[12. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding Special Use Case Z-25-0165 to consider action on a Special Use Permit to allow for a smoke shop on one (1) parcel of land approximately 0.155 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R036105; and commonly known as 106 W. Willis Street, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Applicant/Agent: Paradox 2025, LLC. (Sayed Khalid Sadat) on behalf of Krasniqi Real Estate Holdings, LLC. (Taulant Krasniqi).

Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-25-0165 as described above.

]

MOVING ON TO OUR PUBLIC AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER 12 IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SPECIAL USE CASE Z-250165 TO CONSIDER ACTION ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A SMOKE SHOP ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 0.155 ACRES IN SIZE. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCEL R036105 AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 106 WEST

[00:05:02]

WILLOW STREET, LEANDER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. THE APPLICANT AGENT IS PARADOX 2025 LLC. ON BEHALF OF THIS IS SAEED KHALID SADAT ON BEHALF OF KRASNIQI REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC. GOOD EVENING, KARINA CASTILLO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT OF THEIR PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CAN ALLOW FOR A SMOKE SHOP, SO THIS WOULD BE AN OVERLAY ON TOP OF THE ZONING. AND THE ZONING FOR THIS IS T5 URBAN CENTER. THIS IS IN THE SMART CODE, WHICH DOES NOT LIST SMOKE SHOPS AS AN ALLOWED USE. THIS USE WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFINED AS RETAIL. IN CASES WHERE THE USE IS NOT INCLUDED, STAFF REFERS TO THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR GUIDANCE, AND WE DO CONSIDER THE LOCAL COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL USE COMPONENTS TO BE SIMILAR TO THE T5. DURING THE JUNE 20TH MEETING OF LAST YEAR, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN UPDATE TO THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND IT ALSO IT DEFINED THE SMOKE USE SHOP AND ALSO INCLUDED IT TO BE IN LOCAL COMMERCIAL USE COMPONENT, WITH THE RESTRICTION THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN 1000FT FROM A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL, AND THIS IS MEASURED FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE. THE SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 620FT FROM THE LAST. THE LEO CENTER, THE LEANDER EXTENDED OPPORTUNITY CENTER. AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PULL UP A MAP JUST FOR REFERENCE. SO THE PIN ON THE MAP IS WHERE IT'S LOCATED, AND THE BUFFER IS THE 1000FT FROM THE SCHOOLS. SO THE SURROUNDING AREA, THIS IS LOCATED JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM PAT BRYSON MUNICIPAL HALL. IT'S ATTACHED TO THE LEANDER BEER MARKET, AND NORTH OF IT IS MAGGIE MAE'S AND THE THIRSTY CHICKEN IS LOCATED JUST TO THE EAST. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO PREVIOUS CASES FOR THIS SITE. THE FIRST ONE WAS WHEN WE DID A SORRY. WE DID A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE TATTOO PARLOR IN DECEMBER OF 2021. THIS HAS A TEN YEAR TERM, SO IT IS STILL VALID. AND THEN WE ALSO DID ANOTHER ZONE CHANGE FOLLOWING THE. IT WAS KIND OF A LIKE A OVERHAUL. WE CHANGED IT FROM T4 TO T5 IN MAY OF 2022. THEY DID SOME OUTREACH FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE LOCATED IN THE IN THE GENERAL AREA. SO THEY DID OUTREACH FOR EVERYBODY WITHIN 500FT THAT WAS RESIDENTIALLY ZONED OR USED. THERE WERE SOME THAT WERE VACANT AND THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GET A HOLD OF ANYBODY. THEY HAVE NOT HEARD BACK WITH ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENTS. AS PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST, THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION HAVE THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. NUMBER ONE IS TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE SMOKE SHOP WITH A TIME LIMIT OF FIVE YEARS, OR TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR IT WITH A TIME LIMIT OF FIVE YEARS, WITH CONDITIONS SUCH AS THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL REMAIN IN CHARACTER WITH THE SMART CODE AND OLD TOWN, AND ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR SIGNAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO SIGNAGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SMART CODE AND OLD TOWN. OPTION NUMBER THREE WOULD BE DENY THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE SMOKE SHOP, OR NUMBER FOUR WOULD BE TO ALLOW AN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST THAT MAY INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SUCH AS LIMITED HOURS, SIGNAGE OR TIME LIMITS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND OPTION NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS TO ALLOW FOR THE SIP FOR THE SMOKE SHOP WITH ADDITIONAL STANDARDS REQUIRE THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING AND SIGNAGE SHALL REMAIN IN CHARACTER WITH THE SMART CODE AND OLD TOWN. THE PURPOSE AND THE CONDITIONS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE EXTERIOR IS NOT CHANGED IN A WAY THAT ADDS A BRIGHT COLORS OR SIGNAGE THAT WOULD BE ENTICING TO YOUNG PEOPLE OR CHILDREN. STAFF MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION BASED ON FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE COUNCIL REGARDING SMOKE SHOPS WITHIN 1000FT FROM A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL, AND I WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH THAT, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISHING TO SPEAK? OKAY? I WILL ASSUME NO. AND WITH THAT WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. LOOKS LIKE I DO HAVE ONE PERSON ON THE AGENDA WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS. ANITA, COME SPEAK YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. HI, ANITA, 708 PALAMOS. DRIVE. THE ALI CENTER IS AN ACTIVE DISCIPLINARY ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM. CAMPUS SERVING STUDENTS ELEMENTARY TO HIGH SCHOOL WITHIN LA SD. IT DOES QUALIFY UNDER THE TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. 160 1.081-161.082 AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL AND IS FULLY SUBJECT TO THE LEGAL BUFFER REQUIREMENTS THAT PROHIBIT THE SALE OR MARKETING OF TOBACCO AND E-CIGARETTE PRODUCTS WITHIN 1000FT OF SCHOOL CAMPUSES. THIS PROPOSAL, AS AT JUST 620FT FROM THE CENTER, APPEARS TO VIOLATE THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF TEXAS LAW, AS WELL AS THE CITY OF LEANDER'S OWN PUBLIC SAFETY OBJECTIVES. ALLOWING A TOBACCO OR VAPE RETAIL OPERATION THIS CLOSE TO A SCHOOL CAMPUS, ESPECIALLY ONE SERVING AT RISK YOUTH, UNDERMINES COMMUNITY TRUST, SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, AND MAY EXPOSE THE CITY TO LEGAL AND REPUTATIONAL RISKS. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO DENY THE

[00:10:02]

SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IF YOU ARE DETERMINED TO ALLOW THIS, I WOULD AT LEAST SEEK LEGAL OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY BEFORE MOVING FORWARD. THE HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF STUDENTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE IN BEHAVIORAL OR ACADEMIC RECOVERY PROGRAMS, MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER COMMERCIAL INTERESTS IN RESTRICTED USE ZONING AREAS. THANK YOU. WISHING TO SPEAK.

SORRY. ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE INTO DISCUSSION. I DECIDED I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LEAD THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT I WANTED TO CALL OUT SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THIS. AND I KNOW LAST YEAR, LITERALLY A YEAR ALMOST TODAY WE REVIEWED THIS AS FAR AS ALLOWING IT UNDER GC AND LC. AND AS A COMMISSION, WE VOTED 5 TO 2 TO ALLOW IT IN GC WITH THE BUFFER OF THE 100 WITH THE 1000FT, BUT NOT ALLOW AN LC. AND THEN ULTIMATELY COUNCIL APPROVE THE LC, ALLOWING IT TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER LOCAL COMMERCIAL, BUT KEEPING THE 1000 FOOT BUFFER. TO ME, THE 650FT AWAY FROM AN LISD CAMPUS A SCHOOL IS RIGHT NOW IMMEDIATE DENIAL, IN MY OPINION, AND WE SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERING THIS. BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT RULE IN PLACE, WE HAVE THAT ORDINANCE IN PLACE. WE SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THAT AS AS MISS CHUMNEY ALSO MENTIONED, IT'S LEO. OKAY. AND SO I THINK WE KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS THERE. BUT I DID SEE THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THE 7-ELEVEN NEARBY SELLS SIMILAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS. H-E-B AROUND THE CORNER SELLS TOBACCO PRODUCTS. BUT THE REALITY IS, YOU KNOW, THOSE BUSINESSES ARE NOT 100% RELIANT ON TOBACCO SALES, RIGHT? THERE'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PORTION OF THEIR BUSINESS THAT DOES SELL THOSE PRODUCTS AND OBVIOUSLY OTHER PRODUCTS AS WELL. SO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WAS MENTIONED BY PUBLIC SPEAKER, BUT ALSO AS A CITY, WE SHOULD ALLOW THIS TO BE APPROVED WITHIN THAT DISTANCE OF THE SCHOOL. I ALSO WANTED TO BRING UP THE FACT THIS IS OLD TOWN LIAM. I WAS ACTUALLY ON THAT MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE AND WHEN I SAW THE RENDERINGS, I'VE SEEN WHAT OLD TOWN ASPIRES TO BE.

THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY IN THE SPIRIT. IT'S NOT CONSISTENT. IT'S INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHAT OLD TOWN INTENDS TO BE. IT'S A WALKABLE, FAMILY FRIENDLY, YOU KNOW, DESTINATION, TOURIST DESTINATION. AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A SMOKE OR VAPE SHOP IS CONSISTENT WITH ATTRACTING PEOPLE TO OLD TOWN LEANDER. IN FACT, YOU COULD PROBABLY MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IT MIGHT SEND PEOPLE AWAY. AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, DOING THAT. WE SHOULD BE INVITING BUSINESSES TO THAT WILL ENHANCE THE SPIRIT OF OLD TOWN LEANDER AND NOT DETRACT OR TAKE AWAY FROM IT. SO THAT WAS THE COMMENTS I WANTED TO MAKE ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY. AND WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE DOWN TO MY RIGHT AND COMMISSIONER MAHAN. SO I'VE SAID THIS A LOT OF TIMES THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR JOB HERE ON PNC IS TO CALL BALLS AND STRIKES, RIGHT, TO FOLLOW OUR OWN RULES, OUR DIRECTIVES FROM CITY COUNCIL, ETCETERA. AND WHILE I DISAGREE WITH THE CHAIR ON THE POINT ABOUT WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE IN THE AREA, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S FOR US TO DETERMINE. IT'S FOR THE MARKET TO DETERMINE, ETCETERA. HOWEVER, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC USE HERE BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THE CASE IS HERE. AND IT IS VERY CLEAR WITH THE RULES THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN ON WHAT, AT LEAST FOR ME, MY DECISION IS GOING TO BE TONIGHT. SO THAT'S WHERE I AGREE WITH YOU ON ON. THIS IS GOING TO END UP BEING AN EASY NO THAT THOUSAND FEET AWAY FROM LEO. IF IT WAS 1000FT AWAY FROM ANY SCHOOL, IT WOULD IT WOULD BE AN EASY NO FOR ME. BUT THE FACT THAT IT IS LEO, I THINK THAT THAT EVEN EMPHASIZES IT A BIT MORE. SO WE HAVE TROUBLED KIDS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A TEMPTATION FOR THEM TO GO AND UTILIZE AND, YOU KNOW, ETC. SO THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY, AND YOU GUYS KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO BE. SO COMMISSIONER LEWIS. YOU PRESS THE BUTTON THERE AND. I AGREE WITH BOTH OPINIONS. AND THE FACT THE LEO THAT THAT'S KIND OF THE DETERMINING FACTOR FOR ME. OKAY.

MR. LYDIA, THIS IS ALSO AN EASY NO FOR ME. NOT ONLY IS LEO RIGHT IN THAT VICINITY, LEANDER MIDDLE SCHOOL IS ALSO RIGHT NEXT DOOR. AND SO YOU HAVE, AT LEAST, I DON'T KNOW, 6 OR 700 KIDS. I'M ESTIMATING THAT WOULD BE EXPOSED TO THIS. AND I THINK THE ORDINANCE IS IN PLACE FOR A REASON. AND I JUST DON'T THINK A SMOKE SHOP IS APPROPRIATE OR THE RIGHT FIT AND CLEARLY VIOLATES THE ORDINANCE. SO THIS IS A NO FOR ME. COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD, I AGREE WITH IT BEING TOO CLOSE

[00:15:03]

TO THE SCHOOL AND I'M A NO VOTE. OKAY. VICE CHAIR. AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

AS I'VE QUOTED MONTY PYTHON BEFORE, I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BECAUSE I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE BUILDING OVER THERE, THE LEO BUILDING, WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, BUT IT DOES IT QUALIFY AS A SCHOOL? ARE THERE ARE THERE ARE STUDENTS THAT ARE OKAY GOING THROUGH PROGRAMS AND DISCIPLINE ISSUES AND ACADEMIC ISSUES. ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS ARE ADJACENT, BUT IT IS ON ITS OWN PERSONAL. I'M REAL CONFLICTED ON THIS. I DON'T THINK MY VOTE'S GOING TO MATTER ULTIMATELY THIS EVENING. BUT YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MEHAN. WE I'M NOT PERSUADED AT ALL BY ANY KIND OF CENTRAL PLANNING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO REGARDING OLD TOWN.

THE MARKET NEEDS TO KIND OF DECIDE THAT KIND OF THING. I ALSO THINK IT'S A PRETTY UNFAIR.

IT ALMOST SMACKS OF, OF UNEQUAL PROTECTION THAT THAT THERE'S A 711 THAT SELLS PRODUCTS. I DON'T CARE WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE BUSINESS REALLY IS MADE UP OF THAT. IF YOU THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OLD TOWN, WE'VE GOT ALCOHOL OVER, ALL OVER THE PLACE. THIS IS A BAR AND NIGHTLIFE DESTINATION FOR ADULTS AND SOMETIMES WITH ACCOMPANIED MINORS IN THOSE PLACES.

ULTIMATELY, THIS IS ALSO IS THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT? THEY ARE NOT OKAY. OKAY. WELL I ALSO KNOW THIS IS A REGULATED BUSINESS AND LICENSES DEPEND ON CARDING PEOPLE AND ENSURING THAT NOBODY UNDERAGE AT THAT POINT, THE TEMPTATION OF A KID, WHETHER THE SCHOOL IS 1000FT AWAY OR FIVE MILES AWAY, HOWEVER THEY CAN GET THERE, IT REALLY IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME BECAUSE THE, THE LICENSE OF THE PROPRIETOR IS GOING TO BE ON THE LINE AND, AND I WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO THEM TO, TO POLICE THAT I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN WITH UNDERAGE PEOPLE GOING IN AND BUYING THINGS THERE. IN FACT, I THINK IF ANYTHING, I WISH THE APPLICANT WERE HERE TO ANSWER. APPLICANT JUST WALKED IN. OH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE. OKAY. YEAH. HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT THEN. CAN YOU COME UP? I'M REALLY SORRY FOR BEING LATE. THAT'S OKAY. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME? MY NAME IS KHALID SADAT. OKAY. THE BUSINESS, THE SMOKE SHOP THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THIS AS A REGULATED INDUSTRY? YOU HAVE TO HAVE LICENSES FROM THE STATE IN ORDER TO OPERATE THIS. YES. SO WE ARE OPERATING UNDER STATE LAW. WE ALREADY APPLIED AND ALREADY HAVE OBTAINED THE LICENSES FOR THE TOBACCO AND E-CIGARETTE AND HEMP. DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC POLICIES TO RESTRICT THE PURCHASE OF ANY OF YOUR PRODUCTS BY UNDERAGE PEOPLE? YES OR NO. ALL THE POLICIES SIGNED BY STATE, WE ARE PUTTING SIGNS IN THE SHOP ON THE DOOR, WHICH IS UNDER 21, IS NOT ALLOWED INSIDE THE SHOP. WOULD UNDER 21 BE ALLOWED WITH AN ADULT ACCOMPANYING THEM. UNDER 21 IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE SHOP AT ALL. AT ALL. OKAY, IF YOU WERE FOUND TO HAVE SOLD A PRODUCT, TOBACCO OR VAPE PRODUCT TO SOMEBODY WHO'S 17 OR 18 YEARS OLD, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU DISCIPLINARY WISE FROM THE STATE? SO ALL THE RULES OF LAW WILL APPLY AS LONG AS I HAVE INFORMATION. I WOULD RECEIVE A. NOTICE. I THINK THE PREMISES WILL BE CLOSED FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS AND TILL WE HAVE TO PAY THE FINE OR WHATEVER IS ASSIGNED BY STATE. OKAY, SO IT'S WORTH SAYING THAT YOU HAVE YOU'RE HIGHLY INCENTIVIZED TO PREVENT ANYBODY UNDERAGE FROM COMING IN AND PURCHASING ANYTHING, OF COURSE. AND YOU'RE LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO A BAR. CORRECT? OKAY. WITH A FULL MIXED BEVERAGE LICENSE. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANKS. THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. SOMETHING ELSE I WANT TO ADDRESS, JUST BASED ON SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THIS. AND, MISS GRIFFIN, DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT HERE? YES. OKAY. AND I ASK THAT ALMOST RHETORICALLY, BECAUSE IT WASN'T A YEAR AGO THAT THAT NIGHT OWL CAME TO US AND ASKED FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THEIR THE VEHICLE THAT WAS THE DERELICT VEHICLE, IS THAT RIGHT? THE FOOD TRUCK, THE FOOD. NO. WELL THE VEHICLE THE ABANDONED THE NON-OPERABLE INOPERABLE VEHICLE THAT WAS PART OF IT. AND THE TELEVISION SCREEN. WAS THAT PART OF IT TOO? NO, NO. OKAY. THE

[00:20:05]

INOPERABLE VEHICLE, THE INOPERABLE VEHICLE WAS ABSOLUTELY SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY THE SIGN ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED BY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER 2023. AND WE DECIDED THAT DID NOT MATTER IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN OLD TOWN HERE AND PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE TO COME HERE, SPEND MONEY, HAVE A TAX BASE. I THINK WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS LIKE THIS, WE NEED TO BE REAL COGNIZANT ABOUT HOW WE HOW STRICTLY WE ENFORCE THINGS HERE WITH THE COMPETITIVE THREATS THAT WE'VE GOT FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AROUND HERE IS LEANDER MIDDLE SCHOOL WITHIN THE 1000 FOOT BARRIER, OR IS IT OUTSIDE OF IT? NO ONE'S OUTSIDE.

OKAY. THE NIGHT THAT WE PASSED THE THIS COMMISSION RULED ON THE SMOKE SHOP ISSUE. ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS I MADE WAS 1000FT IS NOT THAT MUCH. IN FACT, YOU KNOW, ONE END OF RALPH'S CAMPUS IS 1000FT FROM THE OTHER END OF RALPH'S CAMPUS. IT'S FURTHER DISTANCE, AND IT WAS LESS OF A DISTANCE TO GO DOWN TO ONE OF THE CONVENIENCE STORES TO BUY SMOKE SHOPS THERE. SO IF WE WERE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS, ABOUT REALLY PREVENTING AND RESTRICTING IN A LOT OF WAYS, SMOKE SHOPS, LET'S MAKE IT 2000FT. LET'S MAKE IT A HALF MILE OR A MILE. OKAY? COUNCIL CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT.

