUT LANDOWNERS ARE NOT GIVEN, STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT GIVEN VERY MUCH INPUT AT ALL.
IF ANY, MICHAEL, DO THEY INCLUDE THIS FLOOR AREA RATIO, LANGUAGE AND NUMBERS, OR IS IT MORE GENERAL? UM, THEY DO INCLUDE IT, UH, IN, UH, DENSITY, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEIR, THEIR FORM HAS LAND USE NAME CLEAR ZONE RECOMMENDATION, A P Z ONE RE RECOMMENDATION FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL, UH, MANUFACTURING AND SO ON.
A P Z TWO HAS RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENSITY RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO BASICALLY THEY TAKE THE FORM AND JUST INCLUDE IT WITHOUT ANY SERIOUS VETTING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT FITS THE LOCATION OR NOT.
JUST TO ELABORATE ON JORDAN'S QUESTION, MICHAEL, TO YOU OR FOR JOHN, IS IT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO SAY, SORRY? UM, IS IT, I MEAN, 'CAUSE I'M, I'M STRUGGLING WITH UNDERSTANDING WHY, LIKE, I CAN BUY A CAR IN THIS AREA, BUT I CAN'T BUY SHOES.
RIGHT? I MEAN, IS IT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO SAY THOSE TYPES OF USES? SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE CAR, THE SHOES, IT'S THE DENSITY OF THE, UH, THAT WHATEVER THAT FUNCTION IS, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT IT'S BRINGING IN, ALL THE ICUS IS TRYING TO DO IS LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE EXPOSED.
SO, SO YEAH, GENERALLY THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED IN 2010.
UH, IT, IT APPLIES TO A PRETTY SMALL PART OF TOWN.
IT REALLY IS THE RUNWAY PATH LEADING UP TO AND AWAY FROM LACKLAND.
AND GENERALLY WHAT IT STRIVES TO DO IS ENSURE THAT USE IS ESTABLISHED ON THE GROUND, DON'T ATTRACT LARGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE, AND THAT IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OPERATION THAT EMITS LOTS OF SMOG.
SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BLUR THE VISION TO THAT PARTICULAR, UH, RUNWAY.
SO A AGAIN, I, YOU KNOW, WHY ONE USE OR ANOTHER, I'M GONNA LET THE APPLICANT DEFEND THAT.
BUT THAT IS GENERALLY THE TWO-PART PURPOSE FOR THIS OVERLAY ZONE.
THERE ARE OVER 80, UH, ITEMS DELETED THAT WERE CLASSIFIED AS P FOUR, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WERE PERMITTED WITH A 3000 SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION ON A BUILDING.
AND IF YOU GO THROUGH THE LIST, SOME OF 'EM JUST ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T APPEAR TO MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.
AND, UH, I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY AN OVERREACH, UH, IN THIS DOCUMENT OR IN THESE CHANGES.
I HAD A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
DO WE HAVE A NUMBER AS TO HOW MANY PARCELS OF LAND ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY YOUR PROPOSAL TODAY? YES, WE HAVE.
IT'S, UH, A THOUSAND AND, UH, 600 ON ON.
COULD YOU GO BACK TO A SLIDE? YEAH.
SO HOW MANY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS DO YOU HAVE? I DON'T, I CAN UNDERSTAND
CAN THE CITY MAYBE OPEN UP THE YES ZONING G I S MAP THAT DOES THE OVERLAY OF THESE ZONES WITH PARCELS AND AERIAL? 'CAUSE THEN YOU CAN SEE HOW MANY UNDEVELOPED PARCELS FALL IN THAT AREA.
SO ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PARCELS ARE BEING IMPACTED, BUT DID YOU DO AN INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING USES, UH, OF THE EXISTING PARCELS THAT YOU'RE SEEKING TO AMEND THIS OVERLAY FOR, AND WHICH ONES MAY ESSENTIALLY GO INTO A NON-CONFORMING STATUS? SO WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT.
SO PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MA'AM, I WOULD SAY WITH ACUS, UH, 2019, THEY HAVE, UH, I'M PRETTY SURE THEY REACHED TO, TO, TO THESE NUMBERS AT THAT TIME.
[00:55:01]
ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.SO, UH, AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF PARCELS, UH, I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION HERE, BUT WE HAVE DONE STUDIES.
SO WE, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S IN THOSE AREAS BECAUSE PART OF THE THINGS WE DO IS WE TRY TO GO OUT IN THE AREA THAT POSES THE MOST, THE MOST DANGER TO EVERYBODY IN THE CLEAR ZONE.
AND WE'VE DONE, WE HAVE A PROGRAM WHERE WE TRY TO EITHER, UM, PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES OUTRIGHT OR WE'LL PUT EASEMENTS ON IT JUST SO YOU CAN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF, UM, PERSONNEL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT GOING IN THOSE AREAS.
SO WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND WE CAN PRESENT IT TO YOU AT A LATER DATE.
BUT I GUESS, UH, WHAT I WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE I'M HITTING THE RIGHT QUESTION HERE.
IF YOU'VE ADOPTED THE ACOS AND WHAT WE, WHAT I JUST WAS, WAS IF YOU, THE CITY ADOPTED THE ACO, BUT WHEN, UH, YOU SET THE M A ZS IN PLACE, WHICH TOOK OUR, UM, ACCIDENT CLEAR ZONES AND EVERYTHING, UH, ACCIDENT CLEAR ZONES TOGETHER, AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO MATCH UP, THEY DON'T.
AND SO OUR QUESTION WAS, AND OUR EFFORT IN THIS WHOLE, UH, ENDEAVOR WAS YOU'VE ADOPTED THE ACUS, THIS IS WHAT ACO SAYS, THIS IS WHAT YOUR U D C SAYS RIGHT NOW.
WE JUST WANT YOU TO LINE THEM UP.
BUT FOR EACH AND EVERY DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES UP, WE SIT THERE AND WE REVIEW 'EM AND, UH, WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE REVIEW WITH THE CITY AND IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO MAKE A CONCESSIONS, IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO GET AROUND IT SO IT'S COMPATIBLE.
UM, I HAD A QUESTION ON THE, UH, THE FOOTNOTE 10.
UM, ON THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT, IT MENTIONS, UM, THE PLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD, UH, TRANSMISSION LINES IN THIS AREA, BUT I DID, I ONLY SAW IT SPECIFIC TO TWO AREAS WITHIN THE TABLE.
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT AND WHY? IT'S ONLY SPECIFIC TO THOSE TWO USES.
UH, AS AN ENG FOR THE ENGINEERS OUT HERE, THEY HAVE WHAT THEY CALL IMAGINARY SURFACES.
SO IF YOU'VE GOT OVERHEAD POWER LINES AND THEN YOU'VE GOT PLANES COMING IN AND LANDING, THERE'S ONLY GONNA BE CERTAIN AREAS THE FURTHER OUT YOU GET, WE'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH IT CLOSER IN, YOU GET, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH IT.
IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE, SO IT WON'T APPLY ALL THE WAY THROUGHOUT.
UM, WHERE I'M TA WHAT THE USES WERE.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OVERHEAD POWER LINES, CORRECT.
UM, IT WAS ONLY FOR TRUCK STOPS OR VEHICLE STORAGE.
THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHY I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT, UH, STRANGE.
UH, BUT LIKE I SAID, WE'LL REVIEW EACH AND EVERY ONE AS THEY COME IN.
OUR ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN SAFETY.
DID, DID YOU COORDINATE WITH C P S ENERGY ON THIS AMENDMENT AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE, I I'M SURE THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN ALIGNMENT AND THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY SAFETY IS THEIR CONCERN AS WELL.
THEY DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE FLIGHT LINES, RIGHT? IN FACT, FACT, WE WE'RE ACTUALLY IN, UM, COORDINATION WITH THEM RIGHT NOW, IF ANY OF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH DAG PROJECTS.
UH, THE LAST TWO DAG PROJECTS INCLUDED THE BEARING OF, UH, POWER LINES IN OUR CLEAR ZONES OUT AT RANDOLPH.
SO, WHICH IS NOT A TRUCK STOP, IT WAS JUST STOPPING IN THE CLEAR ZONE AT THE END OF THE RUNWAY, GEORGIA.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OTHER COMMENTS.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PAGE, UH, I MEAN THINGS THAT TO ME DON'T MAKE SENSE.
ALCOHOL, RETAIL SALES IN ZONE TWO, UH, YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA OF 0.24, BUT WHAT PREVIOUSLY WAS PERMITTED USE WITH A 3000 FOOT LIMIT ON THE BUILDING IS NOW NO LONGER ALLOWED.
YES, I, I'VE BEEN KNOWN TO HAVE SOME ALCOHOL, SO I'M VERY INTERESTED IN THIS
UM, IT'S GOES, GONE FROM PERMITTED TO NOT PERMITTED AT ALL.
YOU, YOU CAN, YOU CAN'T RACE IN IN ZONE ONE, BUT YOU CAN IN ZONE TWO, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PEOPLE AROUND TO RAISE, UM, IN TRUCK AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT AUCTION, UM, IT'S PERMITTED, BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY ATTENDANCE.
SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS.
I GUESS YOU COULD RACE YOURSELF, UH, AUTO LIGHT TRUCK AUCTION AGAIN, YOU, YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY ATTENDANCE.
UM, BUT THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE, A FEW OF, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT I'VE LOOKED AT.
LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE 80, 80 ITEMS THAT WERE CLASSIFIED AS PERMITTED WITH LIMITATION OF 3000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT HAVE BEEN JUST, UH, UH, TAKEN COMPLETELY OFF OR WITH A, UH, NOT PERMITTED AT ALL.
SO I, I THINK IF YOU SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT THIS,
[01:00:01]
YOU'LL FIND JUST LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE AS PER AS PRESENT AS PRESENTED.AND THEN, SO AS PRESENTED, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS NOT BE APPROVED, UH, AND SENT TO A COMMITTEE FOR, FOR FUTURE CHANGES THROUGH A C C R.
I HAD SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TOO, UM, IN REGARDS TO WHO YOU WORK WITH IN THE CITY.
'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS FOR POLICY DIRECTION THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS TAKEN THAT ARE, THAT ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTING A LOT OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE SEEING BEFORE US TODAY.
AND SO, AS YOU REFERENCED THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN BY THE CITY IN THE PAST, WE HAVE AN ENTIRE MILITARY AFFAIRS DIVISION.
AND WERE THEY AWARE THAT YOU WERE SUBMITTING THIS U D C AMENDMENT, UM, TO YES.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OFFICE, MILITARY AND VETERAN AFFAIRS? YES, SIR.
YOU INTERACTED WITH C MAYBE YOU CAN GIVE US SOME HISTORY OF YOUR INTERACTION OF LETTING THEM KNOW YOUR STEPS MOVING FORWARD TO SUBMIT YOUR AMENDMENT TODAY.
UM, WE JUST NOTIFIED 'EM THAT THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ACOS AND THE M A ZS AND WE WERE GONNA, UM, SEEK THIS, UH, CORRECT THOSE THROUGH THE U D C PROCESS.
SO, UH, AT ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS AND WHEN THESE WERE BRIEFED OUT FOR THE ACOS THEMSELVES, THE J LSS STUDIES, OUR RUP, AS WE CALL IT NOW, THE REGIONAL COMPATIBILITY USE PLAN, WHICH HAS TAKEN THE PLACE OF THE J L LS O MVAS BEEN THERE.
UM, WE'VE HAD, WE'VE, UH, REQUESTED FOR CITY, UH, OFFICES SUCH AS D S D AND OTHERS TO BE IN.
AND WE'VE SET IN ON PLANNING FOR, UH, ALL OF YOUR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL TOO.
AND THAT ALL WHAT WE DO IS WE PROVIDE YOU WITH THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE TO GO BY, WHICH IS THE ACOS.
THAT IS, IT IS NOT ONE THAT WE COME UP WITH.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT OUR HIGHER HEADQUARTERS PROVIDES US.
AND SO IN ALL OF THOSE ENGAGEMENTS, THAT'S WHAT WE, UH, PRESENT AT THE TIME.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NODDING, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE YOU'RE ENGAGING THE STAKEHOLDERS, WHICH ARE I E THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE GONNA BE AFFECTED BY THIS.
UH, THERE'S A OPEN COMMENTS FORM THAT'S, UH, PROVIDED AND I THINK, UH, YOU ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT.
UM, I CANNOT UPSET THE PROCESS THAT'S SET UP BY HEADQUARTERS.
THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT'S SET UP BY HEADQUARTERS.
THERE IS AN OPEN COMMENT SECTION ON IT FOR BOTH THE JLU TO R CUP AND ACUS.
CAN YOU HELP EDUCATE US ABOUT WHERE IS YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? IS THAT, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING.
'CAUSE I'M NOT A FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
AND, AND THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING.
IT WAS MY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR, FOR THE AQ AND HOW IT CAME FORWARD.
I, I DON'T, I DON'T MAKE A COMMENT TO IT.
I'M PART OF THE AIR FORCE, SO I DON'T WHAT, WE HAVE AN OFFICE THAT COMES DOWN AND, AND ACTUALLY RUNS THE ACO SOURCE.
THAT'S, THAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL OFFICE SET UP, UM, BY, UH, AFEC THE AIR FORCE CIVIL.
SO THEY COME DOWN, THEY PRESENT IT.
WHAT I DO IS I COORDINATE THE PARTICIPATION FOR THE MEETINGS.
SO I THINK OUR BIG POINT IS THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO, YOU'RE ASKING US TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WITHOUT THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED AWARE OF THESE CHANGES.
AND TO ME, THAT IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT FOR THIS BODY TO TAKE ACTIONS THAT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ABOUT A GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS, WHETHER THEY YOU, WHETHER IT PASSES OR DOESN'T PASS.
BUT IF THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE PROCESS, THEN THAT'S A BIG RED FLAG FOR ME.
AND SO I COULDN'T SUPPORT SOMETHING WHERE THOSE STAKEHOLDERS IN THAT GEOGRAPHICAL AREA THAT YOU'RE SEEKING TO MAKE CHANGES FOR, WERE NOT AWARE OF THESE CHANGES MOVING FORWARD.
AND SO I THINK IT'S, AND I'VE SAID THIS FOR ANOTHER, UM, AMENDMENT, IT'S NOT FAIR TO OUR TECHNICAL PROCESS THAT WE BE YOUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING.
WE'D HOPED THAT THAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS POINT.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I'D RECOMMEND DENIAL.
THAT A MOTION, BIANCA? IS THAT A MOTION? IS THAT A MOTION? SORRY, THAT WAS A MOTION FOR DENIAL.
ANY OTHER, YOU SECOND MICHAEL CAN, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE YES, BOB.
I'M, UH, WITH BIANCA THERE THAT THE, THESE CHANGES HERE, MOST OF US ARE SITTING HERE NOT REALLY REALIZING EVEN WHAT IT IS.
AND MIKE HAD SOME VERY GOOD POINTS AND THERE'S SOME OF 'EM HERE.
JUST YOU COULDN'T, DIDN'T USED TO HAVE USED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A MASSAGE PARLOR.
NOW YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE, BUT I COULD CARE LESS.
BUT REALLY, BUT REALLY WE WE'RE, WE'RE ALL APPOINTED TO SIT HERE AND MAKE TECHNICAL QUE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS AND FIND OUT ABOUT STUFF.
AND THEN YOU'RE SITTING THERE ASKING US TO SAY, YEAH, WE VOTED FOR THIS.
AND SAY, WELL BOB, WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THAT? HELL, I DON'T KNOW.
[01:05:01]
MANA.SO QUESTION I HAVE IS, UM, IS THERE A RISK IF THIS SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD, IS THERE SOME KIND OF IMPACT TO THE, TO, UM, LAN OR ANYTHING ALONG THAT LINE IF, IF THIS DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD? SO IS THERE ANY KINDA RISK FROM J B S A'S STANDPOINT? THE RISK IS STILL GONNA BE THE RISK NO MATTER WE'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING THIS WAY NOW, ALL THAT, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS, UH, OUR HEADQUARTERS REQUIRES US TO, AT ANY TIME TO IDENTIFY IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES.
AND SO WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.
BUT THE RISK IS THE SAME RISK YOU HAD YESTERDAY AND THE SAME RISK WE HAVE TOMORROW.
UH, YOU'VE GONE THROUGH, YOU'VE MADE SOME CHANGES THAT, UH, ADHERE TO THE ACO AND THERE'S OTHERS THAT DON'T.
UM, MY IS MY CONCERN IS THE WAY THAT OUR HEADQUARTERS WORKS.
I DO NOT, I AM NOT THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON THE ACTUAL DENIAL OF THE ACOS.
SO WHEN IT'S ADOPTED, YOU'LL GO IN AND YOU'LL FIND OUT IT'S ACTUALLY OUR HIGHER HEADQUARTERS THAT WOULD DO THAT.
THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT WE'RE ALSO NOT THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
SO WE DON'T GO OUT AND WE DON'T ENGAGE THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THAT BECAUSE WE ARE, WE'RE NOT THE ONES ENFORCING IT.
SO THAT, THAT PIECE, WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO BE OUR INDIVIDUALS TO GO OUT AND ACTUALLY DO THE ENGAGEMENT AS THE MILITARY, WE DON'T DO THAT.
WE HAVE, YOU DO HAVE THE OFFICE OF MILITARY AFFAIRS.
UH, WE WORK WITH YOUR OFFICES, D S D AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT WE DON'T ACTIVELY GO OUT AND DO THAT.
THERE MAY BE SOME POLITICAL OFFICES THAT'LL DO THAT FOR US, BUT, UH, WE'RE HERE, UH, THIS IS MILITARY CITY U SS A, UH, WE UNDERSTAND THE SUPPORT THAT WE GET.
UH, AND THEN IF THIS IS, UH, YOU WOULD LIKE TO THINK SO, GO BACK AND DO ANOTHER CHANGE TO TRY TO GET IT MORE IN LINE, THAT'S FINE.
THE, THE CURRENT ACAS WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE WITH THE CURRENT PERMITTED USES.
UH, AND IT WOULD BE UP TO, IT'S UP TO THE CITY TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.
WITH CONSULTATION FROM THE PUBLIC AND THE MILITARY.
UH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SO, IF A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE 1600 ACRES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THESE CHANGES COMES IN FOR A CHANGE TO THE CITY, EITHER PLANNING COMMISSION, ZONING COMMISSION, OR CITY COUNCIL, WILL YOU OPPOSE IT? IF IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE, WE REVIEW IT ON ITS MERITS BUT ONCE AGAIN, I'M NOT THE ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY OPPOSING IT.
I, I, I, I'M NOT THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON IT.
WHAT I HAVE TO DO IS I'LL HAVE TO TAKE THAT UP TO HEADQUARTERS.
BUT EVEN THAT IS THE CITY THAT'S ENFORCING IT.
BUT HEADQUARTERS IS THE ONE THAT WANTS THESE CHANGES.
HEADQUARTERS WANTS US TO FOLLOW THE, THE STUDY.
SO WHEN WE COME BEFORE 'EM, THEY'RE GONNA OPPOSE 'EM AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET APPROVED.
MR. TAPI, WE'RE NOT THE ENFORCEMENT.
SO THAT, SO THERE'S A KEY TO THAT.
UH, WHAT'S REALLY, REALLY CRITICAL IS THE SAFETY CORRECT AND THE LIABILITY TO THE CITY IS FOREMOST WHAT WE HAVE TO GET STRAIGHT SOON TO, UH, ADDRESS CONCERN ABOUT ALL THESE, UH, INCIDENCES, UH, THAT HAPPENED, AND TRY TO REDUCE THAT, UH, IN, IN EVERY WAY WE CAN.
AND THAT, THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THIS WHOLE STUDY'S SUPPOSED TO DO.
UH, WE, WE WANT SAFETY NOT ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUALS FLYING THE PLANES, BUT DEFINITELY FOR OUR DEFENSE COMMUNITY PARTNERS.
EVERYBODY'S OUTSIDE THAT FENCE LINE.
IT'S THEIR SAFETY THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AS WELL.
SUSAN, I JUST WANT TO ADD A LITTLE COMMENT.
I SECOND IN THE MOTION AND I STAND BY THAT.
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT I THINK ALL OF US HERE RECOGNIZE THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF OUR MILITARY TO SAN ANTONIO.
AND SO THIS IS ALWAYS DIFFICULT WHEN YOU ARE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH SOMETHING THAT WE'LL BRING FORWARD, BECAUSE WE DO, WE UNDERSTAND HOW CRITICAL YOU ARE.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE CREATED A VERY GOOD HISTORY OF, UM, OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AND PUBLIC INPUT BEFORE THESE KINDS OF THINGS MOVE FORWARD.
AND I THINK THAT, I THINK THE REACTION YOU'RE GETTING TODAY IS WE FEEL LIKE THAT WAS MISSING THIS TIME.
IT HASN'T OCCURRED, AND YET THERE'S A PROCESS THAT'S THAT'S WORKED VERY EFFECTIVELY TO REACH, YOU KNOW, SOME CONSENSUS.
SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT BECAUSE I, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
I JUST THINK THE LACK OF PUBLIC INPUT IS WHAT'S KIND OF IT, KIND OF, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, BITING YOU TODAY.
AND I'D LIKE TO SECOND WHAT SUSAN SAID AND SOME OF THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TABLE WHERE A DELICATESSEN
[01:10:01]
IS ALLOWED, BUT BODY PIERCING OFFICE IS NOTIT JUST FEELS LIKE THERE'S SOME INCONSISTENCIES THAT I WOULD BE EMBARRASSED TO SAY.
UM, I'M KIND OF CONFLICTED ON THIS.
I HEARD EVERYBODY, MY PEER SAYING, YES, WE NEED TO, IT'S NOT STAYING.
UM, I, I HEAR MY PEERS SAYING WE HAVEN'T HAD PUBLIC INPUT.
