Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:06]

AND SO IT

[Call to Order]

IS TIME TO START TONIGHT'S ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

UM, AND ARE YOU ALL OKAY.

UH, TECHNICAL PEOPLE.

ARE WE GOOD TO GO ON ANDREW? OKAY.

THANK YOU, ANDREW.

AND OKAY.

I'LL FIRST START OUT BY CALLING THE ROLE.

SO HERE IT GOES.

AND I'M GOING TO, OKAY.

COMMISSIONER IDEA HERE.

VICE CHAIR, BARRERA RAMIREZ HERE.

COMMISSIONER BRAY.

OH, HERE.

OKAY.

GREAT COMMISSIONER.

DAN DANCLER PRESENT COMMISSIONER DUNCAN, COMMISSIONER EVANS, COMMISSIONER EVANS.

GREAT COMMISSIONER KING HERE.

AND I'M HERE.

UH, KOBASA COMMISSIONER RAY HERE.

COMMISSIONER SMITH HERE.

OKAY, GREAT.

EVERYBODY'S HERE.

AND THEN TONIGHT'S AGENDA

[Reading of the Agenda]

CRA, UH, A ONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM AUGUST 4TH, 2020, UM, B ONE ZONING AND REZONING C 14 DASH 2019 DASH ZERO ZERO FIVE NINE.

UH, THAT STATE HIGHWAY 71 AND FM NINE 73.

UH, STAFF AND APPLICANT ARE REQUESTING AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT B TO REZONING C 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO SEVEN ZERO JBR HOLDINGS.

AND THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

A B I MEAN C3, I MEAN B3 REZONING C 14 DASH 2020 DASH ZERO ZERO SIX THREE PEER PROPERTY REZONING.

AND THAT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM B FOR REZONING C 14 DASH 2019 DASH ZERO ONE FIVE NINE ARBORETUM.

LOT NINE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER SIX, A B S FIVE, ZONING C EIGHT ONE FOUR DASH TWO ZERO ONE EIGHT DASH ZERO ONE TWO TWO CIRCUIT OF THE AMERICAS PUD.

AND THAT IS THE DISCUSSION ITEM AND B SIX FINAL PLAT WITH PRELIMINARY C H J DASH TWO ZERO ONE EIGHT DASH ZERO ZERO SEVEN 8.28 FINAL PLAT PRESERVE AT OAK HILL.

AND THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO GROUP TOGETHER,

[Consent Agenda]

THE CONSENT AGENDA.

AGAIN, IT IS THE MINUTES A ONE, AND THEN IT IS B ONE FOR THE STAFF AND APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT B TO B FOR, UM, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 6TH AND, UM, BE SIX.

AND, UH, BEFORE WE APPROVE THAT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK, IS THERE ANYBODY ON HOLD WAITING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND THAT WOULD BE THE, UH, THE PROPERTY ON I ON INTERSTATE 35 OR ON, UM, AND THAT WILL BE PASSED ON CONSENT OR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ON CIRCLE DRIVE.

AND IF NOT, THEN LET'S JUST GO AHEAD.

UH, IS THERE A MOTION DO A MOTION THERE'S TWO CORRECTIONS ON THE MINUTES.

OKAY.

TWO AND FOUR DO NOT SHOW IT WAS COMMITTED TO HER KING THAT SECOND DID, WHICH WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA JUST AS COMMISSIONER AND THERE WAS NO NAME ON THE SECOND PERSON.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

SO A MINUTES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER EVANS.

SO A MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND, UM, WAS THAT EMOTION COMMISSIONER EVANS.

OKAY.

UH, CAUSE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND PASS AND PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA MOTION BY COMMISSIONER EVANS SECONDED BY, OH, DON'T ALL JUMP AT ONCE.

OKAY.

UH, VICE-CHAIR BOROUGH RAMIREZ, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

OR RAISE YOUR HANDS SO I CAN SEE IT.

GREAT.

OKAY.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE TO MUTE WHEN YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING.

AND ALSO, I THINK I HAD ANOTHER LITTLE REMINDER HERE AND, UM, WE'LL CONTINUE TO, THANKS TO COMMISSIONER BRAY.

WE'LL USE THE HAND RAISING HAND ICON TO, UM, UH,

[00:05:01]

SPEAK, UM, TO SPEAK.

THAT WAS EASIER ONCE WE GOT IT DOWN.

AND SO NOW WE HAVE OUR FIRST CASE AND, UM, STAFF IS, AND THE STAFF PERSON FOR THAT IS MARK GRAHAM.

SO, UM, AND THAT IS C

[B3. Rezoning: C14-2020-0063 - Pier Property Rezoning; District 10]

B3, UM, THEIR PEER PROPERTY REZONING, UH, CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MARK GRAHAM FOR PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF.

THE SUBJECT CASES, THE PURE PROPERTY REZONING AT 1703 RIVERS HILLS ROAD.

UM, THIS REQUEST IS FOR A FOOTPRINT REZONING FROM TO CR THE FOOTPRINT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 4,182 SQUARE FEET.

THAT NUMBER IS DERIVED FROM THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING MARINA THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REBUILD IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING MARINA.

UM, THIS IS, THIS CASE IS UNUSUAL IN THAT THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING NEW DEVELOPMENT.

UM, THERE ARE NO CURRENTLY OCCUPIED STRUCTURES OR OPERATING BUSINESSES ON THE PROPERTY.

SO YOU'RE ASKING WHY IS THE REZONING REQUESTED? THE CITY CONTACTED THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT SOME POTENTIAL DANGEROUS THINGS ON THE PROPERTY? THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, AGREED TO, UM, REPAIR AND CORRECT THE, THE POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS.

UH, THEY CONTACTED THE CITY AND, UH, PERMITS THE PERMITS WERE, UH, DECLINED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE CORRECT ZONING TO HAVE A MARINA, UH, AS A STANDALONE USE ON THE PROPERTY.

THE REVISED THAT THE CURRENT ZONING FOR A COMMERCIAL MARINA THAT IS A MARINA WITH MORE THAN THREE SLIPS IS THE CR ZONING COMMERCIAL RECREATION ZONING.

SO THEY APPLIED FOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION, ZONING AND INDICATE THAT THEY PLAN TO CORRECT THE SAFETY ISSUES.

UH, ONCE THEY HAVE THE CORRECT ZONING AND THE CITY WILL ISSUE THE PERMITS.

SO STAFF IS SUPPORTING THIS REQUEST.

UM, THAT CR IS THE, UM, THE CURRENT ZONING.

IT'S THE ONLY ZONING THAT ALLOWS THE MARINA USE AS A BI-RITE USE.

AND, UM, IT WOULD BE, UH, ANTICIPATED THAT IF YOU HAVE WATERFRONT PROPERTIES, UM, MOST PEOPLE EXPECT TO HAVE THE USE OF THE WATER.

AND THAT INCLUDES, UH, USE OF DOCS.

IN THIS CASE, A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, UH, COULD ANTICIPATE HAVING A COMMERCIAL DOCK.

SO, UM, THAT'S INCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT, UM, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT, UM, WE HAVE ASKED CLARISSA DAVIS WHO IS A SITE PLANNER WITH THE CITY TO BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

I BELIEVE SHE WOULD BE MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT, UM, QUESTIONS THAT RELATE TO DOCS AND, UM, HOW THEY'RE REVIEWED FOR, FOR PERMITS AND SO FORTH.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, SO, UM, IS THAT, BUT IS THAT IT FOR THE CITY'S PRESENTATION, MR. GRAHAM? YES.

YES, THAT IS MY PRESENTATION.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

OKAY, THEN WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT IN THE KILL MEAD AND RAQUEL.

YOU WILL HAVE SIX MINUTES.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

JUST CONFIRMING.

I CAN BE HEARD.

YES, YOU CAN.

YOU ARE.

OKAY, GREAT.

SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO PRESENT THIS CASE.

SEE TONIGHT WE GOT INTO THIS SORT OF MESS, UH, REALLY SORT OF AGAINST OUR WILL, UM, THIS PROPERTY, IF WE CAN GO TO THE SLIDE, NUMBER TWO, PLEASE.

UM, THIS IS THE OLD PIER PROPERTY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, I HEAR FROM PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, UH, SORT OF ITS HAY DAY PREDATED MEETING AN AUSTIN, BUT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE ALL THE TIME AS MUCH BELOVED.

UM, IT WAS, IT HAS BEEN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, UH, KIND OF UNIQUE IN BEING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON THE LAKE SINCE ABOUT 1928 AND THE RESTAURANT AND MARINA USE HAS BEEN AT THIS PROPERTY SINCE AT LEAST 1960.

