[00:00:02] >> WELCOME EVERYBODY, IT'S 3:32. [1. Call Meeting To Order ] WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. ROLL-CALL HAS BEEN TAKEN BY [INAUDIBLE]. [2. Attendance ] WE HAVE TWO ABSENCES AND THEN COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? HEARING NONE. ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? [4. Approval Of Minutes ] HEARING NONE, THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED AS WRITTEN. FIRST OFF CATHERINE, WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL US STAFF PRESENT? >> STAFF PRESENT IS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TIM TIETJENS, MYSELF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CATHERINE GORMAN, SENIOR PLANNER, DANIEL LUNSFORD, COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER, KYLE CLARKE, PLANNING TECHNICIAN KARINA ROSALES, AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DONNA FAIRWEATHER. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS. THERE'S A THREE-MINUTE MAXIMUM PER SPEAKER. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SURE. THIS IS A NON-AGENDA ITEM? >> AN AGENDA. >> VERY GOOD. JUST MAKING SURE. I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO GET UP, SIGN IN AND TAKE YOUR TIME. THIS IS NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND JUST ITEMS IN GENERAL. ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE? VERY GOOD. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT 3:34 AND WE'RE OFF TO NEW BUSINESS. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A CASE OUT OF ORDER. [6.B.1. 23P-031 (2818 Avenue R) Request For Designation As A Galveston Landmark. Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, West 1/2 Of Lot 11 & East 1/2 Of Lot 12 (2012-0) Southwest Block 115 Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Winter Bush / Rush Holdings, LLC. Property Owner: Rush Holdings, LLC. ] WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION CASE 23P-031. CATHERINE, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THIS WILL BE PRESENTED BY DANIEL. >> SO 23P-031. THIS IS AS STATED, A REQUEST FOR GALVESTON LANDMARK. THIS IS A 2018 AVENUE R. THERE WERE 31 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT AND NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED. WE'LL START BY TALKING ABOUT ROBERT MCGUIRE WHO WAS BORN IN GALVESTON IN 1868 TO JOHN AND FANNY MCGUIRE WHO ARE BOTH FORMERLY ENSLAVED FREED PERSONS. 1870 DIRECTORY LISTS JOHN MCGUIRE AS A DRAYMAN. IN 1890, JOHN IS LISTED AS A WIDOWER EMPLOYED AT A COTTON WAREHOUSE. HIS SON ROBERT FIRST APPEARS IN THE 1884 DIRECTORY AS EMPLOYED IN TREMONT HOTEL'S BILLIARD ROOM. TWO YEARS LATER HE'S LISTED AS WORKING WITH HIS FATHER IN THE COTTON WAREHOUSES. HE LATER BECAME A GALVESTON POLICE OFFICER. HE MARRIED ALBERTA MAPS IN THE 1890. THE TWO HAD THREE CHILDREN WHICH WOULD BE JOHN, JESSE, MAY, AND ROBERTA. ROBERT RETIRED FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WAS ALSO A BUSINESS OWNER. HE OWNED A HACK STAND ON POST-OFFICE AND HE ALSO OWNED MCGUIRE PARK WHICH AT THAT TIME WAS PRIVATE PROPERTY. IT WAS A SEGREGATED AFRICAN-AMERICAN PARK WITH THE ASSOCIATED IMMUNITIES. SO JESSE, MAY MCGUIRE DENT TO THE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL, THE FIRST SCHOOL IN TEXAS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS. SHE GRADUATED IN 1909 AS CLASS VALEDICTORIAN AND LATER TO HOWARD UNIVERSITY IN WASHINGTON DC. WHILE THERE, SHE HELPED FOUND THE DELTA SIGMA SORORITY IN 1913 AND WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED THROUGH THIS SORORITY AND LATER IN HER CAREER, ESPECIALLY WITH WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE EFFORTS AND VOTER OUTREACH. AFTER GRADUATING FROM HOWARD, 1913 JESSIE MAY RETURNED TO GALVESTON AS ENGLISH AND LATIN TEACHER AT CENTRAL HIGH, AND LATER BECAME THE DEAN OF GIRLS THERE. SHE MARRIED ATTORNEY THOMAS HENRY DENT 1924, THE TWO HAD ONE CHILD TOGETHER. JESSIE MAY ALSO SERVED ON THE FIRST EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE COLORED INDEPENDENT VOTERS’ LEAGUE IN GALVESTON COUNTY AND LATER FOUNDED A LOCAL BRANCH OF HER SORORITY WHICH WAS ONCE AGAIN INVOLVED WITH VOTER OUTREACH AND SOME OTHER COMMUNITY OUTREACH ISSUES. SHE WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE COLORED TEACHERS STATE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS AND THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION. IN 1943, SHE SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE GALVESTON SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEES TO DEMAND EQUAL PAY AND CONSIDERATION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN TEACHERS. SO THE HOUSE CURRENTLY 2018 AVENUE R WAS BUILT IN 1901, A REPLACEMENT FOR THE FAMILY'S HOUSE WHICH WAS DESTROYED IN THE 1900 STORM. IT WAS ORIGINALLY A ONE STORY HOUSE LOCATED 2727 AVENUE R BUT WAS MOVED TO 2720 AVENUE R AND BY 1912 AND THEN MOVED AGAIN IN 1915 TO ITS CURRENT LOCATION. THE PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY OWNED BY THE MCGUIRE'S AS MCGUIRE PARK WAS CONDEMNED BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON IN 1914 TO CREATE MCGUIRE PARK WHICH IS NOW KNOWN AS MINARD PARK AND OF COURSE INCLUDES THE MCGUIRE-DENT RECREATION CENTER. AT THE TIME IT SERVED AS THE ONLY ACCESS TO THE BEACHES FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS DURING THE TIME OF SEGREGATION. AT THE TIME OF THE 1950 RELOCATION, THE HOUSE WAS HIGH RAISED TO INCLUDE A GROUND-LEVEL ADDITION AND MULTIPLE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCLUDED. STAFF FIND THE HOUSE AS SUFFICIENT HISTORIC MATERIAL WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGNATION SPECIFICALLY THROUGH ASSOCIATION WITH MCGUIRE AND DENT FAMILIES AND WITH JESSIE MCGUIRE DENT HERSELF. PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES FOR NEW LANDMARKS. LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OVER THE REQUEST AT THEIR MAY 15, 2023 MEETING. CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2023. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL REQUEST WITH [00:05:02] CENTER CONDITION ONE OF THE STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. SO HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE LEFT AS IT LOOKS TODAY AND THEN WE HAVE A VICINITY MAP SHOWING ITS LOCATION IN RELATION TO MINARD PARK AND MCGUIRE DENT RECREATION CENTER. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, TO THE WEST, AND FINALLY A PHOTO OF THE YOUNG MS. JESSIE MAY MCGUIRE AND THEN LATER MS. MCGUIRE DENT LATER ON HER CAREER. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I'VE GOT ONE. IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST IN MAY 15TH. DID THEY APPROVE IT AND MAYBE I MISHEARD THAT. >> YEAH, THEY DID. THEY RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. >> GREAT. YOU SPOKE REAL FAST, SO I'M GOING HARD TIME CATCHING UP. >> HE'S GOOD AT THAT. >> GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD, SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME AND GIVE US ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU WISH TO? >> ABSOLUTELY. SO I WAS HERE YESTERDAY AND WASN'T QUITE PREPARED. TODAY I'M A LITTLE BIT BETTER. [LAUGHTER] SO MY NAME IS WINTER BUSH. I AM THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY AND IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY. IT REALLY IS AN HONOR TO FIND OUT THAT I OWNED A HOME THAT WAS BUILT BY ROBERT MCGUIRE AND JESSIE MCGUIRE DENT. ONCE I LEARNED OF THE HISTORY OF THIS HOME GENERALLY THROUGH PEOPLE COMING TO TAKE PICTURES OF IT, I HAVE DECIDED TO BEGIN AND WAS REALLY COMPELLED TO BEGIN THE PROCESS FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION. FOR ME, I DON'T SEE IT AS A PROPERTY ANYMORE, BUT I SEE IT AS A PIECE OF HISTORY AND I HOPE YOU DO TOO. >> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO COMMEND YOU FOR DOING THIS. IT'S INTERESTING. I ALSO THINK OF US AS SIMPLY STEWARDS OR PEOPLE THAT HAVE ADOPTED THESE HOMES BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE HERE LONG AFTER WE'RE GONE. SO I REALLY COMMEND YOU FOR DOING THIS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? GREAT. WITH THAT, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. >> I'LL JUST MAKE ONE NOTE. SOMETHING THAT MS. BUSH THAT SHE SHARED WITH US YESTERDAY IS THAT SHE'S A MEMBER OF THE DELTA SIGMA SORORITY THAT MCGUIRE DENT HELPED FOUND. >> I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS AS COMPELLING. THANK YOU FOR SHARING. I TOLD IT OFF THE CUFF YESTERDAY. YES. ADD THAT TO THE LIST. I TOLD THAT OFF THE CUFF YESTERDAY. ONE OF THE PIECES IS THAT AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMEN KEPT SHOWING UP TO TAKE PICTURES OF THIS HOME AND MY CONTRACTOR SHARED THAT THEY WERE FROM DELTA, BUT HE JUST ASSUMED DELTA AIRLINES. [LAUGHTER] AFTER THE THIRD ONE SHOWED UP, IT CLICKED THAT DELTA SIGMA THETA, I'M A DELTA FROM 1998. >> HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. CAN WE REDUCE COMMENTS IN THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE? THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, MS. BUSH. >> XAVIER UNIVERSITY, 1998. SHE'S SARAH MCGUIRE DENT GRADUATED FROM HOWARD UNIVERSITY, SO SISTER UNIVERSITY. SO IT'S COMPELLING IN SO MANY WAYS. YESTERDAY WHEN I TALKED ABOUT IT, I GOT A LITTLE BIT EMOTIONAL. TODAY I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE READY SO YOU GUYS DON'T GET THE EMOTIONAL PART OF IT, BUT I AM A MEMBER OF DELTA SIGMA THETA PROUD MEMBER. >> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. >> I JUST THINK THAT'S A WONDERFUL CONNECTION. >> THANK YOU, MS. BUSH. PLEASE DO MAKE SURE TO SIGN IN. >> YES, ABSOLUTELY. I WAS TAKING THE SHEET. I WANT THIS. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, CATHERINE? >> NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. >> VERY GOOD. I WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. I THINK STEVEN, YOU'RE GETTING READY TO. >> YEAH, SURE. I RECOMMEND WE MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF 23P-031. >> CAN I GET A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND. ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? MR. HILL? NO. ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY. MOTION PASSES WITH FIVE VOTES, ALL PRESENT. CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE FINAL SAY ON THIS. >> CONGRATULATIONS, THANK YOU. ONE MORE STEP. >> YEAH. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT CATHERINE, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE FIRST [NOISE] I'M TRYING TO GET THERE. [6.A.1 23P-033 (Adjacent To 11628 And 11622 Sportsman Road) Request For An Abandonment Of Approximately 6,556 Square Feet Of Street Right Of Way Between West Bay And Sportsman Road. Adjacent Properties Are Legally Described As The East Part Of Lot 176 (176-7), And The Northwest Part Of Lot 157 (157-3), Trimble And Lindsey, Section 2, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Lance And Jennifer Robertson And Sam Grizzaffi Adjacent Property Owners: Lance And Jennifer Robertson And Casa Di Mare Galveston, LLC Easement Holder: City Of Galveston ] >> THAT'S 23P033 AND WILL BE PRESENTED BY MR. DICKENS. >> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. I AM PRESENTING 23P033, WHICH IS AN ABANDONMENT REQUEST. IT'S A PORTION OF NINE MILE ROAD LOCATED NORTH OF SPORTSMAN ROAD. IT'S A PORTION OF THAT ROAD WHICH WAS PART OF THE TRIMBLE AND LINDSAY SURVEY. A PORTION OF THAT ROAD IS GONE TO THE SOUTH OF THIS, [00:10:01] BUT THIS SECTION HERE TO THE NORTH OF SPORTSMAN ROAD STILL EXISTS AS A ROAD RIGHT AWAY. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LANCE AND JENNIFER ROBERTSON HAVE MADE APPLICATION. [NOISE] PARDON ME. CASA DEL MAR GALVESTON, LLC ON THE WEST SIDE HAS ALSO JOINED IN IN THAT APPLICATION. BOTH SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THIS IS A REQUEST THAT'S PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 272001, AND OF THE LDRS SECTION 6302. WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS AN AERIAL OF THE AREA THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE ABANDONED. AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S UNIMPROVED RIGHT AWAY. IT'S GOT SOME LOW SPOTS IN IT AND IT GENERALLY IS NOT IN REAL GREAT SHAPE. THE CITY DOESN'T DO MUCH TO MAINTAIN IT, AND IN FACT THE CITY HAS RECENTLY ERECT SOME BARRICADES UP THERE BECAUSE OF APPARENTLY SOME OBSTRUCTIONS OUT IN THE WATER, AND IT GETS REAL DEEP QUICK WITHOUT A RAMP. THE ACCESS OR THE PROVISION OF A BOAT LAUNCH AS SUCH WHILE THAT HAPPENS, IT'S NOT OFFICIALLY A BOAT LAUNCH. [NOISE] THE APPLICANTS JUSTIFICATION IS THAT IT'S AN UNUSED LOT. THEIR CLAIM IS THAT IT CONTRIBUTES TO CONSISTENT TRESPASSING AND THEFT ISSUES OF ADJACENT LANDOWNERS, AND TRACKS ALLEGEDLY COVERED IN TRASH AND DEBRIS. LAUNCHING OF BOATS AND JET SKIS AT ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT, CONTRIBUTES TO NOISE ISSUES. ALL AROUND IT IS SINGLE-FAMILY USES. THE IMPACT ON THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS, OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT ON THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. IT'S A DEAD END ROAD THAT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE BUT THE WATER. ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES, THERE ARE NO UTILITIES IN THE CORRIDOR. [NOISE] PARDON ME. HOWEVER, THE CITY ENGINEER HAS REQUESTED THAT SHOULD THE ABANDONMENT OCCUR, THAT A 20-FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT BE RETAINED ON THE COMMON LOT LINE. THE REQUEST ITSELF HAD 12 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES SENT. THREE OF THOSE RETURNED, ALL THREE OF THOSE WERE OPPOSED. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS I MAY ANSWER? >> YES, PLEASE. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SORRY, COMMISSIONER HILL. >> YOU KNEW I'D HAVE QUESTIONS TIM, DIDN'T YOU? OF COURSE I VISITED THE PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A 20-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT DOWN THE CENTER. OTHERWISE, THE PROPERTY IS 50 FEET WIDE AND IS 6,556 SQUARE FEET, SO IT'S LARGE ENOUGH TO SATISFY A FULL RESIDENTIAL LOT STANDARD, CORRECT? >> A PLOTTED LOT, YES. HOWEVER, THAT AREA HAS NO UTILITIES. IT WOULD FALL INTO THAT WHOLE PERSPECTIVE THAT THE COUNTY HAS ON PROVIDING FOR [OVERLAPPING] >> SEPTIC. >> SEPTIC SYSTEMS, YES. >> OKAY. BUT IN GENERAL, IT'S NOT AN INCONSEQUENTIAL ABANDONMENT IN OVERALL SIZE? >> NO, I WOULDN'T SAY SO. IT'S THE REMNANT OF THAT RIGHT AWAY AND AS IT EXISTS NORTH OF SPORTSMAN ROAD. [NOISE] I'M TERRIBLY SORRY ABOUT MY COUGH. BUT TO THE SOUTH OF IT PORTIONS HAVE BEEN ABANDONED ALREADY. >> RIGHT, AND OBVIOUSLY ALSO THE KEY FACTOR BEING THE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE BAY? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I NOTICED THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT THERE'S NO RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE'RE USED TO SEEING, CORRECT? >> WELL, I THINK THIS IS ONE IN WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE PAST, [00:15:01] IT'S PREFERENCE TO KEEP PARCELS THAT HAVE WATER ACCESS OPEN AND AVAILABLE. STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT AND SO IT REALLY IS YOUR DETERMINATION. >> OBVIOUS TO ME ARE THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THIS CASE AND ONE WE HEARD ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, AND THE SIMILARITIES ARE STRIKING. IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE AS YOU SAID, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THOSE WHO WERE NOT ON PLANNING COMMISSION, WAS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A DENIAL. THEN WE WERE OVERTURNED AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL. IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF ABANDONMENT AND TO QUOTE THAT STAFF REPORT, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS QUOTED THERE. IT WAS THE TRANSPORTATION PORTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SECTION T4.2. THAT STATED, HOLD ON I'M GOING TO READ IT. "THE CITY IS THE STEWARD OF OUR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, WHICH INCLUDES STREETS AND SIDEWALKS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SERVES AS THE REVIEW BODY, FOR REQUESTS FROM THE PUBLIC TO PURCHASE CALLED ABANDONMENT, THESE RIGHTS OF WAY. THE CITY HAS A DUTY TO BALANCE THE DESIRES OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WITH THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC LAND. FOR ABANDONMENT REQUESTS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER THE IMPORTANCE OF RETAINING GALVESTON'S GRID PATTERN. THE GRID PROVIDES VIEWS AND ACCESS TO GOLF BREEZES, CONTINUED ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION IN THE ABANDONMENT PROCESS. NO RIGHTS-OF-WAY THAT PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER SHOULD BE ABANDONED." DO YOU SEE THIS CASE AS ANY DIFFERENT THAN THAT ONE? >> NOT PARTICULARLY, NO. THEY'RE BOTH OUT OF THE URBAN CORE AND THAT'S THE QUOTE IN THE TOP PLAN, IS THAT FOR CASES IN THE URBAN CORE THOSE SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED. BOTH THE TEICHMAN AREA AND THIS ONE ARE OUT OF THE URBAN CORE, AND WHILE IT DOES PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE WATER, IT DOESN'T MEET THAT STANDARD OF BEING IN THE URBAN CORE, AND BEING A DEAD END INTO THE WATER IN THAT AREA OF TOWN. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE, BUT IT'S QUITE SIMILAR TO THE 93RD STREET ABANDONMENT. >> AS FAR AS WHEN THIS WAS FOR BREEZES, BUT PEOPLE STILL DESERVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATERWAYS. THE PUBLIC STILL DESERVES TO HAVE ACCESS TO WATERWAYS, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> SURE. >> DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT 3,900 SQUARE FOOT BAY FRONT LOT, IN THE OTHER CASE IN 2021 SOLD FOR AT ABANDONMENT? >> NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, NO. >> THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT BAY FRONT LOT SOLD FOR $17,000, JUST EVERYBODY BEAR THAT IN MIND. THAT'S WHAT WE SOLD OUT THE PUBLIC FOR, $17,000. DID YOU OR ANY STAFF MEMBER PERSONALLY OBSERVE WHO OR HOW THIS PUBLIC BOAT RAMP IS USED ON OR OFF SEASON? >> NO. >> OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF HOW MANY SHORT-TERM RENTALS THERE ARE ON SPORTSMAN ROAD? >> NO. >> IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS VERSUS PEOPLE WHO COME IN JUST FOR THE DAY MIGHT BE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CAUSING THE NUISANCES? I'M ASKING QUESTIONS, DONNA, THAT WENT INTO MY THOUGHT PROCESS. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT COMMISSIONER BUT EVEN IN THE ASKING OF THE QUESTIONS, YOU GOT TO KEEP IT IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STAFF REPORT. I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOU ADDRESS QUESTIONS TO STAFF AS MAYBE A STAFF IF YOU'RE PERSONALLY AWARE. [00:20:09] >> FAIR. ABSOLUTELY FAIR. IS STAFF AWARE, ANYBODY ON STAFF? IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE IS A LETTER THAT STATES THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH NOISE PROBLEMS FROM THE APPLICANT NOISE PROBLEMS. DID THEY PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT? EVIDENCE AS TO WHO MIGHT BE DOING THAT. IS IT TRULY PEOPLE WHO COME IN WITH THE KAYAKS OR PEOPLE WHO COME IN JUST ON A DAILY BASIS? IS IT POSSIBLE, DO YOU THINK, OR DO WE HAVE ANY? DO DOES STAFF HAVE? COULD STAFF PROVIDE TO THE COMMISSION? I'M I GETTING CLOSE? AM I GETTING WARM, DONNA? IS THERE A POTATO INVOLVED HERE? >> WHAT I WILL SAY IS THIS, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS ARE ONE OF THE APPLICANTS NARRATIVES IS PRESENT IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I'M ALSO AWARE THAT THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS ALSO HERE AND THAT'S MORE THAN LIKELY A QUESTION YOU CAN POST TO THE APPLICANT AND THEY WOULD BETTER BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. >> WE'LL SEE IF THEY BROUGHT THE POTATO. LET'S SEE. THEN REALLY, IS IT OUR CALL OR OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THAT? WHO FIGURES OUT? I GUESS WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL DONNA, IN MAKING OUR DETERMINATION ON THIS AS TO WHO IS CAUSING THE PROBLEMS. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING ASKED OF YOU TODAY. WHAT'S BEING ASKED OF YOU TODAY IS AN ABANDONMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE OUTSIDE ISSUES THAT MAY COME INTO YOUR DETERMINATION, YOUR OWN PERSONAL DETERMINATION, BUT WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS BEING ASKED TODAY IS AN ABANDONMENT. >> DOKIE, THANK YOU. I HAVE MORE TO SAY, BUT IT WILL COME UNDER THE DISCUSSION PART OF OUR HEADING WHERE I MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY. THANK YOU. >> VERY GOOD. OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. COMMISSIONER LANCE. >> I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, EXCUSE ME, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT BAY ACCESS AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR NEW TO THE COMMISSION. WHERE IS PUBLIC BAY ACCESS? IS THERE OTHER PUBLIC BAY ACCESS THAT KAYAKERS CAN PUT THEIR BOATS IN OHER THAN THIS PROPERTY? >> THERE ARE THE ACCESS POINTS. I KNOW THAT THE ARTIST BOAT HAS A LAUNCH SITE JUST WEST OF HERE. NOT TOO TERRIBLY FAR DOWN. >> FROM THIS [INAUDIBLE] >> PARDON ME. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. I'VE ACTUALLY TAKEN THAT TOUR MYSELF. IT'S A WONDERFUL TOUR. THERE ARE OTHER UNABANDONED ROAD RIGHTS OF WAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE ALL ACTING AS ACCESS POINTS AS SUCH. >> HOWEVER, TIM, YOU DID STATE THAT THIS DOES PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO A BODY OF WATER, CORRECT? >> THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LITERALLY GOES FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE BODY OF WATER. >> YOU'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER PENA. >> IN PERMANENT STREET CLOSURES SECTION HERE, B NUMBER 2 MAINTAIN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE ORIGINAL RIGHT-OF-WAY. IS THAT PART OF THE PLAN FOR THIS SPECIFICALLY DOWN THAT 20-FOOT EASEMENT OR IS THAT NOT BEAMED? >> NO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S PART OF THE REQUESTS. THEY'VE ACTUALLY REQUESTED A FULL ABANDONMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS QUALIFIED THAT RESPONSE WITH NEEDING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO DRAIN THE AREA BETTER. >> NO OTHER EXISTING WELL, IT SAYS EXISTING VIEW CORRIDORS OR BREEZEWAYS. THERE'S NO EXISTING CORRIDOR OR BREEZEWAY, BUT THEN THAT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND THEN PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. NONE OF THOSE CRITERIA IN THAT SECTION. >> WE'RE MAD AND PERTAINING TO THE COMPLETE ABANDONMENT. [00:25:04] >> NO. IT'S SOMETHING THAT CERTAINLY COULD BE INCORPORATED, BUT THE REQUEST ITSELF WOULD BRING FORWARD WHAT REQUEST OR REQUESTS. >> THANK YOU. >> TEAM, UNDERNEATH THE STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL, THERE'S REFERENCE IN THEIR PERMANENT STREET CLOSURES THAT SAYS THAT CLUTTERED STREET RIGHT AWAY AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THESE REGULATIONS MAY BE CONSIDERED WHEN THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE CONSIDERED. THAT A3 NO STRUCTURE BE ERECTED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL RIGHT-OF-WAY. HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE INCLUDED OR IS IT INCLUDED AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR STANDARD FOR APPROVAL? >> YOU'VE KIND OF FOLLOW. >> NO. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND YOU'RE RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT HERE IN THE STAFF REPORT. SHOULD YOU DETERMINE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON THIS, I WOULD INCLUDE THAT IN IT. >>YEAH, OKAY. THANK YOU. >> AS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THAT'S NOT STATED CLEARLY. IT'S STATED IN EARLY UNDERNEATH THE PERMANENT STREET CLOSURES, BUT IT'S NOT A STANDARD FOR APPROVAL. >> FOR RIGHT-OF-WAYS IN GENERAL OR JUST AS A PARTICULAR CASE. >> IT STATES FOR RIGHT-OF-WAYS IN GENERAL AND UNDER THIS, BUT NOT IN THIS CASE. >> IT REALLY OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS AS A CONDITION IF YOU CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I HAD A COUPLE. I THINK WHEN WE DID THE CASE ON 93RD STREET AND KEEP IN MIND, THAT TRACK WAS ABOUT HALF THE SIZE OF THIS ONE, SO IT WAS SIMILAR BUT IT WAS ALSO SMALLER. I THINK I ASKED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN DO LTUS WITH THESE. WE DO LTUS WITH THE SIDEWALKS IN TOWN. DO WE DO LTUS IN A ROCK, COULD YOU DO THAT LTU ON THIS AND LOOP JUST AN OUTRIGHT SALE? >> GO AHEAD. [LAUGHTER] >> USUALLY IN LTU FOR A SPAN OF AREA, WOULD USUALLY ENCOMPASS IF THERE'S AN ENCROACHMENT OF SOME SORT OR SOME OBJECT INHIBITING IT. I DON'T SEE THAT HERE. I DON'T SEE AN ENCROACHMENT. I DON T THINK AN LTU [OVERLAPPING] >> IT'D BE A STRETCH, IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME. >> I'M SORRY. >> IT WOULD BE A STRETCH TO SAY THAT THIS WOULD QUALIFY FOR LTU. >> BECAUSE IT'S A LICENSE TO USE, EVEN IF IT'S A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE, IS REALLY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO EITHER CHANGE IT OR ADD SOMETHING TO IT OR PUT SOMETHING ON TOP OF IT OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOMETHING WAS PLACED ON IT THAT EITHER YEARS BEFORE, AND NOW IT JUST NEEDS TO MAKING IT TO A MORE CONFORMING PATTERN FOR THE CITY. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THE REQUEST THAT WAS [INAUDIBLE] FOR AN ANSWER. >> I UNDERSTAND. ABANDONMENT ARE RIGHT OF WAYS. WHEN THE CITY ABANDONS RIGHT OF WAY, THE FOLKS WHO GET FIRST DIBS FOR LACK OF ANOTHER WORD ARE THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. CORRECT. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE BOTH OF THESE GUYS ON BOTH SIDES ARE TRYING TO MAKE THAT GO AWAY. THAT IS BY STATUTE SO THAT'S WHY THEY WOULD HAVE, I HEAR JEFFRIES COMMENTS. I HAVE AND I KNOW WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT SOMETHING LIKE SHOOT, THAT'S A LOT. NOW I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT BEING NEEDED SKEPTICS THAT CREATES ITS OWN ISSUES. BUT I WAS LIKE, HOW ARE WE GOING TO SELL A LOT? THAT'S WHY I HAD BROUGHT THAT UP. >> IT'S ACTUALLY UNDER THE 272 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THAT BASICALLY DEFINES WHO'S ABLE TO. >> YOU COULDN'T JUST ABANDON IT. CITY SAYS, HEY, I'M GOING TO ABANDON THIS AND GO SELL. THERE'S A LOT ON THE OPEN MARKET SO THAT WE DON'T SELL IT FOR $17,000. THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT. QUESTION. LET'S SEE. THE COMMENT IS IT'S A PUBLIC BOAT RAMP. HOW DOES THE CITY DEFINE THAT AS I SAY, MAYBE IT'S PUBLIC ACCESS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CITY OWNS THE RIGHT OF WAY, [00:30:04] BUT IT'S NOT A BOAT RAMP. >> I DON'T KNOW. IT'S NOT A BOAT RAMP. I HAVEN'T SAID IT'S A BOAT RAMP. I SAID PEOPLE ARE USING IT >> AS A BOAT RAMP. THAT'S RIGHT. >> IN PART BY OUR RISK MANAGEMENT FOLKS. >> IT CERTAINLY PERCEIVED AS ONE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC. WE HAVE THAT GOING ON. WHAT'S THE CITY'S DEAL ON MAINTAINING THE RIGHT OF WAY BECAUSE THAT IS A HAZARD IS WHAT I SEE AND I'M CERTAIN MAYBE YOUR RISK MANAGEMENT FOLKS HAVE SEEN THAT TOO. THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING. >> I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY IT WAS BARRICADED OFF. IF THERE ARE SOME RISKS THERE WITH VEHICLES THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET OUT IF THEY LAUNCH A BOAT. I'M TOLD IT'S EXTREMELY STEEP RIGHT THERE AS IT GOES INTO THE WATER. >> HEY, THANK YOU. >> YES. GO AHEAD. >> WE'VE HAD ABANDONMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY DISCUSSIONS IN SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS. I ALWAYS GET DIFFERENT ANSWERS ON WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE LAND IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? >> I'LL TAKE A GANDER AT IT. HOPEFULLY IS NOT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THE THE CITY IS A STEWARDS OF THE STREETS. WE MANAGE THE STREETS AND WE CAN SELL OUR STREETS, WE CAN LEASE OUR STREETS. THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WE ARE THE STEWARDS OF IT. WE HAD THE RIGHT TO SELL IT. OUR CHARTER GIVES US THE RIGHT TO SELL IT, TEXAS CONSTITUTION GIVES US THE RIGHT TO SELL IT OR ABANDON IT OR LEASE IT. IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, THE TEXAS STATUTES PROVIDE THAT IF SOMEONE IS REQUESTING AN ABANDONMENT, THAT IT'S FIRST OFFERED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, ALBEIT SOME OTHER SITUATION, MAYBE AN EMINENT DOMAIN TYPE OF SITUATION, IF THE CITY NEEDED THAT AREA OR NEEDED A SWAP OF THAT AREA, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THIS RIGHT OF WAY, THEN THERE'LL BE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD PRECLUDE US OFFERING IT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. BUT THE BEST WAY TO SAY IS THAT WE ARE THE STEWARDS OF THE STREETS. >> I WILL ADD ONE THING TO THAT AND THAT IS IT REALLY DEPENDS ON HOW A RIGHT OF WAY IS DEDICATED. [NOISE] MODERN PLATS IS DEDICATED TO THE CITY. THIS WAS FILED WITH THE GLO AND IT WAS A BASICALLY NOT A SUBDIVISION PLAT AS SUCH, IT WAS A SURVEY. THERE'S QUITE A BIT MORE OF AN UNKNOWN STATUS OF ITS CIRCUMSTANCE, THEN THERE WOULD BE ON, SAY, A MODERN PLAT WHERE THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT ITS DEDICATION BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IN THE DEDICATED THE DECLARATORY STATEMENTS OF THE PLAT VERY SPECIFICALLY CALL THAT OUT. HERE, NONE OF THAT LANGUAGE EXISTS. TREMBLED IN LINDSAY IS ONE OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE MUDDY, SO TO SPEAK, THAN WOULD BE THE TYPICAL PLOT. >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY IS MORE OR LESS AN EASEMENT AND NOT ACTUALLY DEDICATED OWNERSHIP BY THE CITY GALVESTON. >> WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING IN THIS CASE IS GRANTING WHATEVER INTERESTS WE HAVE IN THAT PROPERTY. IT MAY NOT BE HARDLY ANYTHING AT ALL. OUR INTEREST IS WHATEVER IT IS AND FROM THE STANDPOINT OF IF THERE'S A CENTER LINE INTERESTS OF THOSE FOLKS WITH AN EASEMENT ON EITHER SIDE, THERE MAY BE SOME SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS TO WHICH THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO THINGS VERSUS A STANDARD MORE MODERN PLAT DEDICATION. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THOSE PLATS THAT HAD JUST BEEN FILED AS SURVEYS ARE VERY VAGUE AND NON-SPECIFIC. >> THAT GOES TO SOME OF THE VALUES THAT WE'VE SEEN WITH SOME OF THESE EASEMENTS, I THINK OR THESE RIGHT OF WAY, THEY'RE NOT VALUED AT WHAT A LOT WOULD BE VALUED AT. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT IS MY QUESTION. >> I'M STILL VERY UNCLEAR ABOUT THAT WHOLE THING. [LAUGHTER] >> THERE IS AN APPRAISAL PROCESS. [00:35:03] >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> NO. TYPICALLY, WHAT HAPPENS AS A CITY ANNEXES AN AREA THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY EITHER DEDICATED OR INDICATED ON DEDICATED RIGHTS OF WAY, IT TAKES OVER WHATEVER FORM THOSE ARE. OBVIOUSLY, SOME OF THOSE RIGHTS OF WAY HAVE BEEN PAVED AND UTILIZED AS ROADWAYS, AND OTHERS HAVE NOT BEEN. >> SURE WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND FEE THEIR PROPERTY COULD BE DATED TO THE CENTER OF THAT ROAD. WHAT WE'RE SAYING THAT SO IF YOU DID APPLY, YOU CLEARLY DEDICATE THE ROADWAY. USED TO BE A LONG TIME AGO AND PROBABLY WITH THIS, THERE WAS A DEDICATED A RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THE FEE INTEREST OF THE DEED WENT TO THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. THAT'S WHAT I'M CURIOUS ON THAT AS YOU ALL KNOW, IF THAT'S THE CASE ON THIS. >> WE REALLY DON'T. >> YOU DON'T KNOW. >> YEAH. AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS FILED IN THE 1890S WITH THE GLO. >> AND THAT'S WHERE MY QUESTION COMES FROM. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT RIGHT OF WAY IS IN THE PAST AND OTHER READINGS AND, SOME PEOPLE ON STAFF SAY THAT REALLY THAT PROPERTY GOES TO THE CENTER OF THE STREET OR THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. OTHERS SAY NO, IT'S TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND IT'S CORRECT. >> ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [LAUGHTER] >> NO, IT'S NOT. I THINK IT'S MOSTLY DIRT BUT THERE'S SOME GRAVEL OUT THERE, I BELIEVE. THEN IT'S OBVIOUSLY IN BAD SHAPE. [LAUGHTER] >> VERY GOOD. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO CALL BACK, AND THEN LET'S GO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? [LAUGHTER]. >> YES, THE APPLICANT IS HERE, [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU. YEAH. PLEASE GO. [INAUDIBLE] >> YEAH, I ASKED YOU TO COME FORWARD, SIGN IN, AND AGAIN, STATE YOUR NAME AND THE OTHER APPLICANTS ARE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD AS WELL DEPENDING ON THE RESPONSE FROM YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, [LAUGHTER] IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, I GUESS, AND CONGRATULATE. >> [INAUDIBLE] ARE REPRESENTED. >> ON THE OKAY. SURE. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. AGAIN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND WHICH PROPERTY YOU'RE REPRESENTING. >> ABSOLUTELY. CONGRATULATIONS BY THE WAY. >> THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS GUS CANABLE I REPRESENT LANCE AND JENNIFER ROBERTSON, 2,200 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300. MR. AND MRS. ROBERTSON, OWN THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE REQUESTED ABANDONMENT TO THE EAST, 11622 SPORTSMAN ROAD. WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING AND THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER HAS JOINED IS AN ABANDONMENT OF THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CENTER LINE TO EACH PROPERTY OWNER. AS THE COMMISSION HAS SEEN, THE ROAD IS ALREADY BEEN CLOSED BY THE CITY STAFF HAS REPORTED THAT THIS IS AN UNIMPROVED ROAD THAT HAS BECOME A NUISANCE. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY AND WHILE PEOPLE WILL TALK ABOUT BOAT RAMPS, THE CITY IN THEIR RISK MANAGEMENT HAVE FELT THE NEED TO CLOSE IT. THAT'S THE FIRST THING. NEXT, SPORTSMAN ROAD ITSELF IS AN EAST-TO-WEST THOROUGHFARE. SPORTSMAN ROAD TO THE WEST, DEAD ENDS THERE IS NOTHING DOWN THERE OTHER THAN SO THE ONLY REASON YOU GO ONTO SPORTSMAN ROAD IS TO ACCESS PROPERTY OR ACCESS YOUR HOMES. ALL OF THE HOMES IN THIS AREA OF SPORTSMAN ROAD AND TO THE WEST, FOR THE MOST PART LIE ALONG THE BAY. BY CLOSING THIS, THE LANDOWNERS AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ALONG SPORTSMAN ROAD THEIR VIEW OF THE BAY WILL NOT BE IMPEDED. THEY STILL HAVE ACCESS THROUGH THEIR HOMES. AS FAR AS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IS CONCERNED, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS HERE. THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ALONG EIGHT MILE ROAD. THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ALONG STEWART ROAD OUT HERE. THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THAT WOULD OCCUR ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO DRIVE TO THIS AREA. [00:40:05] AS THE COMMISSION CAN SEE, THE DITCH SYSTEM OUT HERE IS THE OPEN CHANNEL DITCH SYSTEM DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF SPORTSMAN ROAD IS APPEARS TO BE UNDEVELOPED MARSHLAND. WHAT OCCURS IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE PARK ALONG SPORTSMAN ROAD, THEY ARE PARKING IN UNDEVELOPED MARSHLANDS AND IT HAS ACTUALLY COME INTO CITY COUNCIL THIS MONTH IS A DISCUSSION ON WHAT THE AD HOC BEACH AND DUNE COMMITTEE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS WE NEED TO REMOVE CARS FROM BEACHES BECAUSE IT'S DAMAGING THE NATURAL RESOURCES BY ALLOWING CARS TO PARK. THE ONLY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THAT OCCURS IS FROM CARS THAT ARE PARKING AND DAMAGING THIS MARSLAND THAT IS THEN CAUSING EROSION AND FURTHER DAMAGE. MOVING ON, JUST POINT OUT, AS I SAID, THERE'S NO REAL PARKING HERE SO IF PEOPLE ARE USING THIS, THEY'RE HAVING TO PART AND THAT'S CAUSING ISSUES ALONG THIS STREET. FURTHERMORE, THIS TRACT ITSELF HAS 50 FOOT WIDE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE LOT, IT'S GOING TO BE ABANDONED TO THE CENTER LINES, SO THERE WILL BE A 20-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT WOULD BE RESERVED. THE IDEA THAT A HOUSE COULD BE BUILT HERE, I DON'T SEE IS FEASIBLE, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE SEPTIC ISSUES THAT ARE PRESENT OUT HERE. MS. ROBERTSON IS HERE. SHE CAN SPEAK MORE TO WHAT COMMISSIONER HILL WAS ASKING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS RIGHT AWAY THAT WE'RE REQUESTING TO BE ABANDONED, AS IS LUKE COROLLA, WHO CAN SPEAK. ALSO FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR GUS? >> HEY GUS. >> HEY RUSTY. >> ANY GUESS WHAT YOU THINK THAT PROPERTY MIGHT BE WORTH? >> I THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT THE CITY APPOINTED APPRAISER WOULD HEIGHTEN. >> I KNEW YOU WOULD ANSWER THAT WAY. [LAUGHTER] YOU LAWYERS ARE THE SAME. >> I MEAN, I COULD TELL YOU WHAT THE CARD HAS IT ON THERE. >> I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GUS. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS JENNIFER ROBERTSON, MY FAMILY AND I LOVE GALVESTON. WE CONSIDER OURSELVES SO LUCKY AND BLESSED TO HAVE A HOME ON SPORTSMAN ROAD. IT'S RIGHT WHERE WE WANT IT TO BE WITH OUR THREE RAMBUNCTIOUS BOYS UNTIL EVENTUALLY RETIRE. WE DO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THE UNIMPROVED LAND IN QUESTION. FOR THE 11 YEARS WE'VE OWNED OUR PROPERTY, THE BOAT RAMP HAS BEEN A NUISANCE BUT IT SEEMS TO GET WORSE EACH YEAR. A KAYAK COMPANY ACTUALLY USE THE CITY-OWNED LAND THE LAST TWO YEARS AS THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS AND EVEN USED A PICTURE OF OUR HOUSE ON THEIR WEBSITE AS THEIR LOCATION. EVEN LISTED ON THE APPLE MAPS, WAS OUR HOME LISTED AS THEIR BUSINESS. MY NEIGHBORS SACRIFICE USE, AND I HAVE STRANGERS TRESPASSING DAILY IN THE SUMMERTIME AND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. ON COMING AND GOING TO LAUNCH A BOAT THEY'LL USE OUR PRIVATE BOAT DOCK OR OUR NEIGHBORS TO GO BACK AND FORTH TO PARK OR GET THEIR TRUCK AND THEN BACK AGAIN THROUGH OUR PROPERTIES TO REENTER THEIR BOAT. WITH SO MUCH PUBLIC USE OF OUR PROPERTY, IT CONCERNS US GREATLY THAT SOMEONE MAY EVENTUALLY FALL AND SUE US. WE'VE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THEFT AND VANDALISM IN OUR BOAT AND UNDER OUR HOUSE OR DOCK HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY WAYWARD BOAT LAUNCHING. OUR MASTER BEDROOM WINDOW OVERLOOKS THE BOAT RAMP AND IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SEE PEOPLE PUBLICLY URINATING AND DEFECATING IN PLAIN SIGHT. BOATS COME AND GO AT ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT, THE NOISE FROM A BOAT ENGINE REVVING 20 FEET FROM YOUR WINDOW WILL WAKE EVEN THE SOUNDNESS OF SLEEPERS, NOT TO MENTION THE MUSIC AND THE YELLING AND THE PARTYING THAT GOES ON AT ALL HOURS. PEOPLE BLOCK OUR DRIVEWAY AND IMPEDE ACCESS TO HER HOME, PARKING THEIR TRUCKS AND TRAILERS ALONG THE ROAD. WE'VE SEEN THE LUSH MARSH ACROSS THE STREET, BE PARKED ON, AND DEGRADED FOOT BY FOOT OVER THE YEARS. CURRENTLY, THE BOAT RAMP IS AN UNMAINTAINED EYESORE IT'S PERILOUS. IT'S FULL OF POTHOLES AND BROKEN DOWN CONCRETE. WE EARNESTLY REQUEST THAT IT BE DEEMED ABANDONED. AS A SIDE NOTE, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE ASKED TODAY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HOMEOWNERS, LOCAL GALVESTON FAMILY, THEY DO RENT THE HOME ON EACH SIDE OF US. WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY ISSUES ACTUALLY WITH THE RENTERS, WITH NOISE, OR WITH TRASH WE'VE NEVER ONCE HAD CAUSED FOR COMPLAINT AND THAT'S BEEN OVER TEN YEARS. [00:45:06] ALL OF THE NOISE AND PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY FROM THIS BOAT RAMP. WE CAN SEE IT FROM MANY OF THE WINDOWS OF OUR HOME. ALSO, WHAT WAS ASKED EARLIER ABOUT PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCHES THERE'S ONE AT WATERMAN'S RESTAURANT IT'S SEVEN MILES FROM OUR HOUSE. WE USE IT OFTEN AND THERE'S ALSO ONE OFF OF 61ST STREET, WHICH IS ABOUT EIGHT MILES FROM THE LOCATION. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> THANK YOU, MS. ROBERTSON. I CAN SEE THAT YOU'RE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS. QUESTIONS. YOU HAVE THAT HOUSE FOR QUITE SOME TIME? >> YES, SIR. >> THE BOAT RAMP WAS THERE WHEN YOU PURCHASED A HOME, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, IT WAS. >> DO YOUR NEIGHBORS USED THAT AS BOAT LAUNCH? YOUR ADJOINING THE PEOPLE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE OWN HOMES ON SPORTSMAN ROAD DO YOU SEE THEM USE THAT AS A? >> ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE [INAUDIBLE] ON THOSE THREE HOMES, THEIR FAMILY, BROTHERS, AND SISTERS AND COUSINS, BUT THEY OWN THOSE THREE HOMES AND THEY DON'T USE IT. THE ONES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF US, NOT ON THE BOAT RAMP IT'S A FAMILY OF SEVEN AND EIGHT BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO INHERITED THE PROPERTY. THEY ALSO RENT THE HOME OCCASIONALLY, MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE A SUMMER, THEY'LL USE IT. THEY ACTUALLY CALLED MY HUSBAND AND TALK TO HIM THIS WEEK AND THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF US AND WE'VE HAD MANY NEIGHBORS REACH OUT TO US AND BE VERY SUPPORTIVE. >> YOU'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH YOUR OTHER NEIGHBORS? >> YES. WE KNOW MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS AND WE HAVE MANY WHO SAID THAT THEY'D BE HAPPY TO COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND TESTIFY THAT THEY'RE VERY HAPPY THAT THE RAMP HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR THE LAST SINCE LAST SUMMER, BASICALLY, TO CUT DOWN ON THE TRESPASSING, THE PARKING ISSUES. IT'S BEEN A VERY POSITIVE THING FOR MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND I DO REGRET THAT IT IS AN INCONVENIENCE TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ENJOYED IT FOR DECADES. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHY WE WAITED OVER 10 YEARS TO BRING THIS UP. WE'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND BE SUPPORTIVE AND UNDERSTANDING AND NEVER WANT IT TO CAUSE THE MANY ISSUE AND I REGRET THAT. >> HAVE THE BARRICADES HELPED? >> TREMENDOUSLY, YES. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> MS. ROBERTSON, I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT IF ABANDONED, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR INTENDED USE FOR THAT PORTION OF PROPERTY? >> WELL, WE WERE INFORMED JUST THROUGH THE CITY THAT THE WAY EVERYTHING WORKED WAS THAT THEY WOULD OFFER IT TO US AND OUR NEIGHBOR FIRST AND THEY'VE EXPRESSED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE THEIR SIDE, AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO PURCHASE OUR SIDE. I ALSO WOULD LIKE IT TO BE KNOWN THAT BY NO MEANS ARE WE TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE ON THE CITY LIKE WE EXPECT TO PAY A VERY FAIR PRICE FOR THE PROPERTY AND UNDERSTAND ITS WATERFRONT. THAT'S IMPORTANT AND A BIG DEAL AND WE DON'T EXPECT TO GET SOMETHING FOR $17,000. YES, WE REALLY IF IT'S DIVIDED IN HALF, I GUESS EACH PORTION WOULD BE 25 FEET AND IT SOUNDS LIKE 10 OF THAT WOULD BE AN EASEMENT. REALLY, WE JUST HAVE A FENCE AND A NICE YARD WE WOULD LANDSCAPE IT AND MAKE IT LOOK REALLY NICE FOR PROBABLY, MAYBE SOME OLEANDER IS ALONG THE FENCE AND HAVE A PRETTY YARD. I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE STREET FOR IT NOT TO BE AN EYESORE. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. ROBERTSON THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> THE OTHER APPLICANT. YES, SIR. >> HELLO. HI, MY NAME IS LUKE CORROBORATE. I'LL SIGN IN. I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE OTHER LANDOWNER BUT I'M ALSO THE GRANDSON OF, MY GRANDMOTHER VIRGINIA GRAPHENE AND ANTHONY GRAPHENE THAT OWNED THE LOT DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THE LOCATION THAT'S AT ISSUE HERE. I GREW UP FREQUENTING THAT HOUSE, IT WAS A MUCH SMALLER HOUSE WHEN I WAS YOUNGER. IT IS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL NOW BUT THE FAMILY DOES USE IT EXTENSIVELY. I HAVE A LARGE ITALIAN FAMILY AND EVERYBODY USES IT SO IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVELY A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THE CURRENT ENTITY COSTED MRA, LLC IS OWNED BY MY MOTHER AND MY UNCLE SAM GRAPHENE WHO SIGNED THE APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF OUR GROUP. MY AUNT MARY BETH, [INAUDIBLE] AND MARY [INAUDIBLE]. THOSE ARE THE FOUR THAT ACTUALLY OWN THAT ENTITY THAT [00:50:03] OWNS THAT TO THE WEST OF THAT IS FRANK GADAFFI SIBLING OF THEIRS. MY UNCLE FRANK, AND THEN TO THE WEST OF THAT IS MY COUSIN, MY UNCLE FRANK GADAFFI, SON ANTHONY, GADAFFI AND HIS WIFE AND HIS TWO KIDS. THAT LITTLE AREA MY GRANDFATHER BOUGHT IN THE '60S AND WE'VE BEEN LANDOWNERS HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND WE'VE USED THAT PROPERTY AS A FAMILY ESCAPE FOR DECADES. WE HAVE OF COURSE, SEEN MANY PEOPLE USE IT AS A BOAT RAMP AND WE'VE USED IT AS A BOAT RAMP OVER THE TIME, BUT IT IS BASICALLY UNUSABLE NOW. RIGHT NOW IT'S A BOAT RAMP, IT HAS A SERIOUS DROP-OFF. IT HAS NEVER BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OR ANYONE. FOR A WHILE, THERE WAS A TRASH CAN THAT WAS PUT THERE THAT SOMEBODY DUMPED. I THOUGHT IT WAS TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE. I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WAS, BUT IT WOULD BE ROUTINELY OVERFLOWING WITH TRASH. THIS IS NOT TRASH FROM THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT THE PLACE IS PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED AND WHERE THEY ARE REGULARLY. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE AT ALL. THE ISSUE IS, WHEN WE GO THERE, THERE WILL BE OFTENTIMES POOP. UNDER OUR HOUSE. WE HAVE A SHOWER THAT HAS AN ENCLOSURE. IT IS A PERFECT SPOT FOR PEOPLE TO DO THEIR BUSINESS. WE WILL SMELL URINE UNDER OUR HOUSE REGULARLY. THIS IS NOT LIKE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE. IT HAPPENS REGULARLY. THERE ARE PEOPLE USING IT ALL TIME. IT HAS BEEN VERY NICE AND IT'S BEEN CLOSED. WE'D LIKE THAT IT'S CLOSED. I DON T THINK IT'S BIG ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING WITH, BUT I DO THINK IT WOULD BE MUCH NICER LANDSCAPED OR SOMETHING, BUT MY FAMILY AND THE ROBINSON, CERTAINLY I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER THAN IT IS NOW. THIS MAY HAVE NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE HAD IT BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE CITY AND MAYBE TAKING CARE OF IN SOME WAY, BUT IT NEVER HAS BEEN, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. I HAD AN ISSUE WITH THIS BACK WHEN LANI COX WAS BEFORE HE WAS A JUDGE HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THIS, THAT WE EVEN TRIED TO SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS SO BAD. THIS WAS 15 YEARS AGO OR MORE AND YOU CAN ASK JUDGE COX ABOUT IT, BUT IT WAS, I DON'T KNOW IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION THAT NOBODY REALLY WOULD TAKE OWNERSHIP OF. ONCE THIS KAYAK THING BLEW UP IN THEIR FACE AND IT BECAME MORE DANGEROUS. I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY MORE DANGEROUS NOW THAN IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO WITH THE DROP-OFF THAT IT HAS. I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT IT HAS GONE THIS ROUTE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ABANDONED. >> THANK YOU. MR. [INAUDIBLE] ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE OTHER APPLICANT? VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? YES, PLEASE. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. THERE YOU GO. I KNOW I NORMALLY. >> EVERYBODY IS HERE SO [INAUDIBLE]. >> I KNOW. I'M SORRY. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 04:26. WELL, WE OPENED IT WITH THE APPLICANT. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> YEAH. IT'S OKAY. YES. IF YOU WOULD SIGN IN AS YOU ARE, AND THEN PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> SUSAN [INAUDIBLE] 3408 AVENUE [INAUDIBLE], SO I LIVE IN TOWN BUT I'VE USED THE SPORTSMAN ROAD KAYAK LAUNCH SITES AND I GO OUT THERE TO GO BIRD WATCHING AND FISHING. BIRD WATCHING NOW THAT I'M LESS ACTIVE AS I GET OLDER. BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF POINTS. ONE IS THAT THIS BOAT RAMP WAS HERE WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTY. IT'S NOT SOMETHING NEW THAT GOT PLOPPED DOWN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO HAS BEEN CITED. THE ACTION PLAN IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A SUGGESTED AS A FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE DECISION-MAKING. ONE OF THE ACTION PLANS IS PLAN TO MAINTAIN EXISTING BEACH AND BAY ACCESS POINTS, IMPROVE ACCESS. AT ANOTHER POINT, PERHAPS IN THE URBAN PART, IT SAYS, NO RIGHTS-OF-WAY THAT PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER SHOULD BE ABANDONED. AT ANOTHER POINT, UNDER NATURAL RESOURCES, [NOISE] NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES EXIST TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO AND PUBLIC ENJOYMENT OF GALVESTON BAY AND ASSOCIATED WATERWAYS. WE SHOULD NOT BE THROWING AWAY BAY ACCESS POINTS. THERE ARE NO BAY ACCESS POINTS IN THE URBAN CORE. WE, THOSE OF US WHO LIVE IN TOWN GO TO THE SHIP CHANNEL OR OUT WEST TO ACCESS THE BAY. LET'S SEE. IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS POINT, THEN THEY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. IF THERE ARE TRASH PROBLEMS, [00:55:03] THERE ARE NOT EROSION PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. THE MOST THAT SHOULD BE DONE IS TO HAVE IT CLOSED OFF LIKE IT IS NOW. THE BEST WOULD BE TO RESTORE IT TO FULL FUNCTIONALITY. BUT I THINK PEOPLE ARE USING IT NOW AS IT IS. LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE WAS THERE. THAT'S ALL ON MY LIST. I THINK. I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH TOURISTS DURING ESPECIALLY DURING THE SUMMER AND WITH MORE PEOPLE AROUND THAN WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AROUND. BUT THAT'S THE TRADE-OFF YOU MAKE WHEN YOU LIVE IN GALVESTON. WHEN YOU LIVE SOMEPLACE LIKE SPORTSMAN ROAD. IT WAS NOT SOMETHING NEW TO SPORTSMAN'S ROAD PEOPLE HAVE BEEN USING IT FOR BAY ACCESS AND FOR FISHING AND BIRD WATCHING FOR 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? A REMINDER THAT MS. BENNETT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR KEEPING TO UNDER THREE MINUTES OR SO. YEAH. COULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> YEAH, YOU DID A GREAT JOB. CAN YOU HELP RESET THE CLOCK? HI. >> CONGRATULATION. >> THANK YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> ITS 1924. WE DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE BOAT RAMP UNTIL ROBERTSON'S BUILT THEIR HOME TO THE EAST OF THE RAMP. THEY BUILT A PRIVACY FENCE TO PROTECT THEIR VIEW OF THE VISITORS LAUNCHING THEIR WATERCRAFT, INCLUDING KAYAKS. THE ROBERTSON'S HAVE COMPLAINED OF LEWD BEHAVIOR AND GAS STOLEN FROM THEIR BOAT DOCK DUE TO BOATERS USING THE BOAT RAMP. I BEG TO DIFFER. THE PRIVACY FENCE THAT THEY HAVE PUT UP BLOCKS THEIR VIEW OF THE RAMP AND THE CAMERAS THEY HAVE WILL PROBABLY TELL THE STORY OF WHO IS ACTUALLY STEALING THEIR GAS. OWNING A HOME ON THE OPEN BAY OPENS THE DOOR TO ALL TYPES OF THIEVERY FROM THE WATER. ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BOAT RAMP, YOU HAVE MR. GRISAFI. HE OWNS A VERY BUSY SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND ON ANY GIVEN DAY HAS AT LEAST 10 PLUS GUESTS THEY ARE ENJOYING THE BAY. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, THE GUESTS HAVE TURNED THE HOUSE INTO A RUCKUS PARTY. THESE ALL DAY PARTY EVENTS GO INTO THE NIGHT. TRUTH BE TOLD, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AT THE GRISAFI'S HAVE DISTURBED THE ROBERTSON'S AND NOT THE FOLKS LAUNCHING THEIR WATERCRAFT. THE BOAT RAMP HAS BEEN MONITORED BY THE CITY IN THE PAST AND THE CITY HAD PLACED A TRASH CAN THERE, WHICH WAS MENTIONED EARLIER. MOST OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS FROM 61ST STREET TO BAY HARBOR THAT HAVE BAY ACCESS HAVE A BOAT RAMP. SPORTSMAN ROAD RESIDENTS USE THIS BOAT RAMP REGULARLY. WE DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER OPTION. THE CLOSEST RAMP IS PIRATES BEACH OR THE CAUSEWAY OR 61ST STREET. THESE ARE NOT VIABLE OR CONVENIENT OPTIONS. IF THERE WAS A STORM REMOVING ALL THE WATERCRAFT FROM THE PROPERTIES ON SPORTSMAN ROAD WITHOUT THE USE OF THE BOAT RAMP, WOULD BE A MAJOR CONCERN. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ROBERTSON'S AND GRISAFIS ARE TAXPAYERS LIKE THE REST OF US BUT THEY KNEW THE BOAT RAMP WAS THERE WHEN THEY DECIDED TO BUILD. WHY SHOULD THE REST OF THE 60 PROPERTY OWNERS BE PUNISHED AND HAVE THE RAMP TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE OF ONE COMPLAINT. AGAIN, THE RAMP HAS GIVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS ACCESS TO THE BAY FOR MANY GENERATIONS. MY ASK OF THE CITY IS TO GIVE THE EASEMENT TO THE RESIDENTS OF SPORTSMAN ROAD AND LET US MAINTAIN THE RAMP AND MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS. THIS TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL CONTROL IS BEING DONE [INAUDIBLE] [01:00:08] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. MS. SCOT, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW COMMENTS, YOU'RE WELCOME TOO. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME UP TO THE MIC, PLEASE, BECAUSE IT WILL BE RECORDED AND YOU WILL BEFORE AFFORDED 3 MIN. THANK YOU. YES. >> IN FACT, I SPENT MY CHILDHOOD DAYS ON SUNDAYS DOWN THE CAMP AND HAVE FUN MEMORIES OF GOING IN THE BOAT AND WELL, IT WASN'T A BOAT LIKE WE HAVE TODAY, BUT IT WAS A BOAT. BUT ANYWAY, WE HAVE A BOAT RIGHT NOW AND IT NEEDS TO WORK. IT WON'T RUN AND WE NEED TO TAKE IT OUT. WE CANNOT TAKE IT OUT, WE CANNOT GET IT OUT OF THE WATER. EIGHT OR NINE MILES AND BY WATER IT'S A LONG WAY. THE ONLY PLACE YOU COULD GO IS, I THINK PIRATES AND I BELIEVE THE OTHER PLACE IS 61ST STREET. WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLACE TO GO. I DON'T KNOW IF ALL THESE PEOPLE HAD BEEN DOWN HERE LIKE I HAVE AND MANY STORMS, I'M IN THE LAST QUARTER WITH NO TIMEOUTS. I KNOW HOW HARD IT IS AND WHEN THERE'S A STORM OR EVEN IF IT'S COMING, YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT BOAT OUT OF THE WATER. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES WE WOULD TAKE IT IN AND OUT BEFORE THE STORM WOULD HIT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO NOW. IT'S A TERRIBLE, IT'S JUST AN UNFAIR AND EXTREMELY SELFISH THING AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, TWO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GAIN FROM THIS AND THE REST OF US ARE JUST OUT. I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN SAID I DON'T KNOW, KIMBERLY. I'M A REALTOR ALSO AND I KNOW THAT EVERY SUBDIVISION ON THE WEST END OF THE ISLAND HAS A BOAT LAUNCH. DOWN IN ACROSS THE BRIDGE IT'S REALLY NICE AND THEY GIVE EVERYBODY A KEY, IF YOU LOSE THAT KEY, YOU HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER ONE. BUT WE COULD MAKE IT EXPENSIVE ENOUGH THAT WE WOULD ALL HAVE A KEY AND IT WOULD BE BLOCKED OFF AND I JUST THINK THAT THERE IS A WAY TO WORK THIS OUT. IF WE ONLY GET HALF OF THE BOAT, I CALL IT A BOAT DOCK BUY THE PROPERTY, IT'S 50 FEET. YOU CAN DO A LOT WITH 50 FEET. BUT WE'D BE HAPPY WITH EVEN HALF OF IT, BUT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO EVEN MAINTAIN IT. >> THANK YOU, MS. GATTO. >> THANK YOU FOR LETTING US SPEAK. >> ABSOLUTELY. ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? >> YES SIR. [BACKGROUND] >> JUST HOLD ON A SECOND, WE'LL GET YOU ASSIGNED DOWN. NO SIR. [LAUGHTER] >> ONE REASON I WENT SPORTSMAN ROAD IS BECAUSE OF THE BOAT LAUNCH. THIS CITY DIDN'T WANT TO CALL IT A BOAT LAUNCH, BUT IT'S BEEN A BOAT LAUNCH FOR 100 YEARS. IT WAS COUNTY EASEMENT AS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS GIVEN TO THE CITY. DEGATTO IS RIGHT, WE USE THE BOAT LAUNCH FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, WE USE IT ALMOST DAILY. IT IS IN DISREPAIR BUT NOT UNUSABLE. MY SON TAKES MY BOAT IN AND OUT OF THAT BOAT RAMP OR AT LEAST WE DID UP UNTIL EIGHT MONTHS AGO, ALMOST ON A WEEKLY BASIS. IT'S NOT IN THE BEST SHAPE, IS NOT IN THE WORST SHAPE AND I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE ROAD. I JOG ON THE ROAD EVERY DAY, THERE'S PROBABLY MORE PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING AND THEY WANT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE GLAD THAT IT'S CLOSED. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S AN ISSUE WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTY. I'VE TALKED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, I'VE TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER AND TO TRY TO WORK OUT LIKE DEGATTO HAS SAID WORK SOME SCENARIO OUT WHERE WHEN WE NEED TO GET OUR BOATS OUT, [01:05:02] MY BOATS UP ON A LIFT WHEN IT'S NOT RUNNING, IT'S NOT RUNNING. I'VE BUILT MY HOUSE SO I COULD GET IT OUT OF A LAUNCH THAT'S 50 FEET AWAY FROM MY HOUSE, WHICH HAS BEEN BLOCKED OFF FOR THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS DUE TO THIS COMPLAINT. I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME SCENARIO THAT'S WORKABLE TO WHERE WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION WAS, PUT A FENCE CROSS A THING, GIVE EVERYBODY A KEY OR A COMBINATION, HAVE THOSE CHIP IN AS A SUBDIVISION, THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BOAT HOUSES BUT DON'T HAVE BOAT LAUNCHES. TO PAY FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE LAUNCH THAT SOLVES THEIR PROBLEM OF PEOPLE, GENERAL PUBLIC BEING ABUSIVE IN THE BOAT RAMP AND I HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN A LOT OF CHANGE. I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1989, I HAVEN'T SEEN A WHOLE HECK OF A LOT OF CHANGE OVER THE YEARS AND THEY'RE RIGHT, IF YOU WANT TO STEAL SOMETHING, THE BEST WAY TO COME IS BY BOAT, BY WATER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WINTER WHEN IT'S 30 DEGREES AND YEAH, YOU'RE GOING TO GET STUFF STOLEN ON THE WATER. DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THEY ARE ON SPORTSMAN ROAD, CRASH BOAT BASIN OR WHERE YOU'RE AT. BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSED, THEN I THINK THAT WE NEED TO PUT A GATE ON IT, GIVE THE PEOPLE ON THE STREET ACCESS TO IT. THE CITY DOESN'T LOSE IT AS VALUABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY TO ACCESS THE BAY BY AND EVERYBODY IS HAPPY. WE CAN GET OUR BOAT IN AND OUT OF THE WATER WHEN WE NEED TO ON EMERGENCY SITUATION, STORM SITUATIONS. IT IS DIFFICULT GOING EIGHT MILES WITH 45 MILE AN HOUR TROPICAL STORM FOR FOOT SEAS. WE ALL BUILD OUR HOUSES KNOWING THAT THE BOAT LAUNCH WAS THERE AND THAT WE COULD USE IT IN THOSE SITUATIONS AND NOW IT'S NOT THERE. I THINK THERE'S A WORKABLE SCENARIO IN SOME FORM OR SOME FASHION [INAUDIBLE] YOU. >> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. MR. CRUMBHOLDS. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? YES. PLEASE. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND SIGN IN FIRST AND WE'LL START YOUR TIME WHEN YOU'RE READY. >> THANK YOU. >> AUREY. >> HI. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH BEATON. I LIVE AT 14/16 BALL STREET IN THE EAST END HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS IS A TALE OF THREE LAND USES, A VACATION RENTAL, A BOAT RAMP, AND A SECOND HOME. OUT-OF-TOWN VISITORS TO THE ISLAND OCCUPIED THE VACATION RENTAL AND THE SECOND HOME, LOCALS AND VISITORS ALIKE USE THE BOAT RAMP. THIS SO-CALLED REMNANT OF A ROAD HAS ACTIVELY BEEN USED AS A BOAT RAMP FOR MANY DECADES AND BOTH HOUSES WERE CONSTRUCTED WITH NOTICE OF THAT. THE CITY HAS A REAL PROPERTY INTEREST TO IT AND THAT IS RECOGNIZED AT THE CARD. CAN THESE USES CO-EXIST OR MUST THE PUBLIC ABANDON ITS BOAT RAMP FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TWO PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS? WHEN THE CITY ADOPTED ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN 2015, THE THREE HISTORIC DISTRICTS REQUESTED THAT NEW VACATION RENTALS NOT BE PERMITTED THERE. WE WANTED TO KEEP THE NEIGHBOR IN NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU MIGHT SAY. MANY RESIDENTS RESENTED THE PARKING PROBLEMS, LOUD MUSIC, AND STRANGERS NEXT DOOR ON WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. BUT THE CITY SAID NO DICE, LIVE AND LET LIVE. THEY SAID AND ACCOMMODATE THE TOURISTS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS LOCATION IS THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT. THE ONLY ONE OF THE THREE USES AT THIS LOCATION ON SPORTSMAN ROAD THAT LOCALS USE IS THE PUBLIC BOAT RAMP AND IT IS THE VISITORS THAT ARE ASKING TO TERMINATE OUR USE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MOST GALVESTONIANS AND OTHER BOATERS CANNOT AFFORD A PRIVATE BOAT RAMP. TO ENJOY THE WATER THAT SURROUNDS OUR ISLAND, WE DEPEND ON PUBLIC ACCESS. IT'S SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS REQUESTER WANTS THIS PROPERTY ABANDONED, NOT IN SPITE OF IT BEING A PUBLIC ACCESS POINT, BUT ACTUALLY BECAUSE IT IS ONE. IF THIS RATIONALE IS SUFFICIENT, ALMOST ALL PUBLIC BAY ACCESS ON THE ISLAND WILL EVENTUALLY BE ABANDONED. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES THAT NO RIGHTS OF WAY THAT PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER SHOULD BE ABANDONED. IT DOESN'T SAY IT, IT'S JUST INTENDED IN THE URBAN CORE. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER IN THE URBAN CORE. [01:10:01] IF THE CITY DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THAT ANYMORE, THEN AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS PARTICULAR POINT IS CURRENTLY BLOCKED BY A BIG CONCRETE BALLARD AND A SIGN SAYING THAT IT'S CLOSED. IF WE DON'T WANT GALVESTONIANS TO ACCESS THE BAY FROM HERE AT THE PRESENT TIME, NO MORE ACTION IS NECESSARY, IT CAN'T BE USED AND THERE IS NO DANGER OF THE [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I THINK WE MAY BE RUN THROUGH EVERYBODY EXCEPT. >> [INAUDIBLE] MORE SO. >> NO, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED YOUR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> NO. [LAUGHTER] >> CAN I SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK? THANK YOU MS. BEATON FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY. >> YES. THANK YOU. WITH NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:43 PM AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. CAN I GET A MOTION ON THIS CASE, PLEASE? YES, COMMISSIONER HILL. >> I MAKE A MOVE THAT WE DENY CASE 23P-033. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY. >> I'LL SECOND. >> A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PENA. DISCUSSION. >> I HAVE. >> COMMISSIONER HILL. >> SHOCKING, ISN'T IT? SIMPLY SHOCKING. >> I HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO GO FIRST. [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT I HAVE DISCUSSION. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT TODAY WE ARE A RECOMMENDING BODY. WE RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEN THEY DECIDE WHAT WILL HAPPEN ON THIS MATTER. BUT WHAT WE DO, MAKE NO MISTAKE IS ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT. OUR RECOMMENDATION DOES MATTER. TODAY WE GIVE A VOICE TO THE PEOPLE WHO USE THIS BOAT RAMP, THIS ACCESS TO THE BAY AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO LET THEM ACCESS THE WATER HERE. WE ALSO MUST ENSURE THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ADHERED TO, THAT IS OUR CHARGE, THAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY, THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS COMMISSION. WE NEED TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS OUT THERE AND UNTIL IT IS UPDATED, IT IS THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT. AS ONE OF OUR COMMENT LETTERS STATED AND THE GENTLEMAN WHO WROTE IT IS HERE, THE APPLICANT KNEW WHAT THEY BOUGHT WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS BEING BUILT, THEY KNEW WHAT WAS BESIDE IT. AGAIN, WE ACTUALLY EVEN HEARD FROM MR. COROBA THAT THESE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH NOISE STARTED 15 OR 20 YEARS AGO, HE TESTIFIED TO THAT HIMSELF. THE PUBLIC IS ENJOYING THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY TO RECREATE IN A CITY WHERE MUCH OF OUR OWN CITIZENRY IS PRICED OUT OF OUR OWN RECREATIONAL ABILITIES. MAYBE THE CITY NEEDS TO DO THEIR PART AND MAINTAIN THE RAMP MORE APPROPRIATELY. I WILL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE CITY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS A BETTER THING TO DO IF THERE IS SOMETHING BETTER TO DO WITH THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT HAND. FINALLY, I AM NOT AT ALL UNSYMPATHETIC TO THE PLIGHT OF NOISE AND THE ISSUES THAT FACE PEOPLE IN AN INABILITY OR UNDESIRABLE SITUATION TO USE THEIR HOMES. BUT PERHAPS THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT THE APPLICANTS COULD USE ATTORNEYS THAT THEY'VE HIRED TO GET UNWANTED PICTURES OF THEIR HOMES OFF THE INTERNET OR SO ON AND SO FORTH AND GET THOSE ISSUES WORKED OUT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I'M NOT UNSYMPATHETIC TO THEIR PLIGHT AND THEIR DESIRE TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY. THANK YOU. >> OTHER DISCUSSION TO PUSH OPINION? >> ALL OF MY POINTS HERE, JEFFREY MENTIONED AND ECHO THAT AS WELL. BUT ALSO PUT A LEANING ON THE CITY TO HELP DO BETTER IN MAINTAINING SOME OF THIS PROPERTY OR THIS BOAT LAUNCH RAMP THAT HAS FALLEN INTO SUCH DISREPAIR AND HAS NOT BEEN TOUCHED. I KNOW THAT'S PART OF A LARGER ISSUE CITYWIDE, [01:15:06] BUT THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING OF CONCERN TO US ALL THAT THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO. >> COMMISSIONER WALLA. >> WE HAD THIS SIMILAR THE LAST TIME, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR THE CITY TO GIVE UP ACCESS TO THE WATER. THERE'S ONLY A LIMITED AMOUNT OF IT THAT THE CITY ACTUALLY HAS. I DO THINK THIS SITE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. IT'S BIG ENOUGH THAT THEY COULD POSSIBLY MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS THERE AT SOME POINT IN TIME. I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE NEIGHBORS' PROBLEMS. THERE'S NOTHING WORSE THAN FEUDING NEIGHBORS. I CAN TELL YOU I'VE HAD SOME FEUDS WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS REALLY WANT THE SAME THING. IT'D BE NICE TO SEE YOU GUYS HAVE SOME CONCERTED EFFORT TO CREATE A RAMP THERE OF SOME SORT OR AT LEAST THE CITY TO HELP YOU DO IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE UP ACCESS TO THE WATER, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DEFINE PUBLIC BOAT RAMP. IF THAT'S A PUBLIC RAMP, IT NEEDS A LOT OF REPAIR AND THERE ARE SOME CONSTRAINTS IN TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT. I CAN SEE THE CITY WOULD HAVE SOME PROBLEMS. ADDITIONALLY, IT'S BEEN MENTIONED THAT THESE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS HAVE BOAT RAMPS. WE HAVE A BOAT RAMP BUT IT IS NOT PUBLIC AND MOST OF THEM IN THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE NOT A PUBLIC RAMP. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR FIX IS, BUT I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THE CITY GIVING UP ACCESS TO THE WATER REALLY NO MATTER WHERE IT IS. THAT'S MY COMMENTS. I WOULD REALLY HOPE THAT NEIGHBORS BECOME NEIGHBORS AND JOIN TOGETHER AND FIX A PROBLEM. THAT'S MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? >> NO. [LAUGHTER] I LIKE WAITING TILL LAST BECAUSE USUALLY THINGS GET COVERED. I APPRECIATE IT. NO, I AGREE WITH THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. THE HARD DUTY TO THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY PARTICULARLY AS THE ONES THAT IT SAYS HERE, THAT WE SHOULDN'T ABANDON ONES THAT HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER. THAT'S A REAL DUTY THAT WE HAVE. I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN MENTIONED IN PUBLIC COMMENT OR EVEN BY OUR COUNCIL THAT MAY BE WORTHWHILE PURSUING. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> WITH THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THIS CASE. WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DENIAL OF THE CASE PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR EFFORTS AND YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS CASE. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> SORRY, FINAL DECISION IS MADE BY CITY COUNCIL. >> YOU SAID IT. >> HEY, I'M GETTING BETTER. JUST IN TIME. >> JUST IN TIME. >> WE HAVE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE CONTINUE. >> YES. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE CONTINUE ON WITH THE COMMISSION MEETING. THANK YOU. [BACKGROUND] YOU CAN GO FIRST. >> THANK YOU. >> [NOISE] WE'RE READY. >> WE'LL CALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 4:56 P.M. [7.A. Update On Recent And Upcoming Text Amendment To Chapter 29: Beach Access Dune Protection And Beach Front Construction Of The Galveston Municipal Code. (Staff) ] CONTINUING ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE DISCUSSION ITEMS. >> THAT ITEM IS AN UPDATE ON RECENT AND UPCOMING TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 29, BEACH ACCESS DOING PROTECTION AND BEACH FOR CONSTRUCTION AND GALVESTON MUNICIPAL CODE, AND IT WILL BE PRESENTED BY KYLE CLARKE. >> GREAT, KYLE. >> YES, JUST WANTED TO INFORM YOU, JUST SOME OF THE ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT ARE GOING ON. CHAPTER 29. WE HAVE THREE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT ONE HAS WENT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL AND GOT APPROVED. BEACH VEHICLE, BEACH ACCESS, RESTRICTION AT ACCESS 0.7 SANDY BEACH. [01:20:02] WE HAVE TWO PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES FOR THE AGENDA TOMORROW. ONE OF THEM IS DEALING WITH BEACH ACCESS AT ACCESS 0.1C ON THE EAST END. THAT ORDINANCE CHANGE ALSO HAS LANGUAGE IN IT TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTED USE AREA THAT WAS PLACED IN THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN, I BELIEVE BACK IN 2004 TO REMOVE THAT. THEN ONE THAT WE ALL WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO BE MORE INVOLVED WITH IF IT GOES THROUGH AND GOES THROUGH THE JELLO PROCESSES AND IT IS APPROVED, IS THE USE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE UNDER MULTIPLE FAMILY HABITABLE STRUCTURES AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION. I JUST WANTED TO COME AND BRIEF YOU ON SOME OF THAT STUFF. I HAVE ANSWERED ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE. ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROCESS? JUST OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. >> YOU WENT THROUGH ALL THOSE PRETTY QUICK. START WITH THE LAST ONE. THE PROPOSAL IS TO ALLOW REINFORCED CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET LONG LINE OF VEGETATION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. JUST IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS FOR LARGE-SCALE, NOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS, LARGE SCALE. WHAT DEFINITION UNDER THE TAC 31, LARGE SCALE CONSTRUCTION WHICH INCLUDES MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HABITABLE STRUCTURES AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES. IT'S JUST NOT JUST OPEN, ALLOW ANYBODY TO COME IN THERE, IT'S AN EXEMPTION. IF SOMEBODY CAME IN AND REQUESTED THAT EXEMPTION, IN THE ORDINANCE THE STATE SAY THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN ENGINEER'S STAMP PLANS STATING WHY THEY DO NEED TO DO THAT. JUSTIFICATION, BUT IT'S FOR FUTURE AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES. WE DO HAVE SOME STRUCTURES RIGHT NOW THAT ARE BEING UNDERMINED FROM STORMS THAT JUST BECAUSE THE WAY THAT IS WRITTEN IS THEY CAN'T GO IN THERE AND POTENTIALLY STABILIZE THE STRUCTURE WHEN THE LINE OF VEGETATION IS ALWAYS MOVING. IF YOU HAVE A LARGE-SCALE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PLANS FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS TO TRY TO GET IT DESIGNED AND IN THE CONSTRUCTION METHOD, IF WE HAVE A STORM COMES UP, AND IT ACTUALLY MOVES BEFORE THEY SEND AN APPLICATION INTO US, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THEN IF WE DID NOT HAVE SOME TYPE OF EXEMPTION LIKE THIS, IT DOESN'T ALLEVIATE ANYTHING COMING IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A VOTE. IF IT'S WITHIN 75 FEET AT NORTH TOWER, THE DUNE, IT DOESN'T RELIEVE ANY TYPE OF COORDINATION WITH THE GLO OR ANY OTHER REVIEWS FROM US OR ANY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS. IN FACT, THE GLO JUST UPDATED THEIR PACK 31 AND [NOISE] WENT INTO EFFECT ON MAY 9TH. IN THIS UPDATE, ACTUALLY ARE ALLOWING CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET ALONG THE VEGETATION FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, FOR SLABS AND SIDEWALKS TO HELP FACILITATE THE ADA REQUIREMENTS. THEY'RE IN THAT FULL FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THAT AREA, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT JUST WENT INTO EFFECT LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. >> FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES, YOU'D SAID IT HAS TO BE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE EROSION? >> YEAH. IF SOMETHING WAS HAPPENING AND THEY CAME IN AND THEY SAID WE'VE GOT AN EROSION PROBLEM OR SHIFTING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE ENGINEER'S STAMP DRAWINGS. THOSE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS. >> BECAUSE WE HAVE RENTALS THAT MAY WANT TO PUT A SIX-CAR WIDE DRIVEWAY UNDER THEIR HOUSE WHICH I SAW IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS SPECIFIC SITUATIONS WHERE THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. >> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER HILL? >> YOU DON'T WANT TO GO? >> I DO. WHY IS THIS BEING CONSIDERED IN A SPECIAL MEETING? TWO QUESTIONS. ONE THAT, AND THEN TWO WHAT'S THE IMPORTANCE ON DRIVER FOR THIS? ARE THERE SPECIFIC CASES THAT ARE EITHER CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR EITHER BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION OR FOR REHABILITATION THAT ARE DRIVING THIS REQUIREMENT OR REQUEST? [01:25:03] >> YEAH. WHAT'S DRIVING THIS, THE MAIN THING IS THE THREE CONDOS THAT ARE BEING UNDERMINED, THE RIVIERA ONE, TWO IN THE WEST GRAND. LET ME ELABORATE ON THAT. AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE SESSION, GLO WAS NOT A FAN OF GEO TUBES AND GO ON AND SAYING THERE'S SOMETHING TO STABILIZE THESE STRUCTURES. GLO ALLOWED GEO TUBES IN THAT FOR THOSE. AND RIGHT NOW, WHAT THEY'VE PUT UNDER THERE IS WHAT IS IT, CONCRETE? >> CEMENT STABILIZED SAND. >> CEMENT STABILIZED SAND. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE PUTTING THAT IN THERE. THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN DRIVERS AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S PEOPLE SAYING, WELL, IT'S FOR DEVELOPMENT, IT'S FOR THIS, THERE'S NO EXEMPTION FOR A STRUCTURE LIKE THAT, THAT IF A STORM COMES UP AND THE LINE OF VEGETATION IS SO RIGID THAT WE CAN'T ALLOW SOME EXEMPTIONS. NOW WILL THERE BE SOME NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THIS? IT MIGHT FALL UNDER IT, YES. BUT AS I SAID, IF IT'S WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW WITHIN 75 FEET OF THE NORTH TOWER OF THE DUNE IS COMING IN FRONT OF YOU TO VOTE ON AND ALL THAT DOCUMENTATION WILL BE THERE. >> THE GLOS RULE IS INTENDED TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT, WE AS A CITY, LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE LEFT WITH THE RESPONSIBILITIES TO DEMOLISHING AND REMOVING LARGE CHUNKS OF CONCRETE IN THE EVENT OF A CATASTROPHIC EVENT, RIGHT? >> NO, SIR. >> NO? >> IT IS THE FIBER CRETE WITHIN 200 FEET. THAT RULE IS TO MAINTAIN BEACH ACCESS, CLEAN UP ON THE BEACH. IT'S NOT TO ADDRESS THE INFRASTRUCTURE, IT'S NOT TO ADDRESS 3,005. BE COMPLETELY HONEST WITH ALL YOUR SETTING UP THERE. ANYTHING OUTSIDE FROM 76-200 FEET IS FIBER CRETE, FROM 201-1,000 FEET IS REINFORCED CONCRETE. IF YOU HAVE 100 HOMES BETWEEN 3,005 AND 200, THEY'VE GOT REINFORCED CONCRETE. THAT FIBER CRETE IS TO ENSURE THE BEACH ACCESS IS MAINTAINED AND CLEANING UP THE BEACH. IT IS NOT THE INFRASTRUCTURE, IS NOT 3,005. >> LET ME RESTATE THAT. THE GLOS RULE WITH NOT ALLOWING STRUCTURED CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET OF A LINE OF VEGETATION SO THAT WE AS A COMMUNITY ARE NOT BURDENED WITH THE COST OF REMOVING CONCRETE IN THE EVENT OF A CATASTROPHIC EVENT LIKE WE SAW IN ICC. YOU HAD COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT WERE WIPED AWAY BY A HURRICANE AND LEFT BEHIND ENTIRE SLABS ON GRADE THAT HAD TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED. >> THAT IS WHY THE FIBER CRETE IS THERE. BUT AS I STATED EARLIER, GLO WAS ACTUALLY SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT LINE IN THE SAND THERE'S SOMETIMES THERE MAY NEED TO BE CONCRETE OUT THERE AND THEY'VE ACTUALLY UPDATED THEIR PLANS TO INCLUDE THAT. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK CODE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN ALLOW STRUCTURED CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET IF IT IS NOT STRUCTURALLY ATTACHED TO THE PILLARS. I'M PARAPHRASING. BUT THERE IS THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSULT WITH FEMA ON THIS, IS THIS PROPOSAL IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEMA POLICY AND LOCAL FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATION THAT REQUIRES CONCRETE SLABS TO BE STRUCTURALLY INDEPENDENT FROM THE BUILDING FOUNDATION. I CAN'T TELL FROM THE LANGUAGE AND FROM YOUR EXCEPTION REQUEST. >> THEY STILL HAD TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE OTHER REGULATIONS. WE'RE NOT GIVING A CAR BLOCK. EVERYBODY IS OKAY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPLY TO FEMA, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPLY OUT OF THE BUILDING. WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME, BUT EVERY PERMIT DOES NOT COME IN FRONT OF YOU ALL, GOES THROUGH MULTILEVEL REVIEWS HERE AT THE CITY. IT GOES THROUGH US, IT GOES THROUGH BUILDING, IT GOES THROUGH PLANNING. THERE'S A MULTIFACETED REVIEW OF ALL OF THESE PROJECTS. >> LET ME CONTINUE. HOLD ON. I UNDERSTAND THAT HOWEVER, THE WAY THAT THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN IS THAT YOU ARE ALLOWING [01:30:04] THE USE OF STRUCTURED CONCRETE FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES, BUT NOT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. AND SO WE HAVE POTENTIALLY AN UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF VARIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS. I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT UP TO YOUR ATTENTION. NOW, JOHN PAUL, I'LL LET YOU GO. [LAUGHTER] I GOT MORE. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE. [LAUGHTER] I'M ASKING, IF YOU HAD A MULTI FAMILY COMMERCIAL BUILDING, THAT'S ON THE BEACH FRONT WITHIN THIS 200 FEET AND A MAJOR INVESTMENT THERE, WHY WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO REBAR THE CONCRETE BELOW THAT BUILDING? >> I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY A REVISION IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. [NOISE] PER BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS IN THE CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION, THAT PARTICULAR CASE COULD BECOME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, COULD IT NOT AS AN INDIVIDUAL CASE? >> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. >> ALL RIGHT. IN THE CASE, I HAVE A MULTIFAMILY OR CONDO THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING. OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> WHY WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO PUTTING REBAR IN THE CONCRETE UNDER A COMMERCIAL OR METAL BUILDING THAT HAS SUBSTANTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE [INAUDIBLE]. >> I AM NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THAT. WHAT I AM OPPOSED TO IS THAT IT GOES THROUGH A CODE OF ORDINANCES PROCESS RATHER THAN ON AN INDIVIDUAL CASE AS PART OF THE BEACH FRONT RECONSTRUCTION PERMIT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. >> WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A BEACHFRONT RECONSTRUCTION PERMIT WHEN THIS WOULD APPLY TO NEW STRUCTURES AS WELL? >> WE'RE GOING TO APPLY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. IN NEW CONSTRUCTION, YOU WANT TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE DUNE OF VEGETATION IN AN AREA PARTICULARLY WHERE THE DUNES ARE ERODING FROM 6-7 FEET PER YEAR. I THINK THAT THAT'S IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. >> [OVERLAPPING] YOU'RE OKAY WITH PUTTING MULTIPLE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THAT AREA, BUT YOU DON'T WANT IT TO STAY THERE? >> NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT I WAS IN FAVOR OF PUTTING MULTI-MILLION DOLLARS IN THAT AREA. >> BUT THAT IS CURRENTLY WITHIN OUR CODE TO DO THAT. >> [BACKGROUND] I THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS WITH THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THIS IS HAPPENING, THE MECHANISM THAT IT'S GOING ABOUT. I THINK THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS A BLANKET ACTION RATHER THAN THESE COMING IN ONE AT A TIME. THE WAY THAT THIS IS BEING BROUGHT TO COUNCIL IS AN OVERALL ACTION THAT WOULD APPLY TO FUTURE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND TO SHORING UP THESE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT NEED SHORING UP. THE FACT THAT IT'S BEING SLIPPED INTO PERHAPS, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT FOR ME NOW, THAT THIS IS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY AS A DISCUSSION ITEM WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING, WE HAVE NO STAFF REPORT, NO ACTION IS BEING TAKEN BY [NOISE] PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THAT WE'RE JUST BEING TOLD ABOUT IT. I'M TALKING RIGHT NOW, KYLE. I'M SORRY. I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO JOHN WHAT THE PROBLEM IS UP HERE AND THAT IF WE COULD TAKE THESE MAYBE ONE AT A TIME AND LOOK AT THEM ONE AT A TIME, WHICH WE WILL WHEN BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ARE ISSUED. I THINK THAT'S WHAT KYLE IS TELLING US. THAT'S FINE. BUT I THINK THAT THIS BIG BLANKET CHANGE IS BEING MADE WITHOUT EVEN BEING BROUGHT BEFORE US FOR ANY KIND OF [OVERLAPPING]. >> OR BEFORE THE PUBLIC. >> YES. OR BEFORE THE PUBLIC. >> [OVERLAPPING] I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS UP. [OVERLAPPING]. CATHERINE STATED EARLIER THAT CHAPTER 29 USED TO BE UNDER THE LTR. IT WAS REMOVED. WHICH REMOVED THIS COMING IN FRONT OF YOU TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. THIS IS GOING THROUGH EVERY STEP OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS. THERE IS PUBLIC THIS IS GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA TOMORROW AT THE CITY COUNCIL. [01:35:02] THE PUBLIC CAN COME IN AND TALK ABOUT IT. IF THE CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE ORDINANCE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PASS THE ORDINANCE. IF THEY PASS THE ORDINANCE, IT WILL BE GOING TO GLO. GLO WILL BE SUBMITTING THIS FOR 30 DAYS IN THE TEXAS REGISTER, WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON IT. GLO HAS THE FINAL DECISION. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE REQUEST TO OUR PLAN. GLO DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE IT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE ARE STOP GAPS, JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE IN THE SYSTEM AND THE CHANCE FOR THE PUBLIC TO COME IN AND COMMENT ON IT. LIKE I SAID, I WANT TO BE HONEST ONCE AGAIN, THERE ARE A LOT OF BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES THAT DO NOT COME IN FRONT OF YOU ALL BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THEY ARE WITHIN THAT 75 FEET. WE DO A LOT OF ADMINISTRATORS, JUST A MOMENT, I'M JUST TALKING. THERE ARE A LOT OF INSTANCES THAT WE WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS. WE WORK WITH GLO, WE REDUCE IMPACTS, WE DO THINGS LIKE THAT. I'LL BE COMPLETELY HONEST. IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO BUILD A MULTI-FAMILY HABITABLE STRUCTURE IN AN ERODING AREA, THEY CAN COME IN AND BUILD A DUNE AND SET BACK THE VEGETATION LINE SEAWARD AND YOU HAVE A DUNE THERE, REALLY A KIND OF AN UNREAL FORCED DUNE SYSTEM THERE, WHICH MEETS THE 200 FEET. THEY COULD BUILD THEIR HIGH-RISE STRUCTURE, THEY COULD BUILD A COMMERCIAL THING, THEN YOU HAVE REALLY NO PROTECTION THERE THAT CAN GIVE A FALSE SENSE THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY PROTECTING IT. WHEREAS IF IT'S BY OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE THAT. THESE ARE SOME POINTS OF WHY WE ADDED THIS, WHY WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS. >> YEAH. TIM. >> YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. [NOISE] I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE AND TO YOUR POINT ABOUT REALLY WHAT'S PUSHING THIS, WE'VE GOT THREE PROJECTS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IN THE CITY AND THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT CODE PROVISIONS. IN THE WAY THAT THEY NEED TO OR THEY FEEL THEY NEED TO. IN ONE PARTICULAR CASE, WHICH WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REGARDING THE STABILIZED REINFORCED CONCRETE, WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S I BELIEVE IT'S 12TH STORY HIGH-RISE, THE TIARA. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH THAT PROJECT UNLESS THEY HAVE A SLAB THAT THEY KNOW AND THAT THEIR ENGINEERS ARE CONFIDENT WILL SUSTAIN THAT TYPE OF STRUCTURE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT'S WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION BECAUSE WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF EROSION AROUND THE DELANOIR AREA. THERE HAS BEEN SOME RECENT RE-NOURISHMENT IN THAT BEACH, WHICH ISN'T DOING REAL GREAT, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO RE-ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THERE'S SAND OUT THERE, THE FACT THAT THERE'S A LINE OF VEGETATION AND ALL THAT. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT PROJECT, THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE AN ACTUAL REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB. THEY'VE JUST FLAT OUT SO THAT WITHOUT THAT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD THE PROJECT. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A GOOD THING IN SOME PEOPLE'S MINDS. IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE ENDS THAT THAT PARTICULAR PERSON MIGHT SEE AS KILLING THE PROJECT. THERE ARE CERTAINLY PEOPLE THAT FEEL THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD THING. I'M NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. I THINK THAT THAT PROJECT IS GOING TO BE AN EXCELLENT ADDITION TO OUR ECONOMY AND TO OFFSET TAXES FOR THE FOLKS THAT HAVE LOWER VALUE PROPERTIES THAN THAT VALUE. HOWEVER, ALL THAT BEING SAID, THEY CAN'T PROCEED FORWARD WITHOUT THAT KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY CAN GET SOMETHING FROM THE GLO THAT SAYS WE'RE OKAY WITH THIS. GLO IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT NECESSARILY UNLESS WE HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR PLAN THAT SAYS IT'S ALLOWABLE. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE FOR THE STRUCTURES IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. REMOVING THE EXCESS IN C1, [01:40:06] RESTRICTED USE ACCESS, IT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THIS OTHER ONE, OF COURSE, BUT THAT ISSUE WE'VE GOT SOME PENDING INVESTMENT THERE THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL AS WELL. THE NOTION OF GETTING THAT PROJECT BEFORE ANY BODY FOR AN APPROVAL. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD THAT PROJECT EITHER UNLESS THEY KNOW THAT THEY CAN HAVE THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, WHICH IS A PEDESTRIAN-ONLY BEACH. THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO INVEST IF IT'S A DRIVE ON BEACH. WE'RE PACKAGING BASICALLY ALL THOSE TWO PROJECTS ALONG WITH THE REINHARDT'S PROJECT TO GET IT UP THERE AT ONE POINT IN TIME SO THE GLO CAN REVIEW IT AT ONE POINT IN TIME. THE GLO HAS SAID WE'D PREFER TO DO IT THAT WAY SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE COME IN WITH THESE OTHER TWO ADDITIONS TO THE CODE. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT. MY COMMENT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND IT'S MORE IN LINE WITH, I THINK COUNCILMAN LASTASI'S COMMENT. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO REVIEW APPLICANTS THAT ARE REQUESTING REINFORCED CONCRETE, THERE IS SPECIFICITY OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE TO THE DEPARTMENT. BUT THE MAJOR REQUEST IS REALLY BAD IT'S A STRONGER BASE. WHEN I LOOK AT SOME OF THE HISTORIC ISSUES THAT HAVE HAPPENED WITH SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE BEACH FRONT, AN ERODING BEACH, THE CITY REALLY NEEDS TO LOOK INTO THAT. WE NEED TO LOOK INTO STRUCTURES AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OUT THERE NOW AS I UNDERSTAND IT THAT WITH SPALLING AND WITH WHATEVER, IT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A STRONGER BASE FOR THEM TO BE ON. THAT'S MY ONLY POINT WITH THAT. >> COMMISSIONER HILL, GOING BACK TO AN EARLIER COMMENT, YOU ASK ABOUT OUR COORDINATION WITH GLO. ACTUALLY, SOMEONE FROM GLO WAS HERE A FEW WEEKS AGO. WE MET THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND WE WERE DISCUSSING SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS. THIS IS AMENDMENT THAT TIM BROUGHT UP TO HIM AND HE SAID, YES, PLEASE SEND THAT UP BECAUSE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HE SAID THAT HE KNOWS THAT GLO IS GOING TO HAVE TO START ADDRESSING ALONG THE COAST OF TEXAS. >> I THINK IT WAS THE COAST GALVESTON. >> YEAH. ALLOWING REINFORCED CONCRETE WITHIN THESE AREAS. >> COMMISSIONER HILL. >> WHAT WAS THE SECOND, OKAY, SO NO DRIVING ON SANDY BEACH. WHAT WAS THE OTHER THING? >> WE ARE REQUESTING [NOISE] THE CHANGING THE ORDINANCE TO RESTRICT VEHICLE ACCESS AT ACCESS POINT 1C AND AT THAT SAME LOCATION AT ACCESS POINT 1C AND SUNNY BEACH, WE ARE ASKING TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTED USE AREA. THE RESTRICTED USE AREA IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN TNRC 61, IS NOT IN TAC 31. [NOISE] IT CAME ABOUT IN 2003, 2004 WHEN THE CITY WAS UPDATING THEIR BEACH ACCESS PLAN. AT THAT TIME, COMMISSIONER PATTERSON OF THE GLO THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY TO SEASONALLY RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE BEACH, AND HE MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO DESIGNATE THAT AREA AS A RESTRICTED USE AREA YEAR-ROUND FOR DISABLED PERSONS, FISHERMAN, AND KAYAKERS. WHAT IT DOES IS WE CAN'T RESTRICT VEHICLE USE OUT THERE FROM GLO STANDPOINT WITH THAT THERE. WE'RE ASKING TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN TEXAS STATUE. I'VE REVIEWED EVERY OTHER BEACH ACCESS FOR EVERY OTHER MUNICIPALITY UP AND DOWN THE COAST FROM SOUTH PADRE ISLAND OF PORT ARTHUR. NOBODY ELSE HAS A RESTRICTED USE ACCESS. AS I SAID, IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ALTERNATIVE FOR SEASONAL ACCESS. WE DON'T DO SEASONAL ACCESS, SO WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THIS ALTERNATIVE ON US. YEAH, NO. IT'S A LITTLE. >> ONE OTHER THING TO THAT. THE NOTION THAT THESE BASICALLY THE PROTECTED POPULATION IN THIS RESTRICTED USE AREA, [01:45:05] THE BOAT LAUNCHERS, THE FISHERMEN, THE DISABLED. WE ALREADY ALLOW THOSE FOLKS TO BE ON OUR PUBLIC BEACHES TO BEGIN WITH. IT'S NOT LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO ELSEWHERE OTHER THAN THIS RESTRICTED USE AREA. THE FACT THAT THE RESTRICTED USE AREA THERE IS REALLY JUST REDUNDANT AND NOT LISTED ANYWHERE IN LAW. THERE ARE FOLKS THAT HAVE MADE THE ASSERTION THAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY A FORM OF LAW, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT. IT WAS A SETTLEMENT THAT EVERYBODY AGREED TO AT THE TIME. DAVID GREENE OF THE GLO SAID, POINT BLANK, YOU COULD RELOCATE THAT THING ANYWHERE. YOU CAN PUT IT OUT ON SAN LOUIS PASS IF YOU WANTED TO. BUT THERE'S NO PLACE IN LAW THAT IT ACTUALLY EXISTS, SO TO SPEAK. REALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING, THERE IS ONE SEASONAL RESTRICTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE ISLAND OUT AT, YES, BINGO. THAT'S A ONE-WAY SEASONAL LOOP AND THAT WAS ALSO PART OF THAT PLAN. THAT WOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT. BUT AS CARL MENTIONED, THE WHOLE NOTION THAT THIS WAS IN LIEU OF A SEASONAL APPROACH, IT'S REDUNDANT. IT'S COMPLETELY REDUNDANT BECAUSE ALL THOSE FOLKS HAVE ACCESS YEAR-ROUND ALL THE OTHER ACCESS POINTS. >> THERE MIGHT BE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT DISABLED PERSONS ACCESSING THE BEACH. WELL, IN THE UPDATED TACTIC GLO HAD, THEY'VE ACTUALLY ADDED SOME LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS THAT. NOW WHERE VEHICLE ACCESS IS RESTRICTED, THE PUBLIC ACCESS FROM THE SEAWARD SIDE OF THE ACCESS DOWN TO THE MAIN HIGH TIDE THROUGH THE SAND, EITHER HAS TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF MOBILE MAT OR SOME ALTERNATIVE FOR DISABLED PERSONS TO ACCESS THE WATER. ANY CROSSOVER OUT THERE, ANY ACCESS, IF IT'S APPROVED, WILL HAVE SOME TYPE OF ACCESS FROM THE SEAWARD SIDE OF THAT TO THE MAIN HIGH TIDE LINE. >> WHICH MEANS UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET BACK OUT THERE WITH PROBABLY A GOOD NUMBER OF THE SUBDIVISIONS ON THE WEST END AND TELL THEM, HEY, THERE'S MORE. UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO REQUIRE MORE OF YOU BECAUSE OF THE GLO'S RECENT RULING ON THIS. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING. HANDICAP ACCESS ON THE BEACH IS SOMETHING THAT WE CERTAINLY COULD IMPROVE. THIS IS GOING TO FORCE THE ISSUE. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> MAKE SURE THAT SOME OF THOSE COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE HANDICAP ACCESS. >> OH. >> I KNOW THERE'S ONE OUT. >> SOME ARE MORE COMPLETELY COMPLIANT RIGHT NOW. >> I DROVE OVER THERE AND I'M LIKE, WOW. I WOULD SAY THOSE GUYS THEY'VE STEPPED UP. >> YEAH, I THINK THE TERM IN THE NEW CODE THAT CARL IS REFERENCING OR THE TAC IS, IF YOU HAVE A SUBDIVISION THAT HAS SIX OR EIGHT OR 10 ACCESS POINTS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, ONE OF THOSE HAS TO BE OF THAT NON SLIP MOBI-MAT CONFIGURATION. IT MAKES SENSE THAT IT ALLOWS THOSE FOLKS TO HAVE, YEAH, IT IS. I REALLY THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO MAKE FOR BETTER EQUITY FOR THAT CLASS OF FOLKS WHO HAVE TROUBLE GETTING TO THE BEACH NOW AND IN CERTAIN CASES, BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, COMMISSIONER WALL, THAT THERE ARE SOME SUBDIVISIONS WHICH HAVE DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB OF THAT. THIS LAW IS JUST GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REST OF THEM DO AS WELL. >> COMMISSIONER HILL. >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE CONCRETE. I WANTED TO SAY THAT MY PROBLEMS WITH THE CONCRETE ISSUE GO WITH THAT IT'S ON A SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT YOU ALL WANT TO PACKAGE UP AND SEND. BUT THE TIARA ISSUE THAT THAT PART HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR A LONG TIME. I PERSONALLY DON'T APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS JUST [01:50:03] BEING SLID IN ON A SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA. THAT IS LARGELY USED FOR CELEBRATORY AND CEREMONIAL FUNCTIONS, ESPECIALLY SINCE TOMORROW. IT'S ABOUT THIS GUY RIGHT HERE. >> LET'S DIMINISH THAT. >> IT'S GOING TO BECAUSE IT'S TURNED INTO A REAL HOT BUTTON ISSUE. I THINK THAT IT'S AMONG ISSUES TOMORROW THAT ARE GOING TO BE BROUGHT UP THAT ARE TESTY. I THINK THAT TO POINT OUT THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL READS ON THE NATURAL RESOURCES OBJECTIVE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE SENSITIVE NATURAL RESOURCES OF GALVESTON, THE BAY AND THE GOLF, AND PROTECT THE INTEGRITY AND FUNCTION OF THE BEACHES. DOES THIS TEXT AMENDMENT REALLY SERVED TO BETTER PROTECT THE INTEGRITY AND FUNCTION OF THE BEACHES AND DUNES? MAKE NO MISTAKE WEST BEACH IS A HIGHLY ERODING BEACH, AS WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED. NO AMOUNT OF TALK ABOUT RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECTS AND FORTIFIED DUNES CAN HOLD BACK THE NEXT STORM AND WE ALL KNOW THAT IT WILL COME. STAMPED ENGINEERS DRAWINGS CANNOT HOLD BACK MOTHER NATURE AND HER MIGHTY FORCE. THOSE OF US WHO LIVE ON THE WEST END KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T EVEN TAKE A NAME STORM TO CAUSE MAJOR EROSION AND WHEN IT DOES THE SAND WASHOUT AROUND THIS CONCRETE, AND THEN WHAT? IN MY FIVE AND A HALF YEARS ON PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'VE DENIED A LARGE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND EXEMPTIONS FOR 10 PILINGS, FIVE PILINGS, ONE PILING. BECAUSE WE HAVE ENFORCED THE RULES THAT DISALLOWED REINFORCED CONCRETE. THOSE RULES WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY TO RESIDENTS. THEORETICALLY, THIS COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO LOOK A HOMEOWNER IN THE EYE DENY THEM A BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO HAVE 5 SQUARE FEET OF REINFORCED CONCRETE TO SHORE UP THEIR HOME BECAUSE IT MIGHT POSE A POST STORM CLEANUP PROBLEM WHILE ALLOWING A LARGE MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO POUR TRUCKLOADS OF CONCRETE, ESSENTIALLY IN THEIR BACKYARD. NOW, HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE THE ONE TO ENFORCE THAT RULE, AND WOULD YOU? Y'ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO. I'D ALSO HATE TO HAVE TO DEFEND IT IN COURT. THAT'S WHERE AN AGGRIEVED PARTY GOES TO APPEAL A PLANNING COMMISSION RULING ON A DENIED BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. WHY DO WE HAVE THIS RULE IN THE FIRST PLACE? TO AVOID POST STORM CLEANUP NIGHTMARES. I FIND THE LOGIC OF THIS PARTICULAR TEXT AMENDMENT CHANGE BAFFLING THEN. IF CONCRETE ON A RESIDENT'S POSES TOO MUCH OF A CLEANUP THREAT, CONCRETE AND REBAR. THEN HOW DOES CLEAN UP OF COMMERCIAL DEBRIS PROVE TO BE LESS? HUGE BUILDINGS EQUAL HUGE CHUNKS OF CONCRETE AND REBAR WHEN THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE NEED TO GET TO THE WEST END AFTER A STORM TO CHECK ON THEIR HOMES, WILL FM3005 BE PASSABLE? WILL MOTHER NATURE HAVE DEPOSITED MORE GIANT CHUNKS OF CONCRETE AND REBAR ON THE ROAD? HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO GET THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT OUT TO REMOVE DEBRIS OF THAT MAGNITUDE? WILL 3005, THE MAJOR ARTERY THAT TEXT DOT JUST INVESTED MAJOR FUNDS TO RAISE AND IMPROVE TO MAKE IT MORE VIABLE AND STORMS BE GOUGED, DAMAGE AND EVEN DRIVABLE AFTER THE DEBRIS HAS GONE? AS WE ARE OFTEN REMINDED, ESPECIALLY BY OUR DISTRICT SIX COUNCIL MEMBER, THE MAJORITY OF THE TAX BASE LIES ON THE WEST END. ARE WE GOING TO RISK CUTTING OFF THOSE HOMES FOR WEEKS CAUSING MILLIONS MORE IN DAMAGE, REDUCING THE HOMES VALUES AND THE CITY'S TAX BASE EXPONENTIALLY? THIS SEEMS UNBELIEVABLY, ILL CONCEIVED AND SHORT SIDED. I HAVE A LOT TO SAY TODAY BECAUSE MY TIME TO SPEAK ON THIS AT COUNCIL TOMORROW WILL BE LIMITED AND I OBVIOUSLY FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT IT. >> [OVERLAPPING] MAKE A COMMENT. >> SURE. GO AHEAD, CARL. >> COMMISSIONER HILL. I DON'T HAVE STUFF EVERY DAY. I HAVE PEOPLE COME IN THAT ARE AT 190 AND BUILDING THEIR HOUSE AND I SAY YOU CANNOT DO REINFORCED CONCRETE. NOBODY GOES ACROSS THE STREET AND I DO IT EVERY DAY. THE FIBER CRETE, AS I SAID, IS FROM GLO AND THEY ARE LOOKING MORE AT BEACH CLEANUP. BUT I THINK WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE NEW TAG THAT ARE ALLOWING, [01:55:06] IN THEIR LANGUAGE CONCRETE SLABS AND SIDEWALKS FOR CERTAIN SITUATIONS. IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH DAVID GREEN AT THE GLO, WHO SAYS YES AND THAT UP BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT STRONG LINE IN THE SAND, THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CHANGES COMING DOWN. THE FIBER CRETE IS NOT A CITY ORDINANCE. THIS IS WHERE ENFORCING WHAT GLO HAS COME DOWN AND THEY'RE NOT LOOKING, AS I SAID, THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF BUILDINGS. THEY'RE LOOKING AT WHAT'S EASY TO CLEAN UP THE BEACH FOR BEACH ACCESS NOT MAJOR THOROUGH FAIR INFRASTRUCTURE. >> JOHN PAUL. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. WHAT DO WE CONSIDER [INAUDIBLE]? >> THE DEFINITION UNDER THE TUCK IS LARGE SCALE CONSTRUCTIONS, WHICH INCLUDES MULTIFAMILY AND THEIR DEFINITION IS ANYTHING OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF DISTURBANCE, IS NOT ANYTHING SET IN STONE, THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO TOWN HOUSES OR, 40 APARTMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THEIR DEFINITION IS JUST LARGE SCALE. THE GLO TAGS. >> ONE OF THE THINGS IN HERE [INAUDIBLE] MAYBE MADE [INAUDIBLE]. BUT THE MULTIFAMILY HAVE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH DEFINITION WITHIN GLO? >> WELL, THEY HAVE LARGE SCALE AND IT'S LIKE THEY HAVE SMALL SCALE AND THEY HAVE DEFINITION THAT SAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS, THIS, THIS AND THIS AND THERE'S LARGE SCALE CONSTRUCTIONS, THIS MUCH DISTURBANCE, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, THAT'S THE DEFINITION. >> WELL, I THINK THAT PROBABLY NEEDS THE DEFINITION WITHIN OUR REGULATIONS WITH THIS. >> YEAH I THINK IT NEEDS A DEFINITION. AT LEAST SOME CLARITY ON IT. >> THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING. >> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A WORKSHOP. >> IT'S GOING TO BE A WORKSHOP TOMORROW. >> REALLY? >> YEAH. >> WHEN IS THE WORKSHOP? >> NOT JUST THE WORKSHOP. >> THAT'S ONE THING I HAD. JEFFREY, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. >> YES, SIR. >> [OVERLAPPING] RIGHT AWAY BEFORE I ASK THAT QUESTION. EXEMPTIONS MAY BE MADE TO THIS REQUIREMENT. WITHIN MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES, IS THAT JUST FOUNDATIONS? IS THAT FLAT WORK? WHERE DOES THE CONCRETE AND RE-BAR COME INTO PLAY IN LOOKING AT THESE EXEMPTIONS? >> IF IT'S WITHIN 200 FEET, IT'S UNDER THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE. OUTSIDE OF THAT, YOU CAN USE REINFORCED CONCRETE. JUST LIKE A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE NOW FOR DRIVEWAYS, AMENITIES, STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT IT WAS UNDER THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE. >> THE SLAB IN IT. >> THE SLAB. >> YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN USE REINFORCED CONCRETE? >> OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET. >> OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET. >> YEAH. >> WITHIN THE 200 FEET. >> UNDER THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE, UNDER THE SLAB. >> WOULD THAT BE FOR ENGINEERED CONCRETE OR FLAT WORK AS WELL? IF YOU JUST WANT TO DO A NON-STRUCTURAL SLAB UNDER A COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY BUILDING, WOULD THAT BE ALLOWED? >> THAT'S PAVING. >> I BELIEVE SO. >> THAT'S PAVING. HOLD ON. I GOT THAT. I WAS LOOKING AT THAT TO COUNCIL MEMBER IS THAT THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN USE CONCRETE FOR PAVING. [02:00:05] JUST NOT UNDERNEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE. IF I'M NOT, I GOT TO FIND IT NOW. I'VE LOST IT, BUT I'LL FIND IT. >> WITHIN THE ORDINANCE OR? >> NO, THAT WAS IN THE TAC. SORRY. >> BUT WE'RE STILL NOT PROPOSING TO DO THAT OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT, EVEN THOUGH THE TAC ALLOWS IT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING THAT. >> OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET. >> OF COURSE. >> SURE. >> AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. WHEN WE APPROVE THESE BEACHFRONT CERTIFICATES FOR NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THEIR HOUSE AT THEIR EXPENSE, IF IT BECOMES ON THE PUBLIC BEACH. ALL THIS TALKING ABOUT CONCRETE ON THE BEACH, WOULDN'T IT BE AS SIMPLE TO MAKE IT TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR CONCRETE IF IT ENDS UP ON THE PUBLIC BEACH? >> THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPERS. >> I KNOW THE GUYS HAVE THE PROBLEMS. >> YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN A $50 MILLION BUILDING. >> DO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO KNOW THAT THEY FOUND IT? >> IS THE CITY GOING TO HAVE TO GO OUT THERE AND TEAR DOWN THE BUILDING DOWN AS THE BEACH GOES AWAY? >> WELL, JOHN, IT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION BECAUSE THOSE FOLKS OUT THERE AT THE RIVIERA, THEY'RE SKATING ON THE EDGE. THEY'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIX THEIR FOUNDATION OR THEY'RE FIXING TO PAY FOR ONE HECK OF A BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT. >> YOU CURRENTLY CAN'T GO OUT THERE AND BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THIS. YOU JUST CAN'T PUT CONCRETE UNDERNEATH IT. >> RIGHT, REINFORCEMENT. >> YOU'RE GOING TO LET THEM BUILD THE BUILDING. >> BUT NOT PROTECTED. >> NOT PROTECTED. >> WE'VE SEEN THE RESULTS OF THAT. YEAH. >> YOU'RE EITHER FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT OR YOU'RE AGAINST. >> SPEAKING OF PARTICULAR TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OFF, BUT THERE ARE MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES AND LOOKING AT THE FEMA POLICY AND FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT ALLOW YOUR FIRST HABITABLE FLOOR THAT, IT'S COMPLETELY OPEN UNDERNEATH. I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IT'S A MATTER OF THAT YOU'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF MULTIFAMILY OR LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF HOW DO YOU DO IT RESPONSIBLY. KEEPING IN OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF WHY EVERYBODY WANTS TO COME DOWN HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. HERE YOU GO. >> YOU CAN BUILD THE BUILDING, MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T PUT ANYTHING UNDER IT AND EVENTUALLY, IT MIGHT BE ON THE WATER. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BUILD A PEER TO GO TO THAT. IF YOU HAVE THE STRUCTURE, YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE AND YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO NOURISH THE BEACH. YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BUILD IN FRONT OF IT. >> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. YEAH, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO. IF THAT'S IN THE DEVELOPMENT CHOICE, YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO DO A DUNE MITIGATION OR A DUNE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. >> WHY NOT PUT THE REINFORCED CONCRETE-ENDED CONSTRUCTION? IF YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT BEACH. TIERA IS ONE OF THE REASONS THIS IS IN FRONT OF US. THIS REALLY CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF TIERA AND I'VE TALKED TO WHO PUT THIS TOGETHER. THEY TALKED TO GL ADD A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHY THAT'S IN THERE. TIERA, FOR INSTANCE, IS BEHIND AN ENGINEERED BEACH, MAKE YOUR ROAD YOUR PROBLEMS, BUT IT'S AN ENGINEERED BEACH. THERE'S THINGS IN PLACE TO CONTINUE TO NURSE AT THE BEACH AND TO BE A REIMBURSE FOR STORM EVENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHERS CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU WOULD FACTOR INTO THE CRITERIA THAT YOU WOULD USE TO APPROVE THESE WHEN THEY SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. THAT'S WHAT I'LL BE LOOKING FOR. >> SUCH AS? >> SUCH AS AN ENGINEERED BEACH. TIERA'S NEW PROJECTS, THINGS LIKE THAT. >> TO THAT POINT, THE PUD WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL BACK IN AUGUST OF '21, I BELIEVE. HOLD ON. >> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. >> DURING THAT TIME, THEY APPLIED FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF RELIEFS IN THE PUD INCLUDING INCREASING THE NUMBER OF HABITABLE FLOORS, INCREASING THE HEIGHT, FLOOR TO AREA RATIO, PERCENT OF BUILDING LINE, WALL PLANE ARTICULATION, AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT. BUT THEY DIDN'T APPLY OR MAYBE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR RELIEF FROM THE CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT STATES, SHE CAN'T PUT STRUCTURED CONCRETE DOWN WITHIN 200 FEET. NOW, I'M JUST GOING BACK IN TIME HERE. [02:05:02] COULD THEY HAVE OR COULD WE NOW AMEND THEIR PUD AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO MAKING THIS BLANKET CHANGE, TO AMEND THE PUD TO ALLOW THE USE OF STRUCTURED CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET? NOW, THERE WE GO, THAT'S KYLE'S ANSWER. >> NO, YOU CAN'T. TO EVEN ELABORATE ON THIS ON-BOARD A LITTLE BIT MORE. THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THE 200 FEET IS ONLY IN ERODING AREAS. THAT'S WHAT THE GLO SAYS. IF YOU'RE IN A STABLE AREA OR ACCRETING AREA, YOU DON'T HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT. THIS IS ONLY IN ERODING AREAS. THE NOTION OR THE RATIONALE OF, WE DON'T NEED TO BE THIS CLOSE TO THE WATER BECAUSE OF THIS. LIKE I SAID, IF IT'S NOT IN AN ERODING AREA, YOU CAN USE REINFORCED CONCRETE UNDER A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, YOU CAN UNDER THAT. YES BECAUSE SOMETHING IS STABLE JUST STILL DOESN'T MEAN THAT A STORM COMES IN IS NOT GOING TO WIPE IT OUT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT, AS I MENTIONED, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT BEACH ACCESS. >> I THINK A GREAT PORTION OF THIS DISCUSSION FOCUSES ON AND IT WAS A RESULT OF REALLY WHAT HAPPENED IN MIAMI. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO AVOID WHEN WE FACILITATED THE DISCUSSION WITH THE WEST GRAM BEACH AND RIVIERA 1 AND 2. THOSE BUILDINGS, ESPECIALLY FORGET WHAT THE NAME OF IT IS, BUT THE ONE ON THE FARTHEST WEST END OF THE THREE WAS EXPOSED BY FIVE FEET OF THOSE PILLARS. THERE WAS NOTHING HOLDING THOSE PILLARS TOGETHER BASICALLY, OTHER THAN THEIR CONNECTION TO THE BUILDING. THE ENTIRE FLAT WORK THERE WAS GONE, THE SLAB THAT THEY HAD IN PLACE. ALL THE RISK WITH THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE THINK THIS IS NECESSARY. NOW, COULD THERE BE SOME OTHER MEANS? I DIDN'T SEE KYLE'S RESPONSE TO THAT. I WAS LOOKING AT YOU. >> HE SAID IT COULDN'T BE DONE WITHIN THE PUD TO DO A VARIANCE TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. >> BECAUSE OF THE GLO'S REQUIREMENT. BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING THIS TO THE GLO TO HIT IT WHERE THE REGULATION EXISTS. I GUESS COMMISSIONER HAIL YOUR QUESTIONS, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY RHETORICAL OR NOT, BUT WHAT WOULD IT BE WORSE THAN A PORTION OF A SLAB COMING UP ON 3005? IS THE BUILDING ITSELF COMING UP ON 3005? WE WANT TO AVOID THAT AT ALL COST. IN MY OPINION. >> EITHER OR BOTH COULD HAPPEN. >> I SUPPOSE IT COULD, BUT THE CHANCES THAT A REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB IS GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM LESS THAN SOMETHING THAT'S NOT, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT HERE, IS WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE MORE RESILIENT STRUCTURES AND THE DEVELOPERS HAVE THAT ABILITY. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY COME IN AND THEY DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME APPROVAL FOR THEM OR NOT AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS THEM. >> I CAN SEE THESE BIG COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND THESE MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS. I'M A LITTLE MORE CONCERNED WITH THESE MULTIFAMILY IN THE DEFINITION OF MULTIFAMILY. IF YOU GO OUT THERE AND YOU BUILD A 5000-SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT TO A MULTIFAMILY. >> I THINK WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE FURTHER IN THE ORDINANCE. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT, SHOULD IT BE A MINIMUM? I KNOW WE'RE GETTING OFF TOPIC A LITTLE BIT HERE. >> NO, I WOULD THINK THAT IF YOU WERE DOING SOME PODIUM SOLID CONCRETE STRUCTURE, YOU WOULD THEN ALLOW REINFORCED CONCRETE BELOW. YOU GOT REINFORCED CONCRETE UP IN THE AIR. WHY NOT? >> BUT FEMA'S POLICY AND THE LOCAL FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIRES FEMA STATES THAT CONCRETE SLABS NEED TO BE STRUCTURALLY INDEPENDENT OF BUILDING FOUNDATION IN ZONES V OR VE. ARE WE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WE'RE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THAT AND SO NOW, HEY, LOOK, MAYBE YOU CAN DO IT AND THEN BUT YEAH, BUT DEPENDING UPON DEPENDING UPON THE DESIGN, THE PRESENCE OF THE CONCRETE SLAB, I MEAN, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED THE BUILDINGS LOWEST FLOOR. IF YOU STRUCTURE IT. [02:10:02] FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES, THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED THE LOWEST FLOOR. I'M SAYING THAT THERE'S SOME THINGS HERE THAT NEED [OVERLAPPING] TO WELL, YEAH. BUT MY POINT IS THAT IT JUST SEEMS WE'RE OPENING OURSELVES UP TO I DON'T KNOW, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONING RELATED TO HOW WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING. >> FROM FEMA OR GLO? >> NO. I DON'T KNOW. FEMA. FEMA IS SO FAR AWAY. THEY ALLOW LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION AND ACTUALLY ENFORCE ANYTHING. I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE NOT NECESSARILY RUSHED IT WELL, YEAH, RUSHED IS ONE OF IT. >> BY THE WAY THERE IS A TIME ISSUE WITH THIS. IT'S NOT TOO MUCH BRUSH, BUT THERE'S A TIME FRAME THAT IS INVOLVED WITH THIS. I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS INTO A TIMEFRAME THAT IS. >> WE CAN'T SEND UP TO ONE AT A TIME. >> I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE SENDING THEM ALL UP. I GET THAT. >> IT'S NOT THAT I'M TRYING TO AVOID PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SNEAK THIS UNDER THE RUG, THERE ARE TIME CONSTRAINTS INVOLVED WITH THIS. >> [INAUDIBLE] GLO APPROVED IT [INAUDIBLE] >> THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST CAME UP OVERNIGHT. THE PERSON WHO'S WORKING ON THIS FOR TIER HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR MONTHS. MONTHS. >> ON THE RIVIERA THAT CAME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION JUST RECENTLY RELATED TO THE GO TUBE AND SO I WAS LIKE, OKAY, WELL, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR SOLUTION FOR IT, BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE PUSHING THIS FORWARD. >> NO, GEO TUBE IS MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE THEY HAD TO HAVE SOMETHING NOW. AS DONNA SAID, THIS MIGHT TAKE MONTHS AND GOING BACK TO TIM'S COMMENT ABOUT MIAMI, I HAD A PRETTY CANDID CONVERSATION WITH GLO BECAUSE AS I SAID, THEY WERE SAYING, NO, WE DON'T WANT GO TUBE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S EVERYWHERE THROUGHOUT THE TAC AND THE 61 TRC AND IT'S LIKE, I WAS PRETTY CANDID WITH HIM IS LIKE WE BOTH PUBLIC AGENCIES. IF ANYTHING HAPPENS OUT THERE, IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC REQUESTS, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET THIS RESOLVED FOR THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS AND SO LIKE I SAID, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN I KNOW I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR FOUR MONTHS, BUT THESE. >> THE GLO HAS REALLY BEEN ACCOMMODATING RECENTLY. >> GOOD. >> THEY'VE BEEN REALLY GOOD TO WORK WITH. >> IF THEY'VE BEEN ACCOMMODATING, CAN I ALSO RECOMMEND THAT YOU LOOK AT THE FIBER CREEK MAINTENANCE FEE AND JACKING THAT UP? AND CONSIDERING THAT BECAUSE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE USED IN THE CASE OF CLEANUP. SO IS THE CURRENT VALUE OF THAT THE $200 PER APPLICANT OR WHATEVER PER HOME, IS THAT ENOUGH TO GET YOU COVERAGE IN CASE OF A CATASTROPHIC EVENT FOR CLEANUP, IF NOT, CONSIDER JACK AND INCREASING THAT WIRE, THE GLO IS BEING GENEROUS. YOU MIGHT AS WELL YOU KNOW NO ASKING NO GETTING. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I THINK WE HAVE A BALANCED THOUGH IN THAT FUND. I DON'T REMEMBER HOW BIG IT IS. I WANT TO SAY. >> THAT WAS BACK IN WHAT, 97 OR SO AND IT WAS ADOPTED AND SO THAT HADN'T CHANGED SINCE THEN. COSTS HAVE GONE UP FOR DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL SO MIGHT BE A FAIR POINT THAT SHE MIGHT WANT TO TAKE UNDER CONSIDERATION. >> WELL CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY DO THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE CERTAINLY MOVING FORWARD. >> IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO THE GLO ALL AT ONCE WITH THREE REQUESTS. MIGHT NOT WANT TO JUST GO AHEAD AND GO WITH FOUR. >> IT'S ABROAD AGENDA. >> YEAH, IT'S A BROAD DISCUSSION. >> WELL, AND I THINK WE'LL EVENTUALLY GET TO THAT WITH THERE'S A LOT MORE ADJUSTMENT THAT'S PROPOSED IN CHAPTER 29, THEN JUST THESE THREE PROJECTS. REMEMBER, THESE THREE PROJECTS ARE WHERE THERE'S ECONOMIC INVESTMENT PENDING WAITING FOR US. THAT'LL BE A FUTURE PHASE AND IT'S A GREAT SUGGESTION. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT INTERNALLY AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> NOW, IT'S TIME TO PARTY. >> I DON'T KNOW. [LAUGHTER] WE STILL HAVEN'T DISCUSSION. >> WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I KNOW EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET OUT OF HERE. >> THEIR COMMENT, AND THAT IT'S BECAUSE THE GLO IS A DEFINITION OF LARGE-SCALE. WE'VE DONE HOUSES THAT MET THE LARGE-SCALE REQUIREMENT. I WILL AGREE. I DON'T LIKE THE BLANKET HATES LARGE-SCALE OR MULTI-FAMILY, I'M AGREEING WITH YOU GUYS. MAYBE YOU DO IT TO WHERE IT FITS SO MANY FLOORS AND IT'S MADE OUT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE THAN THOSE GUYS. THEY GET A PASS OR THEY GET AN EXEMPTION. >> DOES FIVE FLOORS SEEM REASONABLE? >> I WOULD THINK SO. >> WE GET FOUR FLOOR WE CAN GET UP TO FOUR FLOOR. >> RESIDENCE. >> SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. [02:15:01] >> BUT YOU COULD ALSO MAKE IT REINFORCED CONCRETE. NOBODY'S GOING TO GO BUILD A FIVE-STORY REINFORCED CONCRETE HOUSE. >> THEIR BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN REINFORCED CONCRETE ON THE FIRST FLOOR IF YOU WANT EVERY [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU GUYS CAN FIGURE THAT OUT, BUT I WILL SAY I AGREE THAT INSTEAD OF LETTING IT HAVE SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GO COME SHOW UP WITH STUFF THAT THIS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO AND IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG OPEN HOUSE. >> I'VE GOT A LOT OF COMMENTS ON THIS FROM PEOPLE SAYING THE SAME THING. WHY IS THIS ON THE SOCIAL AGENDA OR WHY THIS ON THIS SPECIAL MEETING? >> BECAUSE IT WAS NEXT REGULAR MEETING THAT WAS UP ON THE AGENDA, THE SCHEDULE. THE NEXT ONE, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE REINHARDT'S WHO ARE MOVING THROUGH AND THEY DON'T WANT TO BE SLOWED DOWN. [LAUGHTER] WE HAVE SOME MORE THAT WE NEED TO ADD INTO THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BOGEY MAN IS, BUT IT ISN'T IN US TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT IT WAS SIMPLY PUTTING IT ON THE NEXT REGULAR AGENDA. >> I AGREE WITH THAT, SAY WE DISCUSSED THIS A COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW AND THERE ARE MORE QUESTIONS. YOU ALL PREPARE TO DIDN'T ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS COME BACK AS THE NEXT MEETING. >> EITHER THAT OR THAT NIGHT, IF WE CAN, I THINK THE DEFINITION OF MULTIFAMILY IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA. WE REALLY OUGHT TO DEFINE WHAT WAS MEANT BY THAT AND PUT THAT IN THE ORDINANCE. >> THERE IS NOT A NIGHT MEETING IT ONLY IN THE DAY. >> YES, AND FOLLOW UP WITH A REGULAR WORKSHOP AND COUNCIL MEETING ON MAY 25TH, A WEEK LATER. >> WORST-CASE SCENARIO. IT GOES BACK ANOTHER WEEK, RIGHT? >> YEAH. TIM, I'D LIKE TO JUST FROM THIS SEAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE CITY TO CONSIDER DEFERRING THAT TO MAY 25TH. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SAY, BUT I'LL JUST SAY IT. >> BUT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT IN WORKSHOP SESSION. >> THERE'S NOT A WORKSHOP. >> I'M SORRY. I HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT THE AGENDA. I'VE BEEN OUT FOR THREE WEEKS WITH MY. >> I HEARD, I KNOW. >> CIRCUMSTANCES SO I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT KNOWING IT'S NOT AS A WORKSHOP. >> I JUST PULLED UP BE TOMORROW'S SESSION SO IT'S JUST ONE COMPLETE SESSION STARTS AT 09:00. THERE ISN'T A WORKSHOP, IT'S JUST ONE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND IT IS AN ITEM. IT WILL BE DISCUSSED JUST CITY COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS ANY ORDER THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO THEM AND OF COURSE, CITY COUNCIL HAS ALL THE OPTIONS TO GO YAY OR NAY, DIFFER, AND WHATNOT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER DISCUSS MIGHT HAVE AS PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT I ASK THAT YOU TALKED TO MAYOR BROWN UNDER CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. >> THERE WE GO. HEY, LOOK, I'M WORKING THROUGH THE RIGHT CHANNELS. FINALLY. [LAUGHTER] >> I TALKED TO OUR EX OFFICIAL WHO'S GOING TO GO TALK TO THE MAYOR ABOUT CONSIDERING DEFERRING THIS FOR TWO UNTIL MAY 25TH. [LAUGHTER]. >> THAT CANNOT BE A DECISION FROM A COMMISSION ITEM. >> I UNDERSTAND. [LAUGHTER] IT'S NOT A DECISION. THERE'S JUST A REQUEST. >> FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN. [BACKGROUND] >> I GOT A LOT TO LEARN FROM YOU, DONNA, FINE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? THIS HAS BEEN VERY INTERESTING, EDUCATIONAL. >> WE HAVE ONE MORE AGENDA ITEM. >> WE DO. GO AHEAD, CATHERINE. [8. Recognition Of David Finklea ] >> THE AGENDA ITEM IS RECOGNITION OF DAVID FRANKLY, AND I THINK STEPHEN IS GOING TO SAY A FEW WORDS. >> PRESENT A PLAQUE. >> CONGRATULATION. >> DAVID, FIRST OFF, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR VICTORY AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE PAST YEAR-AND-A-HALF, I BELIEVE IT WAS HERE. YES. YOUR INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE AS AN ENGINEER HERE WITH US, WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU OBVIOUSLY, BUT WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE YOU IN A NEW ROLE HERE WITH THE CITY, AND IN RECOGNITION, WE HAVE A PLAQUE FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> AWELL, I WILL SAY THAT I'VE THOROUGHLY ENJOYED MY TIME ON PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS EVEN WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY. THIS HAS BEEN VERY EDUCATIONAL OF UNDERSTANDING THE INS AND OUTS AND THE DO'S AND DON'TS OF CITY GOVERNMENT. [02:20:02] THE STAFF HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY OPEN AND AFFIRMING AND HELPFUL IN GIVING ME THE ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS AND TRY TO DO THE BEST THINGS FOR ALL OF OUR CITIZENS IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON SO FOR THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DO FOR THE CITY AND FOR THE WORK THAT ALL THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS DO. I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT. [APPLAUSE] >> THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. >> NOW, AS YOU SIT OVER THERE, NOW YOU CAN SIT OVER THERE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.