THEY KEPT THE 2000FT■!S. SO JUST AS WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE WEIGHING WHETHER TO, YOU KNOW, WHETHER TO SAY THAT 620 OR 50FT TO LEO IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT HERE. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, LEANDER MIDDLE SCHOOL IS OFF THE TABLE. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE DECISION MATRIX HERE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMIC FREEDOM, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS UNDER A HIGHLY REGULATED BUSINESS, THAT IT'S PART OF A BAR THAT CAN'T SERVE ANYBODY THAT'S 21 UNDER 21. I, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. THE RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF HAS MADE, WHICH WAS, I THINK NUMBER TWO. RIGHT. OKAY. CAN YOU SPEAK TO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LEVEL OF RESTRICTION ON SIGNAGE, BETWEEN THE OPTION THAT YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED AND WHAT IT WOULD BE IF WE WENT WITH OPTION NUMBER ONE? I'M NOT COMPLETELY FAMILIAR. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO JUST DO YOUR BEST. YEAH. SAY WHAT THE SIGN ORDINANCE IS. I DON'T KNOW IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT IN THIS SITUATION THAT WE'RE WE'RE RECOMMENDING THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A DISPLAY THAT SAID SMOKE SHOP OR HAVE ANY LIKE, NEON SIGNS THAT KIND OF ATTRACTED YOU TO COME IN. SO IT WOULD BE THE SAME CHARACTERS IF THEY HAD JUST THE SAME SIGN THAT THE BEER MARKET HAS OR THE NIGHT OWL HAS, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT'S ATTRACTING A FLASHING LIGHTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. OKAY. BUT I MEAN, NIGHT OWLS GOT THEY'VE GOT A BIG MURAL ON THE SIDE, THEY'VE GOT THE TELEVISION OUT THERE THAT IS JUST NATURALLY AND ATTRACTIVE THING TO GET PEOPLE DRAWN IN. I MEAN, LEANDER BEER MARKET, DO THEY HAVE A SIGN THAT SAYS LEANDER BEER MARKET THAT THEY SERVE BEER AND IT'S A BAR. THE ONE THING I JUST THINK WE'RE NOT QUALIFIED AT ANY LEVEL IS TO DECIDE, OKAY, THIS SIGN HERE WILL ATTRACT KIDS, BUT THIS ONE WILL ATTRACT ONLY ADULTS. I MEAN, I WAS IN THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY FOR 30 YEARS, AND I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THAT ALWAYS ACCURATELY. SO, I MEAN, I WANT TO SEE US LOOSENING THINGS UP EVERY INSTANCE THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I ALSO WANT US TO BE AWARE OF IS SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE MARKETPLACE OF SMALL BUSINESSES, OF DEVELOPERS, OF JUST HOW LEANDER WORKS WITH SMALL BUSINESSES AND ENTREPRENEURS. AND IN THIS CASE, I FAVOR FREEDOM FOR EQUAL PROTECTION, GROUNDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUNDS. AND AT THIS POINT, I'M JUST KIND OF BEATING A DEAD HORSE. I MEAN, EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE. I THINK I KNOW HOW EVERYONE ELSE IS GOING TO VOTE, BUT THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NO GOOD POINTS. AND ONCE AGAIN, ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOUR POSITION. DO WE HAVE SOME OTHER COMMENTS. YEAH.

GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER LADY I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I'M NOT CONVINCED AT LEAST BY THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE LAWS ARE EXACTLY ON FINING SMOKE SHOPS WHO ILLEGALLY SERVE TO MINORS. BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT BASED ON THE RESPONSE A. FINE AND BEING SHUT DOWN FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THAT'S REALLY THAT MUCH OF AN INCENTIVE. AND I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT E-CIGARETTES ARE A BIG PROBLEM FOR CHILDREN. I THINK THAT IS A STATISTICAL FACT. NOT TO SAY THAT THE APPLICANT IS OR WILL SELL TO CHILDREN, BUT I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE AS THE UNDERPINNING FOR THIS ORDINANCE AND WHY IT'S IN PLACE. I WAS NOT HERE LAST YEAR WHEN THE VOTE WAS MADE ON

[00:25:04]

MAKING IT 1000FT, BUT I THINK IT IS IN PLACE FOR A REASON. AND I THINK THERE IS A SCHOOL THAT IS SERVING AT RISK YOUTH 650FT FROM THE SMOKE SHOP, AND I'M PERSONALLY NOT CONVINCED THAT WE CAN EQUATE A SMOKE SHOP THAT SERVES OR SELLS ONLY TOBACCO AND ONLY E-CIGARETTES WITH A 711 THAT SELLS A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, BUT THEN ALSO CIGARETTES. I DON'T EVEN THINK 7-ELEVEN SELLS E-CIGARETTES, SO I THINK THERE'S A DISTINCTION, AND I THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE IS IN PLACE FOR A REASON. AND THAT'S MY THAT'S MY $0.02. THANK YOU, MISS GRIFFIN, FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMITS. DO THEY LIVE AND DIE HERE OR DOES IT GO TO CITY COUNCIL? IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL. SO THEN I'LL I'LL GO BACK TO MY VERY FIRST STATEMENT. RIGHT. MY JOB IS NOT TO WORRY ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I'M HERE TO VOTE ON A ZONING CASE. IN THIS INSTANCE, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND OUR ORDINANCE ARE VERY CLEAR IN THAT MATTER. SO THAT'S THAT'S EXACTLY HOW I LOOK AT IT. I DIDN'T ALWAYS LOOK AT IT THIS WAY. BY THE WAY, IF YOU LOOK AT MY PAST FIVE AND A HALF YEARS, YOU KNOW, I'VE KIND OF GROWN AND THOUGHT ABOUT THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY AS I SIT UP HERE AND AS I LEARN MORE AND I MAKE MISTAKES, AND I MIGHT NOT GET IT RIGHT ALL THE TIME, BUT I'M A FIRM BELIEVER THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THE ORDINANCE IS CLEAR ABOUT THIS.

AND IF CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO TAKE ALL THOSE GREAT THINGS, WHICH I DON'T DISAGREE WITH, YOU, COMMISSIONER, COM INTO CONSIDERATION, THAT'S THAT'S IN THEIR PURVIEW. I HAVE A MUCH NARROWER PURVIEW BASED ON THE ROLE THAT I'VE BEEN APPOINTED TO HERE. AND THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY IF I COULD JUST I'M GOING TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT BASED ON THAT. COMMISSIONER MEHAN. FIRST, I LOVE THE WAY THIS COMMISSION COMMUNICATES. I DO IT'S SO HIGH FUNCTIONING, I LOVE IT. I, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT OUR OUR PURVIEW IS A LITTLE WIDER. I MEAN, I LIKE GENERALLY THE ANALOGY OF BALLS AND STRIKES THAT WE'RE UP HERE TO CALL, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, A NO VOTE ON THIS TO ME IS VIOLATIVE OF SOME OF THE HIGHER LEVEL STRATEGIC ELEMENTS IN THE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BEING WELCOMING AND INVITING OF BUSINESSES, THAT CREATES A DIVERSE TAX BASE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO I JUST I WANT TO BE I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I MEANT TO MENTION THIS EARLIER, THAT I DO TRY TO KEEP THINGS ROOTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S JUST THAT I THINK THE STRIKE ZONE HERE IS, IS A LITTLE FUZZIER THAN, THAN IT IS IN A LOT OF OTHER CASES. SO THAT'S APPRECIATE IT. ONCE AGAIN, MY ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO MISS CASTILLO. SO REGARDING OPTION TWO, YOU MENTIONED IN COLLABORATION WITH CITY COUNCIL, YOU ALL CAME UP WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. THAT WAS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED WHEN THEY PASSED THE ORDINANCE, WHEN THEY PASSED THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF ALIGNMENT WITH THE OLD TOWN LEANDER. SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS, NO ONE REQUIREMENTS OR NO. WHEN THEY PASSED, WHEN THEY DISCUSSED HAVING IT WITHIN 1000FT OR WHAT THE DISTANCE SHOULD BE, THAT WAS THEIR CONCERNS OF IT BEING ENTICING. YEAH, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY, I MEAN, THE ONLY SCHOOL THAT'S WITHIN THAT THOUSAND FOOT DISTANCE CURB TO CURB IS THE LEO SCHOOL. BUT I DO KNOW, LIKE YOU'VE GOT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AROUND THE CORNER, YOU'VE GOT WAS IT NEW HOPE HIGH SCHOOL? AND THEN YOU GOT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL THAT ARE REALLY CLOSE BY. AND LET'S BE CLEAR, I'M NOT SURE THESE KIDS ARE GOING TO GET OUT OF SCHOOL AND COME RUNNING TO A SMOKE SHOP AND GO, YOU KNOW, PURCHASE TOBACCO PRODUCTS. BUT I THINK, ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE FACT IS, I DO THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY. I MEAN, I LIKE THE IDEA OF CALLING BALLS AND STRIKES. I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, WE LOOK AT THINGS VERY BLACK AND WHITE, AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THINGS, AND WE GIVE IT TO COUNCIL TO KIND OF MAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBJECTIVE VIEW OF IT. AND SO I MEAN, THIS IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO GO TO THEM AND THEY'LL HAVE TO DEBATE IT AND DISCUSS IT AND DECIDE WHERE THEY WANT TO DO HERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE ORDINANCE IS THE ORDINANCE THOUSAND FEET. AND I REMEMBER I REMEMBER A YEAR AGO WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, WE EVEN TALKED ABOUT DENSITY OF VAPE SHOPS AND SMOKE SHOPS AND COSMETICS. RIGHT. THOSE WERE THE THREE BUSINESSES THAT WERE ON THE LIST. AND WE THOUGHT, WELL, THERE WERE FOUR IN LEANDER AT THE TIME. I THINK THERE'S LIKE SEVEN NOW. THERE'S ONE THAT'S GONE UP ON 183 A THERE'S ONE ON 29, AND THERE'S 1 OR 2 ON RONALD REAGAN BETWEEN LEANDER AND CEDAR PARK. SO THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE COMING TO LEANDER, BUT WE HAVE A THAT WE STILL HAVE 1000 FOOT DISTANCE FROM SMOKE SHOP TO SMOKE SHOP OR MAYBE 1500FT. I KNOW SOME, YOU KNOW, CITIES DO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DISTANCE. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT MAYBE MAKING THAT EVEN A WIDER DISTANCE. RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT A SMOKE SHOP JUST AROUND THE CORNER ON HERO WAY. SO I MEAN, YOU SAID LET THE MARKET DECIDE IF THERE'S ONE LESS THAN A MILE AWAY DOES THAT I MEAN, YOU KNOW, DO WE NEED WE NEED ANOTHER ONE THAT SERVES A SPECIALIZED KIND