UM, WE, THE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN GATHER IS THAT AROUND 1962, 21 BOAT SLIPS WERE CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PROPERTY.

AND 19 OF THOSE REMAIN TODAY, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SIDE, UM, WE ARE ASKING AS MARK, UH, EXPLAINED FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONED REALLY ONLY BECAUSE THE BOAT SLIPS THAT ARE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE IN NEED OF REPAIR.

IT'S A BIT OF A CATCH 22, AND THAT

[00:10:01]

THEY NEED REPAIR.

WE WERE CITED BY CODE COMPLIANCE, BUT THEY CAN'T BE REPAIRED BECAUSE THE PRIMARY USE THAT SUPPORTED THEM AS NO LONGER ON THE PROPERTY.

SO HERE WE ARE.

I'M COMING BEFORE YOU TO ASK TWO DOWNS ZONE, THE CS, ONE ZONING TO CR ZONING, WHICH IS, I WANT TO POINT OUT TO, COMMISSIONER'S PRETTY LOW ON THE HIERARCHY OF COMMERCIAL ZONING.

UM, AND REALLY ONLY DO IT'S BELOW LR, I SHOULD SAY, BUT REALLY ONLY DOING THAT SO THAT WE CAN GET THE PROPER PERMITS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO GET THE PROPERTY OUT OF DISREPAIR.

UM, THE SITE FOUR, PLEASE.

UM, YOU CAN SEE HERE THE OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW NEXT SIDE, I DON'T KNOW HOW CLEARLY THAT SHOWS UP FOR YOU ALL, BUT THIS IS AN AREA THAT JUST SHOWS THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE REALLY SPEAKING ABOUT THOSE, THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, RIGHT AGAINST THE LAKE SHORE.

UH, IF THE, UH, STAFF GETS SQUIRRELED THROUGH THE NEXT FOUR SLIDES, I JUST WANTED TO SHOW SOME PICTURES OF THE SLIPS, UM, FOR ANYONE WHO WASN'T ABLE TO ACTUALLY GO TO THE PROPERTY.

SO YOU CAN GET AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO OUR CLIENT PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN 2007, UM, AND HIS PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY RESULTED FROM A ZONING PROPOSAL FOR PUD ZONING ON THE PROPERTY TO DO A 200 BOAT MARINA WITH A BOAT MAINTENANCE FACILITY, OUR CLIENT WHO WAS A RESIDENT IN THE AREA AT THE TIME, UH, ALONG SORT OF JOINED FORCES WITH AND BANDIT WITH NOT ONLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE AREA, BUT ALSO THE WATER DISTRICTS TOO, THAT I THINK YOU'LL HEAR FROM TONIGHT TO, UH, OPPOSE THAT REZONING EVERYBODY, I THINK ACROSS THE BOARD FELT LIKE IT WAS TOO MUCH FOR THE SITE TO HAVE 200 BOATS HERE AND THE MARINA, UM, WE, SO OUR CLIENT IN AN EFFORT TO CREATE A WIN WIN FOR EVERYONE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY BEFORE IT WENT TO COUNCIL, IT IS OF NOTE THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME ACTUALLY PROVED 144 BOATS ON THIS PROPERTY.

UM, BUT IN ORDER TO CREATE SOME CERTAINTY, OUR CLIENT BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN 2007 TO STOP THAT PROJECT.

IT WAS A WIN WIN FOR EVERYBODY.

I THINK EVERYBODY WAS APPRECIATIVE THAT THIS POTENTIAL PROJECT WAS NO LONGER AN ISSUE.

SO WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY REALLY NOT INTENDING TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.

HOWEVER, AT THAT TIME IT WAS CLEAR THAT EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PEER RESURRECTED IN SOME FORM, UH, ONE DAY, IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE.

SO I WANT IT TO BRING THAT UP TO UNDER, FOR THE COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE OWN THE PROPERTY AND WHY WE'VE REALLY NOT DONE ANYTHING WITH IT SINCE.

UM, AND SO THEN IN 2019, AS MARK SAID, WE GOT A CALL FROM CODE COMPLIANCE, COMPLIANCE SAYING THAT THE STRUCTURES WERE IN BAD CONDITION.

WE RESPONDED TO THAT IMMEDIATELY, UM, INCLUDING SPENDING ABOUT $20,000 TO ERECT A FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY TO SECURE IT SO THAT PEOPLE COULDN'T COME ONTO THE PROPERTY AND BE INJURED.

BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE'S NOT A WAY TO DO THAT WITH THE BOAT FLIPS, UH, THEY'RE EXPOSED THEY'RE ON THE WATER.

ANYBODY CAN ACCESS THEM AT ANY TIME.

AND SO WE REALLY DO NEED TO REPAIR THEM TO GET TO DO AWAY WITH THE SAFETY CONDITION.

SO ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR, UH, COMMISSIONERS IS A REZONING TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT.

WE DO NOT WANT TO CREATE ANY DETRIMENTAL IMPACT TO THE WATER DISTRICTS.

AND WE DON'T THINK THAT WE WILL, THE WATER DISTRICTS ARE CONCERNED THAT THEY HAVE INTAKE STRUCTURES CLOSER THAN A THOUSAND FEET TO THIS PROPERTY.

AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION THAT THIS PROPERTY EXISTED IN EXACTLY THE CONFIGURATION WORK PROPOSING PRIOR TO THE WATER DISTRICTS, PLACING THOSE INTAKE STRUCTURES IN THOSE LOCATIONS.

AND SO WE, I THINK WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE DISTRICTS WHEN WE MET WITH THEM WAS THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT THERE MAY RECONSTRUCTING THESE DOCS MAY CREATE A VIOLATION.

SO WE DID, I WANT THE COMMISSION TO KNOW, REACH OUT TO TCEQ AND TCEQ, WHICH IS THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY TODAY CONFIRMED THAT IF THE EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED, THE EXCEPTION STICKS, IT DOES NOT GO AWAY.

WE CAN REZONE, WE CAN REBUILD.

IT IS NOT CHANGED.

THE FACT THAT THE DISTRICTS HAVE AN EXCEPTION.

SO WE RECEIVE CONFIRMATION FROM TCQ THAT THERE IS NO RISK OF A VIOLATION.

SO WE HAVE A SITE PLAN APPLICATION INTO THE CITY, AS MARK SAID, IT CAN NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL THE ZONING IS, UH, IS AMENDED.

AND SO WE ARE ASKING FOR THE COMMISSION SUPPORT IN GETTING THE ZONING.

WE NEED TO REALLY JUST RESTORE THIS TO WHAT

[00:15:01]

IT'S BEEN SINCE THE SIXTIES.

AND, UM, I WILL WELL MAIN ON THE LINE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE, BUT I REALLY DO APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TIME IN CONSIDERING THIS REQUEST.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND THEN MICAH KING, HE WAS TO SPEAK AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

MICAH, ARE YOU THERE? OKAY, THERE WE GO.

SORRY, COMMISSIONERS, UH, MICHAEL KING HERE FOR THE APPLICANT.

I JUST HAVE TWO SLIDES IF WE CAN GET THOSE PULLED UP AND I'LL GO THROUGH THESE REALLY QUICKLY, THESE HAVE TO DO WITH THE THOUSAND FOOT RULE THAT THE WATER INTAKE DISTRICTS ARE TALKING ABOUT.

AND WE HAVE COMMUNICATIONS FROM TQ FROM BACK IN THE PUD ZONING CASE IN 2006, AS WELL AS TODAY, TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.

IF YOU COULD GO TO SLIDE TWO FOR ME, PLEASE.

SO THIS IS AN EMAIL FROM 2007 IN RELATION TO THE FORMER ZONING CASE IN WHICH THE TCEQ SAID THAT YES, THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THE PREDECESSOR AGENCY TO TCEQ, GRANTED EXCEPTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE WATER INTAKES AND THAT, UM, DESPITE THAT THOUSAND FOOT RULE, AS LONG AS, UM, THERE WAS NO INCREASE TO THE BOAT DOCK, THEY WOULD NOT BE IN VIOLATION OF THE RULE.

AND THEN ON THE NEXT SLIDE HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH TCEQ TODAY AND THEY CONFIRMED THIS AND SAID THAT IF THERE ARE EXISTING EXCEPTIONS BAN, NO REQUIRED, UH, CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE BECAUSE THE EXCEPTIONS WERE NOT REVOKED AND THE INTAKE SOME MARINA OR THE SAME USE AND CONFIGURATION THAT THEY ARE TODAY.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE ABOUT THE THOUSAND FOOT RULE.

