The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes City Council - 08/10/2021 o,pus 185'2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Corpus Christi City Council of August 10, 2021 which were approved by the City Council on August 17, 2021. WITNESSETH MY HAND AND SEAL, on this the 17th day of August 2021. Rebecca Huerta City Secretary Corpus Christi, Texas (SEAL) City of Corpus Christi Rebecca Huerta, City Secretary P.O. Box 9277 Corpus Christi,Texas 78469-9277 ( rebeccah@cctexas.com SCAN N ED 1201 Leopard Street k City of Corpus Christi Corpus Christi,TX 78401 ri-rct r1., cctexas.com ,5 + �= Meeting Minutes City Council Tuesday,August 10,2021 11:30 AM Council Chambers Addendums may be added on Friday. A. Mayor Paulette M. Guajardo to call the meeting to order. Mayor Guajardo called the meeting to order at 11:35 a.m. B. Invocation to be given by Pastor Jerry Ward, Lighthouse Tabernacle Church. Pastor Jerry Ward, Lighthouse Tabernacle Church, gave the invocation. C. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Texas Flag to be led by Alyssa Santillana,Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Student. In lieu of Alissa Santillana, Allie Siegler, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Student, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Texas Flag. D. City Secretary Rebecca L. Huerta to call the roll of the required Charter Officers. City Secretary Rebecca L. Huerta called the roll and verified that a quorum of the City Council and the required Charter Officers were present to conduct the meeting. Charter Officers: City Manager Peter Zanoni, City Attorney Miles K. Risley and City Secretary Rebecca L. Huerta. Present: 9- Mayor Paulette M. Guajardo,Council Member Roland Barrera,Council Member Gil Hemandez,Council Member Michael Hunter,Council Member Billy A. Lerma,Council Member John Martinez,Council Member Ben Molina,Council Member Mike Pusley, and Council Member Greg Smith E. Proclamations/Commendations Mayor Guajardo presented a Proclamation declaring August 23, 2021 as"50th Anniversary Day"for the Frame Up. President and CEO of the Corpus Christi Black Chamber of Commerce Coretta Graham presented a check to the Mayor's Disaster Fund. City of Corpus Christi Page 1 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 F. PUBLIC COMMENT-APPROXIMATELY 12:00 P.M.To speak during this public comment period,you must sign up before the meeting begins. Each speaker is limited to a total of no more than 3 minutes per speaker.You will not be allowed to speak again on an item when the Council is considering the item. Time limits may be restricted further by the Mayor at any meeting. If you have a petition or other information pertaining to your subject, please present it to the City Secretary.Written comments may be submitted at cctexas.com/departments/city-secretary. Electronic media that you would like to use may only be introduced into the City system IF approved by the City's Information Technology(IT) Department at least 24 hours prior to the Meeting. Please contact IT at 826-3211 to coordinate.This is a public hearing for all items on this agenda.. Mayor Guajardo opened the public comment period. Kelly Bavo spoke on behalf of Dennis Machen, 13933 Windjammer Dr., in support of Item #21. John Flores, 4102 Western Dr., spoke regarding tort reform. Jack Gordy, 4118 Bray Dr., spoke regarding the lawsuit that the federal government filed against the City of Corpus Christi. Maria Ventura, 1438 Brentwood, spoke regarding pothole issues on residential streets, but specifically at Annapolis and Staples St. Kimberly Lane, 2543 CR 2028, Aransas Pass, spoke regarding animal control regulations. Melissa Zamora, 3917 Brawner Pkwy., spoke in opposition to the desalination plant in that permits have not been approved yet. Brandon Marks, 319 Rosebud and Jim Klein, 3501 Monterrey St., spoke in opposition to the desalination plant budget and against the community budget input sessions being held virtually. Richard Nunez, 7022 Brandon Dr. and Isaac Colmenero, 1711 Ausela, spoke in support of Item#18. The following citizens spoke in opposition to Item#21: Jeannette Protzeller, 13850 Halyard Dr.; John C. Minners, 13902 Eaglesnest Bay Dr.; Frank Jackson, 13949 Seafarer Dr.; Alex Karis, 14145 Palo Seco Dr.; Daniel Davidson, 13838 Mizzen St.; Franklin Stover, 13817 Longboat Dr.; Ted Mandel, 15306 Key Largo Ct.; Marvin Jones, 15313 Beaufort Ct.; Patti Baker, 15341 Tortuga Ct.; Janelle Payne, 13813 Mizzen St.; Debbie Fitch, 15201 Isla Pinta Ct.; Todd Hunter, Jr., 13526 Catamaran Dr.; Pam Schuchart, 14106 Cutlass; Felicia Krumbeck, 14818 Cobo de Bara; and Sylvia Rendon, City of Corpus Christi Page 2 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 15370 Mutiny Ct. The following citizens submitted written public comments in opposition to Item No. 27, which are attached to the minutes: Joe Rucinski, 15121 Dasmarinas Dr.; Frank Jackson, 13949 Seafarer Dr.; Natalie Camargo, 15625 Cuttysark St.; Kristin and Dave Allen, 14234 Sand Dollar Ave.; Aaron Davis, 14209 Cabo Blanco Dr.; and Evan Renaud, 4002 Brawner Parkway. The following citizen submitted a written public comment in favor of Item#27 which is attached to the minutes: Diana Brackenridge, 14733 Dasmarinas Drive. G. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS/UPDATE ON CITY OPERATIONS: Mayor Guajardo referred to City Manager's Comments. a. COVID -.19 Update Director of Public Health Annette Rodriguez gave an update on the COVID-19 numbers. Governor Abbott stated that he will be sending out of state hospital personnel to Texas. b. Community Budget Input Sessions Overview City Manager Peter Zanoni reported that due to the increase in COVID-19 cases, the Community Budget Input Sessions will be held virtually. The first community budget input session was held on August 9th. Police Chief, Fire Chief and other staff members participated in the work sessions. Four additional community input sessions will be held over the next two weeks. The next community budget input sessions will be held on August 11th-District 2, August 12th-District 3, August 16th-District 4 and August 18th-District 5. c. Games of Texas Update by Neiman Young,Assistant City Manager Assistant City Manager Neiman Young gave a brief update regarding the success on the Games of Texas in Corpus Christi. A Council Member commended the Parks and Recreation department for a job well done. d. Seawater Desalination Update by Mike Murphy, Chief Operating Officer Chief Operating Officer Mike Murphy presented information on the following topics: status of TCEQ application for water right permit at Inner Harbor; CC Polymers tour with Councilman Pusley; meeting debrief with PICC; Seven Seas; seawater desalination project; team meeting; and next steps. Council Members and Chief Operating Officer Murphy discussed the following topics: a Council Member would like to see continued communication with the Port on the status of City of Corpus Christi Page 3 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 their permits; the Seawater Desalination team does plan on meeting with the Evangeline group; and an alternative atmospheric water generation removes the water from the environment. H. BOARD &COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: 1. 21-0957 Arts &Cultural Commission (3 vacancies) Sister City Committee (3 vacancies) Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 1. The following board appointments were made: Arts& Cultural Commission: Wallace Echols (Reappointed) Abu Waheedzzaman (Reappointed) Sarah Sells Morgan (Appointed) Sister City Committee: Mark Arnold (Reappointed) Melody Cooper(Reappointed) Adria Vasquez (Appointed) EXPLANATION OF COUNCIL ACTION: J. CONSENT AGENDA: (ITEMS 2-17) Approval of the Consent Agenda Mayor Guajardo referred to the Consent Agenda. Council Members requested that Items 12, 16 and 17 be pulled for individual consideration. A motion was made by Mayor Guajardo, seconded by Council Member Hunter to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items 12, 16 and 17. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 9- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Barrera, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma,Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Abstained: 0 2. 21-0989 Approval of the July 20, 2021 and July 27, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes, and the July 21, 2021 Workshop Minutes. The Minutes were passed on the consent agenda. Consent-Second Reading Ordinances 3. 21-0881 Ordinance authorizing the delegation of the issuance of City of Corpus Christi, City of Corpus Christi Page 4 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 Texas Certificate of Obligations, Series 2021 related to Solid Waste and City Facilities improvements in an amount not to exceed $18,500,000, within set parameters and according to the plan of finance set by the City's financial advisors to the City Manager, Chief Financial Officer, or Director of Finance and Business Analysis and authorizing other matters incident and related thereto. This Ordinance was passed on second reading on the consent agenda. Enactment No:032507 4. 21-0887 Ordinance authorizing the delegation of the issuance of City of Corpus Christi General Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2021, refunding various series in an amount not to exceed $60,000,000, within set parameters and according to the plan of finance set by the City's financial advisors to the City Manager, Chief Financial Officer, or Finance Director and authorizing other matters incident and related thereto. This Ordinance was passed on second reading on the consent agenda. Enactment No:032508 Consent-Contracts and Procurement 5. 21-0687 Motion authorizing a two-year service agreement for parts and installation of equipment for Police marked units for a total amount not to exceed $347,759.22 with CAP Fleet Upfitters, LLC., from Houston, Texas, with FY 2021 funding in an amount not to exceed $103,723.40 available through the FY 2021 Fleet Equipment Replacement Fund. This Motion was passed on the consent agenda. Enactment No: M2021-156 6. 21-0544 Resolution authorizing a five-year service agreement with Rotork Controls, Inc. of Houston, Texas, in an amount not to exceed $162,802.27 for preventative maintenance, repairs, and purchase of motors for Rotork Actuators at the Wesley Seale Dam, with FY 2021 funding in the amount of$10,853.48 available in the Water Fund. This Resolution was passed on the consent agenda. Enactment No:032509 7. 21-0654 Motion authorizing a one-year service agreement with Environmental Improvements, Inc. of Houston, Texas in an amount not to exceed $253,999.92 for nine cylindrical polyethylene storage tanks (12-foot diameter, 14-foot height) for 50% concentrated caustic soda for O. N. Stevens Water Treatment Plant, effective upon issuance of notice to proceed, with FY 2021 funding in an amount of$253,999.92 available through the Utilities Department Water Fund. This Motion was passed on the consent agenda. City of Corpus Christi Page 5 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 Enactment No: M2021-157 8. 21-0806 Motion authorizing a three-year supply agreement with Carbonfilt, LLC of Venice, Florida, for a total amount not to exceed $1,508,240.00 for filter media replacement at the 0. N. Stevens Water Treatment Plant, with FY 2021 funding in an estimated amount of$83,791.11 available through the Water Fund. This Motion was passed on the consent agenda. Enactment No: M2021-158 9. 21-0833 Motion authorizing a one-year service agreement with Camiros, Ltd. of Chicago, Illinois, in an amount of$125,000.00, to update the Unified Development Code, effective upon issuance of a notice to proceed, with FY 2021 funding in an amount of$125,000.00 in the Development Services Fund. This Motion was passed on the consent agenda. Enactment No: M2021-159 10. 21-0766 Motion authorizing a three-year supply agreement, with two additional one-year options, with Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC. of San Antonio, Texas, for Aggregate Trap Rock for Public Works for an estimated amount of $1,552,500.00, with an estimated potential amount not to exceed $2,635,500.00 if both one-year option periods are exercised, with FY 2021 funding in an amount not to exceed $86,250.00 available through the Streets Maintenance Fund. This Motion was passed on the consent agenda. Enactment No: M2021-160 Consent-Capital Projects 11. 21-0768 Motion awarding a Master Services Agreement to LJA Engineering, Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas, for the development and implementation of a Storm Water Infrastructure Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity program, which includes professional engineering services for Bridge Rehabilitation, Channel Ditch Improvements, and City Wide Storm Water Infrastructure Rehabilitation/Replacement, in an amount up to $500,000 for a one-year term, with two renewal options to be administratively authorized for a total amount not to exceed $1,500,000, with FY 2021 funding available from Storm Water Capital Fund. This Motion was passed on the consent agenda. Enactment No: M2021-161 12. 21-0875 Resolution awarding a construction contract to Reytec Construction Resources, Inc., Houston, Texas, for the Concrete Street Improvements Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity program for concrete work repairs, in an amount up to City of Corpus Christi Page 6 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 $1,000,000.00 for the initial term, with a one-year renewal option to be administratively authorized for a total amount not to exceed $2,000,000.00, with FY 2021 funding available from the Streets Fund. Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 12. Council Members and Director of Public Works and Streets Richard Martinez discussed the following topics: the selected street segments were last reconstructed in 2014; there is a maintenance cost associated with concrete streets; asphalt street maintenance is being handled in-house; due to high cost of equipment, concrete street maintenance is being contracted out; the FY 2021-22 proposed budget includes funding for a third street maintenance crew for asphalt streets; and in 2023 a fourth crew will be recommended. Council Member Smith made a motion to approve the resolution, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. This Resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Aye: 9- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Barrera, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Abstained: 0 Enactment No:032510 13. 21-0422 Motion awarding a construction contract to JBT Aero Tech Corporation of Ogden, Utah for the Corpus Christi International Airport Improve Terminal Building - Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, in an amount of$4,422,288.50 with FY 2021 funding available from the Airport CIP Grants Fund. This Motion was passed on the consent agenda. Enactment No: M2021-162 14. 21-0879 Resolution authorizing a service agreement with Fountain-Works, LLC of Pearland, Texas in an amount not to exceed $61,759.25 to repair the ultraviolet (UV) system, filtration system, and chlorinator on the Shoreline Fountain located on the Bayfront, effective upon issuance of notice to proceed, with the funding available through'the Seawall Capital Fund. This Resolution was passed on the consent agenda. Enactment No:032511 General Consent Items 15. 21-0575 Motion authorizing a five-year service agreement with Enel X North America, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts, for air emission upgrades to three diesel generators at the O.N. Stevens Water Treatment Plant and management of the City's participation in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) Demand Response Program, with total estimated payment revenues to the City of $322,000 for helping ERCOT reduce the possibility of blackouts by participating City of Corpus Christi Page 7 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 in the Demand Response Program. This Motion was passed on the consent agenda. Enactment No: M2021-163 16. 21-0785 Motion authorizing the purchase of two tracts of parcels located at 4229 &4233 South Port Avenue for Gas Department parking lot expansion, located in Council District 3, in an amount of$255,000.00 with FY 2021 funding available from the Gas Fund. Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 16. Council Members, Director of Engineering Services Jeff Edmonds, City Manager Peter Zanoni, City Attorney Miles Risley, and Director of Gas Operations Bill Mahaffey discussed the following topics: Council Members' concern of not being briefed about the purchase of this property; the City will lose$25,000 if this property is not approved by Council; purchase price of$255,000 warrants Council review; contract was signed in June without council approval; why eminent domain was not recommended; and this is an option contract that only obligates the City to expend the$25,000, which is under $50,000 threshold requiring City Council approval. Council Member Pusley made a motion to approve the motion, seconded by Council Member Barrera. This Motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Aye: 7- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Barrera, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Nay: 2- Council Member Hernandez and Council Member Lerma Abstained: 0 Enactment No: M2021-164 17. 21-0863 Resolution to consider a proposed ad valorem tax rate of no more than $0.646264 per$100 valuation for Fiscal Year(FY) 2022, taking a record vote, and setting the date for the City of Corpus Christi's proposed FY 2022 budget and proposed FY 2022 ad valorem tax rate public hearing and first reading ordinances on August 31, 2021 with adoption of the FY 2022 budget and FY 2022 ad valorem tax rate on September 7, 2021. Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 17. Council Members, Director of Finance Heather Hurlbert, Chief Financial Officer Constance Sanchez and City Manager Peter Zanoni discussed the following topics: the purpose of this item is to set the date for the tax rate above the no new revenue rate and requires a record vote. Council Member Barrera made a motion to approve the resolution, seconded by Council Member Hunter. This Resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: City of Corpus Christi Page 8 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 Aye: 9- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Barrera, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Abstained: 0 Enactment No: 032512 K. RECESS FOR LUNCH Mayor Guajardo recessed the Council meeting for lunch at 3:59 p.m. Mayor Guajardo reconvened the meeting at 4:32 p.m. L. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (ITEMS 18 -221 18. 21-0880 Variance Case No. 21ZN1026, Adam Stern: (District 2); Resolution granting a variance under Corpus Christi Code Section 4-5 to allow Voodoo Promotions, LLC to operate an alcohol beverage establishment with on-premise consumption on the property located at 1911 South Staples Street within 300 feet of a school. Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 18. Director of Development Services Al Raymond presented information on the following topics: request; purpose; former"Pleasures" adult club; background of spacing regulations; Staples Street looking southwest; Staples Street looking east; timeline; required findings for variance approval; factors against the variance; and staff recommends denial of the request for a variance. Council Members and Director Raymond discussed the following topics: alternative uses for the property under the proposed zoning would be an indoor game room or a restaurant; and staff had not spoken with the school but the applicant had. Mayor Guajardo opened the public hearing. Applicant Adam Stern stated that this will be an upscale jazz club, a dress code will be enforced, and only 75% of their sales can come from alcohol; food will be served; and had a positive conversation with the school. Council Members and Mr. Stern discussed the following topics: the building will be painted; and the applicant is still not sure if there will be a cover charge or a "membership"fee for private club; and the site cannot operate a sexually oriented business. William Skrobarczyk, 711 N. Carancahua and Lori Stern, 5325 Wild Olive Trail, spoke in support of this Item. Dorothy Span, 502 Del Mar Blvd.; Maria Ochoa, 509 Del Mar Blvd.; Paul Perez, 533 City of Corpus Christi Page 9 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 Cole; and Gloria Garza, spoke in opposition to this item. City Secretary Rebecca Huerta read the following written public comments in support of this item into the record and are attached to the minutes: Jeff Kane, 4126 Meridian Place and Emily Stadnicki, 1604 Casa Grande St., Pasadena, CA. Mayor Guajardo closed the public hearing. Council Member Molina made a motion to approve the resolution, seconded by Council Member Hunter. This Resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Aye: 9- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Barrera, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez,Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Abstained: 0 Enactment No:032513 19. 21-0759 Zoning Case No. 0521-01, Kitty Hawk Development, Ltd.: (District 5) Ordinance rezoning property at or near 9142 South Staples Street (FM 2444) from the "CN-1" Neighborhood Commercial District to the"RS-15" Single-Family 15 District. (Planning Commission and Staff recommend Approval) Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 19. Director of Development Services Al Raymond presented information on the following topics: aerial overview; zoning pattern and adjacent development; public notification; and planning commission and staff recommend approval. Council Members, Director Raymond, and Director of Public Works and Streets Richard Martinez discussed the following topics: a Council Member's concern about the drainage in this area; and the developer will build the road to access this property; property will use septic tanks; and in response to a Council Member's concerns, Mr. Raymond said staff would discuss if the developer planned to contribute toward the construction of County Road 41 and address appropriate drainage in the area. Mayor Guajardo opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Mayor Guajardo closed the public hearing. Council Member Hunter made a motion to approve the ordinance, seconded by Council Member Lerma. This Ordinance was passed on first reading and approved with the following vote: Aye: 9- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Barrera, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma,Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith City of Corpus Christi Page 10 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 Abstained: 0 20. 21-0761 Zoning Case No. 0621-02, Glenn Lyons: (District 3) Ordinance rezoning property at or near 5839 Williams Drive from the"RS-6" Single-Family 6 District to the "ON" Neighborhood Office District. (Planning Commission and Staff recommend Approval) Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 20. Director of Development Services Al Raymond presented information on the following topics: aerial overview; zoning pattern and adjacent development; public notification; and planning and staff recommend approval. Mayor Guajardo opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the Council or the public. Mayor Guajardo closed the public hearing. Council Member Barrera made a motion to approve the ordinance, seconded by Council Member Hunter. This Ordinance was passed on first reading and approved with the following vote: Aye: 8- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Barrera, Council Member Hemandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina and Council Member Smith Abstained: 1 - Council Member Pusley 21. 21-0765 Zoning Case No. 0621-01, Joshua and Jasania Morales: (District 4) Ordinance rezoning property at or near 13845 Mizzen Street from the"RS-6"Single-Family 6 District to"RS-6/SP" Single-Family 6 District with a Special Permit. (Planning Commission recommends Denial and Staff recommends Approval) (3/4 vote will be required due to opposition by surrounding property owners and Planning Commission recommends Denial) Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 21. Director of Development Services Al Raymond presented information on the following topics: aerial overview; zoning pattern and adjacent development; public notification; planning commission recommends denial and staff recommends approval with special permit; bed and breakfast home requirements; and UDC requirements. Council Members, Director Raymond, Code Compliance Program Manager Liza Lopez, City Manager Peter Zanoni and City Attorney Miles Risley discussed the following topics: short-term rentals are not allowed in R-6 neighborhoods on the island and the ordinance needs to be enforced; code enforcement issues citations for short-term rentals; a town hall meeting will be scheduled on the island regarding short-term rentals when COVID City of Corpus Christi Page 11 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 numbers go down; and a Council Member requested that$50,000 be included in code enforcement's budget for sting operations. Mayor Guajardo opened the public hearing. Robert Algae, 15629 Three Fathoms Bank Dr. stated that he is not opposed to short-term rentals where the zoning is appropriate. City Secretary Rebecca Huerta read the following written public comments into the record in opposition to Item#21 which are attached to the minutes: Brenda Pack, 13926 Longboat Dr.; Jay Green, 15733 Finistere St.; April Green, 15733 Finistere St.; Roy Sharp, 15037 SPID; Michael Starek, 15917 Cabo Blanco; Candace Tidmore, 15322 Bowsprit Ct.; John Smelley, 15361 Key Largo; Andrew Millman, 13609 Moro Lane; Patti Baker, 15341 Tortuga Ct.; Sheila Trudeau, 13730 Three Fathoms Bank Dr.; Myla Ustymenko, 16121 Jessamine St.; John Pasch, 13734 Three Fathoms Bank Dr.; Jim and Cindy Jory; Susan Kocian, 13533 Peseta Ct.; Kay Buchanan, 13826 Mizzen St.; Jim Flowers, 15638 Cuttysark St.; Kay Buchanan, 13826 Mizzen St.; Chris Hornberger, 14514 E. Cabana St.; Greg and Darla Gierczak, 13918 El Soccorro Loop; Dennis Hanson, 13818 Eaglesnest Bay Dr.; Elise Lippincott, 13557 Peseta Ct.; Jean Rene Ebelt, 15361 Beaufort Ct.; Marilyn Litt, 15842 Portillo Dr.; Royce Wells, 15717 Cuttysark St.; Taunya Luna, 13525 Peseta Ct.; Debbie Wall, 15909 Punta Bonaire Dr.; Frank Jackson, 13949 Seafarer Dr.; and Kristin and Dave Allen, 14234 Sand Dollar Ave. City Secretary Rebecca Huerta read the following written public comment into the record in favor of Item#21 which is attached to the minutes: Jacob Manich, 15853 Cuttysark St. Mayor Guajardo closed the public hearing. Council Member Smith made a motion to deny the zoning request on 13845 Mizzen Street, seconded by Council Member Hunter. This Ordinance was passed on first reading and approved with the following vote: Aye: 9- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Barrera, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma,Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Abstained: 0 Enactment No: 22. 21-0790 Zoning Case No. 0621-03, Mostaghasi Investment Trust: (District 3) Ordinance rezoning property at or near 2302 County Road 43 from the "FR" Farm Rural District to the "RS-6" Single-Family 6 District. (Planning Commission and Staff recommend Approval) Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 22. Director of Development Services Al Raymond presented information on the following topics: aerial overview; zoning pattern and adjacent development; public notification; and City of Corpus Christi Page 12 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 planning commission and staff recommend approval. Council Members, Director Raymond and Director of Water Utilities Kevin Norton discussed the following topics: a Council Member would like to ensure the capacity in the wastewater system; this particular zoning plat is for 376 homes; none of this property is in the flood zone; the layout meets RS-6, but the developer is requesting RS-4.5; and a Council Member's concern about overtaxing the infrastructure. Mayor Guajardo opened the public hearing. A Council Member and Representative and Engineer of Mostaghasi Investment Trust Juan Perales discussed the following topics: some preliminary reviews have been done on the wastewater system, but more details will be provided when the actual development of the construction plans occur; and the lots are over 6,000 square feet, so it should not affect the proposed development. Mayor Guajardo closed the public hearing. Council Member Hernandez made a motion to amend the ordinance the RS-4.5 in lieu of an RS-6 zoning, seconded by Council Member Lerma and passed unanimously. Council Member Barrera-absent. Council Member Hernandez made a motion to approve the ordinance as amended, seconded by Council Member Lerma. This Ordinance was passed on first reading as amended and approved with the following vote: Aye: 8- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Absent: 1 - Council Member Barrera Abstained: 0 M. INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS: N. FIRST READING ORDINANCES: (ITEMS 23 -28) 23. 