[00:30:03]

OF CLIENTELE. RIGHT. AND THEN MY POINT, ONCE AGAIN, IT'S OLD TOWN. LEANDER. ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING TO MAKE THIS A DESTINATION, A FAMILY FRIENDLY, WALKABLE DESTINATION. AND ONCE AGAIN, I'LL GO OUTSIDE THE STRIKE ZONE A LITTLE BIT HERE AND SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A FAMILY FRIENDLY TYPE OF BUSINESS THAT SHOULD BE IN OLD TOWN. LEANDER. I'M NOT SAYING IT CAN'T BE ANYWHERE IN LEANDER. YOU'RE A BUSINESSMAN. ENTREPRENEUR. YOU'RE ENTITLED TO DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WANT AND WITH YOUR LAND. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK WE SHOULD, AS A CITY, HAVE SOME, YOU KNOW. RIGHT. AND DECISION. DECIDE WHAT OLD TOWN LEANDER LOOKS LIKE. AND BACK TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE TRUCK. I MEAN, THAT WAS AN ANTIQUE TRUCK, I THINK ACTUALLY ENHANCES THE ESTHETIC OF OLD TOWN LEANDER. I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHY WE ALSO APPROVED IT.

BUT YEAH, WITH WITH ALL THAT'S BEING SAID, I KNOW COMMISSIONER MAHAN MADE A MOTION TO DENY. DO YOU STILL WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION? OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO A VOTE THEN. I HAVE A MOTION TO DENY. NEED A SECOND? SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LANTRIP. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY. IT PASSES, WHAT, 5 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. CAN I MAKE A. YEAH, PLEASE. GO AHEAD. YEAH. FEEL FREE. A NO VOTE FINAL STATEMENT. YEP. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK TO NOTE HERE IS, AGAIN, THE CONSEQUENCES FOR BEING SHUT DOWN FOR A DAY OR TWO. I OWN A BUSINESS THAT'S IN A REGULATED INDUSTRY. THE CONSEQUENCES FOR BEING SHUT DOWN FOR EVEN A DAY OR TWO ARE PRETTY SEVERE. I MEAN, THAT THREATENS PAYROLL FOR THAT MONTH. AND NUMBER TWO, WHEN THE APPLICANT TELLS US HE HAS A POLICY AGAINST HAVING ANYBODY 21 AND UNDER 21 IN THE STORE, I JUST WANT TO SAY, I BELIEVE YOU AND I HOPE THAT COUNCIL GOES A DIFFERENT WAY WITH THIS. SO THANK YOU.

YEAH. NO PROBLEM. JUST PLEASE. YOU'RE UP. YOU'RE THE APPLICANT. SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP EVEN THOUGH WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON IT. ABOUT THE AGE LIMIT. OF COURSE THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT HOW WE WOULD KNOW ABOUT THE AGE LIMIT. SO. ANYONE WHO IS ENTERING THE SHOP AND WE FEEL HE IS OR SHE IS UNDER 21, WE ARE CHECKING IDS. AND ON THAT CASE, WITHOUT ID WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO AND WE ARE NOT SELLING ANY PRODUCT FROM THE SHOP TO THAT CUSTOMER. SECONDLY, I WILL COME TO JUST BEFORE STARTING MY BUSINESS OR BEFORE RENTING THIS PLACE. WE EMAILED THE CITY, WE CAME HERE AND AFTER WE EMAILED THE CITY ABOUT THE SMOKE SHOP AND THEN WE GOT THE EMAIL, WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT THE ANY SORT OF CERTIFICATES OR ANY. PERMISSION OR ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO GET BEFORE START THE BUSINESS. THEN WE GOT EMAIL FROM COREY DALE, THE SENIOR PLANNER.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE NAME. I MEAN, OF COURSE, SO COREY DALE, HE REPLIED AND SAID, GOOD MORNING, SIR. I'M JUST READING WHAT HE SAID. STAFF PRESENTS THE BELOW INFORMATION PER REQUEST. SITE IS ZONED T5 TRANSECT WITHIN SMARTCODE ZONING PER TABLE SIX OF THE SMARTCODE SPECIFIC FUNCTION AND USE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TRANSECT ZONE. THE RETAIL SALE OF NEW GOODS IS ALLOWED. THE SALE OF HOOKAH SMOKE PRODUCTS, CBD, AND VAPE PRODUCTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED NEW GOODS. AND THAT'S IT. AND HE SENT US THE SMART CODE HYPERLINK, WHICH GOES TO THE CITY WEBSITE. IF YOU'RE PROPOSING A DIFFERENT USE TYPE, THEN DESCRIBE BELOW. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON YOUR SMOKE SHOP LIKE LOUNGE AREA OR USE OF DIFFERENT STUFF FROM THE CURRENT ZONING. AND BASED ON THE ABOVE ASSUMPTION OF USE, THE SMOKE SHOP WOULD BE ALLOWED AS A TENANT INFILL AT 106 WEST WILLIS STREET. SO AS A BUSINESSMAN OR AS A PERSON WHO WANTS TO START A BUSINESS, I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME TO START MY BUSINESS, BECAUSE I CAME TO CITY AND I ASKED FOR THE PERMISSION, AND CITY GAVE ME THIS EMAIL. SO THEN I STARTED WORKING ON MY SMOKE SHOP I RENTED, I GAVE ONE MONTH ADVANCE RENT AND I ALSO GAVE ONE ONE MONTH DEPOSIT AND I STARTED DECORATING INSIDE. I BOUGHT THE SHOWCASES AND A LOT OF OTHER PRODUCTS. THE ONLY THING WHICH I WAS WAITING FOR WAS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. OF COURSE, ONCE I HAD THE DATE IN MY MIND TO START MY BUSINESS TO HAVE A GRAND OPENING, AND I WAS GOING TO APPLY FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SUDDENLY, WHILE WE WERE DOING THIS WORK, PERSON

[00:35:03]