WHEN WE ESTABLISHED THE MA ZS YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS BACK, THOSE OWNERS WERE GIVEN CHANCES AND KNOW THAT THE, THE RESTRICTIONS CAN CHANGE.
UM, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LARGE NUMBER OF PARCELS.
FROM WHAT I SAW, THE MAPS WE'RE LOOKING AT A COUPLE OF HUNDRED, MAYBE THREE OR 400.
UM, WE'RE CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.
IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, WE'RE IN ESSENCE, NOT ABIDING BY THE AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY ALREADY HAS WITH THE AIR FORCE TO APPROVE THE ACOS.
UM, AND I'M THINKING WE'RE GETTING A CITY, PUTTING THE CITY IN A VERY BAD POSITION IN BY DOING THAT.
SO I THINK A LOT OF US FIND OURSELVES IN A DILEMMA HERE.
AND WE, WE CERTAINLY RESPECT AND APPRECIATE WHAT, UH, JOINT BASED SAN ANTONIO AND, AND THE MILITARY BRING.
AND WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO FIT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR OWN PARTICIPATORY PLANNING PROCESS.
UH, TO PLAY THIS OUT A LITTLE, UH, LET'S SAY WE, WE, UH, PASS AND DO NOT ADOPT THEM TODAY.
COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE FROM YOUR END? IF WE GIVE THE FOOTBALL BACK TO YOU, AND IF ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS MIGHT BE SIT AND WAIT UNTIL THE CITY BREACHES OUT, UH, WHAT KIND OF ENGAGEMENT AND PROACTIVE INVOLVEMENT, EXCUSE ME, FROM THE CITY WOULD YOU LIKE, AND WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SEND A REPRESENTATIVE TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC MEETINGS GOING FORWARD IF WE WERE TO MEET WITH THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE AFFECTED AREAS? SO, ON THAT ONE, BECAUSE THERE'S A PROCESS TIED TO THIS PARTICULAR STUDY, I HAVE TO GO UP TO HIGHER HEADQUARTERS.
UM, THEY WOULD BE THE ONES TO AUTHORIZE WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD PARTICIPATE AT, ON A ACUS THAT'S ALREADY BEEN IMPROVED AND ACCEPTED.
UH, SO I, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO GO BACK AND DO, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS AT ALL GOING BACK AND ASKING THEM THE QUESTION AND POSING THAT TO THEM.
I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE, EMPHASIZE ONCE MORE THAT THE ACOS HAS BEEN APPROVED AND IT'S STILL IN PLACE AND IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE AS IT SITS.
IT'LL ONLY GO ANYWHERE IF IT GETS CHANGED BY CITY COUNCIL.
I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO JODI'S COMMENTS.
IT'S A DELICATE BALANCE, JODI, BUT BACK IN 2010, I, MIKE AND I SERVED ON THE COMMITTEE THAT STARTED THE MILITARY AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONES.
AND I, I GUESS I TAKE EXCEPTION.
AND I TAKE EXCEPTION IS TO SAY, YES, THE STAKEHOLDERS KNEW THAT THEY WERE GONNA BE IN THIS OVERLAY, BUT WE ARE CHANGING THE RULES NOW.
AND THAT'S, I THINK WHAT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE AT THE, AROUND THE TABLE HERE ARE, ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
SO THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD, I'M SORRY, UH, JUST SO WE HAVE GOOD CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE ACO.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING YOUR M MA ZS.
SO, SO JUST SO, JUST SO WE MAKE SURE WE'RE IN THE SAME THING.
IT'S NOT THE, THE ACOS IS THE ACOS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE, WE WENT WITH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR A ZS.
SO WE'RE SEEKING TO IMPLEMENT THE AQS.
AND I THINK THAT, UM, THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THAT AS IT CHANGES, EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT IT WAS WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, BUT AS THAT OVERLAY CHANGES, IT'S ENSURED THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT, THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
AND, AND THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN.
I KNOW THE SAFETY ISSUE INVOLVED.
AND THE SAME USES THAT WERE THERE WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED MAY NOT BE THE SAME USES, AND THERE MAY BE PLANS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.
AND SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE INTENTS OF WHAT THE ACU UH, UM, IMPLEMENTATION MEANS TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS AROUND THERE.
SO, I MEAN, I WOULD, I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S FROM A, YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL COULD ISSUE A COUNCIL CONSIDERATION REQUEST TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, AND IT CAN PROVIDE RESOURCES FROM THE CITY TO PROVIDE ENGAGEMENT, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE HOMEOWNERS KNOW, AND THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS KNOW WHAT'S COMING.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT I MADE THE MOTION.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? ALL RIGHT.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION FROM BIANCA ON THE TABLE FOR DENIAL OF THIS AMENDMENT.
AND I THINK THE SECOND WAS, SUSAN, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[01:15:01]
AYE.AND I GUESS THE TAKEAWAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT EVERYBODY TALKED ABOUT HERE TODAY.
SO, I MEAN, BE HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, REVISIT IT AFTER IT DOES GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
WHERE'S ITEM NUMBER THREE? ALL RIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
ITEM 25 DASH ONE FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
WE DID RECEIVE 77 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SUPPORT.
I'M THE NIGHT SKY PROGRAM MANAGER FOR HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE.
I'M ALSO THE CHAIR FOR THE LIGHTING AND GLARE COMMITTEE WITH THE ACOG, UH, UM, R C U P, AS WELL AS THE NIGHT SKY CHAIR FOR THE CAMP BULLIS SENTINEL LANDSCAPE.
AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO IS AMEND THE CURRENT MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCE TO, UH, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH THE INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION STANDARD AND THE ILLUMINATING ENGINEERING SOCIETY STANDARD TO LOWER THE MAXIMUM CORRELATED COLOR TEMPERATURE FROM IN THE MLR ONE, MLR TWO TO 3000 FROM 4,100.
AND IN CASES OF MLR ONE, WE'D LIKE TO SEE A LOWERING OF, UH, 2,700 AS A MAXIMUM IN THAT, UM, AREA.
AND IN MLR TWO, THE 3000 MAXIMUM FROM THAT 4,100.
THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE CURRENT CORE CORRELATED COLOR TEMPERATURE THAT'S BEING UTILIZED, AND WHERE WE ARE LOOKING TO MOVE, WHICH WOULD ALSO ELIMINATE OR AT LEAST REDUCE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BLUE SPECTRUM LIGHTING, UH, BLUE LIGHT EMISSIONS THAT ARE HARMFUL.
THE INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION HAS 10 IDEAS OF VALUE CENTERED OUTDOOR LIGHTING.
UH, THE FIVE PRINCIPLES, WHICH DO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE BRINGING TO THE TABLE HERE TODAY.
UM, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON THE IMPACT THAT THIS HAS, BOTH FOR WILDLIFE, UH, PLANT LIFE, HUMAN LIFE, BUT ALSO THE IMPACT IT HAS ON JOINT BASED SAN ANTONIO AND THE ASSOCIATED MILITARY INSTALLATIONS WITH REGARDS TO THEIR NIGHTTIME TRAINING AS WELL.
THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT, UH, SUPPORTS THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY GOALS.
UM, AND ALSO OUR RE RECENTLY DESIGNATED, UH, CAMP BULLIS SENTINEL LANDSCAPE.
TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, THIS IS, UH, A RELATIVELY RECENT MAPPING THAT'S BEEN DONE OF LIGHT POLLUTION IN THE AREA.
LIGHT POLLUTION, UM, IS TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED ON A BORDER SCALE, WHICH IS A SCALE FROM ONE TO NINE, ONE BEING EXTREMELY DARK SKIES LIKE, UH, BIG BEND, NINE BEING DOWNTOWN LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS.
AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE CURRENT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY ORDINANCE, UM, ARE ON THAT SCALE.
AND, UM, FROM WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN TOLD BY SEVERAL MEMBERS WITHIN THE JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO, THEY ACTUALLY CAN'T EVEN OPERATE IN A LOT OF THE SOUTHERN DIRECTED AREAS, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST, BECAUSE OF THE AMBIENT ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS COMING FROM, UH, THE CITY CORE, THE CITY CENTER.
ALSO, AS I MENTIONED, THE CAMP BULL SENTINEL LANDSCAPE WAS A DESIGNATION AWARDED BACK IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.
THAT INCLUDES, UH, CAMP BULLIS AND IN MANY WAYS AFFECTS THE OTHER INSTALLATIONS AS WELL.
UM, AND DOES TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE IMPACT OF NIGHT SKY LIGHTING AND NIGHT SKY PRESERVATION WITH REGARDS TO THEIR NIGHTTIME TRAINING CAPABILITIES.
AND THIS IS, UH, JUST OUR GENERAL WORKING GROUP THAT'S, UH, BEEN ASSEMBLED TO WORK ON THIS AMENDMENT, UH, WITH REPRESENTATION FROM KAMAL COUNTY, FRIENDS OF THE NIGHT SKY, SEVERAL PEOPLE FROM THE JOINT BASE, SAN ANTONIO, UH, TEXAS PARKS
[01:20:01]
AND WILDLIFE, AND KENDALL COUNTY AS WELL.I'LL OPEN UP THE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM.
I DO WANNA SAY WE, IS ANYONE FROM C P S ENERGY HERE TO TALK ON THIS? YES, WE, BECAUSE I MEAN, ONE THING TO BE CLEAR IS THIS ISN'T A, LET'S ADOPT DARK SKIES.
WE'VE ALREADY HAD THAT IN THE MILITARY OVERLAY AREAS, AND EARLIER THIS YEAR WE EXPANDED THAT CITYWIDE.
THIS IS A CHANGE IN COLOR, TEMPERATURE AND WHATEVER.
SO I'M HOPING SOMEONE FROM CITY BSS CAN EVEN EXPLAIN IF THESE ARE AVAILABLE PRODUCTS OR WHERE WE'RE AT.
YEAH, WE, WE DO HAVE, UH, SOME FOLKS SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
VERONICA, CAN YOU CALL AN ORDER? LARRY WELLS LARRY ONE.
I'M WITH COMAL COUNTY FRIENDS OF THE NIGHT SKY, UH, TWO YEAR NORTH.
I'VE ONLY LIVED THERE ABOUT SEVEN YEARS, AND THE SEVEN YEARS I'VE BEEN THERE, I'VE SEEN THE MILKY WAY DISAPPEAR.
UH, THE NORTH STAR IS ABOUT TO DISAPPEAR, I THINK, UH, MY OPINION AS WELL AS HUNDREDS OF OTHERS, UH, FRIENDS OF THE NIGHT SKY MEMBERS, UH, THAT ARE BEGINNING TO SURROUND BEXAR COUNTY.
OUR INTEREST IS, UH, NOT JUST IN PRESERVING THE, THE VIEW OF THE NIGHT SKY, BUT ALL THE BENEFITS THAT ARE BEING OVERCOME BY, UH, CURRENT L E D LIGHTING THAT, UH, IS BECOMING, UH, OVERWHELMING, NOT JUST TO OUR ABILITY TO SEE THE NIGHT SKY, BUT TO WILDLIFE, UM, HUMAN HEALTH, UH, TREES, UM, MANY OTHER ASPECTS WASN'T REALLY PREPARED TO SPEAK.
UH, I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY C P S WAS HERE.
AND OUR LAST MEETING WAS C P SS.
THERE WERE SEVERAL, UH, UH, OBJECTIONS TO BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE 2,700 KELVIN LIGHTING.
UM, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN OVERCOME, NOT JUST, UH, SAN ANTONIO, BUT ALL THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
AND WITH THE POPULARITY OF NIGHT SKY, UM, THE ADVANCEMENT OF NIGHT SKY AND THE LOSS OF THE NIGHT SKY, UH, I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT THIS IS, UH, OF GREAT INTEREST, UM, TO YOUR SURROUNDING AREAS.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY, SAN ANTONIO IS, IN MY OPINION, IS COMPLETELY LOST, UH, ANY VIEW OTHER THAN THE MOON AND MAYBE VENUS.
UH, AND I'D HATE TO SEE MY VIEW OF THE SOUTHERN SKY DESTROYED BY WHAT'S HAPPENING IN MUNICIPALITIES LIKE SAN ANTONIO.
LOGAN, THERE'S OTHERS TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK, RIGHT? YEAH.
IS THAT THE LAST SPEAKER? VERONICA? YEAH, THAT'S THE LAST ONE.
SO YES, MY, MY NAME'S ALEJANDRO PENA.
I WORK WITH C P S ENERGY AS AN ENGINEER.
AND, UH, I WANTED TO GO OVER SOME ITEMS HERE ON THESE SLIDES.
IF YOU COULD MAYBE HIT ITEM TWO.
THIS IS AREAS THAT IMPACTS C P S ENERGY AS WE'RE PART OF THIS.
IT IMPACTS US IN OUTDOOR LIGHTING, WHICH ARE OUR ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS.
AND IT ALSO IMPACTS US IN RESIDENTIAL AND H O A ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS.
IT ALSO IMPACTS OUR STREET LIGHTING ON MAJOR COLLECTOR AND LOCAL ROADWAYS, WHICH ARE RESIDENTIAL LIGHTS.
SO, I KNOW THERE WAS ANOTHER SLIDE THAT KIND OF SHOWED THIS.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TRANSITION ON THE LEFT.
UH, WE'RE BEING ASKED OUR CURRENT APPLICATION IN, UH, RESIDENTIALS.
IN SOME ANSIL, DEPENDING ON WHERE WE ARE IN THE M L R REGION, ONE, ONE OR TWO, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TRANSITION TO 2,700 KELVIN, WHICH IS HOW THE LIGHT APPEARS.
IT APPEARS WARMER, A LITTLE BIT MORE YELLOWISH.
UM, ON THE RIGHT SIDE, OUR CURRENT APPLICATION FOR COLLECTOR AND MAJOR ROADWAYS AND SOME ANSIL IN M L R ZONE TWO, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO JUMP ALL THE WAY FROM 4,000 KELVIN TO 3000 KELVIN, UH, WHICH IS MORE OF A HOUSEHOLD LIGHT, UH, UH, COLOR TEMPERATURE.
SO THE PROPOSED LIGHTING FOR OUTDOOR LIGHTING AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OUR ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS THAT CUSTOMERS REQUEST SO THAT WE CAN INSTALL ON THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, THEY'RE CURRENTLY PROVIDED IN 3000 AND 4,000 KELVIN, DEPENDENT ON THE M L R ZONE.
[01:25:01]
AVAILABILITY FROM OUR CONTRACTOR, WE ARE IN A CONTRACT, UH, UH, WITH A, WITH A VENDOR.UH, WE, WE WENT THROUGH AN R F P.
UH, THEY PROVIDE 3000, 4,500, 5,000 KELVIN C C T TEMPERATURES.
SO WE, WE FEEL THAT BY BEING ASKED TO MOVE TO A 2,700, UH, KELVIN TEMPERATURE LIGHT, IT PLACES US IN A MORE SPECIALIZED MARKET WHERE WE MAY ENCOUNTER MATERIAL SHORTAGES AND OR INCREASED LEAD TIMES AND ALSO INCREASED PRODUCT COSTS.
THE VENDOR THAT WE WORK WITH RIGHT NOW IN 90% OF THEIR BUSINESS IS IN THE FOUR THOU 3000 TO 4,000 KELVIN TEMPERATURE.
SO NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT THAT 10% BUSINESS.
THEIR 10% BUSINESS IS, UH, MORE DECORATIVE LIGHTING.
UM, AND JUST, UH, COMMENT THERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IDA CURRENTLY RECOMMENDS THAT THEY'RE NOT STANDARDS, THEY'RE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY RECOMMEND A 3000 KELVIN LIGHT.
WE ARE ALREADY THERE WITH REGARDS TO RESIDENTIAL LIGHTS, WE ARE AT THE 3000 KELVIN TEMPERATURE.
NEXT SLIDE, LOGAN, WAS THAT THE TWO MINUTES OR THE THREE MINUTES? I HEARD, HEARD SOMETHING GO UP, BUT I DIDN'T SEE A TIMER ON THE SCREEN.
SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE, THE TWO MINUTE MARKS.
UM, IF ANYONE HAD QUESTIONS FOR HIM, YOU COULD CERTAINLY ANSWER THOSE AS WELL.
WE CAN ANSWER 'EM AT THAT TIME.
THANK YOU FOR NOW, I APOLOGIZE.
SO OUR, OUR LOCAL ROADWAYS, UH, ONCE AGAIN, YEAH, CAN WE JUST CUT IT THERE AND THEN IF THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL WE'LL ASK IT.
ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO, UH, DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THIS IS STEVEN ST.
STOCKINGER BACK HERE WITH THE STREETLIGHT TEAM.
I CAN TELL YOU FROM OUR STANDPOINT, UH, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH THE CITY AND THE INITIATIVE FOR LIGHTING STREETS.
UM, THERE IS A, A CONCERN WITH LOWERING THE TEMPERATURE MIGHT ACTUALLY INCREASE LIGHTS.
UH, THE WHOLE POINT OF STREETLIGHTS IS FOR SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES AND ROADS VISIBILITY.
SO BY REDUCING THE COLOR TEMPERATURE, YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE OUTWARD VISIBILITY IN FRONT OF YOU, WHICH IS GOING TO IMPACT WHAT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR STREET LIGHTING, ESPECIALLY ON COLLECTOR ROADS.
MEANING STEVEN, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDING STREET LIGHTS TO MEET THE SAME LIGHT COVERAGE FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.
CAN I, CAN I HAVE ONE THING? I, OKAY, GO AHEAD.
I WASN'T REALLY PAYING ATTENTION.
I WAS WAITING FOR THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
DO YOU GUYS SUPPORT THIS OR NOT? UM, WE ARE ALREADY AT IDA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL AND, AND, AND FOR LOCAL AND ROADWAYS TO GO TO FROM 4,000 TO 3000 ON COLLECTOR AND MAJOR ROADWAYS.
WE FEEL THAT THAT GOES AGAINST T, WHICH RECOMMENDS 4,000 LIGHTS AND I E S THE, UH, ELIMINATION ENGINEERING SOCIETY THAT SHOWS THAT RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT AT 4,000 KELVIN YOU GET LONGER DETECTION DISTANCES, WHICH PROVIDE SAFETY TO MOTORISTS, PEDESTRIANS, AND SO FORTH.
SO ARE THERE OTHER BIG CITIES THAT DO SUPPORT THIS, THAT BASICALLY EMBRACE THE DARK SKY AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL? BECAUSE I'M SURE THERE ARE CITIES.
I I, I CANNOT SPEAK TO OTHER CITIES WITH REGARDS TO THE, THE SIZE OF SAN ANTONIO, BUT, UM, LIKE I SAID, A RESIDENTIAL LIGHT AND 3000 KELVIN, IT MEETS THE IDA RECOMMENDATIONS, A 4,000 LIGHT ON YOUR COLLECTOR AND MAJOR ROADWAYS.
IT'S IN LINE WITH TEXT ON AND RESEARCH THAT SAYS YOU'LL GET LONGER DETECTION DISTANCES, WHICH MEANS SAFETY.
SO IT'S A BALANCE THAT HAS TO BE DONE.
THIS IS BEYOND, I HAD QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
IF THE APPLICANT COME BACK UP, IF YOU COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION PLEASE.
UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT ACTUALLY IN THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY COMMUNITY, WHICH WAS FLAGSTAFF, THEY DO, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY ACCEPT THIS.
WE DO HAVE A GREAT NUMBER OF OTHER COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE HILL COUNTRY.
DRIPPING SPRINGS BEING ONE OF THEM.
THAT IS ALSO AN I D S P THAT ACTUALLY HAS A LIGHTING ORDINANCE AT 2,700.
UM, I HAVE SPOKEN ACTUALLY WITH THE, UH, ILLUMINATING ENGINEER, UM, WITHIN TXDOT WHO HAS REVIEWED THE BASIC DATA AND SAYS THAT MOVEMENT FROM A 4,000 KELVIN LIGHT TO A 3000 KELVIN LIGHT, DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF LIGHTING.
AND HE USED, UH, THEIR LIGHTING AS A BASIS, WHICH IS AN AUDUBON LIGHT, WHICH I KNOW C P SS DOES UTILIZE, UM, WOULD NOT NECESSITATE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF LIGHTING POLES THAT ARE IN PLACE.
UM, AND IT STILL FITS IN WITH THE TECH STOP PARAMETERS.
SO MOVING FROM 4,100 TO 3000 WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL, UM, INCREASE IN MORE LIGHTING AND LIGHT POLES.
UM, I CAN DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE 2,700 LIGHTING BEING A CHALLENGE, ESPECIALLY IF C P S IS ALREADY IN, UH, A NEGOTIATED R F P CONTRACT.
SO WE WOULD BE WILLING TO, UH, REMOVE THAT 2,700 AND COINCIDE WITH I E S AND I D A, UH, SPECIFICATIONS AND CHANGE THAT MAXIMUM C C T WITHIN THE MLR TWO TO 3000 AND THE C C T, UH, WITHIN MLR ONE TO 3000 AS
[01:30:01]
WELL.SO THIS WOULD BE ITEM FIVE AND SIX.
YOU WOULD, INSTEAD OF 20 703,000 MM-HMM.
THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, SO FOR STAFF, IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE SOMEONE TO MAKE A CHANGE.
IT'S ONLY IN THE EVENT WHEN SOMETHING NEW IS BEING INSTALLED.
IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE IT'S GONNA BE, UH, ANYTIME THAT LIGHTS ARE SWAPPED OUT.
UM, BUT THAT, THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE, UH, HOW IT GETS LOOKED AT.
C P S DOES A PHOTOMETRIC STUDY, WHICH DOES LOOK AT LIGHT SPREAD, AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THEM.
UM, I ALSO DID WANT TO NOTE THAT, UH, WE AS THE CITY HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER TXDOT AND WHAT LIGHTS THEY PUT UP, THEIR SPACING OR THEIR TEMPERATURE, UH, AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS.