21-0802 Ordinance to establish a 15 member Capital Improvement Advisory Committee to advise on Infrastructure Master Plan and impact fees; adding section 2-60 to the Corpus Christi Code. Mayor Guajardo referred to Items 23-28. Council Member Pusley made a motion to approve Items 23-28 with the exception of Items 25 and 27, seconded by Council Member Lerma. These Ordinances were passed on first reading and approved with the following vote: City of Corpus Christi Page 13 Printed on 8/13/2021 • City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 Aye: 8- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Absent: 1 - Council Member Barrera Abstained: 0 24. 21-0850 Ordinance adopting the procedure to terminate the campaign treasurer appointment of an inactive candidate or inactive specific-purpose political committee in accordance with Texas Election Code Section 252.0131; and amending the City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Administration, with addition of new Section 2-7. See Item 23. Aye: 8- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Hernandez,Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Absent: 1 - Council Member Barrera Abstained: 0 25. 21-0649 Ordinance amending Corpus Christi Code Chapter 2, Article III to update City departments and functions; and amending Corpus Christi Code Chapter 39 to clarify payment of sick and vacation leave upon termination, retirement, or death. Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 25. Director of Human Resources Eyvon McHaney stated that an updated copy of the ordinance was submitted to further clarify the language of sick leave upon termination; and to update the word "offices"to "departments". Council Member Hunter made a motion to approve the ordinance, seconded by Council Member Pusley. This Ordinance was passed on first reading and approved with the following vote: Aye: 8- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Absent: 1 - Council Member Barrera Abstained: 0 26. 21-0805 Ordinance appropriating Airport Grant#62 in an amount of$3,310,001.00 from the United States Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation Administration to the Airport CIP Grants Fund, amending the FY 2021 Capital Budget, and awarding a construction contract in an amount of$2,625,000.00 to Bay Ltd., Corpus Christi, Texas, for the Corpus Christi International Airport Rehabilitate Runway 13-31, Taxiway B, and Associated Improvements, with FY 2021 funding City of Corpus Christi Page 14 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 available from the Airport CIP Grants Fund. See Item 23. Aye: 8- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Hernandez,Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Absent: 1 - Council Member Barrera Abstained: 0 27. 21-1010 Ordinance adding Section 33-17 to Corpus Christi Code to prohibit parking on an unimproved surface on residential lots; and providing for a penalty not to exceed $500 per violation. Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 27. Mayor Guajardo asked for public comment. Robert Algae, 15629 Three Fathoms Bank Dr., spoke in opposition to this item and suggested another solution. Interim Director of Neighborhood Services Tracey Cantu stated that this policy has allowable exceptions, and gravel and rocks on the island are considered improved surfaces. Council Member Pusley made a motion to approve the ordinance, seconded by Council Member Hunter. This Ordinance was passed on first reading and approved with the following vote: Aye: 8- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Hernandez,Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Absent: 1 - Council Member Barrera Abstained: 0 28. 21-0999 Ordinance adding Section 49- 16 to the Corpus Christi Code to prohibit sitting or lying in public right-of-way within the Corpus Christi Central Business District, North Beach, and Flour Bluff; and providing for penalty of up to $500 per violation. See Item 23. Aye: 8- Mayor Guajardo, Council Member Hernandez, Council Member Hunter, Council Member Lerma, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Molina, Council Member Pusley and Council Member Smith Absent: 1 - Council Member Barrera Abstained: 0 City of Corpus Christi Page 15 Printed on 8/13/2021 City Council Meeting Minutes August 10,2021 O. BRIEFINGS: (ITEMS 29 -30) 29. 21-0838 Al Kruse Tennis Center Pickleball Renovation Project Presentation Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 29. Interim Director Dante Gonzalez presented information on the following topics: background; Al Kruse Tennis Center;why convert courts; original plan; amended plan; courts; surrounding area pickleball tournaments; and love tennis and education-way ahead. Council Members, Interim Director Gonzalez and Director of Al Kruse Tennis Center Ronald Elizondo discussed the following topics: the Al Kruse Tennis Center is well maintained; HEB Tennis Center has temporary pickleball courts; and the possibility of expanding Al Kruse Tennis Center to other locations in the future. 30. 21-1006 HALFF Associates, Inc. will provide a mid-point update for the Bill Witt Park Master Plan and the 10-Year Parks Recreational Plan along with Virtual Town Hall meeting room and park mapping tools update. Mayor Guajardo referred to Item 30. Director of HALFF Associates Inc. James Hemenes presented information on the following topics: virtual engagement launch; overview; project team; project timeframe; park system assessment methods; demand-based assessment; resource-based assessment; access-based assessment; conditions-based assessment; Bill Witt Park master site plan; and next steps. Council Members, Director Hemenes, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation Dante Gonzalez and City Manager Peter Zanoni discussed the following topics: a Council Member stated that some of the parks on the map are not City parks, they are County parks; and a Council Member's request for the swimming pool at Bill Witt Park to be a competition pool. P. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None Q. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Guajardo adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m. City of Corpus Christi Page 16 Printed on 8/13/2021 Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 7:37 PM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran A I Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input:08-10-2021 -Jacob Manich Vw E , WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies message will go to returns@jotfarm.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Bpd . esk at 826-3766 �_; 0 =Public Comment& Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Jacob Manich Address Street Address: 15853 Cuttysark St City: Corpus Christi State/Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic RS-6 Single Family 6 District Agenda Item Number 0621-01 Describe Feedback: Document attached Uploads: BNB.docx Provide an email to receive a copy of your manichjacob@yahoo.com submission. Good morning, Thank you for offering a venue to voice concerns to those unable to attend the meetings in person today. My name is Jacob Manich and I have lived in Corpus Christi for just about two years,though I lived here previously from 2014-2016. I believe that allowing home owners to apply for, and be approved,for a special permit to host a Bed and Breakfast allows for the appropriate oversight to operate such a business while also providing the homeowner an opportunity, not currently afforded,to cover expenses of owning a home. Properly managed properties allow people to enjoy what many of us have come to love about Corpus Christi while infusing our local economy with funds that otherwise would be spent elsewhere. From a personal perspective this also allows homeowners, like me,who are here on military orders an opportunity to cover expenses that other local homeowners don't have to worry about. For military families when you are ordered to move you obviously have to go,while the housing market is great for sellers right now,this might not always be the case. Military families could only have the choice between long term renters or to sell the property, possibly at a loss,where most homeowners here could just wait to sell or move until the market improves. Having another option, in the BnB application, greatly reduces the risk of homeownership and with the proper application and permitting process could be a great thing for all of Corpus Christi.Thank you for your time. Jacob Manich • THE LAW OFFICE of August 10,2021 JEFFREY F. KANE TO: Corpus Christi City Council RE: 1911 Tavern Proposal for Liquor Permit at 1911 S. Staples St. Respected Members of the Council; ._ I come before you today to urge your support for the proposal of Mr. Adam Stern to open the 1911 Tavern in the location occupied by the former liquor license-holder at that MIN ME location,"Pleasures". We are all well aware of the urban blight that area of the Del Mar neighborhood has suffered 5337 Yorktown Blvd. over the years.Six Points was,at one time,a large part of the beating heart of commerce in our Suite 5-2 city. We all know what's transpired there and in downtown.Only now are downtown Corpus Christi, TX 78413 revitalization efforts beginning to take hold.Those efforts are beginning to take hold because venues that attract citizens and tourists have opened,bringing vitality to the area. T 361.371.7186 F 833.735.0150 The proposed business will be the polar opposite of the former license-holder that occupied the jfk@jeffkanelaw.com address.Instead of a sexually oriented business;a music venue is proposed,one that will highlight and showcase live jazz and blues,two musical genres that are woefully j underrepresented and under-presented in Corpus Christi. RECEIVEDWere the prior license surrendered years ago,arguments of change of character or impact to the neighborhood might resonate.Here,we have a license that was surrendered only in August of AUG 1 0 2021 2020.Less than a year.Were a liquor license proposed where no such licensee had operated before,community arguments might have more weight.But the conditions that exist were present long before now,and a grant of this license will not have an adverse impact on the CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE character of the neighborhood. I put forth that the effects will be quite the contrary. Further;the Supreme Court of the State of Texas decided in Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v. City of Dallas,decided that,in non-residential areas,the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code exclusively governs the regulation of alcoholic beverages except as provided by the TABC.My understanding is that the premises is zoned non-residential CN-1. For such areas,my understanding is that relevant portions of the Code supersede home-rule city zoning regulations and ordinances. The standards and restrictions permitted under§ 109.33 state that the proper measurement for a restriction under the section is along property lines,from door to door.Caselaw from the 130 Court of Appeals of Texas,supports this contention.In Helms v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,the 130 CoA held that,although a measurement from door to door in a direct line may have been 250 feet,the premises in question were outside the 300 foot distance measured in accordance with the regulations. If the contention for the refusal is that the measurement is from the edge of the property line to the edge of the property line,that is an interpretation unsupported by code or case-law.Attached please find a copy of the statute and the relevant cases. Very truly yours, \ _ Jeffrey F Kane Proud Corpus Christi Resident,and Uncompensated Supporter of Live Music Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) In this cause, we consider whether an ordinance of a 852 S W 2d 489 home-rule city prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages Supreme Court of Texas. within 300 feet of a residential area is preempted by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (TABC). In 1990, DALLAS MERCHANT'S the Dallas Merchants and Concessionaires Association, the Texas Package Stores Association, and other individuals AND CONCESSIONAIRES (hereinafter"Merchants")filed suit against the City of Dallas ASSOCIATION et al.,Petitioners, ("City")for declaratory and injunctive relief.The trial court V. held that the ordinance was preempted by the TABC. The court of appeals reversed. 823 S.W.2d 347.We hold that an CITY OF DALLAS,Respondent. ordinance of a home-rule city prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages within 300 feet of a residential area is preempted No.D-2159. by the TABC.Consequently,we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court. April 7,1993. On September 30, 1987,the Dallas City Council("Council") Rehearing Overruled June 3,1993• passed Ordinance No. 19694 ("Ordinance"), which created Synopsis new zoning categories for South Dallas. The Ordinance imposed a D-1 overlay on certain areas of South Dallas and Merchants association challenged validity of home-rule city's zoning ordinance dispersing location of alcohol-related exempted certain areas that are outside of and do not effect the residential areas of South Dallas.In this D-1 overlay area, businesses. The 134th District Court, Dallas County, Anne no business is allowed to sell or serve alcoholic beverages Ashby Packer, J., granted relief, and city appealed. The Court of Appeals,823 S.W.2d 347,reversed and rendered,and within 300 feet of residentially zoned properties not located on a freeway service road or other specified road.However, further appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Hightower, J.,held that ordinance of home-rule city prohibiting sale of a business in a D-1 overlay area may sell or serve alcoholic alcoholic beverages within 300 feet of residential areas was beverages if the Council grants a specific use permit(SUP). preempted by Texas Alcoholic Beverages Code. On October 12, 1988, the Council approved Resolution 883306,which established the guidelines for evaluating SUP Reversed. applications for selling or serving alcoholic beverages in areas of South Dallas affected by the D-1 overlay.In June 1990,the Enoch, J., dissented and filed opinion in which Hecht and Merchants filed suit against the City. Comyn,JJ.,joined. Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment which, among other things, granted the declaratory and Attorneys and Law Firms injunctive relief requested by the Merchants. The trial court concluded that the D-1 overlay provisions of the Ordinance *489 Richard M.Lannen,Diane Snelson,Eric V.Moye,Eric conflicted with the TABC and was void to that extent under R. Cromartie,David C. Godbey,Andrew L. Siegel,Dallas, article XI,section 5 of the Texas Constitution.1 The trial court for petitioners. also permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the 13— Dan Morales, Austin, John Rogers, Dallas, W. Reed 1 overlay provisions of the Ordinance.The court of appeals Lockhoof,Austin,Analeslie U.Muncy,Fort Worth,Angela reversed and rendered judgment. Washington, *490 Sam A.Lindsay,Dallas,for respondent. I. OPINION The Merchants argue that the Ordinance is preempted by the HIGHTOWER,Justice. TABC.We agree. WESTLAW ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) the Eleventh Court of Appeals held that the TABC did PREEMPTION OF HOME—RULE CITIES not preempt ordinances prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages.See Young, Wilkinson&Roberts v.City ofAbilene, To determine whether the Ordinance is preempted by the 704 S.W.2d 380, 383 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1985, writ ref d Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code,we must decide whether the n.r.e.)("We hold that the Constitution and general statutes of Legislature,by enacting and amending the TABC,preempted this State do not deny the City[a home rule city]the right to ordinances of home-rule cities that prohibit the sale of regulate the area of the City in which liquor could be sold."); alcoholic beverages under these circumstances. Home-rule Abilene Oil Distributors v. City of Abilene, 712 S.W.2d 644 cities have broad discretionary powers, provided that no (Tex.App.—Eastland 1986,writ ref d n.r.e.). ordinance"shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State,or of the general laws enacted by the Subsequently,in 1987,the Legislature added section 109.57 Legislature of this State."TEX.CONST.art.XI,§5.Home- to the TABC and further amended it in 1991 to read in part: rule cities possess the full power of self government and look to the Legislature not *491 for grants of power,but only for (a) Except as expressly authorized by this code, a limitations on their power. MJR's Fare of Dallas v. City of regulation, charter, or ordinance promulgated by a Dallas, 792 S.W.2d 569, 573 (TexApp.—Dallas 1990,writ governmental entity of this state may not impose stricter denied). standards on premises or businesses required to have a license or permit under this code than are imposed on An ordinance of a home-rule city that attempts to regulate a similar premises or businesses that are not required to have subject matter preempted by a state statute is unenforceable such a license or permit. to the extent it conflicts with the state statute. See City (b) It is the intent of the legislature that this code shall of Brookside Village v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790, 796 exclusively govern the regulation of alcoholic beverages (Tex.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1087, 103 S.Ct. 570, in this state, and that except as permitted by this code, 74 L.Ed.2d 932 (1982). However, "the mere fact that the a governmental entity of this state may not discriminate legislature has enacted a law addressing a subject does not against a business holding a license or permit under this mean the complete subject matter is completely preempted." code. City of Richardson v Responsible Dog Owners, 794 S.W.2d 17,19(Tex.1990)."[A]general law and a city ordinance will (c)Neither this section nor Section 1.06 of this code affects not be held repugnant to each other if any other reasonable the validity or invalidity of a zoning regulation that was construction leaving both in effect can be reached." City of formally enacted before June 11,1987 and that is otherwise Beaumont v. Fall, 116 Tex. 314,291 S.W. 202,206 (1927). valid,or any amendment to such a regulation enacted after Thus,if the Legislature chooses to preempt a subject matter June 11, 1987 if the amendment lessens the restrictions usually encompassed by the broad powers of a home-rule on the licensee or permittee or does not impose additional city, it must do so with unmistakable clarity. See City of restrictions on the licensee or permittee. For purposes of Sweetwater v. Geron,380 S.W.2d 550,552(Tex.1964). this subsection, "zoning regulation" means any charter provision, rule regulation, or other enactment governing the location or use of buildings,other structures,and land. • TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 109.57(a), (b) & (c) (Vernon Supp.1992). The Legislature's intent is clearly In 1977,the Legislature codified the Texas Liquor Control expressed in section 109.57(b)of the TABC—the regulation Act into the TABC.2 Prior to the codification, several of alcoholic beverages is exclusively governed by courts of appeals held that various ordinances of home- the provisions of the TABC unless otherwise *492 rule cities prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages were provided.3 TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 109.57(b) not preempted by the Texas Liquor Control Act. See, e.g., (Vernon Supp.1992). Section 109.57 clearly preempts an City of Clute v. Linscomb, 446 S.W.2d 377(Tex.Civ.App.- ordinance of a home-rule city that regulates where alcoholic Houston [1st Dist.] 1969,no writ);Louder v. Texas Control beverages are sold under most circumstances!Accordingly, Board,214 S.W.2d 336(Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1948,writ we hold that,to the extent of any conflict,the TABC preempts ref d n.r.e.);Eckert v.Jacobs, 142 S.W.2d 374(Tex.Civ.App. the Ordinance.5 —Austin 1940, no writ). Subsequent to the codification, WESTLAW ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) We'recogni:2e the:benefits of ordinances which proh flit the sale of alcoholic beverages under these:circumstances II. However,:the express,language of'section 109 57:eompets this:court to give effect to the.Legislature's clear intent; The City argues that if section 109.57 preempts an ordinance the Ordinance is preernpied.to.the extent it:conflicts:with:the of a home-rule city regulating where alcoholic beverages TAB.C..:Therefore,we reverse the judgment of the court of are sold,sections 61.37, 109.31, 109.32, and 109.33 will be appeals and affirm the judgment otthe trialcourt. rendered meaningless.6 We disagree. *:493 Section. :109;:37: expressly states that the Dissenting opinion by ENOCH, J.,joined by HECHT and TABC. witl...exclusively. govern the regulation :;:of CORNYN,JJ. alcoholic beverages except: as otherwise.pro'ided by tt e TARO TEX ALCO.BEV CODE.ANN § 109 57:(Vernon ENOCH,Justice,dissenting. Supp 1992): Thus,::the TABC allows ordinances.of home= The city of Dallas faces a severe impediment to its rule cities to prohibit the sale of?alcoholic.:beverages only redevelopment efforts for a portion of its community under limited circumstances:Pursuant to section:109 31,the (South Dallas) that suffers disproportionately from poverty sale of liquor may: be prahibtted.within.residei tial meas and crime. The Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's only by charter TE.X ALCO.BEVCOD.E.ANN §> 10931 Association, the Texas Package Stores Association, Inc., (Slernon 19ti) Under section 109`32, the sale of leer may and the five grocery and liquor store ownerst who are be prohibited withi residential areas by ordinance or charter: petitioners in this Court all readily concede that alcohol- TEX.ALCO.BEVCODE ANN ::109 32.(Vemoa 1978): related businesses are overly concentrated in certain areas of Ttaese options are;still available to the City However, in the City of Dallas,that this concentration of such businesses this;case the Ordinance attempts .to prohibit the::sale:of causes severe problems in these areas, and that the City liquor and.beer in:non residential areas .Ari ordinance inay of Dallas adopted Ordinance No. 19694 to reduce this not:prohibit the oT beer in:non residential?`areas or concentration and alleviate these problems.Today the Court the Gale .of liquor m residential or non-residential areas: adopts petitioners'argument that,regardless,the Legislature Seg TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN..§§:.I09 3 i '32:(Vernon requires these matters to only be addressed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in Austin, and not by the • Dallas City Council.As much as we all are concerned about Section 109 33 permits a.county.or city to>prohibit the sale community restoration,I too would have joined the majority of:.aleoholic beverages by a dealer whose:place of business if the law required this result.But,the Court's decision is not is ithin 00 feet;©f a church; school, or;public hospital mandated by the law.Therefore I dissent. TEX ALCO$EV CODE §:: 109 33(a) (Vernon.Supp.1.992). 7l s option is stall.:.avarlalle to.the`City8 I3owevec m;this Ordinance No. 19694 prohibits the location of businesses case.the Ordinance attempts to:prohibit the sate ofalcoholic selling or serving alcoholic beverages within 300 feet of beverages within.3.00 feetresidentially zoned property in certain areas of the city 300 feef of a church,school:or public hospital. without a special use permit.The issue before us is whether this limited restriction on the location of alcohol-related Likewise, section 61.37 does not conflict with section businesses is preempted by Tex.Alco.Bev.Code § 109.57(a) 109.57.Section 61.37 states that a city secretary will merely and (b). Section 109.57(a)provides that an ordinance"may certify whether an ordinance or charter prohibits the sale of not impose stricter standards on premises or businesses" alcoholic beverages in the area where alcoholic beverages will required to be licensed under the Code than on similar potentially be sold. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.37 premises or businesses.(emphasis added).Section 109.57(b) (Vernon 1978). Under this section, certification is properly states that "it is the intent of the legislature that this code withheld only if an ordinance or charter prohibits the *494 shall exclusively govern the regulation of alcoholic beverages sale of alcoholic beverages in a manner allowed by the TAB C. in this state, and that except as permitted by this code, See TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.§61.37(Vernon 1978). a governmental entity of this state may not discriminate W ST AW ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) against a business holding a license or permit under this and appurtenances pertaining to the grounds, including any code."(Emphasis added.) adjacent premises if they are directly or indirectly under the control of the same person."Tex.Alco.Bev.Code Ann. § In my view,Ordinance No. 19694 does not"impose stricter 11.49(a) (Vernon 1978). Section 11.49(a) refers only to the standards on alcohol-related businesses or premises"within physical premises; it does not define "premises"to include the meaning of section 109.57(a). Rather, it restricts the the location of a licensed business. The Ordinance does location of such businesses in some areas under some not attempt to regulate the physical premises.Additionally, conditions.Nor does the ordinance attempt a"regulation of nothing in the Ordinance addresses how the business of alcoholic beverages."The ordinance has nothing to do with selling alcohol is to be conducted. The Ordinance only beverages. Nor does the ordinance "discriminate" against regulates the location of the business. alcohol-related businesses. It merely imposes a restriction on their location to alleviate community problems which The Court recognizes that a city ordinance will not be petitioners concede such businesses cause.2 This Ordinance is held repugnant to a general law of the state "if any not,on its face,inconsistent or in conflict with state law.The other reasonable construction leaving both in effect can be ordinance is a reasonable supplement to state law to address reached," 852 S.W.2d at 491, (citing to City of Richardson a local problem.Both should remain in effect. v. Responsible Dog Owners, 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex.1990)). Because a reasonable reading of these two statutes prevents Assuming for the sake of argument that"location"may be the conflict the reasoning of the Court creates, there is no considered a type of *495 "standard"governing businesses, basis for restricting the City of Dallas' grant of'authority to the law would still not mandate the outcome claimed by the promulgate zoning regulations under sections 211.001—.013 Court.The Local Government Code states: of the Local Government Code. If a zoning regulation adopted under this subchapter ... The Court's holding seriously hampers the ability of imposes higher standards than those required under another municipalities to combat problems associated with the sale statute or local ordinance or regulation, the regulation of alcohol. The City of Dallas did not seek to prohibit the adopted under this subchapter controls.If the other statute sale of alcohol,merely to disperse the locations for its sale or local ordinance or regulation imposes higher standards, in order to achieve a reduction in the problems associated that statute,ordinance,or regulation controls. with the sale of alcohol such as increased crime, drinking Tex.Loc.Gov't Code Ann. § 211.013(a) (Vernon 1988) on premises,litter,loitering,public intoxication,urinating in (emphasis added). public, and harassment of children and elderly residents.' As petitioners admit, if cities cannot restrict the location of The Court's reading of section 109.57 of the Alcoholic alcohol-related businesses, then only the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code creates a direct conflict between it and section Beverage Commission can,in the course of granting licenses 211.013(a).852 S.W.2d 489,493 n.7.Where possible,courts to businesses. Yet it would be virtually impossible for the are to construe language used in statutes so as to harmonize all Commission to obtain sufficient information in licensing relevant laws,not create conflict.La Sara Grain Co. v. First proceedings to determine whether,how and where to impose Nat'l Bank of Mercedes, 673 S.W.2d 558, 565 (Tex.1984); such restrictions in the dozens of cities where they might State v. Standard Oil Co., 107 S.W.2d 550, 559 (Tex.1937). be used. Petitioners admit that the Commission has not Since it is possible, this court must construe the Local undertaken this responsibility to date, and it is farfetched Government Code and the Alcoholic Beverage Code so that to think the Commission would even try. The suggestion both provisions are given effect. that the Legislature has decided that the Commission should address the local problems involved here instead of home-rule Section 109.57(a) prohibits a city from imposing stricter cities is most unlikely.Only those local planning,zoning and standards on premises or businesses licensed under the legislative bodies have,or can be expected to have,a pulse on Alcoholic Beverage Code than are imposed on similar the particular land use needs of their jurisdiction. premises or businesses not required to have a license. Tex.Alco.Bev.Code Ann. § 109.57(a) (Vernon 1978) *496 I agree with the Court that"if the Legislature chooses (emphasis added). The Alcoholic Beverage Code defines to preempt a subject matter encompassed by the broad "premises" as "the grounds and all buildings, vehicles, powers of a home-rule city,it must do so with unmistakable VVESTLAIN ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) clarity."852 S.W.2d at 491.Whatever may be said of section 109.57, it cannot seriously be argued that the statute makes unmistakably clear that the Legislature has preempted the HECHT and CORNYN,JJ.,join in this dissenting opinion. City of Dallas from exercising its broad zoning powers to improve living conditions within its borders. Preemption is All Citations even less likely when one considers the result. 