CAME FROM CITY AND SAID, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED. SO BASED ON THIS EMAIL, AM I ALLOWED TO START A SMOKE SHOP OR NOT? I MEAN, THE COMMISSION HAS HAS ACTUALLY VOTED ON THIS. AND BECAUSE OF THE HOW THE HOW THE ZONING PROCESS WORKS. AND ACTUALLY, MISS CASTILLO, I DID NOTICE IN HERE THAT YOU SAID IT DID SAY THAT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS. AND LIKE I SAID, WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON THIS 5 TO 1. SO IT HAS BEEN DENIED. SO THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO STAY. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. BUT WHEN WE SAY THAT'S THE FIRST REQUEST IN THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS, THIS IS NOT CHANGING THE ZONING. THIS IS REALLY FOR THE APPLICANT. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLIES TO THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT ONLY, NOT TO THE ACTUAL BUSINESS. SO IF HE WERE TO LEAVE CLOSED SHOP, SELL HIS PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T TRANSFER TO THE NEW OWNERSHIP. CORRECT. GIVE HER SOME ROOM SIR. YEAH. SO IT WOULD APPLY TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF. IT DOES RUN WITH THE PROPERTY. IT DOES APPLY. SO IT DOES GO UNLESS YOU SPECIFY THAT IT'S A SPECIFIC BUSINESS. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. WE USUALLY JUST APPLY IT TO THE PROPERTY. SO IF HE WAS TO LEASE IT AND THEN MOVE IT WOULD NOT IT WOULD STILL APPLY. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. AND SIR I CAN'T SPEAK NECESSARILY FOR THE CITY AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMUNICATION BACK AND FORTH. OKAY. THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'LL NEED TO TAKE UP DIRECTLY WITH THEM. BUT YOU KNOW THIS, THIS IS HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. THE ORDINANCE IS VERY CLEAR AND THAT IT CANNOT BE WITHIN 1000FT OF A SCHOOL. AND YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND YOU HAVE TO SEEK APPROVAL ON THAT FROM THE COMMISSION, AND IT WILL GO TO COUNCIL NEXT. SO, I MEAN, ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT YOU CAN BRING YOUR CASE UP IN FRONT OF, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL AND WHEN IT'S ON THE DOCKET AND, AND THEN YOU CAN CERTAINLY HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THEM AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT. OKAY. BUT AT THIS POINT WE'VE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, DENIED THE REQUEST. AND WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM. OKAY. AND I JUST WANT TO AND SO WE'RE WE'RE NOT CITY COUNCIL. RIGHT. SO CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL SAY. AND THAT'S WHERE IT'LL GO TO NEXT. THAT'S WHY I ASKED MISS GRIFFIN THAT I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK, YOU KNOW, WHAT OUR AUTHORITY WAS VERSUS THEIRS. SO EVEN IF WE DENY THEY CAN APPROVE. RIGHT. SO IT AND THEY AS I, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THEY'LL THEY'LL THEY'LL THINK IN A BIG PICTURE LEVEL, THEY'LL LOOK AT A, A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, YOU KNOW, FACTORED INTO THAT. SO AS THE CHAIR DID SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE YOUR CHANCE TO YOUR CASE WILL BE HEARD BEFORE COUNCIL. AND THEN THEIR DECISION AT THAT POINT, WHETHER IT'S APPROVAL OR DENIAL, WILL BE THE DECISION OF THE CITY'S. SURE. MAY I KNOW OF THE CHAIR? WHAT IS THE WHAT WILL BE THE DECISION ABOUT LIKE 7-ELEVEN? THEY ARE SELLING TOBACCO. THEY'RE SELLING E-CIGARETTES. THEY'RE SELLING HEMP. AND OILS. SO WHAT WILL BE YOUR DECISION OR JUST THE DECISION IS BASED ON THIS LOCATION. IT'S WE CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. I MEAN, WHATEVER, WHATEVER THEY RECEIVED IN ADVANCE, WE I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I'VE ONLY BEEN ON THIS, THIS COMMISSION FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS, SO I DON'T I CAN'T SPEAK TO THEIR PERMITTING AND THEIR APPROVALS FOR WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED AND WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO SELL. WHAT I DID BRING UP EARLIER, THOUGH, WAS THAT YOUR SHOP IS 100% REVENUE FROM TOBACCO BASED PRODUCTS. THEIRS IS A PERCENTAGE. THERE'S DIFFERENCES IN LAWS THAT PERTAIN TO YOUR SHOP VERSUS WHAT THEY OR HEB SELLS. AS FAR AS TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND GOODS, THEY DON'T GET 100% OF THEIR REVENUE FROM TOBACCO PRODUCTS. SO THERE IS THERE IS A GROCERY STORE. THEN I CAN SELL SOME TOBACCO AS WELL. I CAN'T ADVISE YOU ON THAT. I CAN'T DIRECT YOU ON WHICH WAY TO GO THERE. BUT WHAT I BUT I CAN SAY IS, I MEAN, THIS IS THE FINAL SAY FROM COMMISSION PERSPECTIVE. YOU STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO IN FRONT OF COUNCIL AND LET THEM HEAR YOU OUT. AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU DO A PRESENTATION BEFORE THEY START TALKING AND DELIBERATING, AND TELL THEM EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST TOLD US. YOU HAVE THAT ON THE BACK END OF THIS DECISION. GET THAT OUT IN FRONT OF THEM BEFORE THEY MAKE A DECISION. I HOPE THEY WILL LISTEN, BECAUSE HERE I THOUGHT MAYBE I WILL BE LISTENED. THIS IS A CITY EMAIL EMAIL CITY ALLOWED ME. YOU CAN START A BUSINESS. I CAN HAVE THIS SPACE AS A SMOKE SHOP. AND NOW THEY STARTED THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO WHY? AT THE VERY FIRST STEP, THEY DIDN'T TELL ME ABOUT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR THE ORDINANCE ABOUT THE 100,000FT. EVERYTHING YOU'RE ASKING NOW IS GOING TO BE APPROPRIATELY ASKED TO COUNCIL AT THIS POINT. OKAY. YEAH. WE CAN'T REALLY RENDER ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. BUT ONCE AGAIN, YEAH, TAKE THAT TO COUNCIL. I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO THANK YOU FOR YOUR

[13. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Ordinance Case OR-25-0030 to amend the Composite Zoning Ordinance to adopt standards and a permitting process associated with micro-trenching, and to provide for related matters; Williamson & Travis Counties, Texas.

Discuss and consider action regarding Ordinance Case OR-25-0030 as described above.

]

TIME. APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13. AND THIS IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ORDINANCE CASE OR DASH 25 0030 TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADOPT STANDARDS AND A PERMITTING PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH MICRO

[00:40:04]

TRENCHING, AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS. WILLIAMSON AND TRAVIS COUNTY,EXAS. ARE YOU THE STAFF PRESENTATION STAFF ALO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPOSITE ORDIF APPROACHED BY SOME UTILITY PROVIDERS WITH A NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR INSTALLING CABLE. IT'S CALLED MICRO TRENCHING. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURES ON THE SCREEN, THEY HAVE A MACHINE THAT TRENCHES ALONG THE SEAM OF THE ROAD BETWEEN THE ACTUAL PAVEMENT AND THE GUTTER, AND THEN THEY FOLLOW UP WITH A SEALANT HERE TO COVER UP THEIR TRACKS. BUT IT'S A MORE EFFICIENT METHOD FOR INSTALLING THE CABLE. CURRENTLY, WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO DIG TRENCHES AND TO BORE AND GO OVERHEAD, SO THIS WOULD BE A FASTER PROCESS. SO THE CITY HAS COME UP WITH SOME STANDARDS TO SUPPORT MICRO TRENCHING FOR Y'ALL TO REVIEW. THIS IS A LITTLE TIMELINE OF WHAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH, AND WE'VE DONE A COUPLE PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL, AND WE'VE CREATED A DRAFT DETAIL TO SHOW WHAT THE TRENCH WOULD LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THE OTHER UTILITIES AND THE SERVICE LINES TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR THEIR WATER. WE DID STUDY OTHER CITIES AND THEIR STANDARDS, AND WE ARE MIRRORING ROUND ROCK IN THEIR REGULATIONS. AND WE'VE ALSO GOT A REQUIREMENT THAT IF IT'S A NEWER SUBDIVISION THAT'S UNDER A WARRANTY, THEY CAN'T DO MICRO TRENCHING BECAUSE IT COULD VOID THE WARRANTY FOR THE SUBDIVISIONS. SO WHEN A NEW SUBDIVISION IS CONSTRUCTED, WE HAVE A TWO YEAR WARRANTY. SO ONCE THAT WARRANTY EXPIRES, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MICRO TRENCH THERE. AND MOST OF THE NEWER SUBDIVISIONS THEY'RE PUTTING IN THESE UTILITIES AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO HELP IMPLEMENT PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEN IT CAME TO PROVIDING INTERNET SERVICES TO THE CITY, BECAUSE WE'VE GOTTEN CONCERNS, YOU'D PROBABLY SEE IT MORE IN OLDER SUBDIVISIONS WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE HEARING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU DIRECTOR. AND WITH THAT, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? I DO HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP, BIRD LUNDQUIST. HOLMQUIST. SORRY, I GOT THE QUIST RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME TODAY. MY NAME IS BIRD HOLMQUIST, AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS WITH AT&T. I DIRECTLY SUPPORT LEANDER, EVEN THOUGH I'M BASED IN AUSTIN. I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13. AT&T HAS BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND WE APPRECIATE THE TRANSPARENCY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. ROBIN'S BEEN VERY WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH. AT&T IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE ORDINANCE. HOWEVER, WE HAVE A MAJOR CONCERN ABOUT THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF TRENCHES ALLOWED. AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ONLY ALLOWS FOR ONE PROVIDER TO MICRO TRENCH PER ROADWAY, RESULTING IN A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS. IF THE CITY OF LEANDER LIMITS ITS RESIDENTS TO ONLY ONE PROVIDER OPTION DUE TO THE REAL LIFE APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED MICRO TRENCHING ORDINANCE, IT COULD STIFLE COMPETITION AND DEPRIVE RESIDENTS OF THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE, POTENTIALLY LEAVING THEM WITH FEWER OPTIONS AND LESS FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR CONNECTIVITY SOLUTIONS, ALLOWING MULTIPLE PROVIDERS TO WORK CONCURRENTLY CAN ACCELERATE THE DEPLOYMENT OF FIBER NETWORKS, BRINGING HIGH SPEED INTERNET TO THE COMMUNITY MORE QUICKLY. WE ASK THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ADJUSTED TO ALLOW FOR MULTIPLE PROVIDERS TO TRENCH ON THE SAME ROADWAYS, ENHANCING COMPETITION AND PROVIDING MORE ROBUST CONNECTIVITY OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTS. ADDITIONALLY, BASED ON OUR UNDERSTANDING, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WOULD RESTRICT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DRY UTILITY PERMIT APPLICATIONS PER PROVIDER TO A COMBINED MAXIMUM OF TEN ACROSS BOTH THE UNDER REVIEW AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION CATEGORIES. WE WOULD SUGGEST REVISING THIS SECTION TO ALLOW FOR AT LEAST TEN APPLICATIONS IN EACH CATEGORY INDIVIDUALLY, RATHER THAN APPLYING AS A CUMULATIVE UNIT. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE INTO DISCUSSION. VICE CHAIR, I HAVE NOTHING REALLY. IT'S ALL GOOD. I BET, COMMISSIONER LANTRIP. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION. I WAS WATCHING THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS ABOUT THIS FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE THING. AND I GUESS THE WAY I SAW IT, AS IF SOMEONE IF ONLY ONE PERSON CAN GO DOWN THE STREET, THEY'VE GOT TO DO BOTH

[00:45:03]