AND SO DO YOU ANTICIPATE THIS IMPACTING THE DISTANCE RECOMMENDATION BETWEEN THE LIGHTS WHEN A LIGHTING STUDY IS DONE FOR, YOU KNOW, SAY AN INDIVIDUAL MAKES A REQUEST TO HAVE A STREET LIGHT PUT ON THEIR STREET? UH, IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE.
UH, IT WON'T IN THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
BUT AS SOON AS YOU GET TO COMMERCIAL, UM, WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EVERY 150 FEET, UH, THE PHOTOMETRIC STUDY'S DONE, IT DOES LOOK AT, UH, CURVATURE OF THE ROAD AND, AND SITE DISTANCE.
SO, UM, THIS COULD PLAY INTO A, A, A ROLE IN OUR TALKS WITH C P SS.
SO MY POINT IN ASKING THAT QUESTION IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST REQUESTS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SEE AND COUNCIL OFFICES ARE FOR STREET LIGHTS AND THEIR RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
SO THIS WON'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH RESPECT TO THE NUMBER OF LIGHTS, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
AS FAR AS THE RESIDENTIAL IT GO, WELL, EX EXCLUDING COLLECTOR STREETS, SO ANY RESIDENTIAL STREET WITH HOUSES FACING IT WOULD NOT AFFECT DEPUTY MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
SECOND, MICHAEL? YEAH, I, I'D LIKE TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT, UH, THIS ORDINANCE, I THINK WAS DONE IN 2010, UH, AS A RESULT OF THE CAMP BULLS, J LUS AND THE O AND THE DARK SKIES ORDINANCE.
AND WE SPENT, UH, AND ROBERT SAT ON THE COMMITTEE WITH ME AND SOME OF, MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER GUYS.
I KNOW, BOB, IF YOU WERE ON THAT OR NOT, BUT THE, THE, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS INCLUDED THE MILITARY, THE CITY C P S, UH, COMMERCIAL, UH, OWNERS OF PROPERTY, LARGE, LARGE BOX RETAILERS, UH, SMALL RETAILERS, AND PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY THAT WAS IN ANY KIND OF BUSINESS.
AND, UM, THESE NUMBERS WERE, WERE ARRIVED AT BASED ON BASICALLY C P SS AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, UH, SUGGESTING THAT THESE WERE THE APPROPRIATE, APPROPRIATE, UH, AMOUNT OF LIGHTING FOR THE USES THAT ARE LISTED HERE.
AND SO I WOULD JUST TAKE THINK EVERY, EVERYONE SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THESE, THESE NUMBERS WERE THERE BECAUSE IT TOOK ABOUT 15 MONTHS TO GET THERE WITH A GROUP OF EVERYBODY INVOLVED.
SUSAN, MY QUESTION WAS, WE DID ADOPT EARLIER AS PART OF THE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN, THE CITYWIDE DARK SKY.
WHICH OF THOSE TWO, I DON'T REMEMBER, IS THAT EQUAL TO MLR ONE, MLR TWO, WHAT DID WE ADOPT? DOES ANYBODY KNOW? WELL, BUT WE JUST ADOPTED SOMETHING, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WIPED OUT ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES OR WHAT WE DID.
I MEAN, HOW IS THAT IMPACT? 'CAUSE WE'VE NOW MADE IT CITYWIDE, NOT JUST IN THE MILITARY LIGHTING ZONES.
SO WHAT IS IT? WE MADE LOGAN'S GOING, I'M NOT SURE.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF DOUG'S AMENDMENTS WE DID EARLY ON.
IT WAS ALL NEW STREETLIGHTS, WASN'T IT? IT WAS ALL NEW STREETLIGHTS AND I THOUGHT IT WAS 3000.
SO, BUT, BUT I WOULD NEED TO REFRESH.
BUT IT WAS ALL NEW STREETLIGHTS, UM, WITH THE DIALOGUE.
I THINK A LOT OF IT HAD TO DO WITH THE, THE FULL CUTOFF AS WELL, JUST CHANGING, MAKING SURE ALL LIGHTS WERE FULL CUTOFF.
BUT I, I'M NOT SURE ON THE, UH, THE COLOR OR THE, THE KELVIN ITSELF.
CAN WE LOCATE THAT AMENDMENT AND PUT IT ON THE SCREEN? SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE JUST ADOPTED FOR THE CITY OR IF WE ALREADY DID IT.
YES, BOB WANTED TO COMMENT HERE.
I NOTICED, UH, THE LADY WAS HERE.
DAWN DAVIES IS FROM HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE AND SHE'S NOT A CITY STAFFER THAT IS PROMOTING THIS.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE REASONS FOR DOING THIS WAS ON THE FIRST PAGE THERE TALKS ABOUT IT MOSTLY SAYING, WELL, MILITARY
[01:35:01]
LIGHTING AND MILITARY NEEDS THIS, MILITARY NEEDS THAT.BUT THEN THE LAST ONE SAYS, ER USE OF OUTDOOR LIGHTING THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MINIMUM LEVEL, UH, FROM THE, THE I E S AND I CARE A LOT ABOUT, I CARE A LOT ABOUT THE, UH, MILITARY LIGHTING NEEDS AND WHAT GIVES THEM A PROBLEM.
I A LOT, AND I'M THE KIND OF GUY THAT I DRAG MY WIFE AND NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS OUTSIDE AND MAKE 'EM LOOK AT, OH LOOK, THERE'S MARS AND THERE'S VENUS.
I CARE ABOUT THAT STUFF, BUT I DON'T WANT US DRIFTING AWAY FROM WHAT THE MILITARY NEEDS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT TO WHAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE NIGHT SKY.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE UP AN ITEM, WE ALREADY DID THIS AT 3000 KELVIN'S GUYS.
AND JUST, JUST FOR, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT IS ALL LIGHTS, RIGHT? GEORGE CHAIR? SO THE, THE ITEM THAT'S ON THE SCREEN IS FOR OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES.
THE, THE OTHER AMENDMENT THAT WE DISCUSSED LIGHTING POINTS TO REGULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECTION THAT WE'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
SO THAT ONE DOES NOT, IT'S NOT STREET LIGHTS.
LIGHTS AND ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTING.
AND THE THINGS THAT, THAT, AT LEAST C P S VOICE TO CONCERN ABOUT THIS, THIS WOULD APPLY TO EVERYTHING WITHIN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY LINES, PARKING, BUILDING, LIGHTING, EVERYTHING ELSE.
IT WOULD NOT TOUCH ANYTHING ON PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
THIS BEING THE, THE WHAT WAS ON THE SCREEN THAT, THAT LIGHTING SECTION, THE FIRST ONE YES.
CAN I DO A FOLLOW UP SECOND? SO OUR, OUR, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THIS, THIS AS, AS THE WAY IT'S MODIFIED, IT IMPACTS C P S ENERGY ON STREETLIGHTS.
THERE WAS PAST DISCUSSION MAYBE ABOUT A MONTH OR TWO AGO ON 3000 KELVIN, AND THAT WAS MORE IN THE SUBDIVISIONS, WHICH WE AGREE BECAUSE WE ARE ALREADY THERE.
UM, SO THIS, ONCE AGAIN, IT IMPACTS COLLECTOR AND MAJOR ROADWAYS AND IS IT IS BRINGING US DOWN FROM 4,000 TO 3000 KELVIN.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS THERE'S ALSO OTHER ENTITIES, WHETHER IT'S BUSINESSES THAT ARE INVOLVED WHEN IT COMES TO LIGHTING AND NOT JUST C P SS ENERGY, BUT THERE'S OTHER ENTITIES INVOLVED WHERE THIS DARK SKY, UM, COMPLIANCE IMPACTS, IMPACTS THEM ALSO.
SO WE ARE ONE OF THE ENTITIES THAT IT IMPACTS US.
UM, BUT WE ARE, WE ARE AT 4,000 KELVIN AND THAT IS THE PREFERENCE RIGHT NOW FOR LIGHTING IN ACCORDANCE TO, ONCE AGAIN TEXTILE AND I E S REC, UH, RESEARCH THAT SHOWS THAT YOU GET LONGER OBJECT DETECTIONS, WHICH COMES BACK TO SAFETY, UM, ON STREETS FOR MOTORISTS AND PEDESTRIANS.
SO I, I WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE WE, WE TALK ABOUT 3000 KELVIN.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WAS FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND ONCE AGAIN WE'RE THERE, WE'RE PROVIDING 3000 KELVIN LIGHTS AND SUBDIVISIONS.
SO ARE THE 4,000 ON COLLECTORS AND ARTERIALS OR MAINLY JUST ARTERIALS AND FREEWAYS? COLLECTORS AND MAJORS? I BELIEVE MAJORS WOULD BE YOUR ARTERIALS THAT FEED THE, I'M SORRY, THE, THE COLLECTORS WOULD BE WHAT FEEDS THE MAJORS.
SO IF YOU HAD TO REPLACE AN EXISTING STREET, LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE RUNS INTO IT, IT'S ON AN ARTERIAL MM-HMM.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOUR THOUSANDS OUT THERE FOR, UH, PRIMARILY FOR LONGER DETECTION DISTANCES.
UH, 3000 WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THAT WE FEEL.
YES, JULIAN, A QUESTION FOR UM, ALEJANDRO AND THEN PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN COMMENT.
UM, CAN, WOULD YOU, WOULD AN INDEPENDENT, MY C P S HAT IS OFF.
UM, CAN YOU TALK TO ABOUT WHAT C P S ENERGY WOULD UM, FEEL IF THIS WAS ONLY APPLIED TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LIKE A WALMART PARKING LOT OR SOMETHING WITHIN THE, THE MILITARY ZONE THAT'S A COMMERCIAL AREA THAT'S NOT INSTALLED BY C P S ENERGY.
UM, WOULD THESE LOWER, THESE LOWER LUMENS WOULD NOT IMPACT C P S ENERGY IN THOSE COMMERCIAL AREAS? IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE LOWER CCTS WILL BRING IN LOWER LUMENS.
SO, UM, TO YOUR QUESTION, THE LOWER C C T, UM, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE ANSWERS ARE PART OF THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING.
IF THERE'S AN EXCEPTION THAT WOULD PUT C P SS ENERGY INSTALLED.
ANSIL UM, DO NOT, UM, FALL WITHIN THIS OUTDOOR LIGHTING.
'CAUSE OUTDOOR LIGHTING CAN BE GENERAL FROM ANYTHING TO PARKING LOTS TO, UM, COMMERCIAL AREAS.
SO WE, OUR ANSIL GET PLACED IN THAT CATEGORY.
WE WOULD ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THAT.
UM, I'M SORRY THAT THEY BE ACCEPT THAT THEY BE ACCEPT IF THE MODIFICATION STANDS AS IS AS 2,700.
BUT IF THEY'RE WILLING TO GO TO 3000 KELVIN,
[01:40:01]
THEN WE ARE ALREADY THERE.BUT THE CHALLENGE BECOMES THE MAJOR AND COLLECTOR ROADWAYS, UH, WHERE WE ARE AT 4,000 KELVINS.
AND THE M L O D HAS BEEN AROUND, I BELIEVE SINCE 2010, LAST UPDATED IN 2018 WHERE THESE NUMBERS WERE REVIEWED, UM, IN MUCH, UM, UM, I GUESS BY A LARGER AMOUNT OF PEOPLE, LARGER GROUPS.
SO IF THE ANSIL AND THE STREETLIGHTS WERE EXCLUDED FROM THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WOULD C P S ENERGY BE OKAY WITH THAT IF THEY WERE EXCLUDED FROM THIS AND IT WOULD NOT IMPACT OUR ANSIL AND OUR STREET LIGHTING? UH, YES.
I MEAN IT'D HAVE TO, I WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THAT WITH OTHERS, BUT YES, TO OUR, TO OUR PART THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, WE GET CAUGHT UP IN THIS BECAUSE IT DOES MENTION STREET LIGHTING AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING IS ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS.
SO WE WOULD PREFER TO BE EXCLUDED.
SO, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT, IF THERE WAS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXCLUDE C P S ENERGY'S ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS AND THE STREET LIGHTS, WOULD THEY, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THAT? THE CONCERN ABOUT MAINTAINING THE 4,100 OR 4,000 KELVIN IS THE IMPACT IT HAS ON ALL OF THESE ASPECTS THAT ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE FULLY SHIELDED AS WELL.
UM, CUTOFF IS ONE THING, BUT A FULL 360 DEGREE SHIELDING DIRECTS THE LIGHT SPECIFICALLY WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO.
AND A LARGE PORTION OF THE ARTIFICIAL AMBIENT GLOW ISSUE IS GLARE.
UM, AND THAT'S ALSO YOU GET A MUCH HIGHER GLARE, THE 4,000 KELVIN, YOU GET A MUCH HIGHER BLUE EMISSION LIGHTING, WHICH IS KNOWN TO BE DETRIMENTAL MEDICALLY.
UM, SO THERE WOULD DEFINITELY BE SOME CONCERN ABOUT, ABOUT MAINTAINING THE 4,000 KELVIN.
UM, ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT RESEARCH WE HAVE BEEN DOING AS FAR AS COMMUNICATION WITH TXDOT AND THAT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD WAS THAT C P S WITH REGARDS TO THE ARTERIAL AND MAIN ROADS DO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, AND DO TRY TO ADHERE TO THE TDOT STANDARDS.
I MAY BE INCORRECT ON THAT, SO PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM.
UM, BUT THE FIGURES THAT I KNOW TEXDOT RAN ON THAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF LIGHTING THAT IS, UH, THE SIMILAR BRAND TO WHAT C P S USES WOULD STILL FALL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS AND WOULD NOTATE INCREASED ADDITIONAL LIGHTING TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LOWER DECREASE IN LUMENS.
SO IS THAT A NO OR A YES,
ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WOULD STILL FALL WITHIN YOUR, UM, YOU KNOW, YOUR REQUESTED CHANGES.
I MEAN, HONESTLY, AS, AS LONG AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE SOLELY TALKING STREETLIGHTS AND WE'RE TALKING JUST WITHIN THAT MILITARY LIGHTING REGION AND WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THOSE SPECIFIC LIGHTS, I THINK WE CAN DEFINITELY BE ACCOMMODATING BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAFETY FACTOR.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF NECESSARY WE CAN REVISIT IT ANOTHER FIVE YEARS AND SEE WHERE WE ARE.
BUT THE 3000 KELVIN IS ACROSS THE BOARD.
WHAT HAS BEEN I, YOU KNOW, PREFERABLY RECOMMENDED BY I E S AND BY I D A AS WELL.
SO CAN I ACTUALLY IT WAS, IT WAS ALREADY A ON THE TABLE.
SO, BUT I HAVE ONE QUESTION THERE.
SO, SO BASICALLY WE'RE DROP DROPPING STREETLIGHTS OUT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE WERE DRIVING THE MLR ONE.
SHOULD IT BE BACK TO 2,700 THEN YOU HAVE THE, IF WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT STREETLIGHTS IN AT THAT POINT, NO, BECAUSE, UH, FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, DISCERNING FROM C P S, THE CAPABILITIES OF GETTING 2,700 LIGHTING, UM, IS NOT, IS NOT CAPABLE.
BUT PART OF THE DIALOGUE WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE GONNA PULL STREETLIGHTS OUT OF THIS DIALOGUE AND IF WE'RE GONNA PULL STREETLIGHTS OUTTA THIS DIALOGUE, THEN THAT PREMISE FOR WHY IT IS THAT YOU MADE THAT CHANGE DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.
THE OTHER AMENDMENT ALREADY HANDLED ALL OTHER STREET, ALL OTHER PRIVATE LIGHTING OTHER THAN STREETLIGHTS AT 3000.
BUT FOR MLR ONE AS WELL, SO YOU KNOW, CITYWIDE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT LR ONE WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN THAT AREA I GUESS.
AND SO IT'S 3000 FOR EVERYWHERE ELSE, BUT FOR MLR ONE, WHICH PROBABLY IS A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, DOES ALLOW FOR, WE'LL SAY MORE RESTRICTED CLOSER TO THE SPACES, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, JULIA? SO WE LOOK A LITTLE PUZZLE STUFF.
SO IS THAT ACCURATE THOUGH THAT THE OTHER ONE THAT WE ADOPTED IS APPLICABLE IN MLR ONE, OR I'M SORRY, NOT APPLICABLE IN MLR ONE APPLICABLE, IT'S CITYWIDE, RIGHT? SO THIS WOULD CHANGE WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED.
IF, IF IF IF KEPT AT 2,700, IT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE ALREADY ADOPTED IN MLR ONE.
WELL I DON'T NEED FOR THAT PURPOSE WE'RE, WE ARE CONTENT WITH KEEPING IT AT 3000 IN MLR ONE.
SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT MLR TWO TWO IS WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME LANGUAGE.
IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING, JULIA? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE STREETLIGHTS
[01:45:01]
AND THE ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS, UM, EXCLUDED.SO I'M AMENABLE TO THAT TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DO THAT.
BUT, SO LET'S SEE HOW WE'RE GONNA ADD THE LANGUAGE.
DO WE, CAN WE, UM, LET DON AND C P S ENERGY FIGURE THAT OUT AND BRING IT BACK TO US WITHIN THIS MEETING SO WE CAN MOVE ON? THAT'S WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO ASK IS COULD I TABLE THIS? CAN I CHANGE MY MOTION TO TABLE THIS AND ASK THEM TO BRING IT BACK BY THE END OF THE MEETING WITH THE LANGUAGE WORKED OUT SO WE DON'T WORK IT OUT HERE.
AND, AND I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE SECURITY LIGHTING TOO.
SO I, I MEAN, WHY ARE WE INCLUDING THAT? SO I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, TO ME IT'S STREETLIGHTS ONLY, YOU KNOW, ALEJANDRO CAN EXPLAIN MORE, BUT AN ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHT, UM, IS SOMEBODY THAT'S REQUESTED AT SOMEBODY'S PRIVATE RESIDENCE.
SO IF YOU HAVE A STREET THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF LIGHTING, YOU CAN REQUEST THIS ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHT TO BASICALLY SHINE ON YOUR, YOUR DRIVEWAY, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO THE STREET ALREADY DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH, UM, LIGHTING AND SO THIS LIGHT STAYS ON AT THEIR DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE.
BUT, UM, ALEJANDRO YOU CAN EXPLAIN MORE.
THIS IS, YEAH, SO I, THEY ARE INSTALLED BY C P S ENERGY, SO THEY ARE, UM, ON THEIR DRIVEWAY OR THE ENTRANCE TO THEIR PROPERTY.
I GUESS IF THOSE WERE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS DOWNWARD LET ONLY DO NOT LEAVE THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY ALL TOO OFTEN I SEE THOSE WHERE BASICALLY IT CAST LIGHT OUT AND COVERS MY HOUSE.
AND SO I I DO HAVE OBJECTION TO THOSE 'CAUSE I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THOSE EXIST.
I KNOW G SO THOSE WOULD NOT BE CCPS ENERGY INSTALLED LIGHTS THOUGH.
SORRY? THOSE WOULD NOT BE C P S ENERGY INSTALLED LIGHTS IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE NOT SH SHINING DIRECTLY ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY AT THE, AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY ON THE STREET WHERE THERE'S NOT A SUFFICIENT LIGHTING.
I, I MAY HAVE MISSED THIS EARLIER, BUT SINCE THIS IS A MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY ZONE, UH, HAS THE MILITARY SPECIFICALLY APPROVED THESE CHANGES? YES.
AND I THANK YOU FOR THE QUICK YES,
AND DOESN'T THE OTHER AMENDMENT COVER EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS? IS THAT WHAT THE, THIS WOULD BE THE CHANGES ABOUT? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING, I'M ALSO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS THEY GO FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD IT.
WE ADOPTED IT ALREADY AT 3000 FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S PRIVATE PARKING.
IT'S BASICALLY LEAVES STREET LIGHTS.
SO THE THREE, THE 3000 CALVIN THAT TACK PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IS IN A SUBSECTION CALLED LIGHTING OF THE PARKING AND LOADING STANDARD SECTION OF THE CODE.
SO THAT APPLIES TO PRIVATE PARKING LOTS, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, BUT DOES NOT APPLY TO MY HOME.
AND I, I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT WAS APPROVED WAS IT SAYS, UH, APPROPRIATE COLOR TEMPERATURE NOT TO EXCEED 3000 CALVIN AND COMPLY WITH THE SECTION BEFORE US TODAY.
SO CREATING A DIFFERENT RULE WOULD LIKELY LEAD TO SOME CONFUSION CLEARLY, SINCE WE ARE COMPLETELY CONFUSED.
SECOND BIANCA'S, HEY, CAN Y'ALL GO AWAY AND FIGURE THIS OUT AND COME BACK BEFORE THE END OF THE MEETING? DO WE ALREADY HAVE A SECOND ON YOUR I WITHDREW MY MOTION.
THERE WAS A SECOND, BUT I WAS GONNA OFFER MOTION TO TABLE.
ALRIGHT, SO ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR MOTION? YES.
LEMME JUST AMEND MY MOTION TO TABLE IT.
THAT IT CAN COME BACK AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY BIANCA TO TABLE THIS AND THEY'RE GONNA, THE APPLICANT WILL COME BACK.
WE REVISED LANGUAGE BY THE END OF THE MEETING.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. MANNA.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? EVERYBODY LOOKS NICE AND CONFUSED, SO WE WILL, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
IF, IF, IF, IF THE MEETING RUNS LATE, WE WILL ORDER DINNER.
OKAY, WE GOT THERE FOUR MEETINGS.
AFTER TWO HOURS, WE MAY BE HERE FOR A WHILE.
POSSIBLE ITEM NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
ITEM 26 DASH ONE FOR THIS AMENDMENT, WE RECEIVED SIX WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS IN SUPPORT.
AND ONE COMMENT, UH, NEUTRAL COMMENT.
THREE PEOPLE SIGN IN AND SPEAK ON THIS ONE.
DID, DID WE WANNA START WITH THE APPLICANT? SURE.