I WANTED TO QUICKLY TOUCH UPON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT SENT A LETTER TALKING ABOUT, UM, POTENTIAL INCREASES, UH, TO DISINFECT IT, UM, CHEMICALS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ORGANIC MATERIALS AND JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT KIND OF SKIPS OVER WHAT ARE EITHER ORGANIC MATERIALS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND THESE HAVE TO DO THINGS THAT THE CORRINE DRAIN FREAKNESS IS REACTING TO.

AND THESE ARE BEINGS LIKE TTH, N A, WHICH COME FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCES, UH, FROM MESSAGING, UM, MOLECULES THAT COME FROM, UH, THE SYNTHESIS OF OTHER CHEMICALS.

AND THAT'S A SOLVENT, UM, A THIRD CHEMICAL THAT'S, UH, COMING FROM AIRCRAFT AND SHIP BUILDING INDUSTRIES AND FIRE RESISTANT CHEMICALS, AND THEN A FOURTH, UH, METHANE, UH, WHICH IS, UH, CAUSED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF REFRIGERANTS AND PESTICIDES AND OTHER CAUSES.

SO, UM, WE ALSO LOOKED AT DATA FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE PIER WAS AN OPERATION.

IT SHUT DOWN IN 2005, UH, COMMERCIALLY AND THERE WAS NO INCREASE TO THE, UM, POLLUTANT LEVELS, UH, WHEN YOU COMPARE THE TIME TO READ BEFORE TO AFTER, UM, SEPTEMBER, 2005.

AND SO, UM, AND IN FACT FOR THE MUD, FOR INTAKES, THERE AREN'T ANY, UH, UH, POLLUTION, RAW WATER SOURCE POLLUTANTS THE VIOLATIONS BEFORE THEN I'LL SAY ON THE PHONE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND THEN, UM, SPEAKING AND OPPOSITION IS GREG GREASON AND MR. GREESON, YOU WILL HAVE THREE, SIX MINUTE.

UH, IS IT SIX MINUTES OR THREE MINUTES? HEY, ANDREW, I COMPLETELY FORGOT THREE MINUTES.

THREE MINUTES.

OKAY, GREAT.

THAT'S RIGHT.

NO DONATED TIME OR ANYTHING.

OKAY, MR. GREESON YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

ARE YOU THERE?

[00:20:09]

HELLO? I'M SORRY.

I WASN'T THERE FOR A SECOND.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS GREG GRIEF.

I LIVE AT 8,001 BEARDSLEY COVE AND THE ETJ AREA OF TRAVIS COUNTY BETWEEN WESTLAKE HILLS AND THE CITY OF BK.

AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU CONCERNING THE APPLICATION TO PARTIALLY REZONED THE PIER PROPERTY ON LAKE I'VE HERE, WE'RE IN THE AUSTIN AREA OFF AND ON.

SINCE I WAS SIX YEARS OLD, MY WIFE AND I RETURNED HERE PERMANENTLY IN 1995 AND BUILT THE FAMILY HOME.

WE'RE STILL LIVING IN, WE RAISED THREE CHILDREN HERE, UH, WHO ALL GREW UP AND LEFT AND WE WERE TWO EMPTY NESTERS UNTIL JUST RECENTLY, THANKS TO THE PANDEMIC.

WE'RE NOW ALL BACK TOGETHER.

AND THERE ARE SEVEN OF US UNDER OUR ROOF, INCLUDING A TWO YEAR OLD AND A 12 WEEK OLD BABY BOY.

SO FUN TIMES, UH, I'VE SERVED ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OUR LOCAL WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 20 FOR ALMOST 15 YEARS AND WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT IN 2019.

OUR DISTRICT HAS BEEN PROVIDING DRINKING WATER SINCE THE MID 1980S TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANT ON WESTERN LANE, WHICH IS JUST A STONE'S THROW FROM THE PURE PROPERTY BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT.

AS NOTED IN SEAN ABBOTT'S AUGUST 11TH LETTER TO YOU, OUR DISTRICT HAS 375 WATER CONNECTIONS.

I WANT TO PUT A HUMAN ELEMENT TO THAT NUMBER.

THAT MEANS THAT OVER 300 FAMILIES AND A COUPLE OF DOZEN BUSINESSES DEPEND ON OUR DISTRICT AND ITS INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPLY THEM WITH CLEAN WATER AND SEAN'S LETTER FURTHER DETAILS.

THE REASON BEHIND OUR OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING REQUEST BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, IF YOU APPROVE THIS AND THE APPLICANT PREVAILS DURING THE ADDITIONAL APPROVAL PROCESSES, THE OWNER OF THE PIER WILL BE PERMITTED TO RESURRECT A DERELICT BOAT DOCK LOCATED ON THEIR PROPERTY.

AS SOON AS THAT WORK IS UNDERTAKEN, OUR DISTRICT'S WALL WATER INTAKE IN LAKE AUSTIN WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF TCE TWO'S CURRENT RULE MANDATING THAT MARINA'S BE FURTHER THAN 1000 FEET FROM PUBLIC WATER INTAKES.

THAT'S NOT IN QUESTION, A NUMBER OF UNKNOWNS COULD THEN COME INTO PLAY.

ALL OF WHICH WOULD NOT BE THE FAULT OF OUR DISTRICT, BUT THESE COULD INCLUDE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS THAT COULD INTERRUPT SERVICE TO OUR CUSTOMERS, SIGNIFICANT EXPENSES, WHERE WE TO BE FORCED TO RELOCATE OUR WATER INTAKE AND EVEN VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND STATE DRINKING WATER STANDARDS.

AND I WANT TO REITERATE THAT WE'RE IN A PANDEMIC AND THIS IS NO TIME TO THREATEN THE WATER SUPPLY OF ANYONE IN WATER DISTRICT 20 FEW.

AND ON THE BEHALF OF OUR CUSTOMERS AND NEIGHBORS WHO WE OBSERVED FOR OVER 35 YEARS, ALLOWING THIS TO TAKE PLACE AT THIS TIME WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE, BOTH MORALLY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND NEXT WE HAVE TERRY BARNES.

ARE YOU THERE TERRY BARNES AND YOU WILL ALSO HAVE THREE MINUTES CONFIRM WHEN YOU CAN HEAR ME.

YES.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

YEAH.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS TERRY BARNES.

I'M A VICE PRESIDENT FOR TRAVIS COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 20.

AND YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF LETTERS BEFORE YOU FROM TRAVIS COUNTY MUD, UH, FOUR AND THE TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT NUMBER 20 OF AN OPPOSITION TO THE RESULT OF THIS WAS PRETTY MUCH IN RELATION TO THE THOUSAND FOOT RULE.

UH, I WAS VERY, VERY INVOLVED IN THE OPPOSITION OF THE PEAR REZONING, UH, 2006, 2007.

AND I WORKED WITH NICK EXTENSIVELY, UH, HER AND I ARGUED THE 1000 FOOT RULE AND THE POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THIS RULE BY A RESTART OF THE PIER AT THAT TIME.

AND, UH, THIS TIME, UH, FOR REZONING APPLICATION, IT SEEMS AS IF A RESTART AND A POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THIS THOUSAND FOOT RULE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE TRUE.

SO NOW I'M A LITTLE BIT UNSURE EXACTLY WHAT THE MECHANICS MAY BE OF A RESTART.

AND THAT'S HOW I WOULD VIEW THIS AS THE PAYOR PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN IN OPERATION SINCE 2005.

UH, THE ZONING FOR THAT TRACT AT THAT TIME WAS THAT MARINA USE, WHICH IS MORE THAN THREE BOAT DOCKS.

I WAS NONCONFORMING

[00:25:01]

UNDER AND, UH, THAT, UH, USE STOPPED.

AND IF YOU'RE STOPPED FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME UNDER AUSTIN CITY CODE, THAT USE IS SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED AN ABANDONED AT THAT TIME.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS A RESTART OF THE DOCKS, A NEW, AND THAT'S OUR CONCERN WITH THE TCEQ AND THE THOUSAND FOOT RULE THAT ATTACK WITH A THOUSAND FOOT RULE IS MORE THAN JUST NOT ATTEMPT TO KEEP GAS SERVICE AWAY FROM RAW WATER INTAKES AS MANY FOOD FROM THE USE OF THE WORD MARINA, A THOUSAND FOOT RULE, ALSO PROHIBITS MARINA'S TALKS ARE FLOATING FISHING FAIRS ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC.

THIS IS CONSTRUCTED TO HELP DECREASE THE DENSITY OF HUMANS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES THAT GO ALONG WITH THEIR STRUCTURES IN THEIR USES.