852 S.W.2d 489 I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals,thus I respectfully dissent. Footnotes 1 In the findings of fact,the trial court stated in part: 14.None of the SUPs filed by any Establishment within the areas zoned D-1 by Ordinance 19694 had been granted. 15.The criteria adopted by the Dallas City Council make it virtually impossible for any existing Establishment to qualify for a SUP. 16. Ordinance 19694 conflicts with and is preempted by the Texas Alcoholic Beverages Code("TABC"), in that:the Ordinance and the SUP standards impose location restrictions that are inconsistent with the TABC; the Ordinance and the SUP standards attempt to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages, other than beer, by ordinance; the Ordinance and the SUP standards discriminate against establishments holding permits issued under the TABC,and; the Ordinance and the SUP standards impermissibly attempt to disenfranchise the choice of the voters of the areas affected by Ordinance 19694 in violation of the Local Option provisions and procedures set forth in the TABC. 2 "[The TABC] is intended as a recodification only, and no substantive change in the law is intended by this Act."Acts 1977,65th Leg.,ch. 194,§7. 3 While the dissent contends that the legislature did not deny home rule cities the ability to regulate with unmistakable clarity under these circumstances, how much more clear must the legislature be than Section 109.57(b),which states: "It is the intent of the legislature that this code[TABC]shall exclusively govern the regulation of alcoholic beverages in this state...."TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.§109.57(b)(Vernon Supp.1992).In addition,Senator McFarland,who was a member of the Conference Committee on H.B. 1652 which enacted Section 109.57, indicated that Section 109.57 was intended to clarify that the TABC governed the location of licensees and permittees and that cities could only regulate the location of licensees and permittees in the instances provided by the TABC.Specifically,Senator McFarland stated, [I]t[Section 109.57]says except as authorized by this code[a governmental entity may not regulate the location of a business holding a license or a permit]and there's numerous provisions throughout the code which governmental entities have the authority by zoning or other ordinances,to limit the location of businesses or the type of businesses selling alcoholic beverage. Debate of conference committee report on Tex.H.B. 1652 on the floor of the Senate,70th Leg.(June 1, 1987)(colloquy between Senators McFarland and Washington). 4 Section 109.57(d)of the TABC states: (d)This section does not effect the authority of a governmental entity to regulate,in a manner as otherwise permitted by law,the location of: (1)a massage parlor,nude modeling studio,or other sexually oriented business;or (2)an establishment that derives 75 percent or more of the establishment's gross revenue from the on-premise sale of alcoholic beverages. Because none of the parties assert that the Ordinance implicates this provision,we express no opinion concerning its applicability. Since the following cases pre-date the enactment of section 109.57, they are not applicable when determining the preemptive effect of section 109.57:See Abilene Oil Distributors v.City of Abilene,712 S.W.2d 644(Tex.App.—Eastland 1986,writ refd n.r.e.);Young,Wilkinson&Roberts v.City of Abilene,704 S.W.2d 380(Tex.App.—Eastland 1985,writ refd n.r.e.);T&RAssoc.,Inc.v.City of Amarillo,688 S.W.2d 622,625(Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo,writ refd n.r.e.);Massengale v. City of Copperas Cove, 520 S.W.2d 824, 829 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1975, writ refd n.r.e.; Derkard v. City of Port Lavaca,491 S.W.2d 748,751 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1973,no writ); City of Clute v.Linscomb,446 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.Civ.App—Houston[1st Dist.]1969,no writ);Discount Liquors No.2,Inc.v.Texas Liquor Control Board,420 S.W.2d WESTLAW (0 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) 422,423,425 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1967,writ refd n.r.e.); Louder v. Texas Liquor Control Board,214 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1948,writ refd n.r.e.);Eckert v.Jacobs,142 S.W.2d 374(Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1940,no writ). 5 The dissent argues that if this court holds that the TABC preempts an ordinance regulating where alcoholic beverages are sold,sellers of alcoholic beverages will not have to comply with any city ordinance.This argument is without merit. Section 109.57(a)provides that an ordinance may not impose stricter standards on alcohol related businesses than on non-alcohol related businesses.TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE§ 109.57(a)(Vernon Supp.1992). For example, under section 109.57(a), an ordinance requiring all businesses with the same kind of premises to have a fire extinguisher on their premises would not violate section 109.57(a).On the other hand, an ordinance requiring an alcohol related business to have two fire extinguishers and only required a non-alcohol related business with the same kind of premises to have one fire extinguisher would violate section 109.57(a). 6 Section 61.37 reads in pertinent part: (a)The County Clerk of the county in which an application for a license is made shall certify whether the location or address given in the application is in a wet area and whether the sale of alcoholic beverages for which the license is sought is prohibited by any valid order of the commissioners court. (b)The city secretary or clerk of the city in which an application for a license is made shall certify whether the location or address given in the application is in a wet area and whether the sale of alcoholic beverages for which the license is sought is prohibited by charter or ordinance. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.§61.37(Vernon 1978).Section 109.31 reads: A city by charter may prohibit the sale of liquor in all or part of the residential sections of the city. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.§109.31 (Vernon 1978).Section 109.32 reads in pertinent part: (a)An incorporated city or town by charter or ordinance may: (1)prohibit the sale of beer in a residential area;and (2)regulate the sale of beer and prescribe hours when it may be sold, except a city or town may not permit the sale, of beer when its sale is prohibited by this code. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.§109.32(Vernon 1978).Section 109.33 reads in pertinent part: (a)The commissioners court of a county may enact regulations applicable in areas in the county outside an incorporated city or town,and the governing board of a city or town may enact regulations applicable in the city or town,prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages by a dealer whose place of business is within 300 feet of a church, public school,or public hospital. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.§ 109.33(Vernon Supp.1992). 7 The dissent incorrectly asserts that Section 211.013 of the Local Government Code allows a home rule city to impose higher standards upon licensees and permittees.This conclusion is erroneous because of Section 109.57(a)of the TABC. Section 109.57(a)states than an ordinance promulgated by a governmental entity may not impose stricter standards on premises or businesses of a permittee than on similar premises and businesses not required to have a license or permit. The Ordinance imposes a stricter standard than allowed by the TABC,specifically,by regulating the location of businesses required to have licenses or permits under the TABC in circumstances not allowed by the TABC.Section 109.57(a)was by its terms enacted to exempt licensees and permittees from Section 211.013 of the Local Government Code. The application of the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius further demonstrates the weakness of the dissent's conclusion that the City may regulate in this instance.That doctrine provides that the inclusion of a specific limitation excludes all others. Royer v. Ritter, 531 S.W.2d 448, 449 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1976, writ refd n.r.e.). Sections 109.31-33 and 109.57(d)provide specific instances when a governmental entity,such as a home-rule city,may regulate the location of an alcohol related business.Thus,by expressly stating under what circumstances a governmental entity may regulate the location of an alcohol related business,it follows that there are no other instances when a governmental entity may regulate the location of an alcohol related business.The parties do not assert and we can not find any applicable grant of power to governmental entities to regulate the location of the sale of alcohol in this case. 8 In addition to regulating alcoholic beverages pursuant to sections 109.31-33, a city may make recommendations or protest the issuance of a permit by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. See TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 11.41(a)(Vernon 1978). The five business owners are Solomon Tadesse,d/b/a S&M Grocery,Nguyen Ha Lam,d/b/a M&D Liquor,Son Ngoc Nguyen,d/b/a Bingo Liquor,Youg Suk Bragdon,d/b/a K&B Grocery,and Thung Vam Tarn,d/b/a Lee's Grocery. 2 This is not to say that any ordinance restricting the location of alcohol-related businesses would be allowed by state law. Obviously,an ordinance that prohibited the location of such businesses within a much larger distance from residential property might have the effect of eliminating those businesses altogether. Such an ordinance would conflict with state STLAW r4 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) law. But an ordinance which is both written and applied to impose a limited restriction on location for a valid purpose does not conflict with section 109.57. 3 Several community leaders in the South Dallas/Fair Park area testified that these problems were exacerbated by the excessive concentration of alcohol related businesses in the area. End of Document ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. • • • WESTLAW c;2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) This is an appeal from a judgment denying an application for 700 S.W.2d 607 an on-premises beer and wine retailer's permit. Court of Appeals of Texas,Corpus Christi-Edinburg. On October 5, 1984, appellant, David Helms, applied David HELMS d/b/a,The to appellee, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (hereinafter TABC),for a permit to sell beer and wine on the Thirsty Turtle,Appellant, premises known as "The Thirsty Turtle" located in Victoria V. County, Texas. After opposition to the issuance of such TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, permit was filed by the Northside Baptist Church and others, an administrative hearing was conducted by the Honorable COMMISSION,Appellee. Donald R.Pozzi, a Special County Judge appointed to hear and render a decision on appellant's application.The church No.13-85-010—CV. appeared in opposition. The Special Judge entered an order on behalf of TABC denying the permit sought by appellant on Sept.30,1985. the ground that"[t]he place or manner in which the Applicant may conduct his business warrants the refusal of the license Rehearing Denied Nov.7,1985. based on the general welfare, health, peace, morals, safety Synopsis and sense of decency of the people of Victoria County." Applicant for on-premises beer and wine retailer's permit See TEX ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.42(a)(3) (Vernon sought review of order of State Alcoholic Beverage Supp.1985). Commission which denied permit.The 267th District Court, Victoria County, Frank H. Crain, J., affirmed denial of In making this ruling denying the permit,the county judge had Applicant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Nye, before him certain evidence.Included in the evidence were permit. pp pp pp *610 about 94 letters of protest from property owners living C.J., held that: (1) evidence was not such that reasonable minds could not have reached conclusion of administrative in the immediate area, church members, members of the tribunal in denying permit and denial would be sustained; Board of a nearby public school,and from the Mayor,Chief of (2) applicant was not denied equal protection of law by Police,and the Sheriff.Each commented about the probable denial of permit under statute regarding refusal of license increased traffic hazard and the overall adverse effects on based on general welfare of people; and (3) County Court the character of the neighborhood which would be caused acting as administrative tribunal properly considered written by granting the permit at the proposed location. There was, recommendations of chief of police and county sheriff. however,a petition signed by approximately 450 individuals favoring the granting of the on-premises permit. Affirmed. The appellant appealed the decision of the County Judge to the district court, seeking a review of the evidence and to Attorneys and Law Firms set aside the adverse decision of the county judge.Appellant alleged, among other things, that the county court's denial *609 Larry Woody,'Victoria,for appellant. of a beer and wine permit was not reasonably supported by substantial evidence and that the denial of his application W.Reed Lockhoof,Asst.Atty.Gen.,Austin,for appellee. discriminates between him and his competitors. A petition Emmett Cole,Jr.,Victoria,for intervenor. in intervention was filed in the district court by the church and by Ruth and John Nelson personally as residents near the Before NYE,C.J.,and BENAVIDES and DORSEY,JJ. location of the proposed licensed premises.The intervenors alleged that the place or manner in which the applicant (appellant) would conduct his business is of such a nature OPINION which, based on the general welfare, health, peace, morals, safety, and on the public sense of decency,warrants refusal NYE,Chief Justice. of the permit. WEA AW ©=2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) The district court entered judgment affirming the S.W.2d 250, 253-54 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1975, no administrative decision of the county court denying writ). appellant's application for an on-premises permit. The appellant perfected his appeal from such judgment. *611 In the case at bar,the main evidentiary issue was based on the location of the proposed licensed premises.Evidence In his first point of error, appellant asserts that the district concerning the manner in which the applicant (appellant) court erred in affirming the judgment of the county court may conduct his business was also raised briefly during the because there was no substantial evidence to support the hearing before the special county judge.1 The applicant's judgment. qualifications or character were not in issue. For a fully qualified applicant who is proposing to operate a lawful The substantial evidence rule is that the finding of the business in a wet area and in compliance with the zoning administrative agency (or, as in this case, a county judge ordinances of the city to be denied a permit,some conditions acting in an administrative capacity)will be sustained by the or situations must be shown so as to justify the denial under trial court if the finding is reasonably supported by substantial TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.§61.42(Vernon Supp.1985). evidence.The duty of the trial court,as well as the appellate Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Mikulenka, 510 court,is to determine from all the evidence presented whether, S.W.2d 616,619(Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1974,no writ); as a matter of law,the decision of the agency(county court) see also Smith v. Cove Area Citizens Committee, 345 S.W.2d was supported by substantial evidence.The evidence may be 850,852(Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1961,writ ref n.r.e.).The substantial and yet preponderate the other way. See Lewis evidence showed that appellant's business is located in a wet v. Metropolitan Savings & Loan Assn, 550 S.W.2d 11, 13 area and that appellant has met the procedural requirements (Tex.1977). for a permit.We pause to note,however,that the location and surroundings of a proposed retail beer and wine establishment It is a rule that the court may consider relevant evidence that and the number of such licensed establishments in the was available but not introduced at the administrative hearing. community are proper considerations and could be the basis All of the evidence introduced before the administrative for the refusal of a license.See Elliott v.Dawson, 473 S.W.2d agency that supported the agency's decision is relevant.After 668,670(Tex.Civ.App.—Houston[1st Dist.] 1971,no writ). all of the evidence is considered, the issue then before the Each substantial evidence case must be decided on its own trial court is not whether the agency came to the proper facts in relation to the above recited rules of law. fact conclusion on the basis of evidence received(conflicting as it may have been), but whether or not the agency acted Appellant initially applied for a mixed beverage and a mixed arbitrarily and without regard to the facts.See Trapp v. Shell beverage late hours permit which would have allowed him Oil Co., 145 Tex.323,198 S.W.2d 424,440(Tex.1946). to sell mixed beverages until 2:00 a.m. These permits were denied.The Thirsty Turtle is presently an eating establishment The district trial court, or this appellate Court, is not to with hours of operation from 11:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.Monday substitute its discretion for that of the administrative tribunal through Friday, and 12:00 p.m.to 11:00 p.m. Saturday and (the county judge in this case), but rather is required to Sunday. The patrons are allowed to bring their own liquor sustain the administrative tribunal if its action is reasonably and consume it on the premises in question.The facilities on supported by substantial evidence presented to the trial court. the location have been remodeled to include a parquet dance If the evidence as a whole is such that reasonable minds floor and a large wooden ceramic-topped bar.All activities could not have reached the conclusion that the administrative are presently conducted inside a closed building. court or agency reached, then the order must be set aside. Otherwise, it must be sustained. Jones v. Marsh, 148 The property in question is situated on Laurent Street, a Tex. 362, 224 S.W.2d 198, 202-03 (Tex.1949); Trapp a heavily traveled street designated as an arterial thoroughfare. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323, 198 S.W.2d 424, 440-41 The immediate area in which the proposed licensed premises (Tex.1946).See also Geist v Goldsbury,434 S.W.2d 665,667 is located is made up primarily of churches, schools and (Tex.1968);Gerst v.Nixon,411 S.W.2d 350,354(Tex.1966); residences. There are segments of property up and down Dienst v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 536 S.W.2d Laurent Street which are predominantly commercial in usage. 667,668-69 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976,no writ); There is no comparable type of business within a 5-block Morgan v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 519 WESTLAVII `z 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) radius that allows on-premises consumption of alcoholic same street, is another establishment operating with an on- • beverages. premises mixed beverages permit. The property of the proposed licensed premises is.:directly There was:substantial testimony that the'granting,of:the adjacent: civ; and on:the same.city bloc :as,.the..Northside beef and.wine permit at'the proposed;licensed'.premises Baptist:.;Church, both properties:_being ori the<east side would result in an adverse::change:En the character of the of:.Laurent:.Street The front char of No thside Baptist neighborhood There was;testimony.that the granting of the Ckurch, on:a direct line :is approximately 250 feet from permit at::his.location `would.result in.an:increase.in the the::front door of the :proposed-;licensed.. premises Tlie number of patrons;and combined with a limited:.'amount:of premises,..however are.:iiutside.the minimum 6f:300 feet parking.,(1.10...;.37 parking spaces), would;result tn:;an;even distance.wien figured in:accordance with:thlations. e re ::... gu greater amount of traffic::and<congestion;:on this;already See TES ALCQ BE�J CODE .ANN §;:<109.3.3 ::.(Vernon heavily traveled:street.:There was_:also testimon}:that:the Supp 1985 :The evidence showed:that there are a number increased;traffic congestion and::The increased probability of:church,;civic and soeial:;aetivities held:on the premises:of of persons<.driving;:under;:the infiuence..of alcohol in.tl e the:churchwvhich take place:daily from early in the morning immediate area would result;m an increase in danger to area until lateinthi evening(and sometimes ov..erizigbt)invoiving children and residents and;a>hazardto the;gei eralpublic young children,adults and;elderly people:There is;a private day::school%at the;"church :with a large:number of You g The other apparent reason for the denial of the permit was children attending. based on the general welfare and safety of persons in the vicinity of The Thirsty Turtle.In this respect,Officer Rodney Located one block behind the proposed licensed premises is Tashiro, a member of the Sheriffs Department,was quoted • a large low-income housing project. The remainder of the by another witness, without objection, as having stated: area behind the premises is primarily residential in nature. "that the presence of an establishment that sells or serves Directly across Laurent Street from the proposed licensed alcoholic beverages in an immediate location of a residential premises is a large residential neighborhood of predominantly neighborhood,and especially in the vicinity of a low-income single family homes. Many children live in the immediate housing project,results in a increase and[sic]police activity neighborhood *612 of The Thirsty Turtle establishment and in that area." play and travel within a close proximity to the business. City Police Captain Jessie Ramirez,with twenty-three years One block:south and on the west.:side ofLaurent Street is experience with the police department,testified as follows: ShielaEleidetitaff Sehool.::Theproposed;licensed premises is:,located less than:700 feet from;the nearest propertytine Q.Do you,based on your experience as a police officer, of the.elect entary;school,.although:_the premises are outside have an opinion as to whether or not the granting of this the minimum distance;permitted by lava; Approximately license would increase the hazard to the general—in the 500 students attend Shields and:live in :an area.within license we are talking about a license to consume on approximately a two mile radius of the school It:>was also premises beer and wine at the Thirsty Turtle?Do you Oiihathath66hildeetikeii4dIly*aikof ride their:bicycles have an opinion,based on your experience,whether or to.and from school,:or are broughtto school in automobiles not that would increase the hazard to the general welfare driven by parents There.are`a iarg ..114.nitioil-of activities,other and safety,and peace of that particular neighborhood? than the usual school activities,that take place at the school A.Yes,sir.I feel it would. which involve:both children and adults? Chief of Police Kenneth Rosenquest recommended that the The appellant gave testimony as to the location of other"on permit be denied at this location, saying that: "the location premises"businesses in the area.It was shown that five blocks of this business in an area that is primarily residential,near up Laurent Street from The Thirsty Turtle there was a business a public, elementary school, and a church with a private operating with an on-premises beer and wine license.Eight elementary school,and a low income housing project would blocks away,on the same street,is an establishment selling change the character of this neighborhood as it presently mixed drinks on the premises.Fourteen blocks away,on the exists and would *613 affect the health,safety and welfare of the community." WESTLAW *2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) licensed for on-premises consumption within a five block Sheriff Dalton G."Dutch"Meyer wrote a letter to the county radius of the proposed licensed premises and that the location judge objecting to the granting of the application for the wine of the proposed licensed premises on this already heavily and beer retailer's permit at the Thirsty Turtle.Sheriff Meyer traveled thoroughfare,in the middle of an area comprised of stated: residences, a church and schools,would cause an increased traffic hazard and would result in an increase in danger to This business is located in an area that is primarily area children and residents and a safety hazard to the general residential and[sic]close proximity to a public elementary public. See TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.42(a)(3) school.In addition it adjoins Church property which also (Vernon Supp.1985). operates a day school for pre-school children.The traffic generated from the business would pose an immediate There appears no evidence that the statute which provides danger to the many elementary aged children using the for the protection of the people of this State under sidewalks in going to and from school. In addition the the legitimate exercise of the State's police power was operation of this business would represent an adverse applied discriminatorily. See Dienst v. Texas Alcoholic change in the nature of the neighborhood and contribute Beverage Commission, 536 S.W.2d at 670-71; Morgan v. adverse effects to the general welfare, health, peace and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 519 S.W.2d 250, morals of the neighborhood. 253 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1975, no writ). Appellant's second point of error is overruled. We alsonote thatthe record;before:the district court contained letters from a number'of residents of Victoria who had In his third point of error, appellant contends that he expressed similar reasons uhy the TABC should deny the was denied due process because of the manner that the tnixed-beveiage permit: The Honorable Ted Reed, Mayor administrative hearing before the special county judge was ofthe City of Viictoria,:.stated in.a letteraddressed to the conducted.His primary complaint is that he was denied the TABC•that the location ofThe Thirsty Turtle is in a::primarily right to cross-examine several witnesses. residential neighborhood,`and that, m addition to: a .large number:of.residences, within a tyro-block radius of the Specifically, a letter in opposition to the permit signed by location is a public elementary'school,a;private parochial Kenneth Rosenquest,Chief of Police of Victoria County,was elementary school: a church and clow-income:housing admitted into evidence for consideration by the county judge. project The Mayos also:;expressed his opinion that "the See TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.32(c) (Vernon grantmg of these;:permits::in this:locatioi :.