LET'S START WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE'LL DO THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
[01:50:06]
OKAY.I'M A DISTRICT TWO HOMEOWNER AND A DISTRICT 10 SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.
I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK AS THE APPLICANT FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 26 DASH ONE.
THIS WAS CONTINUED FROM APRIL 11TH PER REQUEST AND SUGGESTIONS FROM THIS COMMITTEE, WE HAVE MELDED TWO PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS ON SPACING REQUIREMENTS FOR GAS STATIONS FROM HOMES AND RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES.
WE HEARD THE COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND MET WITH D S D TO WORK OUT THE REVISED AMENDMENT, WHICH YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING TODAY.
IT IS STILL 100 AND 200 FEET SPACING FROM SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY HOMES, SCHOOLS AND SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES BASED ON UNDERGROUND TANK CAPACITY ONLY PLACES WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND CHILDREN SPEND THEIR DAYS AND OR NIGHTS.
WHAT IS NEW IS THAT WE ARE ALLOWING A SPECIFIC USE AUTHORIZATION TO OVERRIDE THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THE NEW GAS STATION DEVELOPMENT.
THEY CAN SIMPLY MEET THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OR GET THE SPECIFIC USE REZONING.
THIS PROTECTS AN UNSUSPECTING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR OF A C TWO OR HIGHER ZONING PROPERTY, FINDING THEMSELVES LIVING NEXT TO A GAS STATION.
AND FOR THE EXISTING GAS STATION, THEY HAVE THREE OPTIONS.
ONE, THEY CAN CONTINUE OPERATING ASS NONCONFORMING USE WITHOUT EXPANDING OR MAJOR RETROFIT.
TWO, THEY CAN GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OR ELIMINATE DIS OR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR AN ALTERNATE DISTANCE.
OR THREE, THEY CAN APPLY FOR SPECIFIC USE REZONING.
SO AN EXISTING GAS STATION WOULD HAVE THREE OPTIONS.
BRIEFLY, FOR THOSE OF YOU OF YOU WHO WERE NOT HERE LAST TIME, CHAIR PECK AND MR. GARCIA.
I LEARNED AFTER RECEIVING A 200 FOOT NOTICE ABOUT A GAS STATION, THAT ANY KIND AND SIZE OF GAS STATION CAN BE BUILT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET WITH NO DISTANCE REQUIREMENT, EXCEPT FOR MINIMAL SETBACKS, BE IT FOUR PUMPS OR 32 PUMPS.
I SAW FIRSTHAND HOW CLOSE YOU CAN COME TO HARMFUL DEVELOPMENT ON YOUR RESIDENTIAL STREET, HOW A MEGA GAS STATION WOULD CHANGE THE LIVES OF MY MULTI-GENERATIONAL WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORS AND HOW THIS COULD HAPPEN ALL OVER THE CITY GAS STATIONS WERE ONCE FAR LESS INTENSE USES TODAY THEY OPERATE 24 HOURS, TEND TO LOCATE ON LARGER SITES, CONTAINING AN INCREASED NUMBER OF GAS PUMPS.
RESTAURANTS ATTACHED WITH DRIVE THROUGH SERVICES, WHICH RESULT IN GETTING MORE VEHICLES IN AND OUT.
THESE HIGH INTENSITY MEGA GAS STATIONS CAN DUMP SCORES OF CARS PER HOUR ONTO ONCE WALKABLE AND NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY STREETS AS THE, UM, THE THING THAT YOU SEE ON THE, ON THE, THE SCREENS.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE THAT FEATURES 30 P 32 PUMP FILLING POSITIONS AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
IT CAN ACCOMMODATE THE FUELING OF 32 VEHICLES.
FOR A GAS STATION THIS SIZE, THERE'D BE THREE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY 40,000 GALLONS OF LIQUID FUEL EACH FOR A TOTAL OF 120,000 GALLONS.
TO EQUALIZE PRESSURES, FUEL TANKS MUST VENT ROUTINE FUEL VAPOR RELEASES OCCUR 24 7 FROM THESE VENT PIPES, WHICH ARE OFTEN CONCEALED IN THE VERTICAL SUPPORTS OF THE OVERHEAD CANOPY.
EXPOSURE TO ELEVATED BENZENE LEVELS OF LIVING NEAR A GAS STATION IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK.
AS WE LEARN WITH COVID, IT IS THE MOST VULNERABLE THAT NEED TO BE PROTECTED.
THE ASTHMA RATE FOR CHILDREN IN SAN ANTONIO IS CONSISTENTLY HIGHER THAN THE REST OF THE STATE.
URBAN NEIGHBORS AND CHILDREN ARE VULNERABLE.
URBAN NEIGHBORS GENERALLY DO NOT LIVE IN GATED COMMUNITIES.
URBAN NEIGHBORS GENERALLY ARE NOT PROTECTED BY H O A RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
AND WHILE THIS STARTED AS A WAY TO OFFER APPROPRIATE PROTECTIONS FOR OLDER, MARGINALIZED NEIGHBORHOODS, REALLY OUR ENTIRE URBAN CORE AND BEYOND IS UNDER THE THREAT OF MEGA GAS STATIONS ABUTTING THEIR PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOODS.
EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT A GYM OUR URBAN CORE HAS BECOME.
PEOPLE WANNA LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY THERE.
THIS AREA CONTINUES TO RADIATE OUT AND IS RAPIDLY EXPANDING IN ALL DIRECTIONS.
JUST IN THE LAST THREE YEARS AS AN INTERIOR DESIGNER, I'VE HAD NUMEROUS RESIDENTIAL CLIENTS SELLING THEIR LARGE SCALE ALAMO HEIGHTS, TERRELL HILLS, DOMINION HOMES TO MOVE TO THE URBAN CORE NEAR THE PEARL KING, WILLIAM MONTE VISTA, OR JUST A SIDE STREET OFF BROADWAY.
WHEN YOU MAKE THESE MOVES IN INVESTMENTS THAT AFFECT THE REST OF YOUR LIFE AND YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES, YOU NEED SOME ASSURANCES ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN HAPPEN RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
NEIGHBORHOODS AND RESIDENTIAL HOMES NEED THE STANDARD TO BE A SET AMOUNT OF SPACING FROM GAS STATIONS.
THE GASOLINE FILLING STATIONS NEED TO BE AWAY FROM SCHOOLS AND HOMES.
WHEN THE CITY PERMITS A NEW GAS STATION, OR IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS, THE DISTANCE PROPOSED IS A HUNDRED FEET FROM SMALLER GAS STATIONS THAT ARE UNDER 50,000 GALLONS OF UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK STORAGE AND 200 FEET FOR GAS STATIONS.
OVER 50,000 GALLONS OF UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK STORAGE IN WHATEVER WAY THAT DISTANCE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.
IT CAN BE ON THE GAS STATION PROPERTY OR PROPERTY IN BETWEEN.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO
[01:55:01]
BE A GOOD CUSTODIAN PROTECTING AND ENHANCING THE CHARACTER, QUALITY AND EQUITY OF THE DISTRICTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS ALL OVER OUR CITY.I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION AND I SINCERELY HOPE YOU VOTE TO PASS THIS REVISED AMENDMENT FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE U D C AND GET, ITS ON ITS WAY TO COUNCIL.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? GEORGE? I GUESS I WILL.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE THREE PUBLIC COMMENTS TOO.
RAY MORALES IS GIVING ME HIS TIME.
DID RAY SIGN UP? YEAH, HE DID.
SO WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER WHO SIGNED IN YIELDING HIS TIME.
UH, SO A TOTAL OF FOUR MINUTES.
CAN I JUST MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND IT.
I THINK WE SHOULD LET HIM HAVE HIS TIME DONE A NICE JOB OF, I THINK COMING BACK AND CONSOLIDATING THOSE ITEMS. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.
WE APPRECIATE GETTING ONE AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, FAIR, REASONABLE THOUGHT THROUGH CONCISE.
DOES THAT CHANGE? EVERYBODY'S THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
SO THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BROWN, A SECOND, SECOND BY KARA.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I I JUST HAD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
I JUST WANNA REALLY THANK THEM FOR GOING THROUGH AND WORKING TO A, UH, PRESENT AN AMENDMENT THAT IS COMBINING OTHER AMENDMENTS AND STAFF FOR MEETING WITH THEM AND UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS.
AND I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE ONLY AMENDMENT I HAVE HEARD THE MOST PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING, UM, FROM NEIGHBORHOODS AND SO UNTO AN AMENDMENT TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND, AND SO THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT FIVE DASH FIVE ONE.
SO, UH, THIS AMENDMENT, UH, JUST ADDS TO EXISTING DEFINITIONS.
THE, UH, SOME OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY NOT, UH, INCLUDED OR HAVE SINCE BEEN CREATED, UH, AFTER THE, UH, THE DEFINITION WAS INITIALLY PLACED IN THE CODE.
SO AGAIN, JUST UH, ADDING REFERENCE TO ZONING DISTRICTS THAT, THAT SHOULD BE THERE OR HAVE BEEN CREATED SINCE.
ANY, UH, COMMENTS ON THIS MOTION APPROVE.
WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION AND APPROVE BY MR. BROWN AND A SECOND BY A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.
WAS IT ALLISON OR BY ALLISON? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO SAY AYE.
ITEM SEVEN, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 14.
UH, THIS IS A AMENDMENT TO REDEFINE OUR RESTRICTED PARKING AREA OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES.
IT'S, UM, IT'S MEANT TO NOT PERMIT THEM AND PROPERTIES OR PARCELS THAT ARE ONE HALF ACRE OR LESS.
THIS IS A CLARIFICATION AND, UH, IT WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM MOVING THROUGH OR BEING ABLE TO BE PARKED.
A COUPLE YEARS AGO, UH, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DID, UM, INCREASE THE FINE FOR $500 FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLES.
HOWEVER, THAT FINE IS BEING INTERPRETED AS ONLY IF THEY'RE IN THE STREET.
SO STREET, UM, ITEMS THAT ARE BEING, OR VEHICLES THAT ARE BEING PARKED IN THE PROPERTIES ARE KIND OF A, IT'S A LOOPHOLE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CLOSE UP.
WHAT DID WE ALREADY APPROVE? DIDN'T WE DO? I MEAN, COME ON.
YOU KNOW, I STILL GET POPUP ADS.
WHAT DID WE ALREADY APPROVE?
FOR THE RECORD, IT IS TWO 30 AND MR. MICHAEL GARCIA'S LEAVING THE MEETING WILL NOT BE BACK.
SO CARRIE, YOUR QUESTION IS, WHAT DID WE APPROVE BEFORE RELATED TO THIS? YES,
[02:00:02]
WE AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE.AN OVERSIZED VEHICLES DO INCLUDE RVS, CORRECT? THEY DO NOW.
THE DEFINITION DOES NOT INCLUDE, UH, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DEFINITION.
THIS, FOR THE OVERSIZED VEHICLES, IT SAYS A LOT RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS.
AND NOW WE'RE DEFINING RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS.
SO WE, WE RE WE BEFORE WE UPDATED THE DEFINITION FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLE, IS THAT WHAT WE DID? RESTRICTED PARK.
AND NOW WE'RE DEFINING RESTRICTED PARKING AREA.
GOSH, IF ONLY THOSE WOULD'VE BEEN DONE TOGETHER THAT WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE DOING.
I JUST HAD A CLARIFICATION ON HOW YOU CAME UP WITH HALF AN ACRE.
I KNOW IT'S CONSISTENTLY PUT IN THE U D C AS HALF AN ACRE.
IS THERE ANY REASON WHY NOT SIX TENTHS OF AN ACRE? WHY YOU GOTTA THROW FRACTION IN HALF AN ACRE WHERE SIDEWALKS AND CURBS AND KICKS IN IN THE CODE? LIKE WHERE YOU GO FROM AN URBAN TO AN OPTION OF A MORE RURAL STREET SECTION? I DON'T KNOW.
MY RESIDENTIAL AREA HAS SIX TENTHS OF AN ACRE.
WHAT? ACRE DOWN COULDN'T HEAR IT ANYMORE.
THERE'S CERTAIN AREAS IN EXISTING IN A, IN A RESIDENTIAL THAT ARE LARGER THAN HALF AN ACRE.
THAT'S THE REASON I WAS ASKING.
SO THIS BASICALLY SAYS IF YOUR LOT IS MORE THAN HALF AN ACRE, YOUR WHOLE LOT IS A RESTRICTED PARKING AREA.
SO YOU CANNOT HAVE AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE UNLESS YOU'RE BIGGER THAN A HALF ACRE LOT.
BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE AN RV BECAUSE THAT'S A DIFFERENT DEFINITION.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT.
WELL, I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE TO, SO I THINK WE'RE BACK AT THE SAME OLD QUESTION.
IS IT'S AN RV SIZE VEHICLE? INCLUDE AN RV? NO.
WHAT'S AN RV? PROVIDE THAT M D ROLL THAT UP SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THAT SAYS.
UNDER D IT HAS ITS OWN RESTRICTIONS ON PARKING.
YEAH, BECAUSE I RECALL WE HAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES HAD TO BE IN THE BACKYARD OR HAD TO BE BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE.
WELL, IT COULDN'T BE IN THE FRONT, SO THEY HAD TO BE IN THE FRONT.
BUT WHAT IS AN RV IN CHAPTER 19? THERE IS A DEFINITION, I DON'T BELIEVE IT ISN'T LISTED HERE.
IT DOES LIST A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, ANY MOTOR VEHICLE, INCLUDING AN OVERSIZED MOTOR VEHICLE.
PRIMARILY DESIGNED AS TEMPORARY LIVING QUARTERS FOR RECREATIONAL CAMPING OR TRAVEL USE, INCLUDING A TRAVEL TRAILER, CAMPING TRAILER, TRUCK, CAMPER OR MOTOR HOME.
SO WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE? IT'S THE LENGTH.
DEPEND WHAT IT'S LENGTH, WIDTH, OR HEIGHT.
THIS IS AND THE TEXT IS SHOWING.
IS THAT THE TEXT THAT WE APPROVED? BECAUSE I RE YES.
I THOUGHT THE 15 FOOT, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT WE GOT RID OF THAT AND MOVED IT TO AGAIN THE SIDE YARD.
NO, IT CHANGED ALL THE WAY TO THE SIDE BACKYARD.
'CAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THE FENCING AND EVERYTHING ELSE THERE, AS I RECALL.
FOR THE RV OR FOR THE OVERSIZED? NO, IT WAS RV SPECIFIC TO RV.
IT'S THERE, IT'S THERE ON NUMBER, UH, NUMBER TWO SAYS IT HAS TO BE SCREENED.
NO, BUT IT WAS CHANGED TO, HAD TO BE IN THE BACKYARD.
I KNOW IT STARTED WITH THE DISTANCE, BUT IT
COULDN'T BE IN THE FRONT YARD.
COULDN'T BE IN THE FRONT YARD.
SO THE DIALOGUE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE 15 FOOT, THERE'S A WHOLE DIALOGUE ABOUT THE 15 FOOT AND THEN IT MOVED TO WHERE IT COULDN'T BE IN THE FRONT YARD.
[02:05:01]
THAT'S NUMBER ONE.SAYS CAN'T BE 15 FEET OR, OR, OR THE FRONT YARD.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEFINITION OF, DO WE WANNA GO BACK TO THE
SO IS THE INTENT OF THIS TO RESTRICT ONLY OVERSIZED VEHICLES OR RVS AND OVERSIZED VEHICLES? ONLY OVERSIZED.
SO IT SAYS ON HERE, OVERSIZED VEHICLES SHOULD NOT BE IN RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS.
OVERSIZED VEHICLE IDENTIFIES RECREATED VEHICLES ARE NOT CONSIDERED OVERSIZED VEHICLES.
SO THE DEFINITION THAT IS UP IS FOR RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS.
AND ALL IT'S DOING IS EXPANDING, UPDATING THAT SO THAT THIS IS MORE ENFORCEABLE FOR THOSE THAT ARE PARKING WITHIN THE YARD AND NOT JUST ON THE STREET.
WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION BY KARA FOR APPROVAL A SECOND BY, I THINK IT WAS MR. BROWN.
SO AS FAR AS THE, OKAY, I'M SORRY.
WITH THE, SO THIS IS ALSO SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T PARK AN OVERSIZED VEHICLE IN THE FRONT YARD.
IS THAT WHAT THAT'S SAYING RIGHT THERE? IF IT'S A HALF AC, NO.
EVEN IF IT'S A HALF ACRE OR AN ACRE, ARE WE SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO PARK AT, YOU CANNOT PARK IN THE FRONT YARD.
WHAT'S THE OTHER SECTION OF THE CODE? SO VEHICLES CAN NEVER BE PARKED IN THE YARD.
NOW DRIVEWAYS, THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE DRIVEWAYS THEMSELVES.
THIS POTENTIALLY COULD BE THE DRIVEWAY IF IT'S OVER AN ACRE, OR I'M SORRY, OVER THE HALF ACRE.
SO COULD IT NOT BE THAT WE, SO, UM, I MEAN, AGAIN, IN THE, THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD.
SO MOVE THAT DIALOGUE, SAME DIALOGUE THAT WE USED PREVIOUSLY FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND FOR LARRY DIGGER'S LOT MOVE IT.
SO THAT'S NOT IN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE DRIVEWAY.
SO CAN I, I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY, I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY OF HALFWAY.
THIS IS JUST A DEFINITION OF THE RESTRICTED PARKING AREA.
THE PREVIOUS SECTION OF THE CODE, WHICH IS ARTICLE THREE, HAS YOUR YOUR STANDARDS, WHAT YOU CAN DO, WHAT, WHAT YOU CAN'T DO, WHERE YOU CAN PARK, WHERE YOU CAN'T PARK.
THOSE STANDARDS WILL BE IN ARTICLE THREE AND WILL REMAIN IN ARTICLE THREE.
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A, UH, REFERENCE TO A CERTAIN, UM, PHRASE LIKE RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS, YOU THEN HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT ARE THOSE RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS.
AND WHAT IT'S TELLING YOU IS THAT YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE A PROPERTY LESS THAN HALF AN ACRE.
YOUR WHOLE LOT IS AN, IS A RESTRICTED PARKING AREA.
BUT IF YOU HAVE OVER HALF AN ACRE, THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS THAT ARE NOT RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS.
SO AGAIN, ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ARE GOING TO, WOULD STAY AND REMAIN IN ARTICLE THREE.
YOU WOULDN'T WANNA PUT MORE STANDARDS IN THE DEFINITIONS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, UM, NUMBER, THE OTHER PREVIOUS ONE EXCLUDED, UM, IT, IT, SO IT STARTS OFF, UH, UM, OVERSIZED VEHICLES AND RESIDENTIAL THEN? YES.
UH, THE ONE FOR THE, IN THE BACK SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT, DID IT NOT CALL OUT SPECIFICALLY, UH, RVS.
SO AGAIN, IT SAYS HERE, RE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
IF YOU HIGHLIGHT D FOR ME, LAUREN, PLEASE.
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES MAY BE PARKED IN THE RESTRICTED PARKING AREA PROVIDED THAT THESE THINGS HAPPEN.
SO AGAIN, ALL WE'RE DOING WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS DEFINING WHAT A RESTRICTED PARKING AREA IS.
IF YOU WANNA KNOW WHERE YOU CAN PARK THAT RV, YOU GO TO ARTICLE THREE.
WELL, NOT SO I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE SIZED VEHICLE.
WE HAVE SAME THING, SEMI TRAILER THING.
SO, SO THERE'S COVERED, AND SO THEY CANNOT PARK IN THE FRONT MM-HMM.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT, BUT JENNY COULD.
BUT AGAIN, WHAT THIS, WHAT THIS DOES IS IT SAYS, OKAY, FOR THE, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OVERSIZED VEHICLES, RIGHT? OVERSIZED VEHICLES AS DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IN RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS.
AND THEN WHAT ARE THOSE RESTRICTED PARKING AREAS? YOU GO TO THE DEFINITION, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THESE STANDARDS THAT ARE HERE IN ARTICLE THREE WHERE YOU CAN'T PARK WHAT HAS TO BE SCREENED, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
AND TO ANSWER THAT, IF YOU KEEP READING IN THAT OVERSIZED VEHICLE IN C FOR LOTS OR PARCELS GREATER THAN ONE HALF ACRE IN AREA.
THE RESTRICTED PARKING AREA INCLUDES THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD AND AREAS OF THE SIDE, YARD AND BACKYARD WITHIN 15 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE IN THE DEPOSITION ITEM WE HAVE TODAY.
[02:10:01]
SORRY.ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? ALL RIGHT.
WE HAD A MOTION, I THINK IT WAS BY KARA, SECOND, BY KEN.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSSION APOSTLE.
ACTION ON ITEM 21 DASH TWO, DAVID MCDANIEL WITH THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT.
WE BELIEVE IT'S BENEFICIAL TO CROSS-REFERENCE THE SOLID WASTE CODE AND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY KARA, SECOND BY MR. HENLEY.
ITEM NUMBER NINE, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH SEVEN.
THIS AMENDMENT IS UPDATING, UH, THE DEFINITION FOR TOWNHOUSE.
UH, A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT CONSTRUCTED IN A GROUP OF THREE OR MORE ATTACHED UNITS IN WHICH EACH UNIT EXTENDS FROM THE FOUNDATION TO ROOF AND WITH A YARD OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON, NOT LESS THAN TWO SIDES.
THE EXISTING DEFINITION WAS A LITTLE BURDENSOME.
UH, IT ALSO ADDS A DEFINITION FOR A TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION, UH, A DIVISION OF, UH, ANY TRACT INTO LAND OF TWO OR MORE PARTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAYING OUT A SUBDIVISION, WHICH MAY INCLUDE A TOWNHOME.
THIS IS RELATED TO AN AMENDMENT ATTACK PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED TO ALLOW PLATTS FEATURING THE TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION.
NOTE THAT THEY MAY HAVE TOWNHOMES.
THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO ALL BE TOWNHOMES.
OPPOSED? I HAVE 10 DISCUSSION.