SIDES OF THE STREET. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE BASICALLY A MONOPOLY IN THAT AREA, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ONLY USE THAT PROVIDER. SO OVER TIME, THIS THIS LOOKS LIKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE NIGHTMARE FOR THE CITY AS FAR AS MULTIPLE WHO'S GOT THIS STREET, WHO'S GOT THIS STREET AND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD'S GOT THIS ONE, AND PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD'S GOT THIS ONE. YOU COULD HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENCE IN PRICING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. HAS HAS THE CITY CONSIDERED FRANCHISES OR FRANCHISING THIS SO THAT YOU HAVE YOU ONLY HAVE ONE PERSON DIGGING IN THE STREETS OR IN ZONES AND, YOU KNOW, CARVING IT UP INTO MULTIPLE FRANCHISES. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF A MESS, YOU KNOW, AND VERY GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT OF STAFF. Y'ALL TALKED ABOUT THAT TO, TO ADMINISTER BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO KEEP UP WITH WHO'S GOT THIS STREET, WHO'S GOT THIS STREET. AND YOU KNOW, THIS ONE'S DAMAGED. THIS OVER HERE. WHICH, WHICH PROVIDER WAS IT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MULTIPLE AND I KIND OF AGREE WITH THE SPEAKER ABOUT MULTIPLE COMPANIES, BUT I GUESS I DON'T KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY OF ALLOWING MULTIPLE WHO WOULD DO WHO WOULD DO THE MICRO CUT, YOU KNOW, TO AND HOW MANY FIT IN THAT TECHNOLOGY AND THAT TYPE OF A TRENCH WITH THE MICRO TRENCH. IT'S ONE PER PROVIDER. SO IF YOU DO MULTIPLE, YOU'D HAVE THREE CUTS IN THE ROAD. AND THAT'S THE CONCERN. SO YOU CAN'T STACK THEM OR PUT THEM IN ONE. YEAH I THINK SHE SHE I DON'T KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY. SO FORGIVE ME. YEAH SHE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. SO WE HEAR YOUR CONCERNS ON EVERYBODY BEING IN ONE TRENCH. EVERY PROVIDER HAS DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS. IT WOULD ALSO MEAN BY STACKING EVERYBODY IN ONE TRENCH, THAT TRENCH WOULD HAVE TO GO EVEN DEEPER. SO MORE THAN 10 TO 18IN. YES. SO IT WOULDN'T BE A MICRO TRENCH ANYMORE. IT WOULD BE. WELL IT WOULDN'T, IT WOULD BE MICRO IN THE SENSE IT WOULD STAY NARROW, BUT IT WOULD GET DEEPER MOST LIKELY. THERE ARE ALSO SECURITY CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, RUNNING MULTIPLE CONDUIT OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES. YOU DON'T WANT SOMEBODY CUTTING THE WRONG CABLE. BUT WE ALSO FROM A REPAIR STANDPOINT, GOING INTO YOUR OWN TRENCH IS JUST A LOT SIMPLER. PUTTING EVERYBODY INTO ONE UNIT WOULD REALLY COMPLICATE THINGS. IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE ADVANCED COORDINATION OFF THE SCALE. THAT WOULD LEAD TO A MAJOR SLOWDOWN IN DEPLOYMENT, AND WOULD PROBABLY PULL PROVIDERS OUT OF THE MARKET. OKAY. YEAH, THAT WAS SOMETHING I WAS THINKING ABOUT TOO. IF YOU'RE STACKING THEM, YOU YOU HAVE TO COORDINATE MULTIPLE PROVIDERS TO BE THERE ON SITE AT THE SAME TIME TO STACK THEM. YES. AND THEN TO UNSTACK FOR REPAIR. THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER AND AGREE. YEAH. YES. THAT IS A COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE. I CAN SEE THAT BEING AN ISSUE. BUT BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING MICRO TRENCHING ON THE SAME ROADWAY THIS 2.5IN WIDE AND NOW YOU'RE DOING TWO, NOW YOU'RE FIVE INCHES WIDE, THEN YOU BECOME 7.5IN WIDE. THEN MAYBE IF YOU ALLOW UP TO FOUR, YOU KNOW, YOU I MEAN, IS THAT HOW IT WORKS? AM I AM I WRONG IN WHAT I'M CONTEMPLATING? WHAT MULTIPLE PROVIDERS WOULD LOOK LIKE IS IT WOULD BE MULTIPLE TRENCHES OR MULTIPLE LITTLE CUTS COMING OFF THE SIDE OF THE CURB, EACH SPACED A LITTLE DISTANCE APART. THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ROAD DEGRADATION ONCE YOU START MAKING THAT MANY CUTS, BUT REALLY THE MARKET WILL LIMIT HOW MANY THOSE GO INTO THE ROADWAY, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FIVE PROVIDERS COMING TO MICRO TRENCH AND ONE ROAD, MAYBE TWO AT MAX OR THREE, WHICH WOULD MEAN SIX TOTAL CUTS, THREE ALONG EACH SIDE OF THE ROAD. RIGHT. SO BUT NOBODY WANTS TO SPLIT A CUSTOMER BASE LIKE THAT. SO FINANCIALLY THERE'S NOT REALLY THE INCENTIVE FOR THAT MUCH ROAD DEGRADATION TO OCCUR. OKAY. THE SEALANT WE USE IS PRETTY TOP NOTCH. WELL I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE SEALANT. SO WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THREE, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUAL CUTS AND THEN USE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT THE SEALANT TYPE IS. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SOME SORT OF LIKE SILICON BASE, BUT I'M SURE IT'S A CONCRETE FLOW. IT'S A FILLABLE FLOW. OKAY. SO IT'S MEANT TO WORK WITH THE EXISTING ROADWAY AND BE INCREDIBLY IT'S NOT LIKE REALLY PLIABLE OR ANYTHING, BUT IS IT. RIGHT. BUT WE WANT WE WANT THEM TO USE THAT TYPE. WE DON'T WANT TO. THAT'S FAIR. HOW HOW WIDE CAN THAT GET? I MEAN, LIKE, IS IT I MEAN, I THINK THE OTHER THING WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS JUST THE ESTHETICS OF IT. YOU KNOW, WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK OVER TIME. AND SO IT IS LIKE, DOES THAT MAKE MORE SENSE VERSUS FILLING IT BACK UP AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THE BLACKTOP MATERIAL OR WHATEVER? I CAN GET YOU EXAMPLES OF WHAT MULTIPLE TRENCHES SORT OF LOOK LIKE ESTHETICALLY. YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE STARING AT IT, I CAN SEE YOUR CONCERNS. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF HAVE TO WEIGH THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF, YOU KNOW, THE SERVICE. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU SEE A ROAD THAT'S BEEN CRACKED, FILLED, IT'S GOT LINES ALL OVER. OH YEAH, I KNOW MY NEIGHBOR ONCE HAD THAT UNTIL THEY CAME IN AND BLACKTOP. IT LOOKED TERRIBLE. SO IT'S JUST I THINK I'VE STILL GOT ANOTHER QUESTION. YEAH, YEAH. I'M SORRY. WE JUST MONOPOLIZE YOUR TIME. THE. YOU MENTIONED DOING TEN IN

[00:50:05]

EACH CATEGORY. IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME TO GET A GOOD MARKET SHARE.