*uld.serve::to 1978). *614 Similarly, a letter signed by Dutch Meyer, Change the character of'this neighborhoo as it.presently Sheriff of Victoria County, was admitted into evidence. exists. and:::would..::.adversely affect:the:health, safety::acid Appellant contends that these written recommendations were welfare of the community," received into evidence and considered by the court without either of these two persons being present to be sworn in or Considering the entire record and all the evidence,we cannot cross-examined by appellant. say that reasonable minds could not have reached the same conclusion that the county court reached in denying appellant At the county court hearing, appellant objected to the his permit.Appellant's first point of error is overruled. introduction of both these letters solely on hearsay grounds. At no time did appellant complain to the county judge that In his second point of error, appellant contends that the he was denied a right to cross-examine the Chief of Police or decisions of the trial court and the county court denied him Sheriff and,therefore,denied due process.The record before the right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the us does not show that appellant ever attempted to subpoena Constitution of the United States and the State of Texas in the Chief of Police or the Sheriff as adverse witnesses, that other restaurants along Laurent Street that are in direct nor does the record reflect that appellant requested a recess competition with the appellant have been granted permits to during the administrative hearing so that he could obtain their sell beer and wine,while he has been denied such a right. presence. The County Court Special Judge,after hearing considerable We hold that,under these circumstances, the county court evidence and personally viewing the premises in question properly considered the recommendations of the Chief of and the surrounding area,found there were no establishments • WEW CO 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) Police and County Sheriff. See id at § 61.32(c) and facts of the case as stated in the first part of this opinion, TEX.R.EVID.803(8) and 901(7).Appellant's third point of we hold that the order of the county court was supported error is overruled. by substantial evidence. Appellant's fifth point of error is overruled. In his fourth point of error, appellant contends that section 61.42(a)(3),relied on by the county court to deny his permit, The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. is unconstitutional because it is impermissibly vague.Section 61.42(a)mandates the county judge to"refuse to approve"an application for a license as a distributor or retailer if he has OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING reasonable grounds to believe and finds that: We have reviewed that portion of our original opinion (3)the place or manner in which the applicant for a retail which discusses appellant's *615 objection on hearsay dealer's license may conduct his business warrants a grounds to the letters admitted as evidence in opposition refusal of a license based on the general welfare,health, to appellant's permit application. Appellant's Motion for peace,morals,safety,and sense of decency of the people. Rehearing complains that TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.32(c)(Vernon 1978)and TEX.R.EVID.803(8)and 901(b) Whenever an attack on the constitutionality of a statute (7)do not support the admission of those letters. is presented for determination, there is a presumption that such statute is valid and that the legislature has not acted As stated in our original opinion, appellant's objection to unreasonably or arbitrarily in enacting the statute.The burden the letters was based on hearsay grounds only. On appeal, is on the individual who challenges the Act to establish its appellant complained that he was denied due process, and unconstitutionality.International Association of Firefighters did not reurge his hearsay objection. Therefore, neither the v City of Kingsville, 568 S.W.2d 391,393-94(Tex.Civ.App. hearsay objection at trial nor the point of error urging denial —Corpus Christi 1978,writ ref d n.r.e.). of due process was properly before us. Furthermore, a statute is only considered to be Additionally, it is a well-settled rule that a judge sitting unconstitutional when it is so incomplete,vague, indefinite without a jury can provisionally admit evidence during trial.It and uncertain that it forbids the doing of an act so vague is then presumed on appeal that the judge had disregarded any that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at incompetent evidence in reaching a judgment.See Gillespie its meaning.Sanders v. State Department of Public Welfare, v.Gillespie,644 S.W.2d 449,450(1982);Victory v.State, 138 472 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, Tex.285, 158 S.W.2d 760,765 (1942); Kaufhold v. McIver, writ dism'd w.o j.).See Murphy v Rowland 609 S.W.2d 292, 682 S.W.2d 660, 668 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 297 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1980, writ ref d n.r.e.). 1984,writ ref d n.r.e.);Raymond v Aquarius Condominium Appellant failed to meet this burden.Appellant's fourth point Owners Ass'n,662 S.W.2d 82,92(Tex.App.—Corpus Christi of error is overruled. 1983,no writ). In his fifth and final point of error,appellant complains that Finally, even if there was error in admitting the letters of the county court erred when, under color of State law, it the public officials, there was sufficient other evidence to allowed a church to effectively veto appellant's application for support the finding of the county court.Therefore,we cannot a permit.In that regard,appellant goes on to complain that the say that the error, if any, resulted in the rendition of an State of Texas has"encouraged and fostered the establishment improper judgment.TEX.R.CIV.P.434;Raymond v.Aquarius of a religion"in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Condominium Owners Ass'n, 662 S.W.2d at 92.Appellant's First Amendment to the constitution of the United States. Motion for Rehearing is overruled. Appellant's argument, although multifarious, is basically that the Northside Baptist Church opposed his permit on All Citations philosophical and morality issues rather than bonafide legal grounds.We disagree.This argument goes to the heart of the 700 S.W.2d 607 substantial evidence issue. Without reiterating the pertinent E W '2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original J.S. Government Works. 5 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) Footnotes 1 Several witnesses testified that the appellant had stated that he intended to keep some turtles in a tank at the restaurant and, when things got slow, allow the patrons to choose a turtle to engage in turtle races. The person who picked the fastest turtle would win a prize,such as a drink. 2 The P.T.A.meets once a month at the school from 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.;the boy scouts meet there in the evening several times a month;football teams(Little League and the YMCA)practice there two or three days a week until 5:00 p.m.;the YMCA Sunshine program is held there every Tuesday from approximately 2:15 p.m.to 4:30 p.m.; and other seasonal activities occur,such as the Halloween Carnival. End of Document ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 • Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) This is an appeal from a judgment denying an application for 700 S.W.2d 607 an on-premises beer and wine retailer's permit. Court of Appeals of Texas,Corpus Christi-Edinburg. On October 5, 1984, appellant, David Helms, applied David HELMS d/b/a,The to appellee, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (hereinafter TABC),for a permit to sell beer and wine on the Thirsty Turtle,Appellant, premises known as"The Thirsty Turtle"located in Victoria V. County, Texas. After opposition to the issuance of such TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, permit was filed by the Northside Baptist Church and others, an administrative hearing was conducted by the Honorable COMMISSION,Appellee. Donald R.Pozzi,a Special County Judge appointed to hear and render a decision on appellant's application.The church No. 13-85—o10—CV. appeared in opposition. The Special Judge entered an order on behalf of TABC denying the permit sought by appellant on Sept.30,1985. the ground that"[t]he place or manner in which the Applicant may conduct his business warrants the refusal of the license Rehearing Denied Nov.7,1985. based on the general welfare, health, peace, morals, safety Synopsis and sense of decency of the people of Victoria County." Applicant for on-premises beer and wine retailer's permit See TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.42(a)(3) (Vernon sought review of order of State Alcoholic Beverage Supp.1985). Commission which denied permit. The 267th District Court, Victoria County, Frank H. Crain, J., affirmed denial of In making this ruling denying the permit,the county judge had before him certain evidence. Included in the evidence were permit. Applicant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Nye, C.J., held that: (1) evidence was not such that reasonable *610 about 94 letters of protest from property owners living minds could not have reached conclusion of administrative in the immediate area, church members, members of the tribunal in denying permit and denial would be sustained; Board of a nearby public school,and from the Mayor,Chief of (2) applicant was not denied equal protection of law by Police,and the Sheriff.Each commented about the probable denial of permit under statute regarding refusal of license increased traffic hazard and the overall adverse effects on based on general welfare of people; and (3) County Court the character of the neighborhood which would be caused acting as administrative tribunal properly considered written by granting the permit at the proposed location. There was, however,a petition signed by approximately 450 individuals recommendations of chief of police and county sheriff favoring the granting of the on-premises permit. Affirmed. The appellant appealed the decision of the County Judge to the district court, seeking a review of the evidence and to Attorneys and Law Firms set aside the adverse decision of the county judge. Appellant alleged, among other things, that the county court's denial *609 Larry Woody,Victoria,for appellant. of a beer and wine permit was not reasonably supported by substantial evidence and that the denial of his application W.Reed Lockhoof,Asst.Atty.Gen.,Austin,for appellee. discriminates between him and his competitors. A petition Emmett Cole,Jr.,Victoria,for intervenor. in intervention was filed in the district court by the church and by Ruth and John Nelson personally as residents near the Before NYE,C.J.,and BENAVIDES and DORSEY,JJ. location of the proposed licensed premises. The intervenors alleged that the place or manner in which the applicant (appellant) would conduct his business is of such a nature OPINION which, based on the general welfare, health,peace, morals, safety, and on the public sense of decency, warrants refusal NYE,Chief Justice. of the permit. WESTLAW2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) The district court entered judgment affirming the S.W.2d 250, 253-54 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1975, no administrative decision of the county court denying writ). appellant's application for an on-premises permit. The appellant perfected his appeal from such judgment. *611 In the case at bar,the main evidentiary issue was based on the location of the proposed licensed premises.Evidence In his first point of error, appellant asserts that the district concerning the manner in which the applicant (appellant) court erred in affirming the judgment of the county court may conduct his business was also raised briefly during the because there was no substantial evidence to support the hearing before the special county judge.1 The applicant's judgment. qualifications or character were not in issue. For a fully qualified applicant who is proposing to operate a lawful The substantial evidence rule is that the finding of the business in a wet area and in compliance with the zoning administrative agency (or, as in this case, a county judge ordinances of the city to be denied a permit,some conditions acting in an administrative capacity)will be sustained by the or situations must be shown so as to justify the denial under trial court if the finding is reasonably supported by substantial TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.§61.42(Vernon Supp.1985). evidence.The duty of the trial court,as well as the appellate Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Mikulenka, 510 court,is to determine from all the evidence presented whether, S.W.2d 616,619(Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1974,no writ); as a matter of law,the decision of the agency(county court) see also Smith v. Cove Area Citizens Committee, 345 S.W.2d was supported by substantial evidence.The evidence may be 850,852(Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1961,writ ref d n.r.e.).The substantial and yet preponderate the other way. See Lewis evidence showed that appellant's business is located in a wet v. Metropolitan Savings & Loan Assn, 550 S.W.2d 11, 13 area and that appellant has met the procedural requirements (Tex.1977). for a permit.We pause to note,however,that the location and surroundings of a proposed retail beer and wine establishment It is a rule that the court may consider relevant evidence that and the number of such licensed establishments in the was available but not introduced at the administrative hearing. community are proper considerations and could be the basis All of the evidence introduced before the administrative for the refusal of a license.See Elliott v.Dawson,473 S.W.2d agency that supported the agency's decision is relevant.After 668,670(Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1971,no writ). all of the evidence is considered, the issue then before the Each substantial evidence case must be decided on its own trial court is not whether the agency came to the proper facts in relation to the above recited rules of law. fact conclusion on the basis of evidence received(conflicting as it may have been), but whether or not the agency acted Appellant initially applied for a mixed beverage and a mixed arbitrarily and without regard to the facts.See Trapp v. Shell beverage late hours permit which would have allowed him Oil Co., 145 Tex.323, 198 S.W.2d 424,440(Tex.1946). to sell mixed beverages until 2:00 a.m. These permits were denied.The Thirsty Turtle is presently an eating establishment The district trial court, or this appellate Court, is not to with hours of operation from 11:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.Monday substitute its discretion for that of the administrative tribunal through Friday, and 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday and (the county judge in this case), but rather is required to Sunday. The patrons are allowed to bring their own liquor sustain the administrative tribunal if its action is reasonably and consume it on the premises in question.The facilities on supported by substantial evidence presented to the trial court. the location have been remodeled to include a parquet dance If the evidence as a whole is such that reasonable minds floor and a large wooden ceramic-topped bar. All activities could not have reached the conclusion that the administrative are presently conducted inside a closed building. court or agency reached, then the order must be set aside. Otherwise, it must be sustained. Jones v. Marsh, 148 The property in question is situated on Laurent Street, a Tex. 362, 224 S.W.2d 198, 202-03 (Tex.1949); Trapp a heavily traveled street designated as an arterial thoroughfare. Shell Oil Co., 145 Tex. 323, 198 S.W.2d 424, 440-41 The immediate area in which the proposed licensed premises (Tex.1946).See also Gerst v.Golds bury;434 S.W.2d 665,667 is located is made up primarily of churches, schools and (Tex.1968);Gerst v.Nixon.411 S.W.2d 350,354(Tex.1966); residences. There are segments of property up and down Dienst v: Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 536 S.W.2d Laurent Street which are predominantly commercial in usage. 667, 668-69(Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976,no writ); There is no comparable type of business within a 5-block Morgan v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 519 WESTLAW Pi 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607 (1985) radius that allows on-premises consumption of alcoholic same street, is another establishment operating with an on- beverages. premises mixed beverages permit. The;prppet of the proposed licensed p€eu ise is directl Ilie a was;; ubstantial testimony that lhelgitanfintit the adjacent to;;:and on the wire city block asr.the Northside beer:aud. w.ne p .t at i the proposed licensed premises Bapiist.Cl uch, troth prQpertiea la ittg o t.tlie.east side Weitaild result ut an::adverse bhang in the dharacter of the cif ;:a nt::Street ;;The &i. c oir o l orthside l3apiist neighborhood `There was testimonyithat the granting.of:tlie ChijitICeierkifiiwt1 line,itimilAgl.,440tokintitt015t125011bet11ftbitt pertnivatithildittitidit WWI&result in att_increase iii ttie the out door of #lze apos ,;lrceixsed';premises The tiuciiber pf patrons a id c nihined with a limited amount!antititiiiit Of preerstses,. however;are of tstde tlic iittnititim of 304 feet packing `l.e .3itr'king s geeSrVntild resent itt an eitetx dtslano when fitircd in acaie�rdaisce with the regulations greater amount c traffic and congestion Dn illi ,:already ;5g0 'lA`AE CQABV CMR. . '1+j § {?Sl 33 (Lret ltearrtly.ira Bled street '€'hi.e was nl.sc lestt..ny;Ehat the Supp 1985)' 'Flee evidence shgWed that there area number increased itfEic-conges4Qn; and the increased pri babitity of cliutcli,civic and.s0elal activities held tsu itlte preihtses:of f persons :diving Wider:tlie..influence of a1 o]ic l to the tWO-Ntats*hiokojk:,V400aiboftootatbOftfOelmotgmg mediate arca would result;;in an increase iii danger;to area until inte rn t.. eve ng_(and:some res over fight)involyit g Ochi ren and resider is and a:hazard t i the general public: young adulia and elderly people 'There ts.a_private daYs4Chtiiinititheftehtit.Cli1AWithftailkgeltitinibeitkeyOting The other apparent reason for the denial of the permit was children.attending: based on the general welfare and safety of persons in the vicinity of The Thirsty Turtle.In this respect,Officer Rodney Located one block behind the proposed licensed premises is Tashiro, a member of the Sheriffs Department, was quoted a large low-income housing project. The remainder of the by another witness, without objection, as having stated: area behind the premises is primarily residential in nature. "that the presence of an establishment that sells or serves Directly across Laurent Street from the proposed licensed alcoholic beverages in an immediate location of a residential premises is a large residential neighborhood of predominantly neighborhood,and especially in the vicinity of a low-income single family homes. Many children live in the immediate housing project,results in a increase and[sic]police activity neighborhood *612 of The Thirsty Turtle establishment and in that area." play and travel within a close proximity to the business. City Police Captain Jessie Ramirez,with twenty-three years Onehlititkigleakillidliiiitliel4eStliidelottiailiiiitIStiiefil experience with the police department,testified as follows: ShieldkElOnelittiOSChOOUThotiopowtt licensed.premises 10100.001a0004011Q0I.001004illACtOil#11$1.0.0:WittO Q. Do you, based on your experience as a police officer, of#lie sehao ... the have an opinion as to whether or not the granting of this tory 1,al.. �; premises are:;outside tli .initiiruXitn distance.peitnitted::lay laxv Alapraxiiiiately license would increase the hazard to the general—in the 5001, $ attend Shields attd hve ii:nit are; within license we are talking about a license to consume on Appr"intitwylwm,4ttinettidiiitathetabwitlwicirgo premises beer and wine at the Thirsty Turtle? Do you Sh4*nthattlicsc41ii7aottget. allywalko€ridedtetrbtcycles have an opinion, based on your experience,whether or tci:a id frotxt'school;'of are;bcuttglitio schoot itt atiittinkibiies not that would increase the hazard to the general welfare driuenhypaii•ents Thereare'a largcttimtber€ifaetsvities,other' and safety,and peace of that particular neighborhood? than..E the usual.school activities,that,take place at the school A.Yes,sir.I feel it would. which ravitive botttithildreri and addlts. Chief of Police Kenneth Rosenquest recommended that the The appellant gave testimony as to the location of other"on permit be denied at this location, saying that: "the location premises"businesses in the area.It was shown that five blocks of this business in an area that is primarily residential,near up Laurent Street from The Thirsty Turtle there was a business a public elementary school, and a church with a private operating with an on-premises beer and wine license. Eight elementary school,and a low income housing project would blocks away, on the same street, is an establishment selling change the character of this neighborhood as it presently mixed drinks on the premises.Fourteen blocks away, on the exists and would *613 affect the health,safety and welfare of the community." WESTLAW (P 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) licensed for on-premises consumption within a five block Sheriff Dalton G."Dutch"Meyer wrote a letter to the county radius of the proposed licensed premises and that the location judge objecting to the granting of the application for the wine of the proposed licensed premises on this already heavily and beer retailer's permit at the Thirsty Turtle.Sheriff Meyer traveled thoroughfare,in the middle of an area comprised of stated: residences,a church and schools,would cause an increased traffic hazard and would result in an increase in danger to This business is located in an area that is primarily area children and residents and a safety hazard to the general residential and[sic]close proximity to a public elementary public. See TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.42(a)(3) school. In addition it adjoins Church property which also (Vernon Supp.1985). operates a day school for pre-school children.The traffic generated from the business would pose an immediate There appears no evidence that the statute which provides danger to the many elementary aged children using the for the protection of the people of this State under sidewalks in going to and from school. In addition the the legitimate exercise of the State's police power was operation of this business would represent an adverse applied discriminatorily. See Dienst v. Texas Alcoholic change in the nature of the neighborhood and contribute Beverage Commission, 536 S.W.2d at 670-71; Morgan v. adverse effects to the general welfare, health, peace and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 519 S.W.2d 250, morals of the neighborhood. 253 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1975, no writ). Appellant's second point of error is overruled. We tiatt tidttithititht.that Fit record before thedistrict ion contained 104tkilft00144togioollocoodoopkiotiyigtOggolchad In his third point of error, appellant contends that he expressed similar reds na ;the:TAtBC:should. deux the was denied due process because of the manner that the ffijxgooyo.ggfootwfanicmpoptowlioillgookTmoyot administrative hearing before the special county judge was t4EthCCitYggiViddriaV,Stlittitut a.letter-addressed'to the conducted.His primary complaint is that he was denied the TABC tat the.;location of The Thirsty Turtle is itt a pru tilt' right to cross-examine several witnesses. residential nye ghborhood and;hat, in additio i to a,large numberqA-foojipt residences, within;a two-block radius of.he Specifically, a letter in opposition to the permit signed by location ss a public el ntary school a private parochial Kenneth Rosenquest,Chief of Police of Victoria County,was elementary School, .4 ;church, ands low tncotne housing admitted into evidence for consideration by the county judge. project. The Mayor also expressed liis opinion that;:"the See TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.32(c) (Vernon granting of these permits to this location would serve to 1978). *614 Similarly, a letter signed by Dutch Meyer, change the character of flus neighborh d as'tt presently Sheriff of Victoria County, was admitted into evidence. exists ;and would adversely affect the health, .Safety and Appellant contends that these written recommendations were welfare of the eoimniu0ity." received into evidence and considered by the court without either of these two persons being present to be sworn in or • Considering the entire record and all the evidence,we cannot cross-examined by appellant. say that reasonable minds could not have reached the same conclusion that the county court reached in denying appellant At the county court hearing, appellant objected to the his permit.Appellant's first point of error is overruled. introduction of both these letters solely on hearsay grounds. At no time did appellant complain to the county judge that In his second point of error, appellant contends that the he was denied a right to cross-examine the Chief of Police or decisions of the trial court and the county court denied him Sheriff and,therefore,denied due process.The record before the right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the us does not show that appellant ever attempted to subpoena Constitution of the United States and the State of Texas in the Chief of Police or the Sheriff as adverse witnesses, that other restaurants along Laurent Street that are in direct nor does the record reflect that appellant requested a recess competition with the appellant have been granted permits to during the administrative hearing so that he could obtain their sell beer and wine,while he has been denied such a right. presence. The County Court Special Judge, after hearing considerable We hold that, under these circumstances, the county court • evidence and personally viewing the premises in question properly considered the recommendations of the Chief of and the surrounding area,found there were no establishments WESTI.At CO 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) Police and County Sheriff. See id. at § 61.32(c) and facts of the case as stated in the first part of this opinion, TEX.R.EVID. 803(8) and 901(7). Appellant's third point of we hold that the order of the county court was supported error is overruled. by substantial evidence. Appellant's fifth point of error is overruled. In his fourth point of error, appellant contends that section 61.42(a)(3),relied on by the county court to deny his permit, The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. is unconstitutional because it is impermissibly vague.Section 61.42(a)mandates the county judge to"refuse to approve"an application for a license as a distributor or retailer if he has OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING reasonable grounds to believe and finds that: We have reviewed that portion of our original opinion (3)the place or manner in which the applicant for a retail which discusses appellant's *615 objection on hearsay dealer's license may conduct his business warrants a grounds to the letters admitted as evidence in opposition refusal of a license based on the general welfare,health, to appellant's permit application. Appellant's Motion for peace,morals,safety,and sense of decency of the people. Rehearing complains that TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.32(c)(Vernon 1978)and TEX.R.EVID.803(8)and 901(b) Whenever an attack on the constitutionality of a statute (7)do not support the admission of those letters. is presented for determination, there is a presumption that such statute is valid and that the legislature has not acted As stated in our original opinion, appellant's objection to unreasonably or arbitrarily in enacting the statute.The burden the letters was based on hearsay grounds only. On appeal, is on the individual who challenges the Act to establish its appellant complained that he was denied due process, and unconstitutionality. International Association of Firefighters did not reurge his hearsay objection. Therefore, neither the v. City of Kingsville, 568 S.W.2d 391,393-94(Tex.Civ.App. hearsay objection at trial nor the point of error urging denial —Corpus Christi 1978,writ ref d n.r.e.). of due process was properly before us. Furthermore, a statute is only considered to be Additionally, it is a well-settled rule that a judge sitting unconstitutional when it is so incomplete, vague, indefinite without a jury can provisionally admit evidence during trial.It and uncertain that it forbids the doing of an act so vague is then presumed on appeal that the judge had disregarded any that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at incompetent evidence in reaching a judgment.See Gillespie its meaning. Sanders v. State Department of Public Welfare, v.Gillespie,644 S.W.2d 449,450(1982);Victory v.State, 138 472 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, Tex. 285, 158 S.W.2d 760, 765 (1942);Kaufhold v. McIver, writ dism'd w.o.j.).See Murphy v.Rowland, 609 S.W.2d 292, 682 S.W.2d 660, 668 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 297 (Tex.Civ.App.