5 49 SIMILAR TO THE AMENDMENT YOU JUST CONSIDERED.
THIS IS ADDING REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE NEW ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WERE CREATED.
IT ELIMINATES THE REFERENCE TO I D Z UPDATES IT TO I D Z 1 23 THAT WERE THE PRODUCT OF THE 2017 I D Z TASK FORCE.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA.
I DON'T KNOW WHO THE SECOND WAS.
JODY, ANY QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 11, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON UNITY AMENDMENT ITEM FIVE DASH 19.
THE CODE RIGHT NOW SAYS THAT FOR PLA YOU HAVE TO USE A ONE IN 2000 SCALE.
THIS SAYS, WE DON'T CARE WHAT SCALE YOU USE AS LONG AS IT'S ACCURATE.
A SECOND BY, WAS IT DEBBIE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AND YOU OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM 12, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON, UH, U C AMENDMENT FIVE DASH 20.
UH, THIS AMENDMENT, UH, EFFECTIVELY SAYS THAT YOU CAN SUBMIT TO US DIGITAL FILES.
IT, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SOME OF THESE FORMATS PREVIOUSLY LISTED.
I DON'T, I HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD OF THOSE.
SO, JUST A DIGITAL FILE THAT INTERFACES WITH BUILD SA, ADOBE, P D F, ALL THOSE WORK.
WHAT IF I WANT TO GIVE YOU ALL MY ION? I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD KNOW HOW TO OPEN IT.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM BIANCA AND A SECOND FROM MR. ESTRADA.
UH, COULD WE TAKE A MOMENT TO CONSIDER, UM, BLANKET MOTIONING TO APPROVE ALL GREEN ITEMS FOR EDITING? CLARIFYING.
I AM SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T SECOND IT.
CAN WE GET A LIST OF WHAT THOSE ARE? SURE THING.
THAT'S, UM, ITEM WE JUST APPROVED.
SO WE'RE ON ITEM 13, FIVE DASH 36.
ITEM 15 THREE DASH ONE, ITEM 17 FIVE DASH 11.
ITEM 1822 DASH 28, ITEM 19, UM, 22 DASH 21 AND ITEM 2211 DASH ONE.
SO I'M, I'M GONNA RECOMMEND THAT WE REMOVE ITEM 19 FROM THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE FOLKS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
AND ADDITIONALLY, I THINK THAT THERE MIGHT BE A CLARIFICATION.
WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST THAT, UH,
[02:15:01]
ITEM 13 BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.THIS IS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BECAUSE WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND I THINK ON OUR RECOMMENDATION THEY'RE GONNA BE MAKING SOME CHANGES.
AND THEN JUST, JUST TO MAKE SURE, VERONICA, CAN YOU CONFIRM WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED IN TO SPEAK ON ITEMS 14, 15, 17, 18, OR 22? NO ONE SIGNED IT.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 14 ITEMS 15, 17, 18, AND 22.
YOU WANNA PULL THAT ONE? UH, CAN WE PULL ITEM 22? I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON HOW SOME OF THOSE TRAFFIC CROSS SECTIONS ARE APPLIED.
I'M IND MY MOTION TO REMOVE ITEM 22 FROM THE, UM, APPROVAL.
SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S 14, 15, 17, AND 18 IS WHAT THE MOTION IS FOR.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM ALLISON TO APPROVE.
SECOND BY, DID YOU MAKE A SECOND? ORIGINALLY SECOND BY DEBBIE.
ANY LAST COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 13, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON UC.
SO WE HAD PROPOSED REMOVING SOME LANGUAGE TO, UH, FROM THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT FORMS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE PLATT SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE.
BECAUSE WE CONSTANTLY FIELD THE QUESTION, WHERE IS THE FORM? UH, IT'S NOT THAT THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO APPEAR ON THE PLAT, WHICH IS WHAT, UH, I BELIEVE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAD CONCERNS WITH.
SO DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE WHAT WHAT WE WERE THINKING INSTEAD? YEAH, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY CAN PULL IT UP ON THE SCREEN, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THEY, THIS LANGUAGE BE KEPT INTO THE U D C, BUT THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL SENTENCE BE ADDED, ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT IT CAN BE ACCEPTED IN A DIGITAL FORMAT, WHICH WAS THE CONCERN OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES EFFECTIVELY, THAT THESE ITEMS, SURVEYOR, CERTIFICATE ENGINEER, CERTIFICATE PROP, PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE, THOSE ARE STILL REQUIRED.
SO IF WE CAN KEEP IT, BUT IF WE GO TO THE TOP, ADD THAT THE FOLLOWING MUST APPEAR ON THE FINAL PLATT DOCUMENT OR SOME LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT, I THINK IS REALLY WHAT, WHAT WE WERE AFTER.
THIS ISN'T EVEN A SEPARATE SUBMITTAL.
SO JUST LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IT'S IN A DIGITAL FORM ISN'T EVEN CORRECT.
THEY HAVE TO APPEAR ON THE PLAT.
SO WE SIGN AND SEAL ON THE PLATT.
DO YOU THINK REMOVING THESE FROM THE CODE? 'CAUSE NOW, I MEAN IF YOU CAME INTO TOWN AND YOU WERE DOING A PLAT, I MEAN, ALL THE NOTES THAT ARE REQUIRED ON THE PLAT ARE IN THE APPENDIX, RIGHT? SO WOULD THIS CAUSE ANY CONFUSION? SO I, WHAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING AND IS IT IN CONFLICT WITH THE PLAT NOTES? IB WE DID A WHILE BACK.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS EVERYTHING SHOWN IN RED REMAIN IN BLACK.
THAT THEY, IT ALL REMAINS THERE.
THAT WE ADD AT THE TOP, UNDER F CERTIFICATION INFORMS A SENTENCE THAT THE FOLLOWING MUST APPEAR ON THE PLATT.
THAT WAY THERE'S AGAIN, WHEN WE ADVERTISE THAT THERE ARE FORMS THAT ARE REQUIRED, WE OFTEN ARE ASKED, WELL, WHERE DO I FIND THE FORM? IT'S, IT'S NOT A FORM, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S A CERTIFICATE EFFECTIVELY THAT HAS TO APPEAR ON THE PLATT.
SO SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT IS REALLY ALL WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A BETTER WAY OF, IT'S MEANT TO BE MORE OF A CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE PROCESS OF WHAT CURRENTLY HAPPENS AT ALL.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.
FORMS NEEDS TO COME OUT OF THAT THEN.
SOME OF THOSE ARE FORMS. SO CERTIFICATION IN FORMS AND F STAYS, BUT WHERE IT SAYS ONE FORM A SURVEY OR CERTIFICATE, AND THEN FORM B ENGINEERS MM-HMM.
THOSE ARE NOT FORMS. JUST I WOULD TAKE OUT FORM THERE.
AND THEN DOWN FORM B, AND THEN KEEP GOING DOWN.
[02:20:01]
QUESTION, MAYBE CERTIFICATIONS, UH, ON THE PLATT, UH, DEFINING WHERE THAT IT IS ON THE, ON THE PLAT.SO I, BECAUSE THIS ENTIRE SECTION 35 B 1 21 IS RELATED TO SUBDIVISION PLATTS, I THINK THAT, THAT WE CAN IMPLY THAT.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE TO RESTATE IT IN SUBSECTION F I SECONDED THAT MOTION.
SO YOU'RE REMOVING, YOU JUST STRUCK OUT THAT LANGUAGE YOU JUST ADDED.
WHY DID WE WHY DID YOU DO THAT? YEAH.
YOUR QUESTION BEEN ANSWERED MS. THOMAS? YES.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY, I THINK IT WAS KARA A SECOND BY BIANCA.
ANY LAST DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA GO ALL THE WAY DOWN NOW TO ITEM NUMBER 19, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 22 DASH 21.
THIS IS MIKE A. DIAZ FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, HERE TO TALK ABOUT OUR PROPOSED AND REVISED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 35 4 20.
UM, I DO HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, BUT IF Y'ALL AREN'T INTERESTED IN IT, WE CAN JUST KEEP THIS MOVING RIGHT ON AHEAD.
ONE PERSON, DO YOU WANNA LET HIM SPEAK FIRST AND THEN MAYBE THAT'S FINE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
SO OVERALL, OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT, UM, IS UPDATING SECTION 35, 4 20, WHICH IS WHERE THE CITY'S, UH, PRO PLANNING PROGRAM IS CODIFIED.
UM, OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION, UM, AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL SIMPLY UPDATED THAT SECTION TO REFLECT WHAT WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2016, UM, WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE SA TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
UM, THAT DOCUMENT ALREADY SUPERSEDED MUCH OF THE LANGUAGE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THIS SECTION.
IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDER OR NEIGHBORHOOD STAKEHOLDERS, UM, TO ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS.
SO THE MAIN BULK OF OUR NEW REVISIONS, UM, ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL PLANNING.
THAT'S THE, THE FIRST TOP SQUARE.
UM, SPECIFY THAT THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES IN FUTURE LAND USE FROM PREVIOUS PLANS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND SERVE AS A FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENT IN FORMING DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS THROUGHOUT THE SUBAR PLANNING PROCESS.
THE THIRD ONE IS JUST PROVIDING SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT RELATED TO THE CITY'S PREVIOUS PLANNING PROGRAMS, MOSTLY FOR REFERENCE.
AND THEN I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY, UH, THE FOURTH ITEM IS SPECIFYING THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL INVITE PREVIOUS PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN A PREVIOUS PLAN AREA TO REVIEW, DISCUSS, AND PROVIDE INPUT ON THE GOALS OBJECTIVES, FUTURE LAND USE, MAP, AND ELEMENT OF THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED PLANS, AS WELL AS THE CURRENT STRENGTHS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES OF THAT PREVIOUS PLAN AREA THAT THESE MEETINGS WOULD OCCUR PRIOR TO RELATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEWER SUB AREA PLANNING TEAM.
AND THAT THE COMMENTS AND CONCERNS AND SPECIFIC INPUT FROM THESE MEETINGS WILL BE SHARED WITH THAT SUB AREA PLANNING TEAM, UM, TO INFORM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBAR PLAN.
WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER, UM, REVISIONS.
THEY ARE MAINLY HOUSEKEEPING, UM, THINGS THAT WE CAUGHT THAT WEREN'T CORRECT IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL.
UPDATING DEPARTMENT NAMES, UPDATING REFERENCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, AND ADDING OUR MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED SUBAR PLAN TO THE LIST OF ADOPTED PLANS.
[02:25:02]
IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, I HAVE ADDITIONAL SLIDES AND CAN GO THROUGH THEM.UM, IF YOU WANT TO HEAR THE OTHER SPEAKERS.
ULTIMATELY SOME, I THINK WE HAVE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE TOO.
DO YOU WANT TO, I DON'T, ARE YOU GONNA SPEAK ROSS BRIEFLY IF YOU GO AHEAD.
ULTIMATELY, A CITY PLAN WILL ULTIMATELY SUPERSEDE ANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADOPTED PLANS.
UM, IF YOU SEE THIS LANGUAGE AND, UM, THAT'S KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED AT THE BOTTOM.
THIS IS FROM THE ACTUAL DOWNTOWN OOPS, UH, DOWNTOWN AREA REGIONAL CENTER PLAN.
THE, THE SUB AREA PLANS SHALL CONTROL OVER ANY CONFLICT WITH A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED PLAN.
UM, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AND COMMUNITY PLANS ARE NOT GOING AWAY, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF LAND USE MAPS, UM, TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY POLICY WHERE IT CONFLICTS WITH THE PREVIOUS PLAN, THE NEWER MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED PLAN WILL CONTROL IN THOSE INSTANCES.
UM, WOULD WHOEVER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK LIKE TO APPROACH CODY ROSS? EXCUSE ME, ROSS LAN LANG HEAD LAWHEAD.
YOU CAN GUESS MY LAWHEAD, SORRY.
NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
I RESIDE AT 59 75 LOCKHILL ROAD, 7 8 2 4 OH.
I'VE SERVED AS VOLUNTEER LAND USE ATTORNEY FOR THE OAKLAND ESTATES ASSOCIATION SINCE 97.
DEFENDING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AS THE ONLY LAND USE TOOL FOR OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS, LACKING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
I'M BOOTH A TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, WHICH PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENT 16 FOUR, WHICH I DRAFTED TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ASSISTANT CITY BAN GENERAL ROD SANCHEZ FOR URGING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO WORK WITH TIER ONE TO IMPROVE THE TREATMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS UNDER ITS PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENT 2221.
THE CHANGES ARE, ARE NOT ALL THAT WE WOULD'VE WISHED, BUT THEY REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT.
MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE CLARIFYING THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE COMPONENTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PLANS WILL BE EVALUATED WITH STAKEHOLDERS AS LARGER FOOTPRINT.
SUBAR AND REGIONAL CENTER PLANS ARE ADOPTED, SUBSUMING THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS WITHIN THEIR FOOTPRINT.
THE PLANS WERE CREATED BY GREAT EFFORT BY C AND VOLUNTEERS.
THE FUTURE LAND USE COMPONENTS OF THESE PLANS ARE THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS LACKING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS CAN INFLUENCE DEVELOPER PROPOSED DRASTIC CHANGES IN LAND USE AND DENSITY.
IF YOU RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL PROPOSED UT C AMENDMENT 2221 IS NOW AMENDED WITHOUT REVISION FROM THE DAY AS TIER ONE INTENDS TO WITHDRAW.
ITS PROPOSED AMENDMENT 16 FOUR.
I ALSO THANK MELISSA RAMIREZ, RUDY NINO, THE HONORABLE BONNIE CONNOR AND MY TIER ONE COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS BIANCA.
I, AS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTENDED THE MEETINGS THAT, UM, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ATTENDED ALL THOSE MEETINGS ALSO, AND THE D S D IN PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION AS THEY DISCUSSED REQUEST TO CHANGES FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING BEFORE US TODAY.
AND WHAT WE REALLY SEE IS KIND OF A COLLABORATION WHILE NOT EVERYBODY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, I HOPE THAT THIS IS A CLEAR INDICATOR OF HOW IMPORTANT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS ARE AND HOW INVESTED NEIGHBORHOOD INDIVIDUALS ARE AND COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS ARE IN THEIR PLANS.
BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, A HUGE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE CAME FORWARD IN THE LATE EIGHTIES, NINETIES AND EARLY TWO THOUSANDS TO CREATE THESE PLANS.
AND THEY HAVE A, UM, AN ELEMENT IN THEIR CODIFICATION THAT SAYS THAT THESE PLANS NEEDED TO BE UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS.
AND WE KNOW THAT DID NOT HAPPEN FOR WHATEVER REASON, CITY RESOURCES WERE NOT ALLOCATED TO ENSURE THAT THESE PLANS WERE UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS.
AND SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF FRUSTRATION THAT EXISTS WITH COMMUNITY PLANS THAT WERE DEVELOPED WITH ALL THE GOALS AND WISHES AND THEY DIDN'T GET REACHED.
AND THEN YOU SEE A NEW PLANNING PROCESS COME THROUGH AND YOU DON'T WANT YOUR HISTORY TO BE FORGOTTEN.
YOU DON'T WANT TO, UM, NOT REMEMBER THE ENGAGEMENT THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY HAPPENED UNDER THE GUISE OF THE CITY AND THE CREATION OF THE PLAN WITH ITS INTENTIONS.
AND SO, AS MR. ROSS SPOKE, AND IT'S VERY TRUE, AND I'VE SAID THIS, YOU KNOW, MANY OF THE DECISIONS WE MAKE TODAY INADVERTENTLY IMPACT CERTAIN AREAS MORE SO THAN OTHERS BECAUSE MANY AREAS OF OUR CITY ARE NOT PROTECTED BY RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESTRICTIONS, SPECIFICALLY THE OLDER AREAS, BECAUSE LET'S BE HONEST, HOAS DIDN'T EXIST IN THE 1920S, THIRTIES AND FORTIES.
AND WE KNOW WHERE OUR MOST VULNERABLE AREAS ARE BASED ON REDLINING THAT OCCURRED AND IN DISINVESTMENT THAT DIDN'T OCCUR IN CERTAIN AREAS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
SO I'M REALLY THANKFUL FOR HOW FAR THIS HAS COME,
[02:30:01]
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO URGE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE AS YOU MOVE FORWARD.
MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLEASE.
'CAUSE I KNOW THIS AMENDMENT FROM ITS ORIGINAL SUBMISSION AND WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY HAS BEEN MOVED MOUNTAINS IN MY OPINION.
SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT AND FOR THAT REASON, I MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY BIANCA.
SECOND BY, WAS IT MR. HANLEY? ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A QUICK FIVE MINUTE BREAK, GUYS, JUST TO GET A DONUT AND A CUP OF COFFEE.
UH, ITEM 20, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT.
ITEM 16 DASH FOUR FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
WE DID RECEIVE FOUR WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS IN SUPPORT.
I THANK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 21, DISCUSSION, A POSSIBLE ACTION AND U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 24 DASH THREE.
AND AS JACOB COMES UP, I'M GONNA RECOMMEND THAT WE LOOK AT THIS, UH, AT THE SAME TIME AS AMENDMENT 11 DASH ONE, BECAUSE BOTH PROPOSE SOME CHANGES TO THE SAME SECTION.
UH, I KNOW THAT, UH, THESE AMENDMENTS WENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE.
UH, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE ARE HERE TODAY, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE LOOKING AT, I DON'T WANNA APPROVE ONE AND THEN GET TO THE NEXT ONE AND REALIZE THERE WAS A CONFLICT.
FLOYD, UH, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MANAGER WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
UM, I DO HAVE SOME SLIDES I PUT TOGETHER FOR ALL THREE OF OUR ITEMS, BUT IF IT'S, UH, IF IT WORKS BETTER FOR, FOR THE COMMITTEE, WE CAN PULL UP 24 DASH THREE AND 11 DASH ONE, UH, AT THIS TIME AND SKIP THOSE SLIDES.
24 DASH THREE AND 11 DASH ONE.
WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, BY WAY OF SOME BACKGROUND, UM, WE FIRST PRESENTED, UH, THIS AMENDMENT TO THE TAC ON FEBRUARY 28TH, UH, AND LATER ONE OF OUR OTHER AMENDMENTS WAS, UH, BEFORE Y'ALL ON THE 11TH OF MARCH, I BELIEVE.
UM, AT THE FEBRUARY 28TH MEETING, THIS WAS REFERRED TO, UH, A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE TAC, WHICH MET TWICE ON MARCH 10TH AND MARCH 16TH.
UH, JUST A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE PROPOSED.
UM, SECTION, SORRY, AMENDMENT 24 DASH THREE, UH, CONCERNS SECTION 35 DASH 5 0 6.
IT'S AN AMENDMENT OF THE ROADWAY, CROSS SECTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS AMENDING, UM, UH, CREATING A NEW TABLE.
UH, OVERALL, THE ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE TO PROVIDE A CLEAR ALTERNATIVE TO INCLUDING BICYCLE LANES, UH, WITHIN THE STREET BY ALLOWING FOR A 12 FOOT WIDE MULTI-USE PATH, UH, IS A SUBSTITUTE IN SOME CASES, UH, ADJUSTING ON STREET PARKING WHERE IT'S PERMITTED, UM, REMOVING THE RANGES ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, UH, AND BREAKING THEM OUT MORE CLEARLY.
AND THEN ADJUSTING, UH, BLOCK LENGTHS AND TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES.
UH, SOME OF THE REVISIONS THAT THE, UH, SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDED, UM, WERE ADJUSTING THE WORDING FROM LOADED AND UNLOADED, UH, TO, UH, HOUSES RUNNING AND NO HOUSES RUNNING.
TO BE MORE CLEAR ABOUT THE INTENT OF THAT.
AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH, UM, EXISTING DEFINITIONS CHANGING IN OR IN, SORRY, UNINTERRUPTED, UH, TO UNIMPEDED CONCERNING BLOCK LINKS IN THE PROPOSED NEW TABLE.
UH, CHANGING THE SIDEWALK WIDTH, UH, FOR, UH, COLLECTORS B AND C FROM AN EIGHT FOOT MINIMUM TO A SIX FOOT MINIMUM.
UH, ADDING SOME ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY AND MULTI-USE PATH WIDTHS, UH, TO PROVIDE FOR SOME ADJUSTMENT WHERE CONSTRAINTS ARE PRESENT.
UH, CLARIFYING THAT BIKE FACILITIES MAY BE REQUIRED IN BOTH THE CITY LIMITS AS WELL AS THE E T J.
AND THEN ADDING REFERENCE TO THE BIKE MASTER PLAN.
[02:35:03]
UH, ADDITIONALLY, UM, SEVERAL OTHER SECTIONS WERE IDENTIFIED AS NEEDING, UH, ADJUSTMENTS TO, UM, ACCURATELY REFLECT THE ADJUSTED VALUES THAT WE PROPOSED IN THE NEW TABLE.5 0 6 DASH THREE, THOSE ARE LISTED HERE, I THINK.
SO AMENDMENT 11 DASH ONE WAS SUBMITTED, UH, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND IT PROPOSED ADDING, UH, REALLY JUST TWO CLARIFICATIONS.
ONE WAS A NOTE THAT BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE NOT REQUIRED ON A FREEWAY AND THAT ALL DESIGNS MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TDOT AND THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH THAT.
UH, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AS WE SCROLL FURTHER DOWN, PROPOSED SOME REVISIONS TO A, UH, TO A NOTE FIVE, UH, WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MET, UH, ACTUALLY ANOTHER AMENDMENT FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT PROPOSED ELIMINATING THE TABLE THAT THAT FIFTH NOTE BELONGED TO.
UH, SO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE PROCEED ONLY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL FOR THAT NOTE ONE.
ALRIGHT, IS THAT THE EXTENT OF YOUR, UH, YES SIR, THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY PRESENTATION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON, UH, 24 DASH THREE AT THIS TIME.