DOING IT THAT WAY FOR A PROVIDER, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY. YOU'RE HERE TO MAKE MONEY OBVIOUSLY. WOULD WOULD TEN IN EACH CATEGORY JUST SPEED THAT UP A LITTLE BIT? WELL, FOR ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT'S SIMPLER FOR US THAN KIND OF KEEPING OUR OWN BACKLOG. BUT REALLY I THINK THAT THE STANDARD WAS FOR ALL DRY UTILITY PERMITS, WHICH I THINK WOULD EXTEND BEYOND MICRO TRENCHING. IF I'M NOT READING THAT CORRECTLY, TO OVERWHELM STAFF, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND. BUT WE OFTEN, YOU KNOW, BEING THE TYPE OF PROVIDER THAT WE ARE, MICRO TRENCHING ISN'T OUR ONLY BUSINESS. SO WE COULD HAVE DRY UTILITY PERMITS FOR BORING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN. AND SO WE JUST WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT BALANCE, DO VERY MANY. AND MY LAST QUESTION DO VERY MANY CITIES FRANCHISE THIS TO A PARTICULAR PROVIDER OR IS THAT JUST NOT DONE? IS I THINK THERE'S A STATE STATUTE THAT DOESN'T LET US DO THAT ANY LONGER, BECAUSE I THINK GOOGLE DOES IT. YEAH. SO BUT I THINK LIKE AT&T WE DON'T HAVE AT&T WOULDN'T ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT LIKE THAT BECAUSE WE ARE A TELECOM PROVIDER. I BELIEVE IT'S DIFFERENT FOR OTHER PROVIDERS THAT DON'T FALL UNDER THE SAME STATUTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S NO PROBLEM. SOMETHING ELSE YOU BROUGHT UP WE ARE LOOKING AT A I THINK IT'S CALLED A BUTTON THAT GOES ON THE CURB TO MARK WHO'S WHERE. AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE LIKE CONTACT INFORMATION, BUT IT'S A DETAIL. YEAH. KIND OF LIKE YOU SEE THEM AT THE OH MY GOSH THIS THE DRAIN IN THE STREET WHERE IT SAYS THIS DRAINS TO WHATEVER. BUT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT SO THEY CAN LABEL WHERE THINGS ARE A MANHOLE COVER EQUIVALENT. YEAH KIND OF. BUT THAT'S GENIUS. THAT WOULD HELP US OUT A LOT. YEAH. WITH RESIDENT CONCERNS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, MY QUESTION IS FOR YOU. WHAT WOULD YOUR PROPOSED SOLUTION BE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF LACK OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKETPLACE? IT WOULD BE MORE THAN ONE TRENCH ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. THAT'S THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT WE SEE. OKAY. AND THE MAJOR RISK TO THAT BEING THE ROAD DEGRADATION. YEAH. THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROAD DEGRADATION. GEORGETOWN DOES ALLOW MULTIPLE TRENCHES, BUT THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANYONE DO IT YET. SO IT'S KIND OF NEW. I DON'T KNOW IF AUSTIN HAS HAD IT HAD MULTIPLE TRENCHES IN A ROAD YET. THEY THEY DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE JUST YET, BUT THEY DO HAVE A ONE PER SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. AND WE ADVOCATE FOR THE SAME THING OVER THERE. AND HOW LIKELY IS THE ROAD DEGRADATION IF YOU WERE TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE TRENCH? I COULDN'T SAY. I JUST KNOW PUBLIC WORKS IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. IT'S KIND OF IT'S NEW, RIGHT? YEAH. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. ARE THERE ANY EXAMPLES OF ROAD DEGRADATION IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES? WE HAVEN'T SEEN WHERE THEY'VE DONE MULTIPLE TRENCHES BEFORE. NO. SO IT'S MOST COMMON TO NOT ALLOW WE'VE SEEN WHERE GEORGETOWN ALLOWS IT, BUT NO ONE'S BUILT IT. AND ROUND ROCK LIMITS IT TO ONE SIDE. HAS IT BEEN IMPLEMENTED? RIGHT. SO WE HAVEN'T SEEN ONE IN THE AREA. WHAT'S HAPPENING. AND THIS IS KIND OF A START. SO IT'S SOMETHING LIKE WITH THE LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS AS WE GET GOING, WE MIGHT COME BACK AND AMEND IT TO ALLOW MORE APPLICATIONS. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE WE CAN ALSO CHANGE AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT IT. SO I GUESS THE COST BENEFIT HERE THAT YOU'RE WEIGHING IS EITHER YOU ALLOW MORE THAN ONE TRENCH TO ALLOW COMPETITION IN THE MARKETPLACE, OR YOU ONLY ALLOW ONE TRENCH PER SIDE, BUT THEN YOU RISK THE COMPETITION. SO EITHER TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING MORE MONEY TO SERVICE PROVIDERS, OR THEY'RE PAYING MORE MONEY TO TAXES TO FIX THE ROADS. RIGHT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT RESOLVES THAT IN MY MIND. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LEWIS. NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. AND COMMISSIONER MAHAN, SO I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS AT ALL. SO I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, YOU BEING HERE TO HELP US OUT THROUGH SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. I THINK FOR ME, I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PERMITTING SIDE OF IT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT LIFE A LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR OUR STAFF AND A LITTLE BIT TOUGHER FOR YOU GUYS. IT'S A BALANCE. IT'S ALWAYS A BALANCING ACT. BUT I DO HAVE CONCERNS AROUND THE COMPETITION FACTOR OF LIMITING IT TO ONE TRENCH. HOWEVER, I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO JUST MAKE IT OPEN. MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE KEEP IT AT A MAXIMUM OF TWO BECAUSE EVEN IN GEORGETOWN, AS YOU AS YOU SAY, MISS GRIFFIN, THAT THEY ALLOW THREE PER. BUT NO ONE'S DONE IT YET. RIGHT. SO LET'S SEE WHAT THE MARKET DOES. BUT WE'RE STILL LIMITING IT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR COMPETITION. SO WE DON'T WE DON'T RUN THE RISK OF A MONOPOLY. AS COMMISSIONER LANTRIP TALKED ABOUT. BUT WE ALSO DON'T JUST MAKE IT THE, YOU KNOW, THE WILD WEST OUT THERE EITHER. SO THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS AROUND IT. YEAH. FOR SOME SORT OF

[00:55:01]

COMPROMISE. YEAH. I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER MEHAN. I THINK, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST ALLOWING TWO TRENCHES ON EACH SIDE SO THERE'D BE FOUR TOTAL, RIGHT. WOULD, WOULD PROBABLY MAKE MORE SENSE. AND SINCE THAT'S WHAT OUR NEIGHBOR TO, YOU KNOW, TO THE EAST OF US IS DOING, AND THEN YEAH, WE CAN SEE WHAT THE MARKET DOES SINCE THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT YET. NO ONE'S ASKED FOR IT YET, BUT IT'S STILL AVAILABLE IF THEY WANT TO DO IT. MY QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IS THERE IS THERE ANY TALK ABOUT A LONGER WARRANTY SINCE SOME OF THE CONCERN IS ABOUT DEGRADATION OF ROAD? IS TWO YEARS ENOUGH TIME IS LIKE LIKE WHAT'S THE LIFESPAN OF THIS PRODUCT THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN? I MEAN, IS IT TWO YEARS? AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE LIKE, WELL, OKAY, THE WARRANTY IS OUT NOW, AND NOW YOUR ROAD'S BROKE, RIGHT? THAT'S USUALLY HOW WARRANTIES WORK, RIGHT? RIGHT. AND TWO YEARS IS A COMMON TIME FRAME FOR THE CITY. THAT'S WHAT WE GET ON NEW SUBDIVISIONS IS TWO YEARS FOR REPAIRS. SO I THINK IT'S JUST WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE USED TO. YEAH. I MEAN, I GUESS WOULD IT BE, YOU KNOW, UNACCEPTABLE TO CONSIDER A THREE YEAR WARRANTY POTENTIALLY. SO THAT WAY THE CITY FEELS MORE PROTECTED. IF THEY ADDED MORE TRENCHES. THAT'S CERTAINLY AN IDEA THAT I CAN GO BACK WITH. I KNOW THAT WHEN WE DID OUR PRELIMINARY MEETINGS AND WE SAW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF TWO YEARS, THAT THAT WAS BONA FIDE FOR US. THAT WAS STANDARD. YEAH. BECAUSE TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, TWO YEAR COULD BE THE BASELINE STANDARD FOR ONE TRENCH. AND THEN AS YOU ADD MORE TRENCHES, YOU OBVIOUSLY POSSIBLY IMPACT THE QUALITY OR THE OVERALL FUNCTIONALITY OF THE ROAD AND YOU INCREASE THE POSSIBLE DEGRADATION. SO MAYBE YOU ADD ANOTHER YEAR FOR EACH TRENCH THAT YOU CONSIDER ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, AND SO FROM, FROM 2 TO 3. AND THEN IF YOU ADDED THREE TRENCHES AND APPROVED THAT DOWN THE ROAD, BECAUSE WE CAN AMEND THIS DOWN THE ROAD AND SAY WE CAN DO THREE OR 4 OR 5 TRENCHES IF WE WANTED TO. AND I'M JUST SAYING THEN THAT INCREASING THE WARRANTY AS YOU ADD MORE TRENCHES, I GUESS. BUT THAT HAS TO BE WHO, WHO'S WHO'S THE WARRANTY ON THE PERSON DOING THE TRENCHING WORK AT THE TIME. LIKE IF YOU IF YOU DO TWO TRENCHES, THEN NOW YOU'RE ALSO PUTTING ONE IN AND THE PERSON WHO DOES THE TRENCH NEXT TO IT, LIKE WHEN LIKE IF THEY'VE COME BACK AND DO THAT LATER, DOES DOES THAT TWO YEAR WARRANTY START WHEN THEY DO THE WORK? WELL, WE WERE ONLY CONSIDERING ONE TRENCH, SO WE ASSUMED ONE WARRANTY, BUT IT DOES COMPLICATE THINGS. IF WE ADD TWO TRENCHES AND THEY'RE DONE AT DIFFERENT TIMES OR OR CAN THEY OR DO THEY HAVE TO BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. YEAH, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.

KEEP GOING. BUT I HAVE A VERY QUALIFIED PEOPLE I CAN TALK TO. OKAY. SO I MEAN, I AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I KNOW NO COUNCIL WILL PROBABLY DEBATE THIS AS WELL. I, I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO APPROVING IT AS IT IS. AND IF THEY WANT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO IT, OR DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, WELL, WE WANT TO AT LEAST OPEN UP THE TWO TRENCHES, BUT WE PROBABLY YOU CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION IF YOU WANT TO. BEFORE WE I THINK WE STILL NEED TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE WARRANTY PIECE AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK WITH TWO TRENCHES VERSUS ONE. SO YEAH, BUT BEFORE WE DO MOVE TO A MOTION, I ACTUALLY DO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY NOW. ALL RIGHT. MY VOICE IS RESTED AT THE RISK OF REVEALING MAYBE A HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART. THE AREAS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, MICRO TRENCHING, I KNOW WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DOING IT ON ROADS THAT ARE NEW AND STILL UNDER WARRANTY. RIGHT? CORRECT. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXISTING ROADS THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND A WHILE AND EXISTING RESIDENCES ON THOSE ROADS. RIGHT. ARE THOSE HOMES CURRENTLY SERVED BY A PROVIDER OF SOME SORT, WHETHER OTHER THAN AT&T, WHERE WHERE THE BUILDER BROUGHT IN THE LINES, IT'S POSSIBLE THEY HAVE ONE PROVIDER OR MAYBE WANT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANOTHER PROVIDER LIKE SPECTRUM'S GOING INTO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ALREADY HAVE SERVICE. YEAH.