— Corpus Christi 1980, writ refd n.r.e.). 1984,writ refd n.r.e.);Raymond v. Aquarius Condominium Appellant failed to meet this burden.Appellant's fourth point Owners Ass'n,662 S.W.2d 82,92(Tex.App.—Corpus Christi of error is overruled. 1983,no writ). In his fifth and final point of error,appellant complains that Finally, even if there was error in admitting the letters of the county court erred when, under color of State law, it the public officials, there was sufficient other evidence to allowed a church to effectively veto appellant's application for support the finding of the county court.Therefore,we cannot a permit.In that regard,appellant goes on to complain that the say that the error, if any, resulted in the rendition of an State of Texas has"encouraged and fostered the establishment improper judgment.TEX.R.CIV.P.434;Raymond v.Aquarius of a religion"in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Condominium Owners Ass'n, 662 S.W.2d at 92. Appellant's First Amendment to the constitution of the United States. Motion for Rehearing is overruled. Appellant's argument, although multifarious, is basically that the Northside Baptist Church opposed his permit on All Citations philosophical and morality issues rather than bonafide legal grounds.We disagree.This argument goes to the heart of the 700 S.W.2d 607 substantial evidence issue. Without reiterating the pertinent WESTLAW ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Helms v.Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n,700 S.W.2d 607(1985) Footnotes 1 Several witnesses testified that the appellant had stated that he intended to keep some turtles in a tank at the restaurant and, when things got slow, allow the patrons to choose a turtle to engage in turtle races. The person who picked the fastest turtle would win a prize,such as a drink. 2 The P.T.A.meets once a month at the school from 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.;the boy scouts meet there in the evening several times a month;football teams(Little League and the YMCA)practice there two or three days a week until 5:00 p.m.;the YMCA Sunshine program is held there every Tuesday from approximately 2:15 p.m.to 4:30 p.m.; and other seasonal activities occur,such as the Halloween Carnival. End of Document ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) In this cause, we consider whether an ordinance of a 852 S.W.2d 489 home-rule city prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages Supreme Court of Texas. within 300 feet of a residential area is preempted by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (TABC). In 1990, DALLAS MERCHANT'S the Dallas Merchants and Concessionaires Association, the Texas Package Stores Association, and other individuals AND CONCESSIONAIRE'S (hereinafter"Merchants")filed suit against the City of Dallas ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners, ("City") for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court V held that the ordinance was preempted by the TABC. The court of appeals reversed. 823 S.W.2d 347. We hold that an CITY OF DALLAS, Respondent. ordinance of a home-rule city prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages within 300 feet of a residential area is preempted No.D-2159. by the TABC.Consequently,we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court. April 7,1993. On September 30, 1987,the Dallas City Council("Council") Rehearing Overruled June 3,1993. passed Ordinance No. 19694 ("Ordinance"), which created Synopsis new zoning categories for South Dallas. The Ordinance imposed a D-1 overlay on certain areas of South Dallas and Merchants association challenged validity of home-rule city's zoning ordinance dispersing location of alcohol-related exempted certain areas that are outside of and do not effect businesses. The 134th District Court, Dallas County, Anne the residential areas of South Dallas.In this D-1 overlay area, no business is allowed to sell or serve alcoholic beverages Ashby Packer, J., granted relief, and city appealed. The Court of Appeals,823 S.W.2d 347,reversed and rendered,and within 300 feet of residentially zoned properties not located on a freeway service road or other specified road.However, further appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Hightower, J., held that ordinance of home-rule city prohibiting sale of a business in a D-1 overlay area may sell or serve alcoholic alcoholic beverages within 300 feet of residential areas was beverages if the Council grants a specific use permit(SUP). preempted by Texas Alcoholic Beverages Code. On October 12, 1988, the Council approved Resolution 883306,which established the guidelines for evaluating SUP Reversed applications for selling or serving alcoholic beverages in areas of South Dallas affected by the D-1 overlay.In June 1990,the Enoch, J., dissented and filed opinion in which Hecht and Merchants filed suit against the City. Comyn,JJ.,joined. Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment which, among other things, granted the declaratory and Attorneys and Law Firms injunctive relief requested by the Merchants. The trial court concluded that the D-1 overlay provisions of the Ordinance *489 Richard M.Lannen,Diane Snelson,Eric V.Moye,Eric conflicted with the TABC and was void to that extent under R. Cromartie, David C. Godbey, Andrew L. Siegel, Dallas, article XI,section 5 of the Texas Constitution)The trial court for petitioners. also permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the D- Dan Morales, Austin, John Rogers, Dallas, W. Reed 1 overlay provisions of the Ordinance. The court of appeals Lockhoof, Austin, Analeslie U. Muncy, Fort Worth, Angela reversed and rendered judgment. Washington, *490 Sam A.Lindsay,Dallas,for respondent. I. OPINION The Merchants argue that the Ordinance is preempted by the HIGHTOWER,Justice. TABC.We agree. WESTLAIN CO 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) the Eleventh Court of Appeals held that the TABC did PREEMPTION OF HOME—RULE CITIES not preempt ordinances prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages.See Young, Wilkinson&Roberts v.City ofAbilene. To determine whether the Ordinance is preempted by the 704 S.W.2d 380, 383 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1985, writ ref d Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code,we must decide whether the n.r.e.)("We hold that the Constitution and general statutes of Legislature,by enacting and amending the TABC,preempted this State do not deny the City[a home rule city]the right to ordinances of home-rule cities that prohibit the sale of regulate the area of the City in which liquor could be sold."); alcoholic beverages under these circumstances. Home-rule Abilene Oil Distributors v. City of Abilene, 712 S.W.2d 644 cities have broad discretionary powers, provided that no (Tex.App.—Eastland 1986,writ ref d n.r.e.). ordinance"shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State,or of the general laws enacted by the Subsequently, in 1987,the Legislature added section 109.57 Legislature of this State."TEX.CONST.art.XI,§ 5.Home- to the TABC and further amended it in 1991 to read in part: rule cities possess the full power of self government and look to the Legislature not *491 for grants of power,but only for (a) Except as expressly authorized by this code, a limitations on their power. MJR's Fare of Dallas v. City of regulation, charter, or ordinance promulgated by a Dallas, 792 S.W.2d 569, 573 (Tex.A Dallas 1990,writ governmental entity of this state may not impose stricter pp standards on premises or businesses required to have a denied). license or permit under this code than are imposed on An ordinance of a home-rule city that attempts to regulate a similar premises or businesses that are not required to have subject matter preempted by a state statute is unenforceable such a license or permit. to the extent it conflicts with the state statute. See City (b) It is the intent of the legislature that this code shall of Brookside Village v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790, 796 exclusively govern the regulation of alcoholic beverages (Tex.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1087, 103 S.Ct. 570, in this state, and that except as permitted by this code, 74 L.Ed.2d 932 (1982). However, "the mere fact that the a governmental entity of this state may not discriminate legislature has enacted a law addressing a subject does not against a business holding a license or permit under this mean the complete subject matter is completely preempted." code. City of Richardson v.Responsible Dog Owners, 794 S.W.2d 17, 19(Tex.1990)."[A]general law and a city ordinance will (c)Neither this section nor Section 1.06 of this code affects not be held repugnant to each other if any other reasonable the validity or invalidity of a zoning regulation that was construction leaving both in effect can be reached." City of formally enacted before June 11,1987 and that is otherwise Beaumont v. Fall, 116 Tex. 314,291 S.W. 202, 206 (1927). valid,or any amendment to such a regulation enacted after Thus,if the Legislature chooses to preempt a subject matter June 11, 1987 if the amendment lessens the restrictions usually encompassed by the broad powers of a home-rule on the licensee or permittee or does not impose additional city, it must do so with unmistakable clarity. See City of restrictions on the licensee or permittee. For purposes of Sweetwater v. Geron, 380 S.W.2d 550,552(Tex.1964). this subsection, "zoning regulation" means any charter provision, rule regulation, or other enactment governing the location or use of buildings,other structures,and land. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 109.57(a), (b) & (c) (Vernon Supp.1992). The Legislature's intent is clearly In 1977, the Legislature codified the Texas Liquor Control expressed in section 109.57(b)of the TABC—the regulation Z of alcoholic beverages is exclusively governed by Act into the TABC. Prior to the codification, several courts of appeals held that various ordinances of home- the provisions of the TABC unless otherwise *492 rule cities prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages were provided.3 TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 109.57(b) not preempted by the Texas Liquor Control Act. See, e.g., (Vernon Supp.1992). Section 109.57 clearly preempts an City of Clute v. Linscomb, 446 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.Civ.App.— ordinance of a home-rule city that regulates where alcoholic Houston [1st Dist.] 1969,no writ);Louder v. Texas Control beverages are sold under most circumstances.4 Accordingly, Board,214 S.W.2d 336(Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1948,writ we hold that,to the extent of any conflict,the TABC preempts ref d n.r.e.);Eckert v.Jacobs, 142 S.W.2d 374(Tex.Civ.App. the Ordinance.5 —Austin 1940, no writ). Subsequent to the codification, WESTLAW CcD 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) We::recognize the lienefits';of. s: t the:sate of'�iboht3ls beveriig+es uteler tttece e Il. However, the-express latfgp�tge of sectton ;1Q9.57 meets this,court tis;gtc a effect to;the Legislature's clear iittent44 The City argues that if section 109.57 preempts an ordinance the ckt,1 a 10 is preempted#4the extent tr cogtlicts rtth e of a home-rule city regulating where alcoholic beverages TABC:iiiThereforeireverstjthtiudgmentofiithetoultof are sold, sections 61.37, 109.31, 109.32, and 109.33 will be appealaod,affltm tlhe judgment of the trial court. rendered meaningless.6 We disagree. M93 SittititG,,I09:61TfteXPItSgt321StilelggilitatAltt Dissenting opinion by ENOCH, J.,joined by HECHT and T rxr tl ox.44.st*ely.I: govern the .:t. ulat t of CORNYN,JJ. afc01.040b rerages.except;:. :wtse pouided;by the frA.B0 TEMALCOMEMCODEMMIA4095711Vemon ENOCH,Justice,dissenting. Sffpp 1992) Tlnfse allows ordsapces n€ltc�fne- The city of Dallas faces a severe impediment to its tOCI.O*00***NtAtio**10110.1004.01bogogesimitY redevelopment efforts for a portion of its community tutdler htmted c�rcfesa:lPvrsfsant to seettoit 144:3 t,the (South Dallas) that suffers disproportionately from poverty sak`o£ ltgf4ot trtay(be p afb00c.. w .::. zesidnttal . 'eas and crime. The Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's OgyA*10.4dOtAWCALCOMMORIANtkitIM1 Association, the Texas Package Stores Association, Inc., (Vernon 1.9'78) Under section 1 ,32,the.sale of"Jaeer may t and the five grocery and liquor store owners who are 1pttrbtteclwdhm_rdwnttalareas:byordttanceorcharter' petitioners in this Court all readily concede that alcohol- related A 1�9 32`( esnon. 1970 businesses are overly concentrated in certain areas of TEfese ogles are s#f11 avatiable to the Ct#y However to the City of Dallas,that this concentration of such businesses this!case, the Ordmanee att ts':In prahubrt tl :sale of causes severe problems in these areas, and that the City • lrquor beer itt ordtttance may of Dallas adopted Ordinance No. 19694 to reduce this plttb3t the sad pt ut resttlel aeras of concentration and alleviate these problems.Today the Court the;salve of lrquoc_in crest rittal or .r xestdential. areas:. adopts petitioners'argument that,regardless,the Legislature 14'70; requires these matters to only be addressed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in Austin, and not by the 109 33 a co Dallas City Council.As much as we all are concerned about p unty or eriy to prohiibi he sale community restoration,I too would have joined the majority crf alcoholic:beverages by a dealer whose place caf t ustness if the law required this result.But,the Court's decision is not is withut 3 feel cif a clttuch, school, or public hospital: mandated by the law.Therefore 1 dissent. TE ALCM]BEV CCQE §, 109 3(a) (Vernon Sug p.1992); Tlrts oo' still,avatlable to the cz4,€mctweveon 4 Ordinance No. 19694 prohibits the location of businesses case,the grdtnance attempts to p rohibtt 001001e cf aleoholtc selling or serving alcoholic beverages within 300 feet of beverages.artthiloQQ goer clf a ressdentral arca—'n'ax within residentially zoned property in certain areas of the city 300;€eet ofgchurch school orpubli€1zvsliital without a special use permit. The issue before us is whether this limited restriction on the location of alcohol-related Likewise, section 61.37 does not conflict with section businesses is preempted by Tex.Alco.Bev.Code § 109.57(a) 109.57. Section 61.37 states that a city secretary will merely and(b). Section 109.57(a)provides that an ordinance"may certify whether an ordinance or charter prohibits the sale of not impose stricter standards on premises or businesses" alcoholic beverages in the area where alcoholic beverages will required to be licensed under the Code than on similar potentially be sold. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 61.37 premises or businesses.(emphasis added).Section 109.57(b) (Vernon 1978). Under this section, certification is properly states that "it is the intent of the legislature that this code withheld only if an ordinance or charter prohibits the *494 shall exclusively govern the regulation of alcoholic beverages sale of alcoholic beverages in a manner allowed by the TABC. in this state, and that except as permitted by this code, See TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. §61.37(Vernon 1978). a governmental entity of this state may not discriminate WESTLAW C 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) against a business holding a license or permit under this and appurtenances pertaining to the grounds, including any code."(Emphasis added.) adjacent premises if they are directly or indirectly under the control of the same person."Tex.Alco.Bev.Code Ann. § In my view,Ordinance No. 19694 does not"impose stricter 11.49(a) (Vernon 1978). Section 11.49(a) refers only to the standards on alcohol-related businesses or premises"within physical premises; it does not define "premises"to include the meaning of section 109.57(a). Rather, it restricts the the location of a licensed business. The Ordinance does location of such businesses in some areas under some not attempt to regulate the physical premises. Additionally, conditions. Nor does the ordinance attempt a"regulation of nothing in the Ordinance addresses how the business of alcoholic beverages."The ordinance has nothing to do with selling alcohol is to be conducted. The Ordinance only beverages. Nor does the ordinance "discriminate" against regulates the location of the business. alcohol-related businesses. It merely imposes a restriction on their location to alleviate community problems which The Court recognizes that a city ordinance will not be petitioners concede such businesses cause.2 This Ordinance is held repugnant to a general law of the state "if any not,on its face,inconsistent or in conflict with state law.The other reasonable construction leaving both in effect can be ordinance is a reasonable supplement to state law to address reached," 852 S.W.2d at 491, (citing to City of Richardson a local problem.Both should remain in effect. v. Responsible Dog Owners, 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex.1990)). Because a reasonable reading of these two statutes prevents Assuming for the sake of argument that"location" may be the conflict the reasoning of the Court creates, there is no considered a type of *495 "standard"governing businesses, basis for restricting the City of Dallas'grant of authority to the law would still not mandate the outcome claimed by the promulgate zoning regulations under sections 211.001—.013 Court.The Local Government Code states: of the Local Government Code. If a zoning regulation adopted under this subchapter ... The Court's holding seriously hampers the ability of imposes higher standards than those required under another municipalities to combat problems associated with the sale statute or local ordinance or regulation, the regulation of alcohol. The City of Dallas did not seek to prohibit the adopted under this subchapter controls.If the other statute sale of alcohol,merely to disperse the locations for its sale or local ordinance or regulation imposes higher standards, in order to achieve a reduction in the problems associated that statute,ordinance,or regulation controls. with the sale of alcohol such as increased crime, drinking Tex.Loc.Gov't Code Ann. § 211.013(a) (Vernon 1988) on premises,litter,loitering,public intoxication,urinating in (emphasis added). public, and harassment of children and elderly residents.3 As petitioners admit, if cities cannot restrict the location of The Court's reading of section 109.57 of the Alcoholic alcohol-related businesses, then only the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code creates a direct conflict between it and section Beverage Commission can,in the course of granting licenses 211.013(a).852 S.W.2d 489,493 n.7.Where possible,courts to businesses. Yet it would be virtually impossible for the are to construe language used in statutes so as to harmonize all Commission to obtain sufficient information in licensing relevant laws,not create conflict.La Sara Grain Co. v.First proceedings to determine whether,how and where to impose Nat'l Bank of Mercedes, 673 S.W.2d 558, 565 (Tex.1984); such restrictions in the dozens of cities where they might State v. Standard Oil Co., 107 S.W.2d 550, 559(Tex.1937). be used. Petitioners admit that the Commission has not Since it is possible, this court must construe the Local undertaken this responsibility to date, and it is farfetched Government Code and the Alcoholic Beverage Code so that to think the Commission would even try. The suggestion both provisions are given effect. that the Legislature has decided that the Commission should address the local problems involved here instead of home-rule Section 109.57(a) prohibits a city from imposing stricter cities is most unlikely.Only those local planning,zoning and standards on premises or businesses licensed under the legislative bodies have,or can be expected to have,a pulse on Alcoholic Beverage Code than are imposed on similar the particular land use needs of their jurisdiction. premises or businesses not required to have a license. Tex.Alco.Bev.Code Ann. § 109.57(a) (Vernon 1978) *496 I agree with the Court that"if the Legislature chooses (emphasis added). The Alcoholic Beverage Code defines to preempt a subject matter encompassed by the broad "premises" as "the grounds and all buildings, vehicles, powers of a home-rule city,it must do so with unmistakable WESTLAW CO 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Assn v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) clarity."852 S.W.2d at 491.Whatever may be said of section 109.57, it cannot seriously be argued that the statute makes unmistakably clear that the Legislature has preempted the HECHT and CORNYN,JJ.,join in this dissenting opinion. City of Dallas from exercising its broad zoning powers to improve living conditions within its borders. Preemption is All Citations even less likely when one considers the result. 852 S.W.2d 489 I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, thus I respectfully dissent. Footnotes 1 In the findings of fact,the trial court stated in part: 14. None of the SUPs filed by any Establishment within the areas zoned D-1 by Ordinance 19694 had been granted. 15.The criteria adopted by the Dallas City Council make it virtually impossible for any existing Establishment to qualify for a SUP. 16. Ordinance 19694 conflicts with and is preempted by the Texas Alcoholic Beverages Code ("TABC"), in that: the Ordinance and the SUP standards impose location restrictions that are inconsistent with the TABC; the Ordinance and the SUP standards attempt to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages, other than beer, by ordinance; the Ordinance and the SUP standards discriminate against establishments holding permits issued under the TABC,and; the Ordinance and the SUP standards impermissibly attempt to disenfranchise the choice of the voters of the areas affected by Ordinance 19694 in violation of the Local Option provisions and procedures set forth in the TABC. 2 "[The TABC] is intended as a recodification only, and no substantive change in the law is intended by this Act? Acts 1977,65th Leg.,ch. 194,§7. 3 While the dissent contends that the legislature did not deny home rule cities the ability to regulate with unmistakable clarity under these circumstances, how much more clear must the legislature be than Section 109.57(b), which states: "It is the intent of the legislature that this code[TABC]shall exclusively govern the regulation of alcoholic beverages in this state...."TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.§ 109.57(b)(Vernon Supp.1992).In addition,Senator McFarland,who was a member of the Conference Committee on H.B. 1652 which enacted Section 109.57,indicated that Section 109.57 was intended to clarify that the TABC governed the location of licensees and permittees and that cities could only regulate the location of licensees and permittees in the instances provided by the TABC.Specifically,Senator McFarland stated, [I]t[Section 109.57] says except as authorized by this code [a governmental entity may not regulate the location of a business holding a license or a permit)and there's numerous provisions throughout the code which governmental entities have the authority by zoning or other ordinances,to limit the location of businesses or the type of businesses selling alcoholic beverage. Debate of conference committee report on Tex.H.B. 1652 on the floor of the Senate,70th Leg. (June 1, 1987)(colloquy between Senators McFarland and Washington). 4 Section 109.57(d)of the TABC states: (d)This section does not effect the authority of a governmental entity to regulate, in a manner as otherwise permitted by law,the location of: (1)a massage parlor,nude modeling studio,or other sexually oriented business;or (2)an establishment that derives 75 percent or more of the establishment's gross revenue from the on-premise sale of alcoholic beverages. Because none of the parties assert that the Ordinance implicates this provision, we express no opinion concerning its applicability. Since the following cases pre-date the enactment of section 109.57, they are not applicable when determining the preemptive effect of section 109.57.See Abilene Oil Distributors v. City of Abilene,712 S.W.2d 644(Tex.App.—Eastland 1986,writ ref d n.r.e.);Young,Wilkinson&Roberts v.City of Abilene,704 S.W.2d 380(Tex.App.—Eastland 1985,writ ref d n.r.e.); T&RAssoc.,Inc. v. City of Amarillo,688 S.W.2d 622,625(Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo,writ ref d n.r.e.);Massengale v. City of Copperas Cove, 520 S.W.2d 824, 829 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1975, writ ref d n.r.e.; Derkard v. City of Port Lavaca,491 S.W.2d 748,751 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1973,no writ); City of Clute v. Linscomb,446 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston[1st Dist.]1969,no writ);Discount Liquors No.2,Inc.v. Texas Liquor Control Board,420 S.W.2d WESTLAW ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Ass'n v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) 422,423,425(Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1967, writ refd n.r.e.); Louder v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 214 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1948,writ refd n.r.e.);Eckert v.Jacobs, 142 S.W.2d 374(Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1940,no writ). 5 The dissent argues that if this court holds that the TABC preempts an ordinance regulating where alcoholic beverages are sold,sellers of alcoholic beverages will not have to comply with any city ordinance.This argument is without merit. Section 109.57(a)provides that an ordinance may not impose stricter standards on alcohol related businesses than on non-alcohol related businesses. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE § 109.57(a)(Vernon Supp.1992). For example, under section 109.57(a), an ordinance requiring all businesses with the same kind of premises to have a fire extinguisher on their premises would not violate section 109.57(a). On the other hand,an ordinance requiring an alcohol related business to have two fire extinguishers and only required a non-alcohol related business with the same kind of premises to have one fire extinguisher would violate section 109.57(a). 6 Section 61.37 reads in pertinent part: (a)The County Clerk of the county in which an application for a license is made shall certify whether the location or address given in the application is in a wet area and whether the sale of alcoholic beverages for which the license is sought is prohibited by any valid order of the commissioners court. (b)The city secretary or clerk of the city in which an application for a license is made shall certify whether the location or address given in the application is in a wet area and whether the sale of alcoholic beverages for which the license is sought is prohibited by charter or ordinance. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. §61.37(Vernon 1978). Section 109.31 reads: A city by charter may prohibit the sale of liquor in all or part of the residential sections of the city. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 109.31 (Vernon 1978).Section 109.32 reads in pertinent part: (a)An incorporated city or town by charter or ordinance may: (1)prohibit the sale of beer in a residential area;and (2)regulate the sale of beer and prescribe hours when it may be sold,except a city or town may not permit the sale of beer when its sale is prohibited by this code. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. §109.32(Vernon 1978).Section 109.33 reads in pertinent part: (a)The commissioners court of a county may enact regulations applicable in areas in the county outside an incorporated city or town,and the governing board of a city or town may enact regulations applicable in the city or town,prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages by a dealer whose place of business is within 300 feet of a church, public school, or public hospital. TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 109.33(Vernon Supp.1992). 7 The dissent incorrectly asserts that Section 211.013 of the Local Government Code allows a home rule city to impose higher standards upon licensees and permittees.This conclusion is erroneous because of Section 109.57(a)of the TABC. Section 109.57(a)states than an ordinance promulgated by a governmental entity may not impose stricter standards on premises or businesses of a permittee than on similar premises and businesses not required to have a license or permit. The Ordinance imposes a stricter standard than allowed by the TABC,specifically,by regulating the location of businesses required to have licenses or permits under the TABC in circumstances not allowed by the TABC.Section 109.57(a)was by its terms enacted to exempt licensees and permittees from Section 211.013 of the Local Government Code. The application of the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius further demonstrates the weakness of the dissent's conclusion that the City may regulate in this instance. That doctrine provides that the inclusion of a specific limitation excludes all others. Royer v. Ritter, 531 S.W.2d 448, 449 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1976, writ refd n.r.e.). Sections 109.31-33 and 109.57(d)provide specific instances when a governmental entity,such as a home-rule city,may regulate the location of an alcohol related business.Thus, by expressly stating under what circumstances a governmental entity may regulate the location of an alcohol related business,it follows that there are no other instances when a governmental entity may regulate the location of an alcohol related business.The parties do not assert and we can not find any applicable grant of power to govemmental entities to regulate the location of the sale of alcohol in this case. 8 In addition to regulating alcoholic beverages pursuant to sections 109.31-33, a city may make recommendations or protest the issuance of a permit by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. See TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 11.41(a)(Vernon 1978). 1 The five business owners are Solomon Tadesse,d/b/a S&M Grocery, Nguyen Ha Lam,d/b/a M&D Liquor, Son Ngoc Nguyen,d/b/a Bingo Liquor,Youg Suk Bragdon,d/b/a K&B Grocery,and Thung Vam Tarn,d/b/a Lee's Grocery. 2 This is not to say that any ordinance restricting the location of alcohol-related businesses would be allowed by state law. Obviously, an ordinance that prohibited the location of such businesses within a much larger distance from residential property might have the effect of eliminating those businesses altogether. Such an ordinance would conflict with state WESTLAW 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Dallas Merchant's and Concessionaire's Assn v.City of Dallas,852 S.W.2d 489(1993) law. But an ordinance which is both written and applied to impose a limited restriction on location for a valid purpose does not conflict with section 109.57. 3 Several community leaders in the South Dallas/Fair Park area testified that these problems were exacerbated by the excessive concentration of alcohol related businesses in the area. End of Document ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW ©2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 417- Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 1:20 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Emily Stadnicki FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 12:03 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021- Emily Stadnicki [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@iotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. . Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Emily Stadnicki Address Street Address: 1604 Casa Grande Street City: Pasadena State/ Province: CA Postal/Zip Code: 91104 Topic Variance Case No.21ZN1026, 1911 South Staples Street Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: Please see attached letter of support. Uploads: Letter of support for 1911 S Staples.pdf Provide an email to receive a copy of your emilvstadnicki@gmail.com submission. 1 EMILY FOELKER STADNICKI , AICP 1604 CASA GRANDE STREET•PASADENA,CALIFORNIA 91104•PHONE 213.509.9640 August 9, 2021 Rebecca L. Huerta, City Secretary City of Corpus Christi P.O. Box 9277 Corpus Christi, TX 78469 Via email to citysecretary@cctexas.com RE: Variance Case No. 21ZN1026, 1911 South Staples Street Dear Ms. Huerta, Please share with the members of City Council. I am writing to express my support for the aforementioned variance for.1911 South Staples Street to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for on= premise consumption within 300 feet of a public school. I was born and raised in Corpus Christi and although I now live in Pasadena, California - Corpus will always be home. (I have a Master's degree in City & Regional Planning and over twenty-five years as a professional planner; I have worked in several states in a variety of settings, mostly municipalities.) The applicant and his partners are long-time friends and asked me to review the particulars of this case. I have examined Senior City Planner David Stallworth's staff report and the relevant Municipal Code and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code sections. Mr. Stallworth's analysis is very thorough and well written, but I'd offer the following for your consideration: ■ This Six Points area is obviously ripe for redevelopment. An establishment of the kind proposed could serve as a catalyst for an upward trend. As you know, absentee landlords and vacant buildings breed undesirable activity. While neighbors had to endure the negative impacts of a sexually oriented business for decades and are understandably weary of a business that serves alcohol, the proposal couldn't be more different from the previous use. The applicant team is passionate about this type of music venue, has the capacity to bring it to fruition, and the experience to manage it successfully.The City should be supporting this type of development in every way possible. It is nonsensical to impede this use that doesn't conflict with school hours, when liquor stores, tobacco stores, convenience stores selling beer and wine and vape stores (all of which have overlapping hours with the school in question) would be allowed by-right. • My interpretation of Corpus Christi Municipal Code §4-5(f)1, which mirrors the state code language, is that only.one of the findings must be made. While I seewhy the Development Services Department assumed otherwise, I think without more definitive language explicit in the Code, an argument could be made that the "or" indicates that only one of the preceding must be demonstrated. In this case, several of the findings can be made — and, in fact, are made in the staff report. ' (f)The city council may, upon application of a business regulated under this section, allow a variance to the regulation if the council determines that enforcement of the regulation in a particular instance is not in the best interest of the public, constitutes waste or inefficient use of land or other resources; creates an undue hardship on an applicant for a license or permit, does not serve its intended purpose, is not effective or necessary, oMr for any other reason, after consideration of the health,safety, and welfare of the public and the equities of the situation, determines it is in the best interest of the community. [Corpus Christi Municipal Code§4-5(f)] Huerta 8/9/21 Page 2 ■ Variances are, by definition, an exception that is made for special circumstances. They are often included in state Codes to allow for local control, because it is understood that general rules aren't always effective in particularsituationsor have unintended consequences. As a corollary, those most informed to determine when that is the case are local decision-making bodies. This is one of those instances where City Council can look at the totality of the circumstances and apply good judgement and logic. • In my experience, if the principal of Metro Elementary School of Design, CCISD, the Metro E PTA and other interested parties associated with the school haven't come out in opposition, they are neutral. There may even be an opportunity to collaborate with this innovative arts- oriented curriculum. The owners are certainly. open to this type of prospect, perhaps providing space for musicians to meet with students during school hours or hosting school fundraisers. This venue wants to be a part of the community. Thank you for your time and attention. I hope that you will use this as an opportunity to propel the neighborhood in the right direction. Sincerely, I a 171 1 tie;214" :de Emily F. Stadnicki, AICP CC: David Stallworth, AICP Senior City Planner Development Services Department City of Corpus Christi . 2406 Leopard St, Corpus Christi, TX 78408 Via email to davids7@cctexas.com .1.4( f(\ Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 4:38 PM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Brenda Pack [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. 0 =Public Comment & input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Brenda Pack Address Street Address: 13926 Longboat Dr Street Address Line 2: - City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Rezoning SFR to Bed and Breakfast Agenda Item Number 0621-01 Describe Feedback: I, along with 80%of the other PIPOA members are vehemently AGAINST allowing any STR in the residential portions of our neighborhoods west of Park Road 22.There is a preponderance of evidence from other locales that allow STRs (as close as Port Aransas)to support our wishes AGAINST allowing STRs in any form in our neighborhoods. In this specific location on Mizzen, along with all our other streets,there is not enough parking to support 10 guests! No one wants to live next to a party house and this is specifically designed to be just that.This is not what the majority of residents moved here for nor what we pay huge amounts of taxes for.We expect the city to whom we contribute so much to protect us from this ridiculous idea of allowing STRs. We also expect the city to ENFORCE current and future ordinances regarding this problem.Those who refuse will be voted out. Provide an email to receive a copy of your bryndapack@gmail.com submission. 2 .1i{ %a\ Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 4:46 PM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 -Jay Green [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. D =F Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Jay Green Address Street Address: 15733 Finistere Street City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Rezoning Case No.0621-01 Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: I am OPPOSED to rezoning any single family residents on North Padre Island to Bed & Breakfasts. Neighborhoods are designed for families to live in, make communities, and have stability. Homeowners generally pay attention to house upkeep, are respectful of their neighborhood and neighbors, and take an active interest in the betterment of their community,to include crime prevention. None of this is achieved with a bed & breakfast.The transient nature o the guests, who will have no interest in the upkeep of the home they are renting or the temporary neighborhood in which they are staying, will erode the North Padre Island community.The quality of life in our North Padre Island neighborhoods will be lost to the desires of"investors" who care not about our Island or Corpus Christi, but only about making short-term profits. Crime will increase as it has in other costal communities who let bed & breakfasts and "short- 1 term rentals" in. Hotels,which are REGULATED, exist for visitors. Provide an email to receive a copy of your lgreenpirate@gmail.com submission. 2 Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 4:48 PM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - April Green [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name April Green Address Street Address: 15733 Finistere Street City: Corpus Christi State/ Province: TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Rezoning Case No. 0621-01 Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: I am OPPOSED to rezoning any single family residents on North Padre Island to Bed & Breakfasts. Neighborhoods are designed for families to live in, make communities, and have stability. Homeowners generally pay attention to house upkeep, are respectful of their neighborhood and neighbors, and take an active interest in the betterment of their community, to include crime prevention. None of this is achieved with a bed & breakfast.The transient nature o the guests, who will have no interest in the upkeep of the home they are renting or the temporary neighborhood in which they are staying, will erode the North Padre Island community.The quality of life in our North Padre Island neighborhoods will be lost to the desires of"investors" who care not about our Island or Corpus Christi, but only about making short-term profits. Crime will increase as it has in other costal communities who let bed & breakfasts and "short- 1 term rentals" in. Hotels, which are REGULATED, exist for visitors. Provide an email to receive a copy of your aprilsgreen@gmail.com submission. 2 Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 7:06 PM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Roy Sharp [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. l Pubiic Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Roy Sharp Address Street Address: 15037 SPID City: Corpus Christi State/Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic item#18 property at 13845 Mizzen Street Agenda Item Number item#18 property at 13845 Mizzen Street Describe Feedback: Ms Mayor&City Council members, I am extremely opposed to changing zoning in Single Family Residential areas to allow mini hotels or Short Term Rentals. My family researched and avoided other cities which allow STRs and specifically chose Corpus Christi because we could live in a neighborhood where they are illegal. If you retroactively change this zoning we will retain legal counsel and sue all parties who support this change. No STRs in Single Family Residential ! Roy Sharp 1 Z •uo!ss!wgns woYpeW daegs•Aoa anoA Jo Adop e aniapaa o; 'ieula ue apinoad Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 8:36 PM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Michael Starek [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Li 1:1 Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Michael Starek Address Street Address: 15917 Cabo Blanco City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Short term rentals and bed and breakfast on Padre zisland Agenda Item Number 21-0765 Describe Feedback: As a property owner on North Padre Island, I vehemently oppose the allowing of short term rentals, bed and breakfast properties, or any other related businesses or activities within residentially zoned neighborhoods/sections/divisions on North Padre Island, especially those under jurisdiction of the PIPOA.The community is already under attack from lack of consistent regulation of property upkeep, increasing crime and traffic, increasing litter and pollution, while we are paying increasing property taxes to the city.That is fine provided the community is respected and treated well, so as to maintain its integrity and aesthetics as a beautiful place to live. Allowing STRs or B&Bs within these zoned residential/family areas will assuredly result in deterioration of these community zones as intended. Respectfully Provide an email to receive a copy of your mstarek@gmail.com submission. 2 Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 9:54 PM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Candace Tidmore [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. D =F Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Candace Tidmore Address Street Address: 15322 Bowsprit Ct City: Corpus Christi State/Province:Texas Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Oppose Request for Zoning Change Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: As an Island resident, I oppose a zoning change from RS6 to the special permit status as requested for 13845 Mizzen Street. I am opposed to this request for a bed and breakfast in my neighbor as it will change the economic and social fabric of our residential neighborhood. Businesses currently are not allowed to operate in our neighborhood and this should continue to include bed and breakfasts. Not only will this affect the character of our neighborhood, but to allow this zoning change will lead us down the slippery slope to short-term rentals,which 80%of the neighborhood has already indicated by survey is not wanted due to short term rentals creating disruptive party houses, negatively impacting the housing inventory for long term renters(as is occurring now in Port Aransas),and creating an unequal playing field for our local hotel industry(no staff on payroll or safety regulations to 1 comply with). We object to the change. Please protect our neighborhood. Provide an email to receive a copy of your candace_tidmore@yahoo.com submission. 2 Norma Duran From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 8:53 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: City Council Meeting August 10, 2021 Rezoning Request at13845 Mizzen St. 78418 FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:john smelley<johns6@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 7:32 AM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com> Subject: City Council Meeting August 10, 2021 Rezoning Request at13845 Mizzen St. 78418 [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Dear City Council Members, As a property owner on Padre Island I am opposed to August 10,2021 City council Meeting item#18 deals with a property at 13845 Mizzen Street. The owners of this property are requesting a zoning change to allow this property to be a Bed and Breakfast. This property has been used as a short-term rental and is located in the RS6 single-family zoned district. By City ordinance, short-term rentals are not allowed in the RS6 Zone. Please vote NO. John Smelley 15361 Key Largo Corpus Christi, Tx 78418 1 Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 9:08 AM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Andrew Millman [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Andrew Millman Address Street Address: 13609 Moro Lane City: Corpus Christi State/ Province: TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Rezoning Residence on Mizzen St Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: Corpus Christi has always been family friendly and a primary contributing factor has been the zoning laws. I am opposed to the rezoning of this residence as approval of the special permit for the "Bed and Breakfast" erodes the intent of the RS-6 zoning. There are many owners who are illegally operating short term rentals in the RS-6 zoned areas who will this as an opportunity to circumvent the existing regulations by posing as B&B. The existing zoning serves the entire community. Approval of this special permit serves only the investors who's focus is increasing their bottom line and who do not care about the community itself. Provide an email to receive a copy of your agmillman@gmail.com submission. 1 Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 9:12 AM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Patti Baker [ [ WARNING External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Patti Baker Address Street Address: 15341 Tortuga Court City: Corpus Christi State/ Province: TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Rezone on Mizzen Agenda Item Number 21-0765 Describe Feedback: I'm writing to encourage everyone to vote "No" on item 18. It is a request to rezone a single family home to a bed a breakfast on Mizzen Avenue. Rules and zoning are in place to protect our way of life on the island. Please don't let greed takeover our quality of life. We purchased our home on the island specifically to avoid STR's. We were looking in Port A and saw the STR situation there, and this was years ago. We have lived in vacation communities that allowed STR's in single family residence areas and it ruined the full time residents quality of life. Police and emergency service use greatly increased at these STR homes. The funds gained for the city on the STR will be gone due to increased emergency service needs. 1 Please listen to the majority of residents, not the loud minority. Thank you, Patti Baker Provide an email to receive a copy of your hbscubagirl@yahoo.com submission. 2 Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 9:49 AM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Sheila Trudeau [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. 0 Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Sheila Trudeau Address Street Address: 13730 three fathoms bank dr City: corpus christi State/Province:texas Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Mizzen St bed and breakfast Agenda Item Number 21-0765 Describe Feedback: I and everyone I know is opposed to STR in our neighborhoods, including the proposed Bed & Breakfast on Mizzen. Our neighborhoods are residential areas, not commercial. We bought homes there with an expectation of a quiet neighborhood. Our Protective Covenants addresses this issue. Under General Land Use it states in part "No commercial,trade or business activity of any nature shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood." A bed & breakfast is a business. Loud partying vacationers are an annoyance/nuisance to the neighborhood. Noise really travels across the canals. Don't turn our residential streets& 1 backyards into a commercial area with excess vacationers so investors can make a profit. Consider how you would feel if STR came to your street. Allow the new hotels going up everywhere to generate tax revenue for the city-not our neighborhoods Thank you Sheila Trudeau Provide an email to receive a copy of your strudeaul@me.com submission. 2 Norma Duran From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 8:51 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW:A Vote Against Short Term Rental in Padre Isles FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:sheila trudeau <strudeaul@me.com> Sent:Sunday,August 8, 2021 5:03 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com> Subject: Fwd: A Vote Against Short Term Rental in Padre Isles [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Begin forwarded message: From: sheila trudeau <strudeaulame.com> Subject: A Vote Against Short Term Rental in Padre Isles Date: August 8, 2021 at 4:55:28 PM CDT To: -citysecretary@cctexas.com I am a 20 year resident on Padre Island and love my life here. I and everyone I know is vehemently opposed to STR in our neighborhoods. The only people who are interested in rezoning to allow them are the investors who don't live here. They live in the San Antonio area or Houston or in Iowa or Minnesota and use their houses here as 2nd homes or investment property. They see it as a business opportunity. Those of us who live here full time see it as home. I live on 3 Fathoms Bank. The house to my right is a second home. The next 4 houses after that one are also second homes. If STR is allowed here,those 5 homes could all become rental properties. Unfortunately there are many streets out here with many vacant second homes which could all be turned into STRs. When that happens the neighborhood changes. The people who would be renting those properties would be on vacation and would act accordingly. The impact and disruption to the lives of the people who actually reside on this street and the surrounding canals would be tremendous because of the noise that could be generated by partiers,the increased road traffic and need for additional parking,the increased water vehicle traffic on our canals and the disruptive behavior that would come with that, which could cause water safety issues. I would be willing to bet that these out-of-town investors would not want STRs if it was happening to them in their primary neighborhoods. 1 I think our Protective Covenants and Landowners'Agreement addresses this issue. Under General Land Use it states in part "No commercial, trade or business activity of any nature shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood." If an investor rents out their home for profit,that is a business. This is Prohibited. If vacationing renters are on the property,they may very likely party by drinking with rowdy behavior which is definitely an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. This is prohibited. Every person who bought a house out here received a copy of these covenants. We all bought homes out here with an expectation of a quiet neighborhood to raise our children in or to retire in. We don't want our residential neighborhood to become a commercial district with an excess of vacationers so some investor who doesn't even live here can make a profit on his second house. These investors bought their houses knowing that the neighborhoods were zoned RS6. I'd also bet that every person on the City Council would vote against rezoning their own neighborhoods because they wouldn't want STRs next door to them either. Who would? I'd like those in power to stop thinking about the money they might collect for the city coffers and instead think about how the current residents/voters feel. We don't want STR. Please put yourselves in our place and understand that this is not a good idea for the island. There are plenty of hotels being built that will will be occupied if STRs don't happen. The city will still get their tax money. Leave our neighborhood a private neighborhood and not a commercial business. Thank you, Sheila Trudeau 2 Norma Duran From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 7:29 PM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Myla Ustymenko [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. 