UH, JACOB, I KNOW THE CITY'S IN THE PROCESS OF, UH, REDOING THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN, BUT ISN'T THE CURRENT MULTI-USE PATH FOR BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS IN THE U D C JUST 10 FEET? AND I NOTICE YOU'RE, IT SAYS 12 FEET.
SO AM I MISSING SOMETHING AND HIGH POSSIBILITY THAT I AM? YES.
I, I BELIEVE THE, THE CURRENT IS 10 FEET.
UH, WE'RE PROPOSING 12 ON, UM, COLLECTOR A IS AN OPTION.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE ONLY INSTANCE NOW WHERE WE ARE, UH, UM, PROPOSING TO ALLOW A MULTI-USE PATH.
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JACOB, UH, THAT WAS BASED ON WHAT, UH, THE INCREASE, IT SEEMS LIKE I'VE HEARD SOME DIALOGUE IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS ABOUT WHY IT WAS WIDENED TO, TO FROM 10 TO 12, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD TODAY.
YEAH, I DON'T, I'M TAPPING IN FOR JACOB REAL QUICK.
AMY AVERY WITH KIMBERLY HORN, UM, WORKED WITH JACOB ON THESE AMENDMENTS.
SO THE 12 FOOT THERE, WE WIDENED THE, OR NARROWED THE WIDTH OF THE STREET, SO REMOVED PAVEMENT FROM THE STREET.
SO THAT WAS PART OF PROPOSING THE WIDER PATH.
THE OTHER PART STEMMED FROM A BUNCH OF RESEARCH, UM, DURING COVID ABOUT SOCIAL DISTANCING AND THE DISTANCE OF FOLKS FROM ONE ANOTHER.
SO THIS RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR WOULD BE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT'S WHERE THE GOAL WAS TO GET THE CYCLISTS OUT OF THE STREET AND ONTO THIS PATH.
SO IT'S, IT WAS A TRADE OFF BETWEEN MORE SIDEWALK DEPTH PAVEMENT AND LESS FULL DEPTH ROADWAY PAVEMENT.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR ME.
SO I HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS. YOU KNOW, THESE ARE PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO STREET SECTIONS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY ITEMS IS, SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE LOCAL, WE'RE GOING FROM 28 FEET OF PAVEMENT TO 30 FEET OF PAVEMENT.
SO ARE WE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, IF I FILED AN M D P AND I'VE JUST PLOTTED UNIT ONE, I'M ASSUMING I CAN BE APPLYING FOR RIGHTS DETERMINATION AND KEEP, 'CAUSE I'VE ALREADY LAID OUT MY LOTS, ASSUME MY DENSITY, AND HOW DO I NOW TRANSITION FROM A 28 FOOT TO A 30 FOOT? CAN I BE APPLYING FOR RIGHTS DETERMINATION OR IS THAT NOT GOING TO BE APPLICABLE? OR HOW DO I SUDDENLY CHANGE MID-PROJECT WHERE I'VE ALREADY ASSUMED LOTS AND LAID EVERYTHING OUT WITH 28 FEET GOING TO 30 FEET? I MEAN, I KNOW 28 FOOT OPTIONS IN HERE, BUT IT'S NEVER GONNA BE USED BECAUSE YOU BE STRICT PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN A SUBDIVISION.
SO WE'RE EFFECTIVELY GOING 28 TO 30.
HOW DO I DO THAT MID-PROJECT CONFIRMATION OF THAT BEFORE WE GO FORWARD? THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT SAYS IT'S A HEALTH SAFETY OR WELFARE.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.
I'VE SUBMITTED M D P, I'VE ASSUMED DENSITY.
I'VE LAID OUT MY WHOLE SUBDIVISION USING A 28 FOOT WIDE STREET.
SO WHERE DO I GO FOR THE REST OF MY PROJECT? SO IF YOU HAD AN UNDERLYING PERMIT THAT VEST, YOU SUBMITTED AN M D P, YOU LAID OUT YOUR STREETS, YOU COULD VEST TO THAT UNDERLYING PERMIT.
[02:40:01]
RIGHTS DETERMINATION FOR THIS SECTION OF THE CODE.I MEAN WE, WE JUST HAVE NEVER TRADITIONALLY APPLIED FOR RIGHTS ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M WANTING TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
EVEN, EVEN THE CITY'S TREE ORDINANCE IS A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD.
SO YOU CAN VEST OUTTA THAT WITH A VALID, UH, VALID UNDERLYING PERMIT.
AND NOBODY'S EVER DONE THAT ON OTHER SECTIONS.
SOME OF MY, OKAY, SO THAT'S ONE.
UM, IN THE CROSS SECTION, THE ONE IN FACT THAT WAS JUST UP THERE, THAT WAS SHOWING THE 12 FOOT WIDE MAKE MULTI-USE PATH.
THIS SHOWS A 12 FOOT ON BOTH SIDES.
SO TODAY'S CURRENT APPLICATION IS IF YOU DO A 10 FOOT SHARED USE ON ONE SIDE IN LIEU OF A BIKE LANE ON THE STREET, THE OTHER SIDEWALK IS ONLY A FIVE FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK.
ARE WE NOW SAYING YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO TWO 12 FOOT MULTI-USE PATHS BECAUSE THERE'S NO LANGUAGE IN THE TEXT THAT TELLS ME IT'S ON ONE OR TWO AND TODAY IT'S ONE.
THAT IS THE INTENT OF, UM, OF THE, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
SO THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
UM, THE OTHER QUESTIONS I HAVE IS WHAT ARE WE GO, I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO BE APPLYING FOR VARIANCE AFTER VARIANCE 'CAUSE WHERE WE HAVE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, UM, WITH TURN LANES, WHETHER D CELL LEFT, WHATEVER, YOU CAN'T FIT ALL OF THESE PATHWAYS AND LANES AND TURN LANES IN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY.
SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO, WHEN I'M ON AN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY AND I'M NOW PLATTING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THAT RIGHT OF WAY, AND I GOT A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK ON EACH SIDE AND THERE'S, OR I'M AT A CORNER WITH THE TURN LANE, AM I GOING TO BE EXPECTED TO DEDICATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY AND BUILD A 12 FOOT MULTI-USE PATH OR AM I GOING TO BE SUBMITTING FOR A VARIANCE TO THAT WITH BECAUSE IT NO RIGHT OF WAY? AND DOES IT MAKE SENSE? I MEAN, WHY DEDICATE RIGHT AWAY OR WHY BUILD 12 WHEN WHAT'S THERE IS FIVE OR 10? SO I, I THINK WHAT YOU MENTIONED WAS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
SO COLLECTOR A WOULDN'T BE ADJACENT TO THAT.
ALL OF THE RIGHT OF WAYS ACTUALLY THERE WAS A BIG RANGE BEFORE.
AND SO OTHER THAN THE LARGEST COLLECTOR, NOTHING IS BIGGER THAN WHAT IT WAS TODAY.
SO IF YOU HAD HAD THAT ESTABLISHED RIGHT AWAY AS PART OF YOUR NP BEFORE IT, THIS WOULD FIT.
BUT IF I'M ON AN EXISTING COLLECTOR, WHICH ISN'T CALLED AN A OR B OR C, IT'S A 70 FOOT WIDE COLLECTOR AND I'VE GOTTA BUILD SHARED YOUTH PATH 'CAUSE THERE'S NO SIDEWALK THERE TODAY AND I'VE GOT TURN LANES I DON'T FIT.
AND THAT'S THE EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCE TODAY WITH, WITH THE COLLECTOR IF YOU'RE IN A CORRIDOR THAT'S ALREADY NOT THAT WITH, SO, SO WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE COMMITTEE.
YEAH, IT WAS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST REASON I JOINED THE COMMITTEE MEETING BECAUSE I WAS, I SAID WOW, THESE ARE GREAT SET CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEWS, BUT THIS ISN'T REALITY WHERE I LIVE IN THE URBAN CORE, WHEN YOU'RE ASKED TO DO INFILL DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH RIGHT OF WAY AVAILABLE.
THE SIDEWALK WIDTH IS NOT A, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER THAN MAYBE FOUR FEET IN WIDTH.
AND SO WHILE THIS IS GREAT, IT DOESN'T ADDRESS ALL THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT THAT WOULD OCCUR.
AND THOSE ARE GONNA BE EXCEPTIONS.
THOSE ARE GONNA BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
IT WOULD NOT FIT THE STANDARD.
SO THE IRONY IS THAT I FELT THAT THIS WAS GREAT, LIKE DREAM IN THE SKY WHEN YOU HAVE VIRGIN LAND.
BUT IT ISN'T REALITY FOR A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE URBAN CORE ALONG SOME MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS WHERE YOU LOOK WHERE THERE IS RESTRICTED RIGHT OF RIGHT OF WAY.
AND I THINK OF LIKE, UM, CERTAIN AREAS OF BANDERA ROAD, CERTAIN AREAS OF FREDERICKSBURG ROAD, CERTAIN AREAS OF BLANCO, CERTAIN AREAS OF SAN PEDRO.
SO I MEAN THAT'S MY STRUGGLE IS WE'RE WRITING A CODE THAT WE KNOW WE'RE AUTOMATICALLY SUBMITTING A LOT OF VARIANCES FOR.
IT'S ONE THING TO SAY IF THIS CODE WAS SPECIFIC TO NEW BUILDS, THAT'S ONE CONVERSATION.
BUT THIS IS TO EVERYTHING WITH SOME AUTOMATIC EXCEPTIONS.
VARIANCES THAT HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, ADMINISTRATIVE AND A V R A FEE, A STAFF PROCESS AND ADMIN, YOU KNOW, VARIANCE EVERY SINGLE TIME.
IS THERE WAYS WE CAN ADD SOME CLARITY TO, YOU KNOW, BIANCA GEORGE, Y'ALL WERE ON THE COMMITTEE.
WAS THERE A CONSENSUS OF HOW TO ADDRESS THAT? OR IT'S JUST GONNA BE CASE BY CASE EVERY SINGLE TIME? IT'S A VARIANCE.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS STILL GONNA BE CASE BY CASE, WAS IT NOT? I MEAN THAT DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL.
ISN'T THAT KIND OF HOW SIDEWALKS WERE DONE? REMEMBER WHEN THERE WEREN'T SIDEWALKS AND THEN A NEW DEVELOPMENT WENT IN AND IT HAD TO MAKE PUT IN SIDEWALKS AND THERE WERE NO SIDEWALKS AND THE HOPE
[02:45:01]
WAS THAT EVENTUALLY THE OTHER SITES WOULD BE REDEVELOPED OR WILL ADD SIDEWALKS.IS THIS A SIMILAR, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S HOW IT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED? YES.
I MEAN THAT WAS THE, THE PREMISE OF IT IS THAT OVER TIME CAN YOU, CAN YOU USE THE MI MICROPHONE? THANK YOU.
AND SO WHAT DEPARTMENT IS GONNA BE REVIEWING THIS? A E V R? IS THIS A D S D? IS IT BECAUSE IT'S BICYCLE SHARED USE PATH? IT GOES TO MULTI, I MEAN, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S A PLATTING STANDARD AND SO ALL THE VARIANCES, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHEN WE WENT FROM A 60 TO A 70 FOOT COLLECTOR IN THE 40 AND 44, WE DID VARIANCES FOREVER ON THOSE COLLECTORS.
IS THIS A D S D AT E V R? YEAH.
THAT WOULD FALL UNDER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AS IT STANDS, THE ONLY ONE THAT WE DO SEND OUT FOR OUTSIDE CONSULTATION IS SIDEWALKS FOR A D A COMPLIANCE.
AND WE SEND IT TO OFFICE OF, UH, DISABILITY DISTRICT.
DISABILITY ACCESS OFFICE HERE.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS ON THE SECTIONS WHERE YOU HAVE THE BIKE LANES IN A DIVIDED ZONE IN THE PAVEMENT, WAS THERE DISCUSSION OF WHAT THAT, THAT DESIGN CRITERIA IS? IS THAT THE SAME PAVEMENT SECTION AS THE ROAD PAVEMENT? IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ASPHALT? IS THAT JUST STRIPED? WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION THAT'S SHOWING A LOVELY CROSS SECTION, BUT NOW WHEN YOU GET INTO THE REALITY OF HOW DO I DESIGN THAT STREET, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ITSELF? YES.
IS THIS, IS THIS THE ONE KARA, THE COLLECT DERBY? NO, THAT ONE TOO.
'CAUSE IT'S SHOWING, YOU KNOW, LIKE BIKE LINE LOOKS LIKE A PAVEMENT LANE VERSUS A MULTI-USE PATH.
AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ONE EITHER.
BUT RIGHT NOW, LIKE ON LOCAL C EXAMPLE TWO FOR GOTCHA.
WHERE YOU'RE SHOWING THE BIKE LANE IS PART OF THE PAVEMENT.
SO IF IT'S BETWEEN THE CURB, IT WOULD BE JUST AS IT IS TODAY, THE NORMAL PAVEMENT CROSS-SECTION IF IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CURB.
SO SOME OF THOSE OTHER ONES THAT WERE THERE, I KNOW WE FOR VISUALIZATION SHOWED THEM AS GREEN.
WE UNDERSTAND THEY, THEY WOULDN'T BE GREEN.
SO THEY'RE TWO ADJACENT FACILITIES.
THE IDEA WAS THERE WOULD BE A STRIPE OR A BRICK OR SOME DELINEATION, UM, BUILT INTO THERE ON THOSE WHERE IT'S OUTSIDE THE PAVEMENT.
SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE, IT'S LESS THICK CROSS SECTION WHEN IT'S BEHIND THE CURB.
BUT THAT WAS THE, THE INTENT THERE.
SO I MEAN LIKE ON THE COLLECTOR B WHERE WE'RE VISUALLY SHOWING THE BIKE AND SIDEWALK SIDE BY SIDE, THAT'S REALLY THE 12 FOOT MULTIUSE AND WE'RE NOT STRIPING THEM SEPARATELY.
THAT'S JUST THE 12 FOOT VISUALLY SEPARATED BIKE LANE AND AN 80 FOOT RIGHT AWAY.
UM, THAT ONE'S THE PHYSICALLY WITH THE DIVIDER AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS THE ONE WHERE THEY'RE SIDE BY SIDE.
THAT'S REALLY JUST A 12 FOOT SHARED USE PATH, RIGHT? FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, YES.
UM, THAT IS WHERE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES NEED TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF CATCH UP ONCE WE GET OVER THIS HURDLE AND DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THAT VISUAL SEPARATION LOOK LIKE? IS IT A SIGN THAT SAYS BIKES KEEP LEFT? OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS, HOW DO WE DEFINE, DEFINE THAT SPACE? BUT THAT WILL BE A DESIGN GUIDELINE.
WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES? I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR JACOB.
I THINK THEIR GROUP IS WORKING ON IT AS THEY WORK THROUGH THE BIKE MASTER PLAN.
UM, SO WE, WE DO HAVE A SOLICITATION THAT'S STILL OUT, SO I CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT A LOT.
BUT, UH, ONE OF THE DESIRED, UM, UH, TASKS THAT'LL BE INCLUDED IN THAT IS, IS LOOKING AT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND TYPOLOGIES.
UH, SO THAT'LL BE PART OF THIS.
UH, GOING BACK TO YOUR, YOUR QUESTION EARLIER, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THIS ESSENTIALLY THE 12 FOOT MULTI-USE PATH? IT IT IS, UH, FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, LIKE AMY SAID, THE IDEA WOULD JUST BE THAT THERE'S SPACE, UM, ALLOCATED FOR EACH DIFFERENT USER BY BIKE OR BIKE OR, OR WALKING.
UH, YOU STILL RIGHT THERE? I HAVE SOME WORD STUFF, BUT GO AHEAD.
UH, JACOB, UH, THE QUESTION IS, AND I I THINK, UH, CARE HAS DELINEATED A LOT OF THE CONCERNS, BUT AS WE HAD TALKED PREVIOUS AT ANOTHER MEETING WHERE YOU HAVE A MULTI-USE PATH, THAT MEANS THE BICYCLE IS ON THE PROPOSED CITY OF CURRENT CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BICYCLE MASTER PLAN.
AND I KNOW YOU'RE, YOU HAVE A SOLICITATION OUT.
UM, IF YOU CANNOT, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE, THE, UH, ENOUGH REAL ESTATE TO PUT IN A MULTI-USE PATH, THESE ARE THE STREET SECTIONS RIGHT HERE.
UM, HOW DOES AN APPLICANT COME TO YOU AND SAY, LOOK, WHY DO I NEED TO PUT IN A 12 FOOT BICYCLE MIXED YOUTH PATH WHEN ON
[02:50:01]
THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN? I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH REAL ESTATE SOUTH OR NORTH OR EAST OR WEST TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THAT.IT'S A PENALTY TO THE APPLICANT TO HAVE TO PUT IN SOMETHING THAT'S NOT CONNECTABLE TO AN OVERALL PLAN.
I HEARD THEY DON'T GO TO JACOB, THEY GO TO STEVEN'S TEAM AND GIVE THE A E V R PROCESS FOR JUSTIFICATION OF WHY IT'S THE THE REVIEW TEAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS AND PLATTS.
ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? YEAH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, CLEAR.
AND I REALIZE IT'S KIND OF OUTSIDE THE SCOPE, BUT ON THE MULTI-USE PATH, YOU'VE GOT YOUR BIKES AND YOUR PEDESTRIANS, COMMUTERS STILL BE IN THE STREET.
I MEAN, HOW IS THERE GONNA BE SPEED LIMITS OR BIKE? BIKE COMMUTERS? YEAH, SO THERE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO KEEP A BIKE FROM USING A, A ROAD VERSUS A MULTI-USE PATH.
UM, THESE ARE, THESE ARE LOW SPEED STREETS ANYWAY, UH, 30, 30 MILES, UH, 30 OR 35.
AND IN THE DESIGNS, IF IT'S IN THE STREET, IF WILL THEY ACTUALLY HAVE DRAINAGE GOING SOMEPLACE ELSE BESIDES UP AGAINST THE CURB IN THE BIKE LANE? WELL, IN, IN IN THIS EXAMPLE THERE, UH, WOULDN'T BE A MARKED BIKE LANE.
UH, YOU'D INSTEAD HAVE THE, THE MULTI-USE PATH.
UM, IN, IN, IN TERMS OF DRAINAGE, IT WOULD BE WHATEVER WOULD TYPICALLY BE REQUIRED ADD THAT.
I WILL SAY THAT WAS ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF MOVING THE BICYCLES OUTSIDE OF THE CURB LINE, UM, IN THE CROSS SECTIONS THAT DO THAT, WHICH IS THAT THEN THEY'RE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE DRAINAGE ANYMORE.
THEY'RE ELEVATED TO THE, TO THE HEIGHT OF THE SIDEWALK.
SOUNDS LIKE SOME DESIGN ISSUES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DEBBIE? THAT WAS IT, DEBBIE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IT'S WHATEVER THIS SECTION 12, DESIGN SPEED B.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS TWO LITTLE I I NEEDS 30 MILES PER HOUR AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS UNDER LOCAL B THAT ALL SAY 30 MILES AN HOUR.
WHEN, WHY DIDN'T WE JUST SAY LOCAL BEES? THERE'S DESIGN, STANDARD DESIGN SPEED IS 30 MILES AN HOUR.
BUT MS. TACKETT, I WAS JUST GONNA POINT OUT THAT CHRISTINA ENTERED THE ROOM AND I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WANTS TO ADD ANY MORE COMMENTS IF SHE'S BEEN FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION.
CHRISTINA NEVER HAS OPINIONS ON THE STREET CROSSING
I GUESS I WAS GONNA GO OVER THE QUESTION YOU HAD.
IS THAT, IS SHE TRYING TO ANSWER THIS? BIANCA ASKED YOU IF YOU HAVE OPINIONS ON ANY OF THESE CROSS SECTIONS.
WELL THESE WERE LOOKED AT WITH THE TEXT.
SO I MEAN IN THE SMALLER COMMITTEE I THINK WE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT.
I THINK SHE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, AND NOT TO PUT ANY WORDS IN HER MOUTH, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE, CHRISTINA, HOW WHAT HAPPENS, UM, WHEN SHE HAD AN EXISTING SITUATION FOR AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT, HOW THAT WOULD BE TREATED.
AND THOSE WERE ALL DONE THROUGH AN EXCEPTION.
CORRECT? WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN OUR SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH LAND TO MEET SOME OF THE, UH, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PUT FORTH IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
WHENEVER, LIKE YOU'RE IN THE CRAIG OR OR I, I SHOULD SAY ANTHONY, IN THE FOUR 10 THAT'S ALREADY KIND OF, YOU HAVE HOMES OR YOU MAY HAVE BUILDINGS THAT ARE FIXED THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY DEDICATE AND THOSE WE DO DO 'EM RIGHT NOW THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES WHERE YOU, THERE ARE THOSE CONSTRAINTS.
SHE WAS REITERATING THAT BASED ON THIS UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT, A AMEND UNIFIED U D C AMENDMENT, THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO BE DONE.
THE PAIN IN THE BUTT OF US WRITING THEM AND THE TIME TO PROCESS.
SO I MEAN I GUESS I'M GONNA JUST KINDA KEEP HARPING ON THAT.
BUT IN THE COMMITTEE, WAS THERE A DISCUSSION OF TRYING TO MAKE IT WHERE CERTAIN ROADS WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS,
[02:55:01]
THIS DOESN'T APPLY IF IT CAN'T BE MET LIKE AN AUTOMATIC OR DID WE JUST SAY NO, WE'RE GONNA COLLECT OUR 300 BUCKS AND PASS GO AND MR. HANLEY AND I TALKED ABOUT WE DID RAISE THOSE CONCERNS IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WE DID TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THERE WASN'T ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT EXEMPTING OR TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC CORRIDORS WHERE WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE EXISTING CONFLICTS.UM, SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
I MEAN I, THAT WAS MY POINT IN BEING INVOLVED.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAVE ANYTHING TO ADDRESS.