NOW SERVICE JUST BEING A SMALL PORTION OF IT.

THERE'S OIL GARBAGE PUT PARKING'S SEEPAGE, SUPPORTING WASTEWATER HANDLING AND THE LOSS OF CONTROL OF MANY OTHER POSSIBLE POLLUTANTS THAT MAY BE WITHIN THE THOUSAND FOOT.

SO WE, YEAH, I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY SUPPORTING SITE PLAN FOR THE BALANCE OF THE TRACK THAT HAS PROPOSED THAT THE KIND OF RECONSTRUCTED MARINA USEFUL SUPPORT.

SO I WOULD URGE THAT THIS KIND OF BE A REQUIREMENT.

SO REZONING APPROVAL FUNDAMENTAL THOUGH, THAT, UH, JUST RESTART THE MARINA USE THAT'S TOXIC, ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC AS A PARALLEL TO THE WATER DISTRICT, WATER QUALITY AND MAY SUBJECT AS TO ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY CLARIFIED.

AND THERE IS A LETTER IN YOUR PACKET FROM 2007 THAT BOTH DISTRICTS HAS SUPPLY THAT SAID THE TCQ WOULD FIND US IN VIOLATION.

SO WHAT I WOULD URGE THE COMMITTEE TO DENY THE PROPOSED REZONING FOR MARINA.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND DOUG CONNELLY IS THE NEXT SPEAKER.

ARE YOU THERE? DOUG CONNELLY? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

THANK YOU.

I'M DOUG COLLEEN AND I SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT OF TRAVIS COUNTY MUD FOR OUR DISTRICT OPERATES TWO WATER TREATMENT PLANTS SERVING A TOTAL OF SEVEN UTILITY DISTRICTS IN THE BARTON CREEK AREA, INCLUDING THE BARTON CREEK CLUB.

AND THE RESORT DISTRICT ALSO PROVIDES HOST WHOLESALE WATER SERVICE TO TWO ON AFFILIATED DISTRICTS, THE BOTTLED WATER.

AND IN FACT, WE'VE TALKED, IT IS, WE KNOW WHERE IT WAS JUST WITHIN THAT THOUSAND FEET OF THE BOAT DOCK.

THE DOCKS AT THE, AT THE PIER PROPERTY HAVE NOT BEEN OPERATIONAL FOR 15 YEARS.

THE CHAINS ON THE COMMERCIAL, WHATEVER IT IS TO ALLOW EXISTING DOCS TO BE RUN WELL, DOCK OPERATIONS AS A PRIMARY USE.

AND THIS IS OUR PROBLEM.

IT COULD CAUSE THE TCEQ TO RULE THAT THE DISTRICT GENTILE CAUSE IN VIOLATION, TCEQ REGULATIONS.

I'VE HEARD OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK TONIGHT THAT SAYS, THEY'VE TALKED TO TCU.

THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S OKAY FOR TALK, BUT IT'S, THAT'S NOT AN INDEMNIFICATION FOR OUR MUD DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT CANNOT TAKE ANY RISK OF HAVING CONTINUED TO USE RAW WATER IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION.

AND THAT'S US THE DISTRICT CAUSE AGAINST THE ZONING CHECK.

AND IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T WALK THE PIER AND WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR PROBLEM PROPERTY TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

BUT I THINK YOU CAN SEE AT THE SAME TIME, IF ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, WE NEEDED TO ADD ANOTHER PROPER OR WE NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING TOO THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR EXISTING PERMIT.

AND TCU TCEQ CAME UP AND SAID, WELL, YOU YOU'RE WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF THIS DOCK, SO WE CAN'T DO IT.

WE, WE JUST CAN'T TAKE THAT CHANCE.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE OPPOSING THE PROJECT.

AND I, AND I WOULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I COULD.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. CONNOLLY, MATTHEW MCPHAIL.

YOU ARE NEXT AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

HI, CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? YES.

HI, MY NAME IS NAT SAIL AND I AM AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING TRAVIS COUNTY.

WCID NUMBER 19, THE WHOLESALE CUSTOMER TRAVIS COUNTY MUD FOR AND RELY SOLELY ON MONTH FOUR AS THE DISTRICT'S SOLE SOURCE OF WATER.

I'VE LOOKED OVER THE LETTER, THE COMMISSION BY GREG CRUMMEY, THE ATTORNEY FOR MUD FORE, AND I ECHO HIS CONCERN THAT REZONING THE PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL RECREATION.

[00:30:02]

IT WOULD RAISE SOME SIGNIFICANT HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, OVER THE YEARS, UH, THE STANDARD BY THE FEDERAL AND STATE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE DRINKING WATER STANDARDS HAVE JUST THEY'VE INCREASED.

SO I THINK ALL THE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL, NEW ORLEANS BACK A LITTLE BIT, UH, YOU KNOW, TRAVIS COUNTY, WCID 19 SHARES THE REGULATORY CONCERNS ABOUT THE THOUSAND FOOT RULE.

UM, AND AS A CUSTOMER OF MUD FOR, WE WOULD BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED.

UH, IF THERE WAS A VIOLATION, WE SHARON A LOT OF THEIR COSTS AND WE HAD TO MOVE THE WATER INTAKE OR COMPLY WITH THE TCEQ.

UH, OUR DISTRICT WOULD BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED.

UH, ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ARE PROBABLY BEST DIRECTED TO THE MUD FLOOR ATTORNEY, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE COMMISSION THAT I SHARED HIS CONCERNS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AND NOW SAUNA HABIT.

UM, SEAN ABBOTT, YOU WILL ALSO HAVE THREE MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER ID NUMBER 20.

UM, AT THE RISK OF BEING A LITTLE BIT DUPLICATIVE HERE, I WILL JUST, UM, TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE TCQ ENFORCEMENT RULE, THE 1000 FOOT RULE, UM, AS A FEW OTHER, THE WITNESSES HAVE, UM, CAME BEFORE ME TONIGHT.

UM, THE FIRST THING I WOULD, UM, BRING UP IS THAT, UM, MS. MEAD REFERRED TO, I THINK, SOME RECENT GUIDANCE THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED FROM THE TCQ SUGGESTING THAT, UM, IF A PROPER VARIANCES WAS GRANTED AT THE TIME, BUT BY WATER INTAKES, UM, WERE INITIALLY PERMITTED THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY, AND THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY REASON FOR ENFORCEMENT AT THIS POINT.

UM, I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY SEEN THAT OTHER THAN WHAT WAS JUST ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF ME HERE.

UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE DUE DILIGENCE ON THAT.

I WILL SAY THAT THAT IS CONTRADICTORY TO GUIDANCE THAT WAS ISSUED IN 2007, UH, WHEN REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PEER PROPERTY WAS OTHERWISE CONTEMPLATED, UM, IN THE LETTER THAT WAS, UM, AN EXHIBIT TO THE LETTER THAT THE DISTRICT DIRECTED TO YOU ALL, IT SAYS PRETTY EXPLICITLY THAT THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTAKE WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS RULE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

UH, SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.

SO THAT'S CERTAINLY BEEN THE BASIS FOR ALL OF OUR CONCERN WITH REGARDS TO THE 1000 FOOT RULE.

I WILL ALSO SAY THAT ANECDOTALLY, UM, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE THOUSAND FOOT RULE IS ENFORCED LITTLE BIT MORE STRINGENTLY THAN IT USED TO BE.

UM, AND THERE ARE RECENT, THERE ARE SOME OTHER CASES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TCQ, UH, THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT, UM, STRICT ENFORCEMENT IS MORE LIKELY A POSSIBILITY, UM, THAN WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE IN THE EARLY 1980S.

UM, I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT ELSE FOR YOU ALL TONIGHT.

UH, WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.

UM, AGAIN, JUST WANTED TO SORT OF, UM, AGAIN, APOLOGIES FOR BEING DUPLICATIVE HERE, BUT JUST WANTED TO, UH, RESTATE OUR PRIMARY CONCERNS, THOSE BEING WITH THE 1000 FOOT RULE AND BEING SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT, UM, AND, AND SOME OF THE COMPLICATIONS THAT A PRISONER RECENTLY DID WELL TO DESCRIBE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND THEN FINALLY WE HAVE GREG KRUM AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

OKAY.

HI, MY NAME'S GREG CREAMY, UM, UH, COUNSEL FOR TRAVIS COUNTY MUD, NUMBER FOUR, I'M ALSO COUNSEL FOR THE EIGHT PARTICIPANT DISTRICTS IN BARTON CREEK AT, UH, GET THE WATER FROM THE INTAKE AND I'M NOT GOING RETREAD.