0 'Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Myla Ustymenko Address Street Address: 16121 Jessamine St City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Rezoning Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: To whom it may concern My family and I strongly object the rezoning in question. Thank you, Myla Ustymenko, CPA Provide an email to receive a copy of your lyussy@hotmail.com submission. Norma Duran From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 8:52 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: No STRs unless Zoned FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlenga From:John Pasch <johnrpasch@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday,August 8, 2021 5:43 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com> Subject: No STRs unless Zoned [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Dear Secretary STRs should not be permitted in single family Neighborhoods that aren't zoned for them. John Pasch 13734 Three Fathoms Bank Corpus Christi Tx 78418 (504) 236-6562 Norma Duran From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 8:52 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Norma Duran; Sarah Brunkenhoefer Subject: FW: Padre Island Short Term Rentals FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:Jim Jory<joryj3@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, August 8, 2021 5:45 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com> Subject: Padre Island Short Term Rentals [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Dear Mayor&City Council of Corpus Christ, My wife and I are unable to make the City Council Meeting on Tuesday because we are out of town so I wanted to share our thoughts with you regarding Short Term Rentals. We are against Short Term Rentals(STRs)and against any rezoning to legally allow STRs in single family home neighborhoods. We are members of the PIPOA and live on Cruiser Street. We all know that STRs are absolutely destroying the beach town feel of Port Aransas. We enjoyed our home in Corpus Christi on the island so much that my wife and I decided to leave San Antonio and make Corpus Christi our permanent residence. We are requesting the City Council vote down STRs in our community and prevent ST renters from ruining our peaceful island community. Jim &Cindy Jory 1 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Susan Kocian FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 10:09 AM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021-Susan Kocian [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@iotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Susan Kocian Address Street Address: 13533 Peseta Court City: Corpus Christi State/Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Zoning Case No.0621-01,Joshua and Jasania Morales Agenda Item Number 21-0765 Describe Feedback: I am urgently requesting that the Council deny the request for re-zoning of 13845 Mizzen Street for purposes to use the property as a "Bed and Breakfast".The City of Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance defines a B&B as: "A private owner- occupied residence that offers sleeping accomodations to lodgers. ....A Bed and Breakfast 1 (B&B) home is not a Single Family Dwelling." The subject property is not the primary residence of the owners; therefore, it is not an owner-occupied property. Additionally, a B&B is not defined as a SFR and should not exist in Zone 6. This Special Permit Request is an obvious attempt by the property owners to circumvent the regulation prohibiting short term rentals in Zone 6 on the Island. If this Special Permit is allowed, a precedent is set and the door is open for others to obtain special permits. Allowing short term rentals disguised as a "Bed and Breakfast" will ruin our Island community. Provide an email to receive a copy of your slkocian@sbcglobal.net submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 1:19 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Kay Buchanan FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 11:51 AM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNALJPublic Input: 08-10-2021- Kay Buchanan [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. r F°unmic Comment a& input rorm Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Kay Buchanan Address Street Address: 13826 Mizzen Street City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Zoning Case No.0621-01 Agenda Item Number Agenda Item F Describe Feedback: In regards to: Zoning Case No.0621-01,Joshua and Jasania Morales: (District 4) Ordinance rezoning property at or near 13845 Mizzen Street from the "RS-6" Single- Family 6 District to "RS-6/SP"Single-Family 6 District with a Special Permit. (Planning Commission recommends Denial and Staff recommends Approval) (3/4 vote will be required due to 1 opposition by surrounding property owners and Planning Commission recommends Denial)" Gary Ericksen and I own a single family home at 13826 Mizzen Street, Corpus Christi,TX 78418. We are opposed to the zoning change. We believe the change would decrease the quality of life in our neighborhood. We believe there are plenty of other short-term rental options available on North Padre Island in the areas currently zoned for them. We urge the Council to vote NO and to not grant this Special Permit. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Council. Kay Buchanan Provide an email to receive a copy of your buchanankay@comcast.net submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 1:19 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Jim Flowers FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <norepiy@jotform.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 11:51 AM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran<NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNALJPublic Input: 08-10-2021-Jim Flowers [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@iotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Jim Flowers Address Street Address: 15638 CUTTYSARK ST City: CORPUS CHRISTI State/ Province:Texas Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Special permit to allow Bed and Breakfast Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: I am 100%against allowing any type of short term rentals in our single family neighborhoods. We purchased our home with the knowledge that STRs are not allowed. We would not have purchased this home had that not been the case. Now the city has decided to allow this illegal activity and is considering making special exceptions. 1 The owners of the home of Mizzen has already shown they have no respect of the city or our laws. They have been using this home as a STR since they purchased. We have already seen a significant rise in crime and disturbances in areas that are illegally using their homes as STRs. Keep the zoning laws as they currently exist and start enforcing. Provide an email to receive a copy of your jflowers62@gmail.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 1:20 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Kay Buchanan FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 12:05 PM To:CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Kay Buchanan [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlertPcctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Kay Buchanan Address Street Address: 13826 Mizzen Street City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Special Permit: Zoning Case No. 0621-01 Agenda Item Number 21-0765 Describe Feedback: Gary Ericksen and I own a single-family home located at 13826 Mizzen Street on the Island. We are opposed to the zoning change. We believe the change will decrease the quality of life in our neighborhood. We believe there are plenty adequate choices of other rental options in the areas currently zoned for short-term rentals. 1 We urge the Council to vote NO and to not grant this permit request. Thank you. Kay Buchanan and Gary Ericksen [Please note I submitted a completed form a while ago but did not have the Agenda Item Number properly identified. So please diregard my first form.] Provide an email to receive a copy of your buchanankav@comcast.net submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 1:38 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - CHRIS HORNBERGER FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 1:27 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input:08-10-2021-CHRIS HORNBERGER [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlertPcctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment& Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name CHRIS HORNBERGER Address Street Address: 14514 E Cabana St Street Address Line 2: Apt 311 City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic STR Zoning Request on Mizzen Street Agenda Item Number 21-0765 Describe Feedback: Dear City Council Members, I am opposed to the request to rezone the Mizzen Street property for STR. STRs do not belong within established single family neighborhoods. 1 Regards, Chris Hornberger Provide an email to receive a copy of your bergerone@aol.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 1:49 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Greg & Darla Gierczak FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlenga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 1:48 PM To:CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 -Greg& Darla Gierczak [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@lotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Pubiic Comment & input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Greg& Darla Gierczak Address Street Address: 13918 El Soccorro Loop City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Opposition to Rezoning a property at or near 13845 Mizzen Street Agenda Item Number Agenda#18- Please read at the specific agenda item for the rezoning request presentation Describe Feedback: See attached Letter... Uploads: Special Permit on City Council agenda to allow B&B.pdf 1 Provide an email to receive a copy of your gregndarla@live.com submission. 2 August 9, 2021 Dear Councilmembers: I am writing regarding the City Council's agenda on Tuesday,August 10, 2021, at 11:30 AM at City Hall. The issue at hand is the Council's meeting agenda item#18 which deals with a property at 13845 Mizzen:Street. The owners of this property are requesting a zoning change/exemption to allow this property to be a Bed and Breakfast.This property appears to have been used as a short-term rental (STR), and it is located in the RS6 single-family zoned district. By City ordinance already, short-term rentals are not allowed in this RS6 Zone. A Bed & Breakfast is nothing but a short-term rental_and should not be allowed. We're against any rezoning to allow Bed &Breakfast or STRs in single family home neighborhoods in this area.This item should not even be coming up as City ordinance already does notallow this in RS6 Zone. This area is in a close-nit single-family neighborhood and to operate a bed and breakfast business next to the homes where people live is inappropriate. The city should NOT approve a Special Permit for any business, such as this proposed Bed & Breakfast, in a residential-zoned neighborhood. Apparently, they've already been breaking the Ordinance that prohibits STRs in Zone 6 and they should not be awarded a special permit to keep doing this.They should actually be fined for breaking the current ordinance! Why in the world would.Staff recommend approval of a Special Permit like this in a residential neighborhood is beyond me. While the Planning.Commission recommends denial,the staff report recommends approval stating, "It is a legitimate alternative to undocumented orillegal overnight accommodations also known as "short- term rentals." This is a mockery of the actual zoning rules that are meant to prevent these types of short-term rentals in residential single-family neighborhoods, and it should not be approved in an attempt to skirt around the current zoning rules. So, if passed...this sends a clear message to all other owners that all they need to do is say they operate a Bed & Breakfast and then they can avoid the short-term rental ordinance! That is justwrong, but that is what would happen by passing this special permit! Thank you for taking the time to review our input on this matter... Sincerely, Greg and Darla Gierczak 13918 El Soccorro Loop . Corpus Christi, TX 78418 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 2:39 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Dennis Hanson FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 2:34 PM To:CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021- Dennis Hanson [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlertPcctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@iotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & input f=orm Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Dennis Hanson Address Street Address: 13818 Eaglesnest Bay Dr City: Corpus Christi State/Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic 13845 Mizzen Street Bed and Breakfast Zoning Exception Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: I am opposed to allowing a zoning change to allow a Bed and Breakfast business at 13845 Mizzen Street. This location is R-6 zoning and is a not a business compatible with single family zoning located west of SPID 22. It is noteworthy that nearby City residents responding to a zoning survey were all against having such a activity operated in 1 their neighborhood. It is incredulous that zoning staff would make a recommendation against the wishes of those who live in the neighborhood and against the decision of the City's zoning committee which agreed with those living the neighborhood. I am unaware of City staff identifying how Bed and Breakfast requirements would be enforced. The question that must be asked of City staff is why they made a recommendation that a business will allowed to operate in a single family residential area when those mostly affected and the City's own zoning committee does not believe it should be able to do so. Provide an email to receive a copy of your iamdenish@yahoo.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 2:39 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Elise Lippincott FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 2:25 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021- Elise Lippincott [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returnsPjotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. }� Public Comment& Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Elise Lippincott Address Street Address: 13557 Peseta Ct City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Bed & Breakfast at 13845 Mizzen Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: As Larry& I have owned a home on the island since 2006, I strongly oppose this request to have our community re-zoned and allow STR's/Bed & Breakfasts in this community. I am also a realtor. When a buyer buys into this community, it is written in the sales contract that they will receive our covenants and by-laws before 1 closing (see attached). AND It is clearing written in our by-laws that NO commercial enterprise shall take place on any of these lots that are zoned for single-family detached homes- (see attached). The Mizzen owners were given these by-laws when they bought Mizzen as I was. I would have never bought in this community if it had been zoned for short-term rentals or Bed & Breakfasts. I DO NOT want a revolving door next door to me. I have enough trouble trying to get long-term tenants to keep up their yards. PLEASE DON'T APPROVE THIS REQUEST&ANY FUTURE REQUESTS. Thank you for reading my comment. Elise Lippincott 919-720-1646. Uploads: IMG 0418.jpeg IMG 0425.ipeg IMG 0426.ipeg Provide an email to receive a copy of your eliselippincott@currently.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 3:22 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 -Jean Rene Ebelt FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 3:04 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input:08-10-2021-Jean Rene Ebelt [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Puoiic Comment & input corm Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Jean Rene Ebelt Address Street Address: 15361 Beaufort Ct City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:Texas Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic STR's and Bed and Breakfast Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: I moved here because there were no Short Term Rentals on Padre Island in single family residences. I can think of a multitude of reasons why there should not be a change in the zoning. Where are all the additional vehicles and boat trailers going to park? This is going to cause a dangerous situation on the streets. The city needs to hire employees to enforce the existing laws. 1 If you can't do this, we will vote in someone who can. Provide an email to receive a copy of your ebelt49@gmail.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday,August 10, 2021 8:23 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Marilyn Litt FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 5:00 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input:08-10-2021 - Marilyn Litt [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to Ereturns@lotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Marilyn Litt Address Street Address: 15842 Portillo Dr City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418-6467 Topic B&B Agenda Item Number 18 Describe Feedback: I live on the island and own my own home. I am opposed to allowing a B&B to be run on the island. Provide an email to receive a copy of your marilyn@marilvnlitt.com submission. Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 8:24 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Royce Wells FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 5:41 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021- Royce Wells [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@iotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. / rutsiic Comment & input rorrn Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Royce Wells Address Street Address: 15717 Cuttysark St City: Corp Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic 18 Agenda Item Number Short term rental on the island Describe Feedback: Very opposed to this being allowed The city allowed homes to be built with neighbors pools within 10' of my bedroom , renters come down to party until all hours of the night.The previous owner of the house behind mine did rent and many times I would have to get out of bed at 2am after being annoyed for hours by music and loud talking and laughing to ask or demand the 1 party move indoors.Sometimes it was successful others I had to threaten to call police. The renters would fill the driveway and the street with vehicles also. It is unfortunate vacationing renters can't seem understand this is a residential area with people and kids that need to sleep at night, not their personal party zone Provide an email to receive a copy of your rwells8269@aol.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 8:24 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Taunya Luna FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 7:45 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 -Taunya Luna [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@iotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment& Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Taunya Luna Address Street Address: 13525 Peseta Court City: CORPUS CHRISTI State/ Province:Texas Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Opposition to Re-Zoning Agenda Item Number 21 Describe Feedback: Please accept my comment as violently opposed to this re-zoning request and the repercussions that will following with permitting a loop-hole in the system to get around the Short Term Rental ban in North Padre Island Residential areas. We purchased in this area as full time residents to specifically live in community with residents and not transient renters. 1 I respectfully appreciate your consideration of the local full time residents on the island. Provide an email to receive a copy of your btrkluna@verizon.net submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 8:24 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Debbie Wall FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 10, 2021 3:20 AM To:CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021- Debbie Wall [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@iotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Debbie Wall Address Street Address: 15909 Punta Bonaire Dr Street Address Line 2: 15909 Punta Bonaire Dr City: Corpus Christi State/Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic 13845 Mizzen rezoning Agenda Item Number 0621-01 Describe Feedback: OBJECT TO REZONING This is a 2nd home to homeowner that lives in San Antonio-home is not homestead status. Also,they have been operating as a STR since purchase which is in violation of City zoning ordinance for R36 zoned community.This property has 3 bedrooms and the city states 10 guests can accommodate...yet i where do the owners sleep since they have to be present for each rental if approved as b&b..this SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. Provide an email to receive a copy of your txpeachl@gmail.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 8:24 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - frank jackson FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Monday,August 9, 2021 10:49 PM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021-frank jackson [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name frank jackson Address Street Address: 13949 seafarer dr City: corpus christi State/Province:tx Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Agenda Item#21 Zoning Case No. 0621-01 Agenda Item Number 21 Describe Feedback: This was denied by the Planning Commission unanimously and now comes to the council because "the staff" recommends approval.Who is "the staff" that thinks they know better than the Planning Commission or the nearby residents that have voted 100%in opposition? According to "the staff" report,the Petitioners, 1 who have owned the property for 9 months have already been sited four times for zoning violations: "Zoning Violations: Four total violations were issued to Joshua and Jasania Morales (two each)for renting for less than thirty days." No one believes the Petitioners will follow the rules of this new zoning. It is a back door for them to continue to use the property as a short-term rental. The property is currently advertised on booking.com and expedia.com (and maybe other sites) as a short-term rental in direct violation of current zoning.This will not be a "Bed and Breakfast", no "owners" will ever be staying there, just short-term rental clients. Uploads: $140 night- Rent a 4bd 3ba Entire house in North Padre Island,TX VacationRenter.pdf Mrs Potters on the Water for 13 in Corpus Christi on Orbitz.pdf Mrs Potters on the Waters, Beach, Bay, Pool for 13 (Corpus Christi, USA) Expedia.co.nz.pdf Mrs Potters on the Waters, Beach, Bay, Pool for 13 in Corpus Christi Best Rates& Deals on Orbitz.pdf Provide an email to receive a copy of your fki123@gmail.com submission. 2 eVacationRenter Search in North Padre Island 9 v Favorites Log in Sign up ' 'Nil- f PO y "' to Save r f� 40.40,.... T a .e.... il I1 I;II $140 per night Booki g,nom Mrs Potters on the Waters, Beach, Bay, Pool for 13 This listing is not available on these dates.Check out similar stays below. Entire house Booking.com Aug 7 Aug 8 Located in Corpus Christi,within 2.7 km of Whitecap Beach and 9 km of Mustang Island State Park,Mrs Potters on the Waters,Beach,Bay, Guests Pool for 13 offers accommodation with free WiFi,air conditioning and an outdoor swimming pool. View deal Similar stays to Mrs Potters on the Waters,Beach,Bay,Pool for 13 See all results Aruba Beach Getawa 0 m �. Y p p E i l - ENTIRE HOUSE ENTIRE VILLA ENTIRE HOUSE ENTIRE VILLA Aruba Beach Getaway 18 by Padre Esca... Padre Beach View 237K by Padre Escap... Aruba Beach Getaway II 22 by Padre Es... Nemo Cay Resort BC105K by Padre Esc... Booking.com Booking.com Booking.com Booking.com G5****i C2) 5.0 -- - ;. (1) $151 Details $160 Details $152 Details $132 Details 13*guests • $112-$168 North Padre Island TX Popular stays in North Padre Island See all results 0 0 _ . . PO lila 111111C2 illi;k f IA& - -11,1111111y -r"r"" ' - , PI '--- - -- ...IP. '1 ''' dIIIIIII%IPP .mer" ...7'..,-..:41:1‘,.-t- f=_. .. RV ENTIRE HOUSE RV RV 2014 Forest River Surveyor Sport El Pescador Del Mar 201 Family Friendly Coastal Modern 2021 P... 2021 Prime Time Avenger-Sleeps 8+ 5 Guests•Outdoorsy Booking.com 7 Guests Outdoorsy 8 Guests-RVSha re 5A*****(25) 5.0*****(TD 50 (9) 5.0 (7) $117 Details $132 De[ai s $129 2stails s $120 DStth $140 per night Booking.com View deal See all amenities Amenities 4 46 ++ hg °I I Ez$ TE propertyancedcleaninhas implemented procedures to keep you healthy&safe. Pool Air Conditioner Pets Allowed Kitchen/ Internet/Wifi Fireplace Kitchenette North Padre Island,TX More about this location / %.„s, s .,a Meda A yg �^ lanYardq ,'kn '9,,,_, Seel al.Or y Pa„Aoya,,r acle sr Aa' awngi ,VaYara c E a ^'�^ ae0 Ketch SI ^°e P,a,et o O".G,°c Mainsail St ,S o aU„ e ^,/,, W,nAl,rner Or __ b ya^,,_ ej t Map data 02021 Company Support $USD > Home Contact About FAO List Your Rental Sitemap Careers Blog Press m 2021 VacationRenter,a Wilbur Labs company. TermsPrivacy •kicodonRenter $140 per night Booking.com View deal Check-m Check-out. mm/dd/yyyy mm/dd/yyyy Rooms Adults Children 1 1 0 Check Availability Stays Flights Vacation packages Cars Cruises Things to do Deals Mobile Travel Blog <See all hotels 1-844-663-2276 t. Orbitz.com>Hotels>United States of America>Texas>Corpus Christi Hotels> Mrs Potters on the Waters, Beach, Bay, Pool for 13 Overview Amenities&Policies Corpus Christi,TX 1-844663-2269 Price Guarantee +Get more as an Orbitz Rewards member r..�r"°... +Woo-raw !6' 1/27 Room Mrs Potters on the Waters, Beach, Bay, Pool for 13 p out of 5 Hotel highlights ii at Water park • Outdoor pool Located within 2 miles(3 km)of Schlitterbahn Waterpark Corpus Christi,this vacation home is within 3 miles(5 km)of Bob Hall Pier.The vacation home includes a private pool,a kitchen,and a fireplace. Rooms Go gie wcae.or:, The vacation home is air-conditioned and features a kitchen,3 bathrooms,and a balcony,and there's space to spread Corpus Christi,TX p out with 4 bedrooms.Other standard amenities include a private pool,a washing machine,and a fireplace. Property features Guests staying at this vacation home enjoy features like a water park,an outdoor pool,and barbecue grills. Room options Check-in Check-out mm/dd/yyyy 8 mm/dd/yyyy Rooms Adults Children i Check Availability —7C7-1 room ---____.___ - Rooms • • Private pool • Private balcony • Fireplace • Kitchen with refrigerator,oven,and stovetop • Microwave •.Coffee maker. • Washing machine • Hairdryer • Tv • Air conditioning • Crib rentals • Homes are wheelchair accessible Having Fun Recreation features at this vacation home include a water park and an outdoor pool. Pools • Water park. • 1 outdoor swimming pool Accessibility If you have requests for specific accessibility needs,please contact the property using the information on the reservation confirmation received after booking. Hotel Area — Airport The nearest major airport is Corpus Christi Intl.Airport(CRP):29-min drive,24 mi/38.7 km. Nearby Places of Interest • Schlitterbahn Waterpark Corpus Christi:3-min drive,1.2 mi/2 km • Mollie Beattie Coastal Habitat Community:5-min drive,2.7 mi/4.3 km • Whitecap Beach:5-min drive,2 mi/3.3 km • North Padre Island Beach:5-min drive,2.5 mi/4 km • J P Luby.6-min drive,2.6 mi/4.2 km • Packery Channel:6-min drive,2.5 mi/4 km • New Port Pass:7-min drive,3.6 mi/5.8 km • JP Luby Surf Park:7-min drive,3.6 mi/5.8 km • Mustang Beach:9-min drive,4.6 mi/7.3 km • Bob Hall Pier:10-min drive,2.9 mi/4.7 km • Funtrackers Family Fun Center.10-min drive,7.7 mi/12.4 km • Mustang Island Beach:10-min drive,6.2 mi/10 km • Corpus Christi Medical Center-Bay Area:13-min drive,11.3 mi/18.1 km • Hans A.Suter Wildlife Area:14-min drive,11 A mill 8.4 km • Sunrise Mall:14-min drive,12.5 mi/20.2 km Check-in Cherk,tc mm/dd/yyyy 0 mm/dd/yyyy Rooms Adults Cl id,en 1 1 0 Check Availability 01C0. FC /C001 Hotel Policies Special Check-in Details You will receive an email from the host with check-in and check-out instructions.You will also receive an email from Vrbo with a link to a Vrbo account which will enable you to manage your booking. Kids+Beds • Cribs/infant beds are available Pet Policy • This property welcomes pets • Restrictions apply • For more information,guests can reach out to the property at the number on the booking confirmation Things To Know Additional information about polices,regulations,and more: • Long-term renters welcome. Charges for extra guests may apply and vary according to property policy. A cash deposit,credit card,or debit card for incidental charges and government-issued photo identification may be required upon check-in. Special requests are subject to availability at the time of check-in.Special requests can't be guaranteed and may incur additional charges. Onsite parties or group events are strictly prohibited.Long-term renters welcome.For guests'safety,the property includes a carbon monoxide detector,a fire extinguisher,a smoke detector,a first aid kit,and a deadbolt lock in each accommodation.This property advises that enhanced cleaning and guest safety measures are currently in place. Disinfectant is used to clean the property;commonly-touched surfaces are cleaned with disinfectant between stays;bed sheets and towels are laundered at a temperature of at least 60°C/140°F.Contactless check-in is available. Information missing or incorrect?Tell us!LP Top Trending Hotels Microtel Inn&Suites by Wyndham Aransas Pass/Corpus Christi Above and Beyond in Port Aransas by RedAwning 1908 Port Aransas-3 Br Home Port Royal Ocean Resort&Conference Center Candlewood Suites Aransas Pass,an IHG Hotel Beachgate CondoSuites and Oceanfront Resort Econo Lodge Inn&Suites Corpus Christi Island Hotel Port Aransas The 101 at Endless Summer-Golf Cart Included and Heated Salt Water Pool Slow M'ocean-Private Heated Pool and 6 Passenger Golf Cart!!!! Tropic Island Resort Fairbridge Inn Express Corpus Christi Days Inn by Wyndham Port Aransas TX TownePlace Suites Corpus Christi Portland Omni Corpus Christi Hotel Lively Beach Holiday Inn Express&Suites Port Aransas/Beach Area,an IHG Hotel Hampton Inn&Suites Port Aransas Hampton Inn&Suites Corpus Christi 1-37-Navigation Blvd Plantation Suites&Conference Center Wingate by Wyndham Corpus Christi The Black Pearl 2 Bedroom Condo Best Western Corpus Christi Motel 6 Portland,TX Americas Best Value Inn Sinton Country Inn&Suites by Radisson, Portland,TX The Place Hotel Best Western Ingleside Inn&Suites Executive Keys Condominiums on the Beach Motel 6 Corpus Christi,TX-East-North Padre Island *Price based on the lowest price found within past 24 hours and based upon one night stay for two adults over the next thirty days.Prices and availability subject to change.Additional terms may apply. Check-in Check-out mm/dd/yyyy mm/dd/yyyy Rooms Adults Children 1 1 0 Check Availability Enter your phone number I Send lr�, Access to chat support Free cancellation on select hotels Make changes to your bookingBy providing your number,you agree to receive a one-time automated text message with a link to get the app.Standard text message rates may apply. Explore More z Orbitz About Orbitz Investor Relations Jobs Media Room Advertising Become an Affiliate Add a Hotel Add an Activity Orbitz for Business Orbitz for Agents Terms of Use Support Privacy Policy Do Not Sell My Personal Information Orbitz Rewards Orbitz Rewards VIP Hotels Benefits Promotions Other Links USA Hotels USA Flights USA Vacation Packages USA Car Rentals Travel blog Customer Support Price Guarantee Travel Deals Mobile Vacations by Interest Unique Accommodation Orbitz Reviews Orbitz Coupon Partner Services Add a property ©2021 Orbitz,LLC,An Expedia Group Company.All rights reserved.Orbitz,Orbitz.com,and the Orbitz logo are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Orbitz,LLC in the U.S.and/or other countries.Other logos or product and company names mentioned herein may be the property of their respective owners.CST#2063530-50 expedia group- This is Google's cache of haps://www.expedia.co.nz/Corpus-Christi-Hotels-Mrs-Potters-Ort-The-Waters.h61496946.Hotel-lnformation.It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 14, 2021 22:07:20 GMT.The current page could have changed in the meantime.Learn more. Full version Text-only version View source Tip:To quickly find your search term on this page,press Ctrl+F or:•:-F(Mac)and use the find bar. Switch to the app x Save up to 30%on select hotels with mobile-exclusive deals. 