MAYBE FROM THE APPLICANT'S STANDPOINT, I THINK ONE THING TO CONSIDER IS THAT THE LOCAL C CROSS SECTION THAT'S INTRODUCED TO THIS ALLOWS THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDES SOME FLEXIBILITY.
SO IN A LOT OF CASES WE WOULD SEE THAT THAT CROSS SECTION AND THE MIX AND MATCH ABILITY THAT'S PROVIDED THERE WOULD ALLOW SOME OF TO CATCH SOME OF THOSE AVS AND YOU KNOW, NOT HAVE THEM BE AS APPLICABLE.
NO, I MEAN IF YOU'RE ALREADY ON A COLLECTOR ARTERIAL, YOU'RE ON A COLLECTOR ARTERIAL, YOU CAN'T CALL IT A LOCAL SEAT.
SO I GET IF YOU'RE ALREADY ON A COLLECTOR ARTERIAL AND YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT ESTABLISHED RIGHT OF WAY, IS IT THE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK THAT'S THE, MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FIT A SIDEWALK IN.
YOU MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH RIGHT OF WAY TO PUT THE 12 FOOT.
YOU MAY BE BUILDING A 12 FOOT THAT CONNECTS TO A FOUR FOOT OR A FIVE FOOT.
SO AM I GONNA BUILD A 12 THAT JUST DEAD ENDS AT FOUR OR FIVE? YOU KNOW, THERE ARE AC A LOT OF LITTLE, YOU KNOW, AND WE SEE IN COLLECTORS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE TURN LANES YOU DON'T FIT AND THEN YOU EITHER HAVE TO COME IN FOR A VARIANCE ON A SIDEWALK OR YOU HAVE TO PUT IT IN A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT.
THE COUNTY ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY DESPISES PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS FROM A LIABILITY PERSPECTIVE.
WE GO ROUND AND ROUND ON THOSE AND CITY DOES THEM, BUT NOBODY LOVES THEM.
SO I MEAN WE KNOW ON EXISTING COLLECTORS MORE THAN ANYWHERE OR EVEN, YOU KNOW, A SECONDARY ARTERIAL RETURN LANES, WE'LL HAVE MORE AAVS THAN NOT.
THIS IS EASY ON NEW BUILD, IT'S ON EXISTING, IT'S NOT.
IT'S ADDING MONEY ON NEW BUILD.
SO DID WE LOOK AT WHAT THE ADDED COST OF ALL THIS IS? WE DID.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY A COMPARISON, UM, THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE WITH THE INITIAL APPLICATION.
SO THE MAJORITY, NOT ALL, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE CROSS SECTIONS BECAUSE OF THE REDUCED PAVEMENT WIDTH ON A LOT OF THOSE WOULD'VE WOULD'VE BEEN A REDUCTION.
THE LOCAL A IF PEOPLE WANNA PARK ON BOTH SIDES, THAT IS THE ONE THAT IS, THAT SAW AN INCREASE.
THE REST OF THEM ALL WERE NARROWED AS PART OF THIS FROM THE FULL DEATH PAVEMENT STANDPOINT.
I DON'T THINK WE ACTUALLY SAW THE COST IMPLICATION ON THIS.
I DON'T REMEMBER US DISCUSSING THE COST.
WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT AT THE LAST TAG MEETING.
BUT IT SAID SOMETHING ON THE APPLICATION THAT SAYS A COMPARISON BY STREET TYPE IS ATTACHED BUT YOU DON'T HAVE AN ATTACHMENT.
AND IT SAYS THERE ARE SEVERAL NEW STREET TYPES THAT PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY AND COULD RESULT IN COST SAVINGS NOT CAPTURED.
SO, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHAT THAT IS.
I MEAN MY ONLY ISSUES ARE EXISTING ROADWAYS AND WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO ADDRESS IT.
AND WE'RE JUST SAYING, AH, GET TO IT CASE BY CASE.
FIGHT IT OUT CASE BY CASE AND AND WHICH IS JUST FRUSTRATING AND A BAD, NOT A GREAT WAY TO BE DOING THIS.
AND THEN JUST THE CONCERN ON WHEN WE GET TO THE DETAILS OF WHAT THE DESIGN STANDARDS DO THAT TIE TO THESE CROSS SECTIONS.
THERE'S A LOT OF KIND OF CONFUSION AND IT'D BE NICE IF THEY WERE HAND IN HAND.
I GET THAT THEY'RE NOT, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT AT THAT TIME.
I GUESS QUESTION FOR THE A V R AND CITY STAFF, WHAT'S THE AVERAGE TIME FOR AAVS TO BE PROCESSED RIGHT NOW? WELL, I WOULD SAY THE ONES FROM STREETS TRAFFIC AND T I A ARE TAKING LONGER.
WE, WE ARE NOW FILLING OUR POSITIONS.
SO I WOULD SAY ON AVERAGE RIGHT NOW IT'S TAKING BETWEEN TWO TO FOUR WEEKS.
WELL, BY OUR AGREEMENT WE ARE TRYING TO DO 'EM IN TWO WEEKS.
[03:00:01]
SIDEWALK ONCE AS WELL? YES.THAT ALSO GOES BY THE SIDEWALK ONES AND THOSE WHO HAVE TO GET COORDINATED WITH OUR DISABILITIES OFFICE.
WELL THE 12 FOOT SHARED PATH HAVE TO GO TO DISABILITY OR AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE FIVE FOOT YOU'RE YOU, IT ONLY IS A D S D REVIEW.
IF IT'S ONLY THE BIKE FACILITY, THEN THAT STAYS WITHIN D S D.
AND YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I LOVE AVS AS MUCH AS WE LOVE RIDING THEM, CHRISTINA, WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE SOME GO AWAY.
SO WE ADDED SOME LANGUAGE AND TWEAKED THAT DURING THE COMMITTEE PROCESS FOR ISOLATED CONSTRAINTS BEING NARROWER, UM, TO ELIMINATE A LOT OF THOSES.
BUT THIS IS A COMPARISON THAT WAS, UM, PREPARED AS FAR THAT DIDN'T, I GUESS GET ATTACHED WITH WHAT MADE IT OUT.
SO A SECONDARY ARTERIAL IS GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE BY BASICALLY $50 A LINEAR FOOT AND A LOCAL A IS GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE BY BASICALLY $20 A LINEAR FOOT.
AND THOSE ARE PROBABLY COSTS THAT ARE ABOUT A HUNDRED PERCENT LOW.
'CAUSE THEY WERE DONE YEAH, SIX MONTHS AGO AS IS.
EVERY, EVERY COST THE PRICE WAS GOOD FOR 48 HOURS.
AT THAT TIME THAT'S EXPIRED
YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE'S NO MAGIC PILL OR BUTTON YOU COULD PUSH TO SOLVE IT.
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME, BASED ON MY YEARS OF WORKING HERE, IS THAT MAKING THE A E V E R PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE VARIETY OF CONDITIONS WE HAVE ALL AROUND THE CITY, WOULD BE THE GOAL.
HOW DO WE MAKE THAT EASIER? SO IT'S NOT SUCH A BURDEN BECAUSE THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY, UH, ODDBALL CONDITIONS OUT THERE.
I MEAN I THINK THAT TO HIS POINT, THIS IS REALLY TRYING TO PUT A PATH FORWARD, A MASTER PLAN MOVING FORWARD, RIGHT? IT'S NOT REALLY ADDRESSING THE BIG BOTTLENECK ISSUE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP.
UM, BUT THAT WASN'T WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT PER SE.
BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT DOES HAVE A DOMINO EFFECT IF IT THROWS MORE PROPERTIES AND MORE APPLICATIONS IN THAT DIRECTION.
SO I KNOW THAT WE CAN ONLY TAKE ACTION ON THIS AND NOT REALLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY ISSUE THAT D S D DOES IN ADDRESSING THIS, BUT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A NET RESULT THAT A GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS, WHICH COULD INCLUDE YOURSELF, UH, COULD SIT DOWN AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH D S D TO HELP RECTIFY THAT SITUATION.
I KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE COME OUT OF THE P TTAC FOR OTHER PEOPLE HAVE COME FORWARD TO HELP THEM IN OTHER AREAS.
AND IT, IT DOES SHINE A LIGHT SOMETIMES ON THINGS THAT MAYBE NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THAT ARE, THAT ARE IMPACTING DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS COULD BE ONE OF THEM.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT, I WOULD WELCOME TO HELP YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, TO GO WITH A STAKEHOLDER GROUP TO COME BACK AND SAY HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE TIMEFRAME AND HOW CAN YOU ENSURE THAT THERE'S MORE, UM, STREAMLINED VERSION FOR, FOR THAT.
AND MAYBE THAT'S A SUBCOMMITTEE ITEM WE TAKE UP AS A DISCUSSION, BUT NOT THROUGH A U D C AMENDMENT MOVING FORWARD.
I JUST WANNA SEE THAT THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS OUT THERE TO STILL SOLVE SOME PROBLEMS WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING A U D C AMENDMENT.
UM, 'CAUSE I KNOW WE ALL WANNA MOVE THIS ONE FORWARD, I HOPE, UM,
SO, UM, IN AN EFFORT OF MOVING IT FORWARD, UM, DO YOU FEEL THAT THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS PROPOSED TODAY, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE
I MEAN I THINK THE PROBLEM IS IT'S FINE AS IS AND IT'S GONNA BE A MESS WHEN WE GET TO IMPLEMENTING IT.
THAT'S, I MEAN, AS THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS, THIS IS A MESS.
WHEN WE GET TO IMPLEMENTING IT, THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT.
WE DIDN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT TREES EITHER, RIGHT? THIS IS A COMPLETE MESS.
SO, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT.
AND SO PART OF IT I AM LOOKING TO D S D IS CAN WE THROUGH A POLICY CREATE A DIFFERENT STREAMLINED A E V R PROCESS FOR THIS TYPE OF THING? THIS TYPE OF THIS BIG OF A CHANGE IN CODE? 'CAUSE THIS IS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
[03:05:01]
THIS ISN'T JUST A LITTLE, OH, WE MADE SIDEWALKS WIDER.I I THINK THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE A CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE ARE IMPLEMENTING A POLICY THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY IS, IS GOOD, IT'S AMBITIOUS, IT'S WHERE WE WANT TO GO.
BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF, THERE ARE A LOT OF UNINTENDED PROBLEMS THAT COME ALONG WITH IT.
I, I CERTAINLY KNOW THAT WE'RE OPEN TO DISCUSSING A WAY TO STREAMLINE THE REVIEW OF AAVS.
IF, ESPECIALLY, I MEAN FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, IF WE ARE GONNA SEE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER THAT ARE SUBMITTED, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MORE EFFICIENT ON THOSE IN GETTING THOSE TURNED AROUND.
I, I CAN'T COMMIT TODAY WHEN THAT'S GONNA BE DONE, WHEN WE'RE GONNA START, BUT I'M SURE AS A DEPARTMENT WE WOULD BE OPEN TO HAVING THAT CONVERSATION.
SO KARA, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS SOMETHING LIKE, UH, WHEN WE GET TO RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION IN THE CRAG, YOU'VE SIMPLY REFERENCED YOU'RE IN THE CRAG AND IT GETS STREAMLINED AND MOVED ALONG BECAUSE THERE IS NO MORE DEDICATION TO GET.
I MEAN WE'RE ALSO, I MEAN, THINK OF HOW MANY ADDITIONAL RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS WE'RE GONNA BE SUBMITTING.
WE DON'T, I MEAN IN THE 20 YEARS, 20 PLUS YEARS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, WE DON'T SUBMIT RIGHTS FOR ANYTHING REALLY OTHER THAN TREES.
EVERY TIME WE'VE CHANGED IT, WE'VE JUST SAID, OKAY, YOU KNOW, AND GONE WITH THE NEW THIS FOR A WHILE BECAUSE OF WHERE WE'RE AT IN PROJECTS, WE WILL BE SEEING A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS AS WELL.
AND SO THAT'S A, THIS WILL IMPACT PROCEDURALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING ON PROJECTS UNTIL WE CLEAR A BACKLOG IN ANYTHING THAT'S AN INFILL WILL HAVE.
SO YES, STEVEN, IT'S KIND OF LIKE CRAIG, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THERE, YOU DO, YOU DON'T CERTAIN THINGS.
IF WE CAN GET TO THAT KIND OF PROCESS, THIS IS FINE FOR BRAND NEW.
WHEN YOU STARTING FRESH, IT'S HARD MID-PROJECT PLUS LIKE ON, RIGHT? THAT'S KEEPING YOU OUT OF THE MUD WHEN YOU'RE ALREADY, YOU'VE ALREADY GOT YOUR COSTS, YOU'VE ALREADY GOT EVERYTH EVERYTHING DONE AND NOW YOU'VE GOT THIS.
I'D SAY SAME THING ON RIGHTS DETERMINATION.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE CURRENT CATEGORIES THAT ARE A D S D RIGHTS DETERMINATION AND SOME THAT HAVE TO GO TO CITY ATTORNEYS.
YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THE CATEGORIES.
THIS IS SAME KIND OF CONCEPT TO ME.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PROCEDURALLY ON THE CITY SIDE WE'VE GOTTA WORK OUT TO MAKE THIS WORK.
DO WE NEED TO PUT SOME LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU ARE ON UNIT FIVE OF AN M D P THAT THIS, YOU'RE, THIS THE DATE OF THE, IF IF YOUR M D P WAS APPROVED BEFORE THE DATE OF THIS REVISION, THEN YOU'RE CLEAR TO KEEP GOING.
SO YOU'RE SAYING AUTOMATIC RATHER THAN HAVING TO COME IN FOR RIGHTS.
YEAH, BECAUSE I MEAN THAT'S A NO THAT IT'S NOT GONNA WORK.
IT'S A KILLER IF YOU YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT WHERE WOULD YOU STICK THE LANGUAGE? BUT TO GEORGE'S POINT, WHAT HE'S SAYING IS IF YOU FILED YOUR M D P AND IT'S APPROVED, YOU'RE GOOD.
VERSUS OH NO RIGHTS DETERMINATION, I GOT APPROVED.
I HAVEN'T CHANGED USES, I HAVEN'T CHANGED CONDITIONS, I HAVEN'T BEEN DORMANT FOR FIVE YEARS.
I HAVE TO SUBMIT ALL OF THAT TO PROVE THAT I'M STILL DOING THE SAME THING THAT APPLIES OR VERSUS PUTTING IN CODE WHERE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO THEN COME IN WITH THAT DOCUMENTATION AND IT'S GONNA REDUCE EVERYBODY'S WORKLOAD.
IT'S GONNA BE A LOT OF LESS ON STAFF'S PLATE, A LOT LESS ON THE ENGINEER'S PLATE.
AND QUITE FRANKLY IT SOLVES HALF OF THE A OR HALF OF THE PAPERWORK WE'D HAVE TO DO TO TO FOR RIGHTS.
SO THEN WE'D HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ABRS, BUT AT LEAST THE RIGHTS PART, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST SCARY PART IS OUT OF THE WAY.
SO I'M GONNA CHIME IN AS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SAY, I WOULD HAVE, I WOULD'VE CONCERNS WITH THAT.
LIKE I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ALL WOULD WANT THAT.
UM, BUT, BUT THE RIGHTS DETERMINATION PROCESS AND THE VESTING PROCESS AND ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT, IT'S A LEGAL REVIEW.
UM, AND SO I THINK THAT WHEN YOU START ADDING THINGS IN LIKE THAT, IT IT COMPLICATES IT ACTUALLY, RATHER THAN MAKES IT EASIER FOR US TO SOME EXTENT, ANYTHING IS INVESTIBLE OR RIGHTS AS LONG AS IT'S NOT DEEMED A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE.
AND YOU COULD NOT ARGUE THIS IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY, BUT WHAT GEORGE IS TRYING TO GET THROUGH IS YES, LET'S NOT ADD ONE MORE PROCESS THAT ALREADY TAKES A LONG TIME, THAT ALREADY COMES WITH A FEE.
KEN'S LIKE, PLEASE LET ME FILE MORE RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS,
[03:10:01]
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED, BUT I'D LIKE TO ADD THE STRONGEST COMMENT I COULD THAT STAFF WORK WITH A STAKEHOLDER GROUP FOR IMPLEMENTATION BECAUSE THERE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS THAT WE EVEN SPOKE ABOUT IN OUR COMMITTEE ABOUT ALL THE EXCEPTIONS, UH, BASED ON THE BUILT OUT AREA OF THE CITY AND THE URBAN CORE WHERE THERE'S NOT PROPER RIGHT OF WAY.LIKE I'VE ALWAYS SAID, THESE SE CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEWS ARE DREAMS FOR VIRGIN STREETS, BRAND NEW LAY DOWN STREETS.
THESE ARE, THESE ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR INFIELD DEVELOPMENT AND IN THE URBAN CORE.
JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR IS THAT I KNOW THAT WE HAD KIND OF CONSIDERED 24 3 AND 11 DASH ONE TOGETHER.
IS THAT A MOTION FOR BOTH? A MOTION FOR BOTH THE COMMENT? YES.
SO YOUR MOTION IS FOR BOTH? YES, SIR.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I KNOW KARA HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, UH, SECTION 12 B UNDER DESIGN SPEED.
IT'S MORE A COMMENT, IT'S MORE OF A, YEAH, SHE HAD A COMMENT AND I'VE GOT A COMMENT ALSO.
SHE, HER COMMENT WAS ON NUMBER ONE, LOCAL B IS WHY IS ANY OF THAT REALLY EVEN NECESSARY? 'CAUSE IT ALL JUST BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE DESIGN SPEED IS 30 MILES AN HOUR AND THE TABLE ALREADY SAYS IT.
SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARY.
UM, AND THE NEXT ONE ON COLLECTOR A, IT SAYS IF THE STREET HAS A MEDIAN, THE DESIGN SPEED IS 35 MILES AN HOUR.
UM, AND THEN NUMBER TWO SAYS IF THE STREET DOES NOT HAVE A MEDIAN, THE DESIGN SPEED SHALL BE 30 MILES AN HOUR.
WELL, ON THE CHART, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHART FOR ELECTOR A, IT SAYS THAT THE DESIGN SPEED IS 30 MILES AN HOUR.
SO IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE YOU NEED A NOTE ON THE CHART TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT SAYS IT HERE, BUT YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT AS WELL THAT A MEETING.
YEAH, YOU MIGHT AS WELL PUT A NOTE AND A LITTLE SUB NOTE OR WHATEVER AND SAY IF IT HAS A MEETING, IT SHALL BE 35, OTHERWISE YOU'RE GONNA GET MISSED.
YEAH, I DON'T, DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.
AND DID THEY PICK UP YOUR OTHER COMMENT, KARA, YOUR OTHER YES.
SHE ADDED MILES WHERE IT JUST SAYS 30 PER HOUR.
I SECOND THE MOTION AS AMENDED.
YOU ADDED THE FOOTNOTE UP THERE.
ANY OTHER LAST COMMENTS OR ISSUES WITH THIS ITEM? WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED FOR ITEM 24 DASH THREE.
AND WAS IT 11 DASH ONE FROM BIANCA, THE SECOND BY DEBBIE REED? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OKAY, COME ON TAP FOR THE RECORD.
IT IS 3 56 AND ALEX IS LEAVING THE ROOM.
ITEM NUMBER 23, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION ON U D C AMENDMENT ITEM 24 DASH ONE.
UH, AMENDMENT 24 DASH ONE IS A, UH, AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO SECTION 35 5 0 6 T THAT RESTATES MORE CLEAR, CONCISE LANGUAGE THAT BICYCLE FACILITIES, UH, ARE REQUIRED ON ALL COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROAD ROADWAYS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, UH, IN E T J OR ON THOSE FACILITIES IDENTIFIED ON THE BIKE MASTER PLAN.
THIS IS KIND OF AN AFTER THE FACT.
DID ANYBODY ACTUALLY MEET WITH THE COUNTY ON ALL THESE REVISED STREET SECTIONS? SINCE THERE'S NO LONGER ANNEXATION? THE COUNTY OWNS THIS MESS FOREVER.
SO DID WE ACTUALLY TALK TO THEM? THEY WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL GROUP IN 2019 THAT DID THE BULK OF THE REARRANGING, UM, OF THESE,
[03:15:03]
WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO 'EM IN THREE YEARS.VARIOUS PIECES OF IT HAVE GONE THROUGH.
THEY'VE, THEY'VE BEEN INVITED TO EVERYTHING.
UM, THEIR ATTENDANCE HAS BEEN SPOTTY, BUT SO BEAR COUNTY WAS INVITED TO THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, UM, WHERE THEY, I DON'T KNOW THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, NOT, NOT THE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS, BUT CALL BOB AND RENEE.
WE HAVE 24 DASH ONE, UH, SHOWN ON THE SCREEN NOW.
IS THERE ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS ON THIS ITEM? DEBBIE REED? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS FINE, BUT WE HAVE AN OLD BICYCLE MASTER PLAN CURRENTLY, AND I'M JUST LOOKING FOR THE LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT IN THE BIKE FACILITIES IF THEY ARE NOT CONNECTABLE TO THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN.
NOW I KNOW THAT JACOB AND HIS TEAM, THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING A CONSULTANT TO REDO THIS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S, I THINK IT'S 2010 JACOB, THE CURRENT ONE.
SO IT'S 12 YEARS OLD AND IF I LOOK AT THIS THERE, IT'S AN ALL OR NOTHING.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN, IT HAS A PRIORITY ON BICYCLE LANES AND IT SAYS RECOMMENDED, BUT THE CITY D S D HAS ADOPTED THAT, THAT EVEN IF IT'S RECOMMENDED, YOU HAVE TO DO IT IF YOU'RE AN APPLICANT OR DEVELOPER ON THAT PROPERTY AND YOU'RE AN ADJOINING THERE.