UH, WHAT OTHER FOLKS HAVE SPOKEN ON? UM, PRIMARILY OUR CONCERN AS YOU KNOW, IS TCQ COMING BACK AND ALLEGING THAT OUR INTAKE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE 1000 FOOT RULE.

UH, WE'RE SPENDING ALL OF OUR MONEY ON, UH, ON THE ZUNI MUSCLES AND DON'T HAVE MONEY TO RELOCATE THE INTAKE, DON'T HAVE MONEY TO, TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS TO THE INTAKE.

AND, AND OF COURSE, WHEN WE GO AROUND TO ADD PUMPS OR MAKE CHANGES, UH, WE CAN'T AFFORD FOR THE TCQ TO PUT A HALT ON THOSE BECAUSE OF THE BOTTOM OF A VIOLATION OF THE GUTS OF THE THOUSAND FOOT RULE BACK WHEN THE INTAKE WAS PERMITTED, UM, IN THE EIGHTIES, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT GRANTED A VARIOUS TO HAVE THIS INTAKE WITHIN 430 FEET OF THE EXISTING, UM, PEER PROPERTY AT THAT TIME, UH, THE BOAT DOCKS WERE NOT A PRIMARY USE.

THEY WERE AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE OPERATION OF THE PEER RESTAURANT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE APPLIED TO MY CONCERN IS THAT IF YOU CHANGE IT FROM AN ACCESSORY USE, UH, TO A PRIMARY USE, THE TCG CAN TAKE THE POSITION THAT, UH, THAT'S OUTSIDE THE PARAMETERS OF THAT VARIANCE

[00:35:01]

AND, AND THE INTAKE OF SOUND VIOLATION.

UM, THERE MAY BE A WAY TO SKIN THIS CAT AND MAKE IT WORK.

UM, IF, IF THE TCQ IS GOING TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT, UH, UH, CONTINUED USE OF THE BOAT DOCK IS A PRIMARY USE OF THE WAY THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, WANTS TO USE IT.

AND THEY CAN PUT THAT IN WRITING.

AND THAT MAY BE ONE WAY TO GO, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN WRITING, UM, TO DATE.

UM, NOPE, PERHAPS THERE'S A WAY TO, TO LIMIT THE USE OF IT.

COMPLIES WITH THE PARAMETERS WERE VERY INSPIRED, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, AND PERHAPS THAT'S, THAT'S ONE WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

UM, BUT YES, THE VERIFICATION FROM TCT IS ESSENTIALLY A PHONE CALL THAT DOESN'T GIVE US THE COMFORT THAT I THINK WE NEED, UM, W WITH THE, WITH THE INVESTMENT WE HAVE IN THAT, THAT INTAKE.

SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO POSE THIS, UH, REZONING AT THIS POINT.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER THEM.

LET'S SEE.

THANK YOU.

AND NOW TELL ME, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

OKAY.

JUST CONFIRMING AGAIN.

YOU CAN STILL HEAR ME.

YES.

OKAY.

SO THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

NUMBER ONE, WE MET WITH BOTH WATER DISTRICTS, UH, LAST MONTH, AND IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE TIME, WHETHER SOMEBODY SHOULD JUST GO TO TCEQ.

I THINK ONE OF THEIR BOARD MEMBERS BROUGHT IT UP.

AND SO WE'RE, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE UPSETTING TO US THAT NOBODY BOTHERED TO DO THAT.

WELL, WE DID IT, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A PHONE CALL FROM TCEQ.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT OUR INTERPRETATION OF SOMETHING.

TCEQ MAY HAVE SAID ON A PAST CASE, WE ASKED WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIFICS OF THIS CASE, WHETHER THIS WOULD BE A VIOLATION, WE RECEIVED A LETTER BACK FROM TCEQ, WHICH SAYS EXISTING, AND I'M GOING TO READ IT TO YOU.

EXISTING EXCEPTIONS DO NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGES, MEANING CHANGES TO THERE.

THE EXCEPTION THAT WAS ALREADY GRANTED BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT REVOKED.

AND THE INTAKE AND THE MARINA ARE STILL IN THE SAME PLACES.

AND THE MARINA IS NOT BEING EXPANDED.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE TCEQ REGULATIONS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S A CONFORMING USE OR A NONCONFORMING USE, OR WHETHER IT WAS ACCESSORY OR PRIMARY.

THAT'S ALL THE CITY OF AUSTIN STUFF.

TCEQ DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

AND SO WE, WE DID THE WORK TO GO TO TCEQ, TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION AND GET TCQ CONFIRMATION THAT THIS IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE 2000 OVER THE 1000 FOOT RULE.

I DO WANT TO SAY THAT MR. BARNES SAID IT WAS A NONCONFORMING USE, THAT'S WRONG.

IT'S NEVER BEEN A NONCONFORMING USE.

IT WAS A, AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE PRIMARY YOUTH.

UM, AND WE ALSO HEARD THAT IN 2007, THE TCEQ SENT A LETTER IN CONNECTION WITH THE BOAT BARN CASE, AS IT'S BEEN CALLED SAYING THAT THE DISTRICT'S WITH HIM VIOLATION, THAT IS NOT WHAT SHE SAID IN THAT LETTER.

IN FACT, I'M READING THE LETTER, I'M SITTING HERE LOOKING AT IT AND TCEQ, I BELIEVE IT IS.

WE SENT IT TO ALL OF YOU ON THE COMMISSION.

TCEQ EXPRESSLY SAYS, REBUILDING, THE DOC DOES NOT IMPLICATE THE RULE CITED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN DOES THE EXISTING DOC.

AND SO THE NET NET HERE IS THAT IF THE DISTRICT'S GOT THE EXCEPTION, THEY CLAIM THEY HAVE, THERE'S NO ISSUE.

WE ARE NOT ASKING TO RELOCATE EITHER THE INTAKE OR THE MARINA.

IF THE DISTRICTS HAVE TO DO REPAIRS TO THEIR INTAKES IN THE FUTURE, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT RELOCATING THE INTAKE OR THE MARINA.

AND AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE PEER WAS HERE BEFORE THE INTAKES, WHERE THE DISTRICTS MADE THE DECISION TO PUT THE INTAKES WHERE THEY ARE.

AND SO IT'S A BIT, IT DOESN'T FEEL GOOD TO US THAT NOW THE DISTRICTS ARE SAYING, WE MOVED ON TO CLOSE TO YOU.

WE ASKED FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION TO DO THAT.

AND NOW WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE YOUR PROPERTY OR HAVE ACCESS TO THE WATER.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT.

UM, OUR, A FAIR RESULT.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE ASK THE COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS TONIGHT.

WE NEED TO GET OUR PERMITS RESOLVED.

UM, AND WE WOULD REALLY HOPE THAT WE DON'T DELAY ANY FURTHER.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, NICOLE.

AND NOW IT IS TIME FOR A DISCUSSION OR EMOTION OR WHATEVER YOU WANT.

GO AHEAD.

AND I USE THE, I'M GOING TO GRAB THE, I'M GOING TO GRAB THE BALL AND, UM, GO AHEAD.

IT'S NOT, YES.

I WANT TO BE THE PRESENTER AND RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE ICON THINGY.

IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, I SEE HANK SMITH.

I'M GOING TO GO WITH HANK.

I MEAN, COMMISSIONER SMITH, YOU CAN CALL ME, I CAN GIVE YOU ONE

[00:40:02]

PAGE BECAUSE THE CITY HAS TOLD THEM, YOU HAVE TO REBUILD A PIER, THE BOAT DOCKS, YOU'RE IN A SAFETY ISSUE.

YOU HAVE TO COME IN AND FIX THAT.

AND WITHOUT CHANGING THE ZONING, THEY CAN'T DO WHAT THE CITY IS TELLING THEM TO DO.

UM, I DO THINK THERE'S A WAY TO WORK THIS OUT.

I THINK THE WCS AND MUDS NEED TO TALK TO THE TCEQ.

I REACHED OUT TO THE TCQ.

NOW THE CAPTAIN HAS REACHED, HAS BEEN TALKING TO TCQ.

THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S GOING ON.

SO I THINK BETWEEN NOW AND CITY COUNCIL, THE WC IDS AND MERGE CAN DO THE SAME THING.

THEY CAN REACH OUT TO THE CTQ, GET COMFORTABLE.

IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT COMES UP THAT CITY COUNCIL, BASED ON WHAT I'M SAYING, I'M COMFORTABLE RIGHT NOW, GOING AHEAD AND APPROVING THIS CONDITION.

BUT I DO WANT TO SEE IT.

I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T WANT TO RESTRICT IT, COME TO THE SITE PLAN PHASE.

I WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO SEE MORE THAN 20 UNITS AT 20 BOAT DOCK.

SO KEEP IT THE SAME SIZE IT IS.

NOW.

I WOULD SAY, I PLAN TO DO THE FIELD.

WE'D LIKE TO SEE MORE STATIONS UP AND DOWN THE LAKE.

THEY FEEL IT'S SAFER TO HAVE THE HEALING PATIENTS.

I DON'T REALLY WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.

WELL, THE THING IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF IS VERY CAREFUL AT THE SLACKLINE PHASE.

I'M SURE THAT'S A GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION.

THE OPERATION OF THE BOAT.COM PERIODS IS NOT AN ISSUE, BUT THE CONSTRUCTION CAN BE ISSUED.

THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT'S IN THAT SEDIMENT THAT BUT THINK GETS STIRRED UP.

IT COULD CAUSE ISSUES DOWNSTREAM WAY TO MITIGATE THAT DURING CONSTRUCTION HAS DONE ALL THE TIME, BUT YOU TO VERY CAREFUL WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE CONSTRUCTION, IF YOU'RE DOING ANY DREDGING LITTLE CONTROLS DURING THAT DRAGGING PROCESS TO PROTECT AND KEEP THAT RED MATERIAL.

SO THAT MAKES YOU, IT WILL MAKE YOU LOOK AT THE SIDE PLAN THAT MAKES SURE THOSE HOLES ARE IN PLACE.

I'M READY TO.

THANKS.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER SMITH.

NEXT IS COMMISSIONER KING AND THEN COMMISSIONER BRAY.

THANK YOU, CHAMBER, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH.

I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, HINTED AT SOMETHING THAT I WAS WONDERING ABOUT, AND THAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, SO MAYBE THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T GO THERE FIRST AND BEFORE IT CAME TO US.

UH, BUT I WOULD BE, IT WOULD HELP BE HELPFUL TO ME TO HAVE SOME EXPERTISE CHIME IN FROM THE CITY STAFF WHERE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAS THE NOTES I REVIEWED FOR THE BACKUP FOR THIS CASE.

DIDN'T, DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FROM STAFF.

SO I'M KIND OF CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

I SHARE COMMISSIONER SMITH'S, YOU KNOW, CONCERNED ABOUT STIRRING UP THOSE, THOSE POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS AND HOW IT MIGHT AFFECT DOWNSTREAM.

SO, GOSH, I'M, I'M KINDA WORRIED ABOUT THAT.

UM, I, I WISH I HAD THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING HERE THAT WOULD END UP CAUSING HARM.

UH, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I DO APPRECIATE THE DOWN'S ZONING HERE ON THIS AND THAT THEY DO HAVE ENTITLEMENTS TO THAT PROPERTY THAT THEY BOUGHT.

SO THIS IS A TOUGH CASE FOR ME.

UH, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, UH, DID THE STAFF REVIEW ANY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OR, OR, YOU KNOW, PERSPECTIVES ON THIS CASE? COMMISSIONER MARTIN CRAM, THE STAFF, UM, COMING, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WAS CONDUCTED BY ALEX BUTLER.

UM, AND IT CONSISTS OF, UH, LET'S SEE, HE'S GOT ABOUT SEVEN POINTS HERE, WHICH, UM, ARE FAIRLY COMMON.

UH, HE IDENTIFIES AS IT IS NOT LOCATED OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE.

SO ZONE, UM, HE SHOWED THE CURRENT WATERSHED REGULATIONS, UH, HOW THEY LIMIT THE PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY.

UM, HE PROVIDED THE DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER THREE ACRES IN A SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT.

UH, LET'S SEE, FLOODPLAIN COMMENTS, LANDSCAPING, COMMENTS, UM, IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, SPECIFIC FEATURES.

UM, THERE WERE, THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OF, I'M SORRY, MR. SMITH STAFF WITH STAFF THAT I WAS REFERRING TO THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF, OF, OF RECONSTRUCTING THOSE, THOSE, THOSE, UH, BOAT SLIPS THERE, THE BOAT DOCKS, THEY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THAT, THAT ACTIVITY IS WHAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT.

WASN'T ADDRESSED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OR NO.

OKAY.

OKAY.

AND I GUESS THE FINAL QUESTION, SO SOMEONE ELSE WILL HAVE SOME TIME HERE IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THIS APPARENTLY IS HIS STAFF IS REVIEWING THAT RIGHT NOW, OR WOULD THERE BE A SITE PLAN FOR THIS AND IT WILL, THAT SITE PLAN HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL

[00:45:01]

REVIEW OF THIS, THE IMPACT OF THE REBUILDING OF THIS BOAT, THESE BOAT DOCKS.

AND WILL THAT SITE PLAN COME BACK TO ZAP FOR REVIEW? YEAH.

THIS QUESTION WAS FROM LAND USE REVIEW.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AGAIN PLEASE? CLARISSA DAVIDSON LONG INTERVIEW.

OKAY, GREAT.

THANKS.

UM, IN TERMS OF IF THE, A SITE PLAN APPLICATION WILL BE REVIEWED BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, OR IT WILL BE, UM, I I'M UNAWARE IF THE APPLICATION ITSELF, THE SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED AT THIS TIME, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MIQUEL ON THIS PROJECT FOR, UH, SOME OF MONTHS.

NOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR A REZONING TO BE ABLE TO, UM, DO ANY TYPE OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE MARINA AS IT SITS TODAY.

UM, IT WILL BE GOING THROUGH THE SITE PHONE PROCESS ALONG WITH THAT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER.

HOWEVER, IT, BECAUSE IT IS A ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN, UM, IT WILL NOT BE, UH, REVIEWED BY THESE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF A BOAT DOCK AS A WHOLE, IF IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, UM, LOOK OVER IF THERE'S ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE THAT IS NEEDED, IT WILL PROBABLY BE, UM, SHOWN BEFORE IS ZAP.

HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF JUST THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AS A WHOLE, IT WILL NOT BE REVIEWED BY THAT.

OKAY.

AND, UH, JUST ONE FINAL POINT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT WHEN THE SITE PLAN COMES TO STAFF THERE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, IT WILL INCLUDE REVIEWING THE IMPACT OF THAT, OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THOSE DOCS ON THE WATER QUALITY AS, AND, AND THE POTENTIAL DOWNSTREAM IMPACT IS THAT CORRECT? I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE EXACT SIZE THAT EXACT SUBJECT MATTER OF WHAT THEY REVIEW.

HOWEVER, A WETLAND BIOLOGIST IS GOING TO BE REVIEWING IT WITH MORAL REVIEW IS ALSO GOING TO RE REVIEWING IT.

UM, DEPENDING ON IF IT'S IN A FLOOD PLAIN, THEY WILL ALSO BE REVIEWING IT.

I PERSONALLY DON'T VIEW THOSE THINGS.

SO I CAN'T REALLY PROMISE SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE SEVERAL REVIEWERS THAT ARE REVIEWING ALONG THOSE GUIDELINES.

UM, AND I ASSUME WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THOSE ASSETS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BRAY AND COMMISSIONER DANGLER, AND I'LL GO DOWN.

OKAY.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, SO, UM, MIGHT BE INTERESTED FOR PEOPLE TO APOLOGIZE IF THIS GETS CONFUSING AT ALL.

UM, BUT I GUESS I'M WONDERING FROM THE MUD REPRESENTATIVES, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS LETTER THAT WE GOT, THEY SAID THE REBUILDING, THE DOCTORS NOT IMPLICATE THE RULE CITED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN THE EXISTING DOC.

WE GOT THAT THIS AFTERNOON.

SO I'M WONDERING IF THEY'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT.

UM, I'M ALSO WONDERING IF THIS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGAL PROCESSES.

I FEEL LIKE I'M LIKE WAITING INTO A LAWYER'S FIGHT THAT I'M NOT EQUIPPED TO HANDLE.

UM, IN TERMS OF SOME LEGALITIES OF WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENTS THERE ARE.

SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY PRECEDENCE WITH OTHER CASES SIMILAR TO THIS, THAT, UM, AND ALSO WHAT CONSTITUTES, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE CCQ HAS THIS LETTER, IS THAT LIKE, DOES THAT ACTUALLY PROVIDE ANY KIND OF LEGAL PROTECTION IF THE TCQ PROVIDES A LETTER LIKE THIS? OR IS IT JUST SOMETHING THEY'RE SAYING THEY THINK MIGHT BE THE CASE, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A MORE FORMAL PROCESS TO ACTUALLY DETERMINE IT.

YEAH.

WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT? WHO, UM, WHO WANTS TO TAKE A STAB AT IT? I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN STILL BE HEARD THE APPLICANTS TO THOSE QUESTIONS.