OKAY. THAT'S I MEAN, AND THIS THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT LIKE LET'S SAY AT&T MICRO TRENCHES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, SPECTRUM COULD COME TO A TRENCH NEXT TO IT, JUST NOT IN THE ROAD. RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT SAYING ONLY ONE PROVIDER. IT'S ONLY ONE PROVIDER WITH THAT METHOD. THAT'S WHY MY FIRST READING, I WAS LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMPETITIVE, ANTI-COMPETITIVE NATURE OF THIS STUFF. RIGHT. AND PLUS YOU'VE ALWAYS GOT WIRELESS 5G IN A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE SERVED BY THAT FROM T-MOBILE OR OTHER COMPANIES. SO I'VE GOT LESS OF A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT I DO LOVE THE IDEA OF IF WE WANT TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OF TWO TRENCHES, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO DO, IS INCREASE THE COMPETITION IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU USUALLY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SERVICED BY USUALLY ONE PROVIDER, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, SPECTRUM CABLE OR LIKE I HAVE AT&T, SOME NEIGHBORHOODS DON'T HAVE AT&T AND THEY HAVE LIKE VERIZON FIOS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND SO IT'S JUST DEPENDING ON WHO'S IN AT THE TIME. BUT THIS WOULD OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND MICRO TRENCH AND PUT ANOTHER SERVICE LIKE GOOGLE FIBER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. RIGHT. IT WOULD. YEAH. AND IT ALSO IT YOU'RE CORRECT THAT IT WOULDN'T PROHIBIT ANYBODY FROM DOING AERIAL OR A DIFFERENT METHOD. GOT IT. MICRO TRENCHING JUST HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE MOST EFFICIENT AND LEAST INTRUSIVE OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTS. SO OKAY. WELL I, I THINK I MEAN, I DEFINITELY THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER AS IT IS AS APPROVAL AND MOVE IT AND LET IT GO TO COUNCIL. BUT I DO THINK MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OR TO YOUR DEPARTMENT, ROBIN, IS TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF YOU DID TWO TRENCHES AND CERTAINLY MAYBE PRESENT THAT OPTION TO THE

[01:00:03]

CITY. OR DO THEY HAVE TO THEN PROBABLY TAKE A NO ACTION ON IT AT COUNCIL, AND THEN THEY CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE. THEY CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE. ONCE Y'ALL DO YOUR RESEARCH AND TIME. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WELL WITH THAT THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. SO DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY THE VICE CHAIR AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOUIS ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND IT PASSES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

[14. Discuss and consider action on Tree Removal Case TRP-25-0036 regarding the removal of six (6) Significant Trees associated with the Techtown Office Warehouse Site Development Project (SD-24-0250), commonly known as 2901 Hero Way, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.]

ALL RIGHT. AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 14 ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. THIS IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION ON TREE REMOVAL CASE TRP DASH 250036 REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SIX SIGNIFICANT TREES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TECH TOWN OFFICE WAREHOUSE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SD 240250, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2000 901 HERO WAY LEANDER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARILYN VAN LEUVEN. I AM WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THIS AFTERNOON. WE HAVE A TREE REMOVAL CASE FOR THE TECH TOWN OFFICE, WAREHOUSE SITE DEVELOPMENT. THIS REQUEST IS THE LAST STEP IN THE TREE REMOVAL PROCESS. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO REMOVE MULTIPLE SIGNIFICANT TREES, WHICH ARE BETWEEN 18 AND 26 CALIPER INCHES. THIS IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PER COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE. ARTICLE SIX, SECTION ONE C REMOVAL OF HERITAGE AND OR SIGNIFICANT TREES GREATER THAN 18 CALIPER INCHES REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND, IN THE CASE OF HERITAGE TREES GREATER THAN 26 CALIPER INCHES THE CITY COUNCIL. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND, THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES HEAVY COMMERCIAL. IT IS LOCATED ON HERO WAY. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. TO THE NORTH IS LIBERTY CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. TO THE SOUTH IS TEXAS MIX CONCRETE AND THE. TO THE EAST AND WEST ARE UNDEVELOPED AREAS. SO THERE IS SOME MODERATE TREE COVERAGE ON THE NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, AND THERE'S ALSO NO FLOODPLAIN INVOLVED EITHER.

AND THIS IS ON BEHALF OF GOOD FAITH ENGINEERING FOR TECHTOWN INDUSTRIAL L ONE LLC. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, AND I CAN GO OVER A FEW OF OUR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.

SO UP TO 50% OF SIGNIFICANT TREES BETWEEN 8 AND 18 CALIPER INCHES MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT MITIGATION. AND THE REPLACEMENT RATIO IS 1 TO 1. TREES MEASURING GREATER THAN 18IN AND LESS THAN 26 CALIPER INCHES MAY BE REMOVED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION, AT A REPLACEMENT RATIO OF 2 TO 1, AND HERITAGE TREES, WHICH ARE GREATER THAN 26 CALIPER INCHES, REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. A REPLACEMENT RATIO OF 3 TO 1, AND A REMOVAL FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF 300 PER CALIPER INCH. SO, AS I SAID, THEY ARE REMOVING SIX SIGNIFICANT TREES WHICH ARE GREATER THAN 18 AND BETWEEN 26 CALIPER INCHES. SO DIFFICULT TO SEE ON THERE. BUT IT'S THOSE DARK BLUE CIRCLES ON YOUR SCREEN. THEY'RE REMOVING THEM FOR PRIMARILY PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE WAREHOUSE OVERHEAD DOORS, AND THEN ALSO PROVIDING ACCESS FOR THEIR FIRE LANE. AND AS FOR THEIR MITIGATION PROPOSAL FOR SIGNIFICANT TREES, BETWEEN 8 TO 18 CALIPER INCHES, THE APPLICANT IS REMOVING 51% OR 915 CALIPER INCHES OF THOSE SIGNIFICANT TREES. SO A REMOVAL OF 21 CALIPER INCHES WILL REQUIRE MITIGATION AT A 1 TO 1 RATIO.

AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SAVING 49%, OR 872.5 CALIPER INCHES. OF THOSE SIGNIFICANT TREES. AS FOR THEIR SIGNIFICANT TREES THAT ARE OVER 18IN TO 26 CALIPER INCHES, THEY ARE REMOVING 39% OR 100 CALIPER INCHES. LET'S SEE. AND THEN REMOVAL OF THE TREES WILL REQUIRE MITIGATION AT A 2 TO 1 RATIO. AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SAVING 61% OR 184 CALIPER INCHES OF THOSE TREES. HERITAGE TREES,

[01:05:07]

WHICH ARE THE OVER 26 CALIBER INCHES. THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO REMOVE ANY OF THEIR HERITAGE TREES, AND SO THEY'RE SAVING 100%, WHICH IS 146 CALIBER INCHES OR FIVE TREES ON SITE. SO THE APPLICANT HAS OPTION TO PAY A $150 PER CALIPER INCH FEE IN LIEU FOR THE DEFICIT OF 21 CALIPER INCHES. THE APPLICANT WILL RECEIVE REPLACEMENT TREE CREDITS OF APPROXIMATELY 24 CALIPER INCHES, AND THEY WILL ALSO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR PRESERVING EXISTING TREES ON SITE TO MEET THEIR MINIMUM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. THEIR FEE IN LIEU IS TENTATIVELY SET AT $3,150. ANY FEES THAT ARE REQUIRED WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THEIR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND WILL HAVE TO BE PAID PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THEIR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. SO WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE AS WELL, AND I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME UP AND SAY SOME THINGS. EXCELLENT. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BARRY BROWN WITH GOOD FAITH ENGINEERING. THE DRAINAGE ON THIS SITE RESTRICTS WHERE WE CAN DEVELOP. IF YOU SEE WHERE THE POND IS LOCATED THERE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE LOT. THAT ENTIRE AREA WHERE THOSE TREES ARE IS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT RESTRICTING US TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THERE. SO FORCING US TO BE BUILD A MORE DENSELY IN THE OTHER AREA, MAKING IT HARDER TO SAVE THOSE TREES. AND THEN WE'LL ALSO YOU'LL SEE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A CHANNEL GOING AROUND THE BUILDING IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER OF THE LOT.

THAT IS TO BRING OFFSITE FLOW AROUND OUR BUILDING AND THEN RETURNING IT BACK TO ITS NATURAL FLOW ACROSS THE SITE. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL ENTER INTO DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER MEHAN. YEAH. TREE CASES ARE ALWAYS INTERESTING FOR ME I GUESS I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. ONE IS I DON'T LIKE THE WAY OUR MATH MATHS WHEN IT COMES TO, YOU KNOW, THE DEFICIT AND EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER WE'RE REMOVING A TREE, WE'RE REMOVING A TREE. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND CREDITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE WANT THEM TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE THOUGH. SO I THINK THAT IT IT ACTUALLY PREVENTS THE SAVING OF SOME TREES BY WAY OF NOT DISINCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO REMOVE TREES JUST BY BY WAY WE DO THAT. HOWEVER, I'LL SAY ON THE OTHER SIDE IS I'M SO GLAD WE'RE NOT GETTING RID OF ANY HERITAGE TREES, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, OUR MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE RIGHT THERE. AND THE FACT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE WITH GENTLEMAN'S PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, JUST GIVEN THE, THE LANDSCAPE OF THE PROPERTY AND, AND THE, THE DRAINAGE, ETC, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST THE BUILD, BUILD, BUILD ABILITY OF IT, I THINK THEY DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND THEY'RE, I MEAN, THEY'RE SAVING 80 OF 160 TREES THAT ARE OUT THERE. SO I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO SEE THAT. SO THAT'S IT, COMMISSIONER LEWIS. NO COMMENT. BUT I LIKE WHAT YOU SAID. IT'S ALL GOOD, COMMISSIONER. I ALSO LIKE TO SEE THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING RID OF ANY HERITAGE TREES. YEAH, I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THIS. I AGREE WITH THE LAY OF OR THE LANDSCAPE HERE. IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE WAS EFFORT MADE, AND I THINK THESE TREE CASES ARE SOMETIMES HARD BECAUSE WE SEE THE CLEAR LACK OF EFFORT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THAT'S THE CASE HERE. SO YEAH, THIS IS PROBABLY OKAY WITH ME. COMMISSIONER LANTRIP, I KIND OF ECHO WHAT SHE JUST SAID, THAT I CAN TELL THAT YOU DID MAKE AN EFFORT TO SAVE A GOOD PERCENTAGE OF TREES. SO I'M OKAY WITH THIS.