SO I, I GUESS KNOWING THAT SOME OF THE OBSTACLES AND THE INABILITY TO MAKE A, A, A LINK FROM ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME WAY TO SAY IF, AND I KNOW IF IT'S CONNECTABLE, BUT IF IT'S NOT IMPLEMENTABLE OR CONNECTABLE, I, I JUST WORRY ABOUT THE WAY THIS LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN.
A E V R N O S H I T
I, I SECONDED THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR SPANISH BACK HERE.
WHAT SUBSECTION WAS THAT GOING TO BE INSERTED? UNDER
BUT I MEAN, I THINK ROBERT, IN THE LAST AMENDMENT, WE BASICALLY SAID THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN IS IRRELEVANT ANYMORE.
YOU BUILD A COLLECTOR ARTERIAL, YOU HAVE EITHER COMBINED OR SEPARATE.
IT'S THE UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT THE STREET SECTIONS ARE AND ABOUT.
AND IF YOU'RE INVOLVED IN THAT ARENA, WE JUST WORRY ABOUT THAT.
IT'S NOT CLEAR RIGHT THERE WITH YOU.
LIKE THE, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME IF YOU DRAW, IF YOU PASS IT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? DID WE HAVE A MOTION BY DEBBIE REED AND A SECOND BY BIANCA? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 24, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEM 24 DASH TWO.
LASTLY, UH, 24 DASH TWO IS A AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO SECTION 35 5 0 6 T, UH, TO REVISE THE LIST OF TRAFFIC CALMING CONTROL FEATURES PRESENTED, UH, IN TABLE 5 0 6 DASH EIGHT.
UM, YOU ADD, YOU ADD TO THAT? NO.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM?
[03:20:01]
ALL RIGHT.WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. CHERYL.
AND ITEM NUMBER, HAVE WE HAD ANY, UM, TO GO BACK, BUDDY? COME BACK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
I I THINK THAT WE ARE READY TO COME BACK FOR THIS ONE.
WHAT, WHAT WAS THAT, LOGAN? I BELIEVE, UH, THEY DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK SOME LANGUAGE OUT AND WERE READY TO PROCEED.
WE DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONVENE AND HAVE COME TO CONSENSUS.
UM, SO FOR THE MOST PART, A FAIR NUMBER OF OUR AMENDMENT, UH, REQUESTS WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED.
THIS WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED AS WELL.
IF YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN TO 15 FIVE, OR, I'M SORRY.
SO WE HAVE AGREED TO MAINTAIN THE MLR ONE AT A MAXIMUM OF 3000 AS IT'S ALREADY BEING CONSIDERED.
AND ALSO TO RETAIN, UM, OUR ORIGINAL AMENDMENT OF ML R TWO AT 3000 AS WELL.
THE STREET LIGHTING IS ALREADY, UH, TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FURTHER DOWN IN THIS ORDINANCE.
AND THEN, UH, C P S HAS REQUESTED THE ADDITION OF THE ANSEL LIGHTING THAT THEY INSTALLED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXEMPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE.
SO THIS WILL ALLOW US TO MAINTAIN THE SAFETY AND SECURITY ON THOSE, UH, COLLECTOR AND MAJOR ROADS AT THAT 4,000 KELVIN, BUT WILL ALSO ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A 3000 KELVIN RESTRICTION, UM, MAXIMUM OF THAT C C T FOR ALL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING, UH, THAT APPEARS WITHIN THE M L O D.
SAY THAT AGAIN? HOW DID HE KEEP KEPT THE FOUR? HOW WE SWITCHED ALL THE STREET LIGHTING FOR THE THREE? NO, THE, SO THE, THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT C P S FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFETY AND SECURITY WERE MAINTAINING THE STREET LIGHTS AT THE 4,000.
YOU'RE SCROLLING THAT CRAZY THROUGH THERE AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT, GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
SO WE, WE HAVE REMOVED OUR AMENDMENTS TO THIS SECTION HERE THAT WILL REMAIN AS IS CURRENTLY ON THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S 15 SUBSECTION C THAT THEY CHANGED THEIR AMENDMENTS AND REMOVED IT BEFORE THERE WAS, UM, IT WAS THE 3000 WAS GOING DOWN TO 2,700 AND THE 4,000 WAS GOING DOWN TO 3000.
BUT AFTER TALKING WITH UM, C P SS ENERGY, THEY, THEY REMOVED THOSE AMENDMENTS THERE.
SO WHAT DOES THE ONE ABOVE THAT CHANGES IN ONE AND TWO TO 3000 DO? SO BY
SO WHAT, WHAT THIS WILL MEAN IS THAT THE STREET LIGHTING IS UNDER THEIR OWN ADHERENCE OF THAT MAXIMUM OF 4,000.
WE'VE REMOVED THE NEED FOR MLR ONE TO BE ANYTHING LOWER BECAUSE THAT WAS ALREADY SET AT 3000 AND WE'VE AGREED TO RETAIN OUR AMENDMENT TO MLR TWO FROM 4,000 OR 4,100 TO 3000 BECAUSE IT, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE STREET LIGHTING.
SO LOGAN, WHAT THAT'S SAYING IS THAT'S A LINING ONE AND TWO WITH WHAT WE ADOPTED CITYWIDE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
WELL THERE'S A CORRECTION 'CAUSE THIS DOES INCLUDE ALL, UH, RESIDE RESIDENTIAL, NOT JUST CORRECT.
THE OTHER ONE WAS JUST PARKING STANDARDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT WAS IN PARKING LOADING STANDARDS, BUT IT'S THE SAME 3000 THAT'S APPLIC, THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL, BASICALLY 3000 EXCEPT FOR C P S LIGHTS ON COLLECTOR'S, ARTERIALS OR TEXTILES.
AND THIS IS JUST WITHIN THE M L O D ONE AND TWO, NOT MM-HMM.
CITYWIDE WAS THE OTHER ONE FOR PARKING STANDARDS.
WHAT WAS THAT OTHER ONE? YOU HAD ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS.
WHERE WAS THAT AT? SO AT THE, THE VERY BOTTOM 20, AN ADDITION OF 20 K, WHICH EXEMPTS THE C P S INSTALLED ANSIL, THE ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS.
AND, AND THOSE WILL STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE 3000 AND 4,000 IN THE M L O D DISTRICTS AS PRESCRIBED.
AND WHERE, WHERE WAS THAT? WAS THAT IN THIS NO, IT WAS NOT.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE HERE IN FRONT OF US.
IT'S A NEW ONE THEY JUST AGREED TO.
[03:25:01]
HIGHLIGHTED SUFFICIENTLY? I GUESS IT SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S THE PART THAT'S CONFUSING EVERYBODY.EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? UM, THIS IS SIPES.
UM, SO THAT NEW EXEMPTION THAT WOULD NOW APPLY TO THE M O D ONE AS WELL, WHERE IT PREVIOUSLY DID NOT APPLY, WHERE PREVIOUSLY C P S DID HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RESTRICTIONS IN M O D ONE.
THIS NOW EXCLUDE ADDS THE EXEMPTION THAT THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT WANNA SPEAK.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? SO, SO, SO ESSENTIALLY THE STREET LIGHTING IS STAYING AS IS, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR ROADWAY, WE'RE, WE'RE AGREEING THAT WE'RE NOT, THEY'RE AGREEING THAT THEY'RE STRIKING THE AMENDMENT.
SO STREET LIGHTING REMAINS AT ITS CURRENT LEVEL, BUT BECAUSE OUTDOOR LIGHTING IS SO VAGUE AND IT ALSO PICKS UP ON OUR ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS THAT ARE INSTALLED, UH, AT THE REQUEST OF A CUSTOMER, UM, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THEY BE EXEMPT FROM THAT.
SO BECAUSE THEY'RE DROPPING THE MLR ONE TO BE EQUAL TO MLR TWO ALSO AT 3000.
SO ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE ML R ONE AND TWO BEING 3000.
WE ARE ASKING THAT OUR, OUR NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTS BE EXEMPT FROM THAT AND WE TYPICALLY INSTALL THOSE AND CONTINUE TO INSTALL 'EM AT 3,004,000 K.
BUT TODAY IN A ML ONE, YOU, IN ORDER TO INSTALL AN ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTING, IT HAS TO BE FULL CUTOFF AND COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE THRESHOLD IS TODAY.
SO WE WOULD, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE SAYING IN ML ONE AND TWO, YOU NO LONGER HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE FULL CUTOFF IN ALL OF THAT.
SO WE'RE LOOSENING THAT IN THOSE AREAS.
ISN'T THAT ALREADY THE STANDARD? SO OUR STANDARD IS A FULL CUTOFF LIGHT.
IF, IF, IF THAT IS A CONCERN, IT COULD BE ALL NIGHT FULL CUTOFF, ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHT, YOU KNOW, AND ADD A VERBIAGE TO SAY FULL CUTOFF.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FULL, HE'S SAYING FULL CUTOFF AK DOWN LIGHTING.
BUT WITH BRIGHT IS HIS WORD LAMP IS WHAT WOULD BE EXEMPT.
BUT TODAY IT'S NOT EXEMPT IN ONE AND TWO.
TODAY ARE ANSEL'S CAPPED AT A CERTAIN LUMEN? UH, THEY'RE NOT CA BY LUMEN.
UH, THEY'RE CA BY C C T, UH, MLR ONE IS 3000 K.
SO THIS EXEMPTION, ARE THEY CAPPED BY ANYTHING IF THIS GETS APPROVED? NO.
WE WOULD INSTALL OUR STANDARD LIGHT, WHETHER IT'S UM, AT 3000 OR 4,000 COVEN.
UM, THEN, AND I RECOMMEND WE ADD LANGUAGE TO THE EXCEPTION THAT SAYS, HOWEVER, IT CANNOT EXCEED CERTAIN CCT.
SO WHAT, WHAT IS THE TITLE OF THE SECTION? THAT, THAT EXCEPTION IS RESIDING IN EXCEPTIONS.
I THINK IT'S CALLED EXCEPTIONS.
IT'S JUST CALLED EXCEPTIONS TO MLR ONE OR MLR TWO OR BOTH OR WHAT? M D TO ALL TO THE ENTIRE M L O D.
IT DOESN'T SET, IT DOESN'T DIVIDE 'EM OUT WHETHER IT'S ONE OR TWO.
AND THAT'S THE POINT THAT ROB WAS TRYING TO MAKE, IS THAT ONCE YOU ADD THAT EXCEPTION, IT'S GOING INTO AN AREA WE HAD NOT INTENDED IT TOO.
AND I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME LIMITS BEYOND THOSE MILITARY.
UM, THE OVERLAY ZONE SECURITY LIGHTS A MAXIMUM, A MAXIMUM ON THE CANCELS.
YOU'VE GOT THE, SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS WHAT ALL NIGHT SECURITY LIGHTING ANSEL INSTALLED BY C P S ENERGY SHALL BE, SHALL CONTAIN FULL CUTOFF AND BE A MAXIMUM OF 4,000 K? YES.
UM, WE INSTALL FULL CUTOFFS AND YES, IT'S A MAXIMUM OF 4,000 K.
WE DO NOT PURCHASE ANYTHING OVER 4,000 KELVIN.
I GUESS MY, MY ONLY QUESTION IS IF I, I UNDERSTAND WHY WE WANT TO ADD THAT LANGUAGE, BUT WHY ARE WE GONNA ADD IT TO THE EXCEPTIONS? BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE SAYING THAT THESE
[03:30:01]
ANSL ARE EXEMPT, BUT THEN IN THE EXEMPTION WE'RE CREATING REQUIREMENTS THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY'RE EXEMPT.AND WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS OVER WHERE WE'VE CHANGED IN THE ONE AND TWO WE ACTUALLY LIST, RIGHT? RIGHT.
THESE AS A SEPARATE REQUIREMENT.
I, I WOULD, BECAUSE IF IT'S EXEMPT THEN THERE'S NO RULES.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME TO ADD IT TO EXEMPTIONS AND THEN CREATE RULES THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW.
SO CAN WE CUT THAT SENTENCE OUT THERE AND SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE UP WHERE WE HAVE THE ONE AND TWO LANGUAGE? I'M GONNA STEP AWAY.
IF THERE'S MORE QUESTIONS
SS SO, SO RIGHT THERE YOU WILL IT RIGHT THERE.
LIKE A SIX, WAIT A SEVEN, YOU KNOW, REORDER SEVEN OR YOU WE'RE SAYING MAXIMUM ALL NIGHT, LIKE BLAH BLAH BLAH.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? IN BOTH? SO I THINK THE AGREEMENT WAS TO MAKE SURE IT'S 4,000 'CAUSE THAT'S THE MAX THEY INSTALL CURRENTLY.
SO WE'LL JUST KEEP IT AT THAT AND KEEP IT.
IS IT 4,000 OR 4,100? 4,000? WHY IS THAT AN A? SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO RENUMBER.
LET'S MAKE IT A SEVEN AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO RENUMBER EVERYTHING GOING DOWN.
CAN I SUBMIT FOR VESTED RIGHTS ON THAT? I'D LIKE TO APPLY FOR A V R
SO CAN I SUBMIT FOR VESTED RIGHTS ON THAT? IT SAYS, OR IS IT AN A V R? SO IT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE FULL CUTOFF.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO PUT A, THE QUANTITY OR THE, THE 4,000 LIMITATION IN THERE TOO.
'CAUSE IF IT'S NOT CODIFIED AT THAT NUMBER, IT COULD EXCEED IT.
AND CONTAIN A FULL CUTOFF SHOULD BE A MAXIMUM C C T OF 4,000.
IT'S MORE CLEAR THAN DO, DO WE WANT TO ADD AT THE END OF THAT JUST IN BOTH MLR ONE AND MLR TWO? YES.
SO ACTUALLY TOO MANY COOKS IN THE KITCHEN.
UM, SO WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IS WHAT WE CAN MAINTAIN AN OUTLINE HERE IS THAT C P S IS IN AGREEMENT THAT THE ANSIBLES THAT THEY INSTALL IN MLR ONE CAN HAVE THE 3000 LIMITATION AND THEN MLR TWO WILL HAVE A 4,000 LIMITATION.
ONE A IS MAXIMUM OF THIS, AND B I AGREE.
AND THEN SIX IS MLR TWO A AND B.
Y'ALL KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? YEAH.
DO YOU I SHOULD BE WORRIED LOGAN SPEAKS.
[03:35:15]
OKAY, SO SO CAN'T YOU JUST MAKE THE FIRST PLATE, SO 3000 ANSIL ARE CAP TO 3000.SO CAN'T THIS JUST BE WITHIN M L R ONE AND THEN A IS MAXIMUM OF THIS FOR ALL OUTDOOR LIGHT SOURCE.
FIRST ONE, ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS SAY, MY ONLY QUESTION IS THIS, AND THIS IS THAT.
WE'RE WE'RE GETTING IN, THIS IS GONNA GO BACK TO WHAT? 4,100.
I HAVE NOT USED MY NITPICKY CARD YET.
I THINK WE HAVE MLR DASH ONE AND THEN MLR ONE.
IF WE CAN ADD A DASH OR, OR STANDARDIZE IT.
WELL, YEAH, AT THE DASHES WHAT CHRISTOPHER'S SAYING IS YOU DON'T NEED THIS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED B UNDER FIVE.
'CAUSE ISN'T EVERYTHING WITHIN MLR ONE TO 3000? WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.
I'M OKAY WITH READING IT JUST BECAUSE THEN EVERYBODY'S GONNA ASK WHAT WHAT ABOUT THE IT IT ALMOST IMPLIES FOUR.
YEAH, I, I I AGREE IT'S REDUNDANT, BUT IT MATCHES THE SUBSECTION UNDERNEATH IT IN FORMAT AND LAYOUT.
DOES THAT MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY? MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANY MORE COMMENTS? ARE YOU GUYS GOOD? GOOD.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
I THINK BIANCA WANTED TO COMMENT ON ITEM 15 DASH THREE, WHICH WAS PULLED, IF I REMEMBER.
UM, CHAIR WAS REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION.
I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT BECAUSE THIS IS OUR LAST MEETING AND THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT 15 DASH THREE THAT WAS, UH, WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA.
UM, BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED AND I WAS THINKING IT WAS GONNA BE ON OUR LAST AGENDA.
I THINK MANY OF Y'ALL THOUGHT THE SAME TOO.
BUT THE REASON I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS AMENDMENT, UM, IS THAT IT WAS A REQUEST TO EXEMPT C P S FROM PHILO.
AND THE REASON I BRING IT UP, BECAUSE I LIVE IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN, I, ALONG WITH MS. REED AND MR. FULLER FULLERTON SERVED ON THE DRAINAGE BOND COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
AND AS YOU ALLALL KNOW, UM, THE VOTERS APPROVED, UM, ALL THE ELEMENTS, THE SIX PROPOSITIONS FOR THE BOND AND THE DRAINAGE PROPOSITION WAS NUMBER ONE.
AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT INDIVIDUALS WHO SUBMIT, UH, U D C AMENDMENTS THAT SEEK TO EXEMPT THEMSELVES FROM PHILO WHEN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PAYS PHILO THEMSELVES, UM, IT JUST IS NOT INCONSISTENT, IN MY OPINION, WITH ALL OF US BEING IN FOR THE $3.1 BILLION WORTH OF DRAINAGE NEEDS THAT ARE IN OUR CITY.
AND SO DRAINAGE IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME, AND THAT'S WHY I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE TO TALK ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT THAT DIDN'T MAKE OUR AGENDA AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT WE ALL OWN THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DRAINAGE IN THIS CITY.
AND, UM, SO THIS AMENDMENT WASN'T ABLE TO BE HEARD, AND I'M THANKFUL THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWN, BUT I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DID NOT HIGHLIGHT THOSE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS SPECIFICALLY FOR A LOT OF OUR PRO, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN VULNERABLE AREAS THAT
[03:40:01]
ARE STILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN WITH A $3.1 BILLION, UH, WORTH OF DRAINAGE NEEDS.SO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO FOR THAT PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
AND, UH, IT WAS A PLEASURE SERVING WITH ALL OF Y'ALL.
SO I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU.
IF ALL, IF, IF I MAY REAL QUICK, I KNOW EARLIER IN THE MEETING WE HAD A GROUP OF ITEMS THAT WERE CONSIDERED UNDER ONE MOTION.
WE DO JUST WANNA READ INTO THE RECORD SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT WE RECEIVED FOR THOSE FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER, UH, 23 DASH FIVE.
WE RECEIVED ONE WRITTEN, UM, COMMENT IN SUPPORT, AND ALL OF THESE PUBLIC WRITTEN COMMENTS WERE EMAILED TO P TAC THIS MORNING.
Y'ALL DON'T WANNA KEEP THESE AS, SO THANK YOU.
IS THAT ALL YOU HAD ON THAT LOGAN? FOR THAT ONE? YES.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE DOING, WE'RE GONNA, UM, I JUST PULL THAT OFF THE AGENDA.
WE'RE NOT GONNA BE CONSIDERING THAT TODAY.
THAT WAS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF IF WE WERE GONNA NEED MORE MEETINGS, WE WERE GONNA HAVE TO EXTEND SOME FOLKS BECAUSE SOME OF YOU ARE EXPIRING LIKE TOMORROW.
CAN YOU TELL US WHICH OF US ARE EXPIRING TOMORROW? YEAH, LET US PULL UP THE LIST.
UH, SUSAN WRIGHT, RYAN GANS, KEN BROWN, MICHAEL TAYLOR, ROBERT TAPIA, JODY CHERYL, DEBORAH REED, AND BRITTANY DALE.
SO WE WILL BE OPENING, WE WILL BE OPENING UP AN APPLICATION WINDOW.
WE WILL REACH OUT TO EXISTING MEMBERS WHO ARE EXPIRING WITH THE MEANS TO REAPPLY IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN DOING SO.
UH, BUT MORE INFORMATION, UH, ON THAT TO COME.
IF YOU ARE NOT, WE MAY STILL BE APPLYING FOR YOU
ALRIGHT, LOGAN, THERE'S, UH, ITEM ATTORNEY'S, DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING? JUST, UH, THAT WE HAVE ALREADY BRIEFED THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ZONING COMMISSION ON OUR PROPOSAL TO PRESENT THE AMENDMENTS TO THEM.
UH, WE WILL START, UH, WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE'LL HAVE FOUR WORK SESSIONS, ABOUT 50 ITEMS PER SESSION TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE AWARE OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL GO BEFORE THEM.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT TWO MEETINGS FOR THE ZONING COMMISSION SO THEY UNDERSTAND ALL THE ZONING RELATED AMENDMENTS.
AND PROBABLY ONE MEETING FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PROBABLY LOOKING AT 12 TO 15 ITEMS. SO THAT SHOULD BE A PRETTY BRIEF ONE.
UH, BUT WE HAVE PRESENTED OUR TIMELINE TO THEM.
AND WE WILL BEGIN THOSE BRIEFINGS IN LATE MAY.
AT TARGET FOR PLANNING COMMISSION DID YOU SAY WAS JULY SOMETHING 13TH? SO ACTION.
LOOKING AT, UH, FORMAL ACTION FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
JULY 18TH, JULY 6TH FOR H D R C, JULY 5TH FOR ZONING COMMISSION AND JULY 13TH FOR PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO LOGAN, ARE THESE POSTED? SORRY, ARE THESE DATES POSTED ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE U D C PROCESS? THEY WILL BE.
UH, ONLY, ONLY JUST LAST WEEK DID WE GET THE, THE BLESSING SO TO SPEAK, FROM THOSE GROUPS TO, TO STICK TO THAT SCHEDULE.
UH, OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S IT FOR, UH, MY REPORT.
JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AGAIN TO THE WHOLE COMMITTEE FOR ALL YOUR TIME AND SERVICE.
UH, I THINK IT WAS A PRETTY, PRETTY EFFICIENT GROUP WRAPPING UP ABOUT SEVEN WEEKS EARLY.
SO AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR, ALL OF YOUR, YOUR TIME AND YOUR PARTICIPATION IN HELPING US GET THROUGH THESE.
IT IS 4 26 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.