YEAH.

SO I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER, YOU HAD RECEIVED THAT LETTER EARLIER TODAY.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE ON OUR SIDE HAS RECEIVED IT.

I HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT, UM, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT LETTER IS GOING TO HAVE PRECEDENTIAL BEST EFFECT FOR ENFORCEMENT GOING FORWARD.

UM, I, I WOULD POSIT THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THAT PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.

UM, I THINK THAT, AND I'M NOT SURE WHICH LETTER NICOLE WAS REFERRING TO, BUT JUST AS A FOR INSTANCE, I THINK WE HAVE MULTIPLE LETTERS FROM 2007 FROM TCQ SUGGESTING DIFFERENT THINGS.

UM, WE HAVE ONE LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DIVISION THAT WAS ATTACHED TO MY LETTER THAT WE SENT TO YOU ALL, BUT DOES SUGGEST THAT WE COULD BE SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT.

UM, SO I, I THINK WE WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO GET A LOOK AT THE NEW LETTER, UM, AND TRY TO EVALUATE IT FOR WHAT THAT MEANS NOW, WHO WROTE THE LETTER AT TCQ.

I BOUGHT, I SAW THAT THAT CAME FROM THE WATER DISTRICTS DIVISION.

I, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY WOULD BE THE ONES DOING THE ENFORCEMENT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVEN'T

[00:50:01]

SEEN THE LETTER.

AND I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.

AND I'M SURE THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM MUD FOUR WOULD LIKE TO DO THE SAME THING.

AND IF I MAY, THIS IS THE APPLICANT.

THE LETTER THAT A COMMISSIONER WAS ASKING ABOUT IS THE LETTER FROM 2007, WHICH I BELIEVE THE WATER DISTRICTS QUOTED.

AND OUR POINT IN POINTING OUT THAT THE LETTER SAYS REBUILDING, THE DOCS IS NOT IMPLICATE THE RULE CITED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN DOES THE EXISTING DOC.

IS THAT THE PORTION OF THAT LETTER THAT THE DISTRICTS PUT INTO THEIR LETTER TO TALK ABOUT WAS TAKEN COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT.

SO IF THIS IS NOT A NEW LETTER, THIS IS A LETTER THAT WAS CIRCULATED IN 2007, AND THAT THEY'VE SEEN MANY TIMES AND IN FACT QUOTED IN THEIR OWN LETTER.

THANK YOU.

UM, NICOLE, I DON'T DOUBT THAT THERE IS A LARGER LETTER OUT THERE, BUT I HAVE ONE LETTER IN FRONT OF ME.

IT HAS THREE PARAGRAPHS.

SO THERE MAY BE A LARGER LETTER OUT THERE IF THESE PROVISIONS WERE HANDPICKED FOR ANOTHER LETTER, THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT I HAVE ONE LETTER IN FRONT OF ME FROM 2007 AND COMMISSIONER BRAY.

DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OR IF NOT, I'LL GO ON TO COMMIT.

UM, I GUESS ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD ABOUT THE PHRASING, UM, I WOULD, I SAID REBUILDING THE DOCTORS NOT IMPLICATE THE RULE CITED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN JESSE ASSISTING DOC, BUT IT'S IT, THAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT'S, THE VIOLATION IS THE SAME, BUT THE EXCEPTION IS LIKE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE VIOLATION.

AND I WAS WONDERING IF THAT WOULD ALSO, THAT WORDING WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE EXCEPTION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, NOT JUST THE VIOLATION, CAUSE LIKE BEFORE THERE'LL BE, OTHERS ARE CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF THE RULE, JUST BECAUSE THE BOAT DOCK, THE NEW DOCK MAY ALSO CAUSE A PWS IS TO BE IN VIOLATION, RIGHT? SO THIS IS I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

THIS IS NICOLE MEET AGAIN.

SO AS TERRY BARNES MENTIONED, I WORKED ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH RESPECT TO GETTING ALL THESE LETTERS IN 2007.

AND THE NET OF ALL THOSE LETTERS IS THAT NONE OF THEM MADE ANY SENSE TO BE TOTALLY HONEST.

UM, I AGREE WITH SEAN, WITH MR. ABBOTT, THAT THERE WERE LETTERS, ALL OF THE LETTERS EFFECTIVELY SAID THERE IS NO VIOLATION UNTIL THERE'S SOMETHING BUILT AND WE'LL LOOK AT IT AT THAT TIME.

THEY EFFECTIVELY DECLINED TO COMMENT.

I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE IT IN THAT WAY.

AND SO THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE WENT BACK TO TCEQ PRESENT DAY, TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT IS AT ISSUE HERE AND ASK THEM BASED ON A SET OF FACTS THAT DESCRIBE WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO REQUESTED THAT THEY LOOKED AT IT FOR US AND TELL US WHETHER THE DISTRICTS WOULD BE IN VIOLATION AND YES, THE DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT THEMSELVES.

THEY DID NOT.

SO WE DID IT AND THE RESPONSE THAT WE GOT BACK, AND IN FACT, WE ROUTED THROUGH LOTS OF PEOPLE AT TCEQ TO GET TO THE RIGHT PERSON AND RESPONSE TO MR. ABBOTT'S CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS THE RIGHT PERSON.

UM, WE DID SPEAK WITH SOMEBODY IN THE WATER SUPPLY DIVISION WHO IS PART OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM THAT SITE, THESE VIOLATIONS.

AND IN FACT, THEY, AND I'LL QUOTE EXISTING EXCEPTIONS DO NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGES BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT REVOKED.

AND THE INTAKE AND THE MARINA ARE STILL IN THE SAME PLACES AND THE MARINA THAT'S US IS NOT BEING EXPANDED.

AND SO THAT WAS AN EFFORT TO TRY TO MAKE SOME SENSE OF ALL THOSE LETTERS FROM 2007, AND ASK A POINTED QUESTION WITH THE ACTUAL FACTS AT HAND AND ASK THE TCEQ.

IF OUR RECONSTRUCTION OF THAT DOC WAS GOING TO CREATE A VIOLATION SITUATION FOR THE DISTRICTS.

AND THEY SAID, IT WILL NOT, OKAY, THIS IS SEAN.

I WOULD JUST ADD THAT.

I AGREE WITH NATE THAT THE LETTER THAT I'M QUOTING FROM 2007, BUT IT ABSOLUTELY DOES SAY, BUT IT'S MADE SAYS, AND THAT IS THAT THEY DON'T REALLY WANT TO GET INTO A HYPOTHETICAL, COULD BE SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, ONCE THE HYPOTHETICAL BECOMES A REALITY, THEN THEY'LL MAKE THAT CALL.

UM, I WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, I THINK WE, I DON'T THINK OUR POSITION CHANGES.

WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE NEW LETTER AND, YOU KNOW, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT SAYS, WHERE IT CAME FROM.

UM, BUT I MEAN, JUST TO, NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT WE DO HAVE ONE LETTER FROM 2007 SAYING IT COULD BE AN ISSUE.

WE MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER LETTER FROM 2012, FROM 2020 THAT SAYS IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.

I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT IN 2007, THE CONTEXT AROUND THAT LETTER WAS A 200 DOC EXPANSION EXPANSION OF THE MARINA AND A BOAT MAINTENANCE FACILITY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

[00:55:01]

TODAY.

SO IN A SENSE, THOSE 2007 LETTERS KIND OF DON'T MATTER, WHICH IS WHY WE WENT BACK TO TCEQ WITH THE FACTS THAT ARE AT HAND AND REQUESTED THEIR OPINION.

OKAY.

TO CLARIFY, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY REAL QUICK, THAT DATA YOU HAVE NOT SEEN, LIKE THERE'S AN AUGUST 12TH LETTER, UH, THAT PLACE OF NOT SEEING YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW AUGUST 12TH, 2020 LETTER.

THIS IS SHAWN.

UH, WE HAVE NOT SEEN THAT LETTER.

AND THEN NEXT IS, DID I HEAR SOMEBODY WANTING TO SPEAK COMMISSIONER DANCLER AND THEN COMMISSIONER, UH, VICE CHAIR, BURRELL RAMIREZ.

UM, I THINK THE WAY COMMISSIONER BRAY PHRASED IT INITIALLY IS WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, UM, CAUSE OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS, UM, DEBATING T E C PROCESSES OR THE CITY OF AUSTIN PROCESSES, UM, WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS A ZONING CASE TO SEE USE APPROPRIATE ARE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPROPRIATE.