0 Expedia More travel v List your property Support Trips Sign in Expedia.co.nz / Hotels / United States of America / Texas / Corpus Christi Hotels / Mrs Potters on the Waters,Beach,Bay,Pool for 13 Important:This destination may have COVID-19 travel restrictions in place,including specific restrictions for lodging.Check any national,local and health advisories for this destination before you book. Dismiss F See all properties Overview Amenities Policies Location Reviews Mrs Potters on the Waters, Beach, Bay, Pool for 13 5.0/5 Exceptional 2 reviews > Popular amenities 0 0 Pool Kitchen Air conditioning Pet-friendly Washer Dryer Outdoor Space Barbecue grill Fireplace Cleaning and safety practices j' Cleaned with disinfectant Contactless check-in ♦+ Sheets and towels washed at 60°C See all > Explore the area 9 La Palmera Mall 19 min drive 9 Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi 21 min drive 9 Port Aransas Beach 23 min drive Corpus Christi, View map > TX ?( Corpus Christi,TX(CRP-Corpus Christi 29 min drive Intl.) Space details 4 bedrooms,3 bathrooms,sleeps 13 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 lala ala 1 king bed 2 single beds 1 single bed Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 1 queen bed 3 double beds Bathroom 1 Bathroom 2 Combined bath/shower Shower Bathroom 3 Combined shower/bath About this property Entire place You'll have the entire home to yourself and will only share it with other guests in your party. Mrs Potters on the Waters,Beach,Bay,Pool for 13 Family-friendly holiday home with water park and outdoor pool Clean,good wifi,and ready for you!Enjoy your stay on N.Padre Island with a pool and a view!With 3.5 bedrooms and 3 baths,you can enjoy the privacy of a cozy stay.We are just 5 minutes from Whitecap Beach and Bob Hall Pier.With a big living space,an open kitchen,a large patio and the pool,you can enjoy time together inside or out.Fish off the back patio,grill and enjoy the views,take a short hop to the beach,or enjoy whole home wifi with Netflix,Disney,Hulu,and ESPN+included! Air-conditioned accommodation at this holiday home offers private pools and fireplaces.Rooms open to balconies.Kitchens offer fridoes.hobs.microwaves and kitchenware and utensils. See more Cleaning and safety practices ♦+ Enhanced cleanliness measures Disinfectant is used to clean the property High-touch surfaces are cleaned and disinfected Sheets and towels are washed at 60°C or hotter + Check-in Contactless social distancing This information is provided by our partners. r Check-in Check-out Select date Select date Travellers • 1 room,2 travellers Check Availability Private pool Outdoor pool Internet WiFi available P Parking and transport On-site parking options include a garage ii Family friendly Cot/infant bed available Children's games Children's toys 0 Kitchen Fridge Hob Microwave Oven Dishwasher Cookware/dishes/utensils Paper towels Coffee/tea maker Blender I! Bedrooms 4 bedrooms Bed sheets provided (. Bathrooms 3 bathrooms Combined shower/bath Towels provided Toilet paper Hairdryer 21 Living spaces Fireplace V Entertainment TV I Outdoor areas Balcony Barbecue a Laundry Washing machine and dryer Comfort Air conditioning Heating Pets Pet friendly �S Suitability/Accessibility If you have any requests for specific accessibility needs,please contact the property using the information on the reservation confirmation received after booking. Wheelchair accessible Smoke-free property Z Services and conveniences Iron/ironing board 9 Location highlights Near the sea On the waterfront Near outlet shopping Near the bay IQ Things to do Water Park Waterskiing nearby Wildlife and game walks nearby Parasailing nearby Water tubing nearby Power boating nearby Swimming nearby Cycling nearby Sailing nearby Surfing/boogie boarding nearby 0 Safety features Carbon monoxide detector Fire extinguisher First aid kit Smoke detector Deadboft lock ow General Sleeps 13 Similar properties pit ratfor T TOP: omig_ • Currently viewing Watch the Ships go Experience Island Vibes C Mrs Potters on the Through the Channel!... With Amazing Views of... C Waters,Beach,Bay,Pool... Port Aransas Corpus Christi R Corpus Christi X Pool V Pool ,/ Pool X Parking included ✓ Parking included V Parking included V Free WiFi ,/ Free WiFi ,/ Free WiFi 4.4/5 Excellent(9 reviews) 5.0/5 Exceptional(2 reviews) Reserve View View See similar properties Corpus Christi > Pool > Private holiday home > Guest rating 4.5+ > Family-friendly > Washer and dryer > Policies Check-in Check-in time starts at 4:00 PM Minimum check-in age-25 Check-out Check-out before 11:00 AM Special check-in instructions You will receive an email from the host with check-in and check-out instructions;you will also receive an email from Vrbo with a link to a Vrbo account which will enable you to manage your booking Pets Pets are allowed Restrictions apply,for more information contact the property on the number on the booking confirmation Children and extra beds Children are welcome Cots(infant beds)are available Important information You need to know Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on property policy Government-issued photo identification and a credit card,debit card or cash deposit may be required at check-in for incidental charges Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges;special requests cannot be guaranteed On-site parties or group events are strictly prohibited Long-term renters welcome Safety features at this property include a carbon monoxide detector,a fire extinguisher,a smoke detector,a first aid kit and a deadlock We should mention Guests can arrange to bring pets by contacting the property directly,using the contact information on the booking confirmation Frequently asked questions • Does Mrs Potters on the Waters,Beach,Bay,Pool for 13 have a pool? ✓ Is Mrs Potters on the Waters,Beach,Bay,Pool for 13 pet-friendly? ✓ What time is check-in at Mrs Potters on the Waters,Beach,Bay,Pool for 13? ✓ What time is check-out at Mrs Potters on the Waters,Beach,Bay,Pool for 13? ✓ Where is Mrs Potters on the Waters,Beach,Bay,Pool for 13 located? About this area Corpus Christi Located in Corpus Christi,this holiday home is on the waterfront.Schlitterbahn Waterpark Corpus Christi and Funtrackers Family Fun Center are local attractions and those in the mood for shopping can visit Sunrise Mall and La Palmera Mall.Waterskiing,water tubing and parasailing offer great chances to get out on the surrounding water,or you can seek out an adventure with cycling nearby. Visit our Corpus Christi travel guide F. View more Holiday Homes in Corpus Christi G View map 9 What's nearby X Restaurants Schlitterbahn Waterpark Corpus Christi-3 Whataburger-3 min drive min drive 1B's German Bakery&Cafe-3 min drive Whitecap Beach-5 min drive Surfside Sandwich Shoppe-3 min drive La Palmera Mall-19 min drive Costa Sur Wok&Ceviche Bar-3 min drive Texas A&M University Corpus Christi-21 Rock and Rolls Sushi Lounge-3 min drive mm drive Port Aransas Beach-23 min drive Gd Getting around Corpus Christi,TX(CRP-Corpus Christi Intl.)-29 min drive 5•0 Exceptional 2 reviews 5-Excellent 2 4-Good 0 3-Okay 0 2-Poor 0 1-Terrible 0 Write a review 5/5 Excellent Zachary L 28 May 2021 Great location and awesome pool! We had a wonderful time.Easily slept all 8 of us and beds are comfortable.The pool was a huge hit 1`o 5/5 Excellent aaron j. 13 Mar.2021 Perfect beach getaway This house was amazing!!On the water,check.Seconds from the beach the beach,check.Pool in the backyard,check.Great fishing spot check.Everything about our trip was great and the hosts were on point for everything.This will be our go to place to stay from here on out r`o See all reviews Expedia's Latest Trends Hotels Flights Cars Packages =podia group- Company Explore About Us New Zealand travel guide Jobs Hotels in New Zealand List your property Holiday rentals in New Zealand Partnerships Holiday packages in New Zealand Newsroom Domestic flights Car hire in New Zealand All accommodation types Travel blog Terms and Policies Help Privacy Statement Support Terms of use Change or cancel your booking Refund process and timelines Book a flight using an airline credit Coronavirus Disease(COVID-19) International travel documents 0 2021 Expedia,Inc.,an Expedia Group company.All rights reserved.Expedia and the Aeroplane Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Expedia,Inc. Check-in Check out mm/dd/yyyy 0 mm/dd/yyyy Rooms Adults Childror. 1 1 0 Check Availability Stays Flights Vacation packages Cars Cruises Things to do Deals Mobile Travel Blog <See all hotels 1-844663-2276 t. Orbitz.com>Hotels>United States of America>Texas>Corpus Christi Hotels> Mrs Potters on the Waters, Beach, Bay, Pool for 13 Overview Amenities&Policies Corpus Christi,TX 1-844-663-2269 Price Guarantee +Get more as an Orbitz Rewards member §u. 1/27 Room Mrs Potters on the Waters, Beach, Bay, Pool for 13 p out of 5 Hotel highlights J Water park 1111 Le— Outdoor pool Located within 2 miles(3 km)of Schlitterbahn Waterpark Corpus Christi,this vacation home is within 3 miles(5 km)of Bob Hall Pier.The vacation home includes a private pool,a kitchen,and a fireplace. Rooms Go sicM,,,..•z: The vacation home is air-conditioned and features a kitchen,3 bathrooms,and a balcony,and there's space to spread Corpus Christi,7X out with 4 bedrooms.Other standard amenities include a private pool,a washing machine,and a fireplace. Property features Guests staying at this vacation home enjoy features like a water park,an outdoor pool,and barbecue grills. Room options Check-in Check-out mm/dd/yyyy mm/dd/yyyy Rooms Adults Children 1 1 0 Check Availability •-1 room - -: -�.,._. _ - Rooms • Private pool • Private balcony • Fireplace • Kitchen with refrigerator,oven,and stovetop • Microwave • Coffee maker • Washing machine - • Hair dryer • Tv • Air conditioning • Crib rentals • Homes are wheelchair accessible Having Fun Recreation features at this vacation home include a water park and an outdoor pool. Pools • Water park • 1 outdoor swimming pool Accessibility If you have requests for specific accessibility needs,please contact the property using the information on the reservation confirmation received after booking. Hotel Area — Airport The nearest major airport is Corpus Christi Intl.Airport(CRP):29-min drive,24 mi/38.7 km. Nearby Places of Interest • Schlitterbahn Waterpark Corpus Christi:3-min drive,1.2 mi/2 km • Mollie Beattie Coastal Habitat Community:5-min drive,2.7 mi/4.3 km • Whitecap Beach:5-min drive,2 mi/3.3 km • North Padre Island Beach:5-min drive,2.5 mi/4 km • J P Luby:6-min drive,2.6 mi/4.2 km • Packery Channel:6-min drive,2.5 mi/4 km • New Port Pass:7-min drive,3.6 mi/5.8 km • JP Luby Surf Park:7-min drive,3.6 mi/5.8 km • Mustang Beach:9-min drive,4.6 mi/7.3 km • Bob Hall Pier.10-min drive,2.9 mi/4.7 km ' • Funtrackers Family Fun Center:10-min drive,7.7 mill 2.4 km • Mustang Island Beach:10-min drive,6.2 mill 0 km • Corpus Christi Medical Center-Bay Area:13-min drive,11.3 mill 8.1 km • Hans A.Suter Wildlife Area:14-min drive,11.4 mi/18.4 krn • Sunrise Mall:14-min drive,12.5 mi20.2 km Check-In Check-out mm/dd/yyyy 0 mm/dd/yyyy Rooms Adults Children 1 1 0 Check Availability Hotel Policies Special Check-in Details You will receive an email from the host with check-in and check-out instructions.You will also receive an email from Vrbo with a link to a Vrbo account which will enable you to manage your booking. Kids+Beds • Cribs/infant beds are available Pet Policy • This property welcomes pets • Restrictions apply • For more information,guests can reach out to the property at the number on the booking confirmation Things To Know Additional information about polices,regulations,and more: • Long-term renters welcome. Charges for extra guests may apply and vary according to property policy. A cash deposit,credit card,or debit card for incidental charges and government-issued photo identification may be required upon check-in. Special requests are subject to availability at the time of check-in.Special requests can't be guaranteed and may incur additional charges. Onsite parties or group events are strictly prohibited.Long-term renters welcome.For guests'safety,the property includes a carbon monoxide detector,a fire extinguisher,a smoke detector,a first aid kit,and a deadbolt lock in each accommodation.This property advises that enhanced cleaning and guest safety measures are currently in place. Disinfectant is used to clean the property;commonly-touched surfaces are cleaned with disinfectant between stays;bed sheets and towels are laundered at a temperature of at least 60°C/140°F.Contactless check-in is available. Information missing or incorrect?Tell us!LP Top Trending Hotels Microtel Inn&Suites by Wyndham Aransas Pass/Corpus Christi Above and Beyond in Port Aransas by RedAwning 1908 Port Aransas-3 Br Home Port Royal Ocean Resort&Conference Center Candlewood Suites Aransas Pass,an IHG Hotel Beachgate CondoSuites and Oceanfront Resort Econo Lodge Inn&Suites Corpus Christi Island Hotel Port Aransas The 101 at Endless Summer-Golf Cart Included and Heated Salt Water Pool Slow M'ocean-Private Heated Pool and 6 Passenger Golf Cart!!!! Tropic Island Resort Fairbridge Inn Express Corpus Christi Days Inn by Wyndham Port Aransas TX TownePlace Suites Corpus Christi Portland Omni Corpus Christi Hotel Lively Beach Holiday Inn Express&Suites Port Aransas/Beach Area,an IHG Hotel Hampton Inn&Suites Port Aransas Hampton Inn&Suites Corpus Christi 1-37-Navigation Blvd Plantation Suites&Conference Center Wingate by Wyndham Corpus Christi The Black Pearl 2 Bedroom Condo Best Western Corpus Christi Motel 6 Portland,TX Americas Best Value Inn Sinton Country Inn&Suites by Radisson, Portland,TX The Place Hotel Best Western Ingleside Inn&Suites Executive Keys Condominiums on the Beach Motel 6 Corpus Christi,TX-East-North Padre Island *Price based on the lowest price found within past 24 hours and based upon one night stay for two adults over the next thirty days.Prices and availability subject to change.Additional terms may apply. Check-in Che,-k-ouc mm/dd/yyyy mm/dd/yyyy Rooms Adults Children. 1 1 0 Check Availability Enter our phone number I Send Y r::.. a!t. tti fi Access to chat support Free cancellation on select hotels Make changes to your booking -'h By providing your number,you agree to receive a one-time automated text message with a link to get the app.Standard text message rates may apply. Explore More s Orbitz About Orbitz Investor Relations Jobs Media Room Advertising Become an Affiliate Add a Hotel Add an Activity Orbitz for Business Orbitz for Agents Terms of Use Support Privacy Policy Do Not Sell My Personal Information Orbitz Rewards Orbitz Rewards VIP Hotels Benefits Promotions Other Links USA Hotels USA Flights USA Vacation Packages USA Car Rentals Travel blog Customer Support Price Guarantee Travel Deals Mobile Vacations by Interest Unique Accommodation Orbitz Reviews Orbitz Coupon Partner Services Add a property ©2021 Orbitz,LLC,An Expedia Group Company.All rights reserved.Orbitz,Orbitz.com,and the Orbitz logo are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Orbitz,LLC in the U.S.and/or other countries.Other logos or product and company names mentioned herein may be the property of their respective owners.CST#2063530-50 expodia group- Aly Berlanga From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:50 AM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Kristin Allen [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Kristin Allen Address Street Address: 14234 Sand Dollar Ave City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Zoning case 0621-01 Agenda Item Number 21 Describe Feedback: I am writing to object to the rezoning of the property at 13845 Mizzen St.from RS-6 to RS-6/SP. This area is not appropriate for short term rentals. Short term rentals should not be permitted among densely packed single family homes.The complaints of residents in Port Aransas make it clear what happens if short term rentals are allowed to proliferate in a residential neighborhood. It destroys the quality of life for the residents in the area. Please vote against this zoning change. Provide an email to receive a copy of your theallensmail@gmail.com submission. Aly Berlanga From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:28 AM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Dave Allen [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. � g Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Dave Allen Address Street Address: 14234 Sand Dollar Ave City: Corpus Christi State/Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Zoning case 0621-01 Agenda Item Number 21 Describe Feedback: I am writing to object to the rezoning of the property at 13845 Mizzen St.from RS-6 to RS-6/SP. This area is not appropriate for short term rentals. Calling it a Bed & Breakfast does not negate the fact that it's a short term rental. Short term renters have less respect for neighbors and destroy communities. Provide an email to receive a copy of your allenshopping@gmail.com submission. Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 9:05 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Joe Rucinski FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlenge From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent:Tuesday,August 10, 2021 9:01 AM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input:08-10-2021 -Joe Rucinski [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@lotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. !j Public Comment&Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Joe Rucinski Address Street Address: 15121 Dasmarinas Dr City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Parking on Unimproved surfaces Agenda Item Number 21-1010 Describe Feedback: What I'm looking for is an amendment to this proposed ordinance, which specifically states that a rock yard on top of underlayment will meet the definition of an improved hard surface. The majority of the island is rock yards.To ask homeowners to completely asphalt, cement, etc. 1 their entire yards, is absurd. It creates a very ugly, hot exterior. Provide an email to receive a copy of your cirucinskiPyahoo.com submission. 2 r� I Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 9:13 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Norma Duran; Sarah Brunkenhoefer Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - frank jackson FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent:Tuesday,August 10,2021 9:08 AM To:CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 -frank jackson [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@iotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name frank jackson Address Street Address: 13949 seafarer dr City: corpus christi State/Province: tx Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Ordinance adding Section 33-17 to Corpus Christi Code to prohibit parking on an unimproved surface on residential lots Agenda Item Number 27 Describe Feedback: As written,this new ordinance will require people with rock yard coverings to pave those over which will result in a great deal of additional run off into the storm sewer system. How does that make sense?The last thing we need is more impervious cover. I understand that there is a desire to have 1 everyone comply with Neighborhood Services ideas on what is ascetic and what is unsightly but do we need more ordinances?Why not just enforce the ones we already have on the books?The examples in the supporting documents for this resolution appear to already violate one or more existing ordinances. why make everyone's life just a bot more complicated? Provide an email to receive a copy of your fkj123@gmail.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:22 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Natalie Camargo FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent:Tuesday,August 10, 2021 9:57 AM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Natalie Camargo [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Natalie Camargo Address Street Address: 15625 Cuttysark St City: Corpus Christi State/Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Proposed ordinance Section 33-17 Agenda Item Number Sec. 33-17.—Parking on unimproved surfaces Describe Feedback: Please consider allowing parking on rock-paved surfaces.The should be considered as improved surfaces for parking boats,trailers or RV's. Most Islanders have rock paved surfaces. Thank you. Natalie Camargo 1 Provide an email to receive a copy of your njpasley@gmail.com submission. 2 Aly Berlanga From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:01 AM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Kristin Allen [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Kristin Allen Address Street Address: 14234 Sand Dollar Ave City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Parking on unimproved surfaces Agenda Item Number 27 Describe Feedback: I am writing to object to the application of this ordinance on Padre Island.The lack of sidewalks and the narrow streets make parking on residential lots the best option in many cases. At a very minimum,this ordinance should be amended to specifically permit parking on gravel driveways, spaces, and yards. I would much rather see ticketing of abandoned and derelict vehicles on the streets than banning of overflow parking on our own private properties. Please reject this ordinance on Padre Island. Provide an email to receive a copy of your theallensmail@gmail.com submission. 1 Aly Berlanga From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:25 AM To: CitySecretary; Norma Duran Subject: Public Input:08-10-2021 - Dave Allen [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. J P.Pu blir Comment & InouJt FOrm Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Dave Allen Address Street Address: 14234 Sand Dollar Ave City:CORPUS CHRISTI State/Province:TX Postal /Zip Code: 78418 Topic parking on unimproved surfaces Agenda Item Number 27 Describe Feedback: I am writing to object to the application of this ordinance.At a very minimum,this ordinance should be amended to specifically permit parking on gravel driveways,spaces,and yards.Where I grew up,the city council passed such a measure, which resulted in residents paving their front yards. This did not improve the neighborhoods in any way. Provide an email to receive a copy of your allenshopping@gmail.com submission. 1 r44 ad Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 9:02 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Diana Brackenridge FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent:Tuesday,August 10, 2021 9:00 AM To:CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Diana Brackenridge [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@iotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Diana Brackenridge Address Street Address: 14733 Dasmarinas Drive City: Corpus Christi State/Province:TX Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic Vehicle Parking on Unpaved Surfaces Agenda Item Number Ordinance 33-17 Describe Feedback: I think this is an excellent idea and will greatly improve the appearance of our neighborhoods. Some residences have multiple vehicles parked in the yard. They should be on the driveway or behind the fence. Yards are not parking lots. This will also assist in curtailing short term rentals as they will not be able to park multiple vehicles on the property. Thank you. 1 Provide an email to receive a copy of your dbrackenridge@hotmail.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 12:06 PM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-10-2021 - Aaron Davis FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent:Tuesday,August 10,2021 12:05 PM To:CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran <NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input: 08-10-2021-Aaron Davis [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecuritvAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to re urns@jotform.coni. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. Public Comment & Input Form Date of Meeting 08-10-2021 Name Aaron Davis Address Street Address: 14209 Cabo Blanco Dr City: Corpus Christi State/ Province:Texas Postal/Zip Code: 78418 Topic parking vehicles on unpaved surfaces in front of homes Agenda Item Number 27 Describe Feedback: As written,this ordnance will only force homeowners on the island to park their vehicles on the street. we do not have sidewalks to protest pedestrians. This is a concern for our unique community . There is quite a bit of pedestrian traffic to include: strollers, children at play, bicycles, and joggers. I could not imagine going on a walk with any increase in parked vehicles. My street isn't particularly wide enough. I recommend rewording the language to include rocked yards as being improved. this is unique to the island. The sad consequence of enforcing this on island home owners will be continued destruction of yards and landscaping which reduce heating effects. I couldn't imagine more paved properties. This is unsightly and bad for heating effects. I can tell you that if this passes i will be forced to pave my entire front yard. This will look just as hideous when i park in front of my home- no improved yard or not. Provide an email to receive a copy of your flynavv79@hotmail.com submission. 2 Sarah Brunkenhoefer From: CitySecretary Sent: Wednesday,August 11, 2021 8:12 AM To: Rebecca Huerta Cc: Sarah Brunkenhoefer; Norma Duran Subject: FW: Public Input: 08-17-2021 - Evan Renaud FYI. Thank you, Aly Berlanga From:JotForm <noreply@jotform.com> Sent:Wednesday,August 11, 2021 12:27 AM To: CitySecretary<CitySecretary@cctexas.com>; Norma Duran<NormaD2@cctexas.com> Subject: Public Input:08-17-2021 - Evan Renaud [ [ WARNING: External e-mail. Avoid clicking on links or attachments. We will NEVER ask for a password, username, payment or to take action from an email. When in doubt, please forward to SecurityAlert@cctexas.com. ] ] Warning: Replies to this message will go to returns@jotform.com. If you are unsure this is correct please contact the Helpdesk at 826-3766. i ubiic Comment « . input Form Date of Meeting 08-17-2021 Name Evan Renaud Address Street Address:4002 Brawner Parkway City: Corpus Christi State/Province:Texas Postal/Zip Code: 78411 Topic Front Yard Parking Ban Agenda Item Number 21-1010 Describe Feedback: There is no need for a front yard parking ban. If people wanted HOA style rules,they would move to a neighborhood with an HOA. While some HOA style rules in city limits make sense, particularly those regarding overgrown lawns that could harbor mosquitoes,this parking ban would affect people whose actions are not hurting anyone. Furthermore,a ban on front yard parking would 1 disproportionately affect lower income households that may have more family members under one roof, and therefore more licensed drivers parking at that household, possibly parking in the yard if necessary. Provide an email to receive a copy of your e.renaud@live.com submission. 2