AND I'M NOT SURE IT'S AS IMPORTANT TO ME TO SEE, UH, THAT THE APPLIC, UH, THE FOLKS CONTESTING THE CASE, SEE THE LETTER THAT, UM, HUSH BLACKWELL.

I HOPE I'M PRONOUNCING THAT RIGHT, UH, DRAFTED TODAY BECAUSE THEIR OWN LETTER, UH, WHICH WE GOT LAST WEEK INDICATED IT MAY BE AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL EVER GET A DEFINITIVE RESPONSE OUT OF, UM, THE STATE AGENCY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING DEFINITIVE IN FRONT OF THEM.

SO I'M THINKING THAT COMMISSIONER SMITH REALLY HAS, UM, COME UP WITH KIND OF THE SOLUTION.

UM, THE ZONING IS APPROPRIATE.

THERE'S A MONTH BETWEEN NOW AND THEN FOR THE TWO ATTORNEYS.

AND I WAS KINDA DISAPPOINTED.

NOBODY HAD A LIGHT BULB, LAWYER, LIGHT BULB JOKE, BUT, UM, WHICH WOULD HAVE REALLY BEEN GREAT HERE.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD GIVE THEM TIME TO, UH, SEE IF THERE'S A MEANS TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF DOCS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND, UH, LEGAL HAS SAID THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH FRONTAGE THERE WAS ON LAKE AUSTIN, UH, TO DETERMINE HOW MANY SLIPS THEY WERE ALLOWED.

SO IT MAY BE ABLE TO LIMIT IN A CEO, MAYBE ABLE IN A PUBLIC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BUT IF THE TWO PARTIES TO GET TOGETHER, IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW THEM TO SHARE WITH EACH OTHER, WHETHER THE REGULATIONS HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY ENOUGH, THAT THE ADDITION OF TWO 20 BOTOX OR LESS IN A HUGE POOL OF WATER WOULD HAVE THE IMPLICATIONS THAT MIGHT CAUSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

UM, THIS MAY BE WHERE THEY CAN LOOK OVER, UM, WHAT THE REGS ARE AND SEE IF GAS MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE.

I THINK THE ZONING'S APPROPRIATE.

I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT THE REZONING.

AND I UNDERSTAND IF FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, I CAN, I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO TABLE IT, BUT I WANT TO MOVE THE REZONING.

UM, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE CAN, UM, I DON'T WANT TO CREATE LEGAL ISSUES.

WE'RE, UH, UH, ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP.

UM, SO I'M GOING TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RESULT WITH STAFF DIRECTION THAT THE PARTIES MEET TO SEE IF THEY CAN EXCHANGE INFORMATION ABOUT, UM, UH, WATER QUALITY REGS, BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE, UH, WHETHER THERE'S THE POTENTIAL TO LIMIT, TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DOCS AS WELL.

UM, AND, UM, THAT'S MY MOTION.

UH, AND I, MR. T UH, COMMISSIONER KING AND ANSWER THE QUESTION, I THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PERHAPS COMMISSIONER SMITH CAN SPEAK TO THIS, DO COME INTO PLAY AT THE PERMITTING PROCESS, WHICH IS WHERE THEY DO LOOK AT THE DREDGING.

UM, BUT THAT'S MY MOTION IF FOLKS, UM, ARE I'LL SECOND, THE MOTION AND CLARIFY THE ENVIRONMENT'S MISSION ROLE LOOK LIKE FOR YOU TO TALK AGAIN.

OKAY.

[01:00:01]

OKAY.

SO MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANGLER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH.

AND I STILL HAD, UM, COMMISSION, A VICE CHAIR FOR REAR RAMIREZ WISHING TO SPEAK.

AND ALSO, I, I, I HA I SEE, I SEE, UH, COMMISSIONER DUNKIN WITH HIS HAND RAISED.

SO COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR FOR RANGE OF RAMIREZ.

YES.

AND I'LL BE, I'LL BE REALLY BRIEF.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONERS SMITH AND DINKLER, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS ESTABLISHMENT WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THESE INTAKE VALVES WENT IN AND AN EXCEPTION WAS GIVEN, AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE'S ANY CHANGE IN THE ACTUAL USE.

SO I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD GRANT THIS, THE ZONING CASE BECAUSE THEY'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO MEND, WHAT'S BROKEN.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO GO BACK AND FORTH OVER, UM, PTQ REGULATIONS.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

OKAY, THEN I'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER DUNKIN AND THEN COMMISSIONER GEARY.

YEAH, YOU TOO.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, I HATE TO SPEAK, SOUNDING LIKE THE RESIDENT HISTORIAN.

UH, BUT I MAY BE THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS GROUP THAT HAS EVER BEEN THERE.

OKAY.

UH, I KNOW THE SITE REAL WELL.

IT OPENED IN 58.

I ARRIVED IN 59 AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT GOT ME THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IN TERMS OF MY SHELTER IN PLACE.

I'M SERIOUS.

I LEARNED TO SKI, THEY HAD THE GREATEST HAMBURGERS.

AND WHEN I CAME BACK, UH, I WENT OUT THERE.

I JUST REGRET THAT IT'S NOT OPEN.

ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE'RE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL.

THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND WHEN I, IT SADDENED ME TO SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH THAT MICHELLE, SO EARLIER ABOUT THE SLAPS MISSING FROM THE DOCKS.

I MEAN, THEY NEED TO HAMMER A FEW OF THOSE BACK.

OKAY.

AND THAT'S A SAFETY THING.

WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING THAT THE BUILDING NEEDS TO BE REFURBISHED.

UH, THE ONLY THING THAT I MIGHT, AND IT'S NOT EVEN AN ISSUE AND I HATE TO EVEN BRING YOUR LEFT IS I HEARD THAT IN THE SEVENTIES, THEY HAD LOT OF GOOD, LOUD CONCERTS OUT THERE THAT MIGHT UPSET SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS.

THAT'S NOT EVEN AN ISSUE, BUT I THINK THAT WE DON'T WANT TO MOVE THIS THING FORWARD.

I AGREE WITH MOTION.

I WANT A THIRD IT, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER GARY, AND THEN COMMISSIONER, THEN QUICK QUESTION INCLUDED PUBLIC COMMISSIONER GENTLER.

WOULD YOU ALSO LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? GOOD CATCH CATCH UP.

UM, YOU KNOW, SHE SHOULD BE THE PARLIAMENTARIAN.

I SHOULD BE THE SECRETARY FRANK, YOU KNOW? YES.

IT WAS ALSO INCLUDED CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YES.

OKAY.

THANKS.

AND THEN COMMISSIONER, I'M GONNA TO SOMEBODY COMMISSIONER EVANS.

WELL, I WAS GOING TO WEIGH IN ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ALSO.

AND JIM, YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS OUT THERE.

I WAS ALSO THERE 58.

OKAY.

AND, UM, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS, IF NOT, LET US DO THE VOTE.

UM, OH, COMMISSIONERS.

YES.

LET ME JUST CLARIFY REAL QUICKLY.

UM, IF THEY HAVE TO DO ANY DRAGGING, WHICH IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, THEY'LL HAVE TO GET A PERMIT FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

THEY'LL HAVE TO GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TO GET A VARIANCE AND THAT ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION PARENTS WILL COME BEFORE ZAKHO FOR APPROVAL.

SO IF THEY DO HAVE THE DREAD, IF LEAD TO MY CONCERN, THERE ARE STEPS.

WE'LL BRING THEM BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD IN ORDER TO DO THAT.

WE HAVE THAT COVERED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

COMMISSIONER SMITH.

OKAY.

COMMISSION ONE SECOND.

I'M SORRY.

OF COURSE.

THE DAVIS FROM A LADIES REVIEW AGAIN.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT LAST STATEMENT.

UM, IF THEY'RE GOING TO DREDGE, THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO GO BEFORE THAT WITH THE VARIANCE, IF IT'S MORE THAN 25 CUBIC YARDS.

SO IF THEY DO ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED THAT CLARIFICATION.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER DUNKIN SAID THAT FROM LOOKING AT THE PICTURES, WHAT SOMEBODY NEEDED TO DO WAS SIMPLY GO OUT THERE AND NAIL A FEW BOARDS INTO PLACE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THESE PEOPLE WANTED TO DO.

HOWEVER, WITH THIS CONVOLUTED PROCESS THAT WE HAVE AS, UH, NICOLE DESCRIBED IT, SO WELL AS CATCH 22, THEY GOT INTO A QUAGMIRE.

THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE.

NOT ONLY WAS IT UNBELIEVABLE, THE EXPENSES UNFATHOMABLE TO DATE, THESE PEOPLE ARE, HAVE SPENT RIGHT AT A QUARTER OF A