 All right, and the rest of the meeting is going to be largely devoted to a discussion about the San Antonio tomorrow comprehensive plan. And for those of you who have not heard of it or not aware of, basically this is the city of San Antonio's official law-range planning initiative to provide policy guidance for future growth, development, land use, infrastructure, and services that the city is anticipating will be needed to accommodate a projected a million additional residents that will supposedly be here in our city by 2040. As part of the planning, the city is rolling out the planning in different regions of the city. We're in the first round. Our neighborhood and Broadway are within a midtown plan and Eric Phillips from City Planning is facilitating the planning for the midtown region. And he's been holding meetings over the past year and working with our neighborhood association to get input specifically about our views on the comprehensive plan and eliciting concerns about the plan and the initiative. And Butch Hayes is our official Mayhew Park neighborhood representative on the midtown planning region. Butch, would you raise your hand? I'm going to play one of the students. And Butch is also our official representative on the Tier 1 neighborhood coalition, which is a grassroots organization that has sprung up to address the concerns of many neighborhoods, particularly in within the port in the inner city, if you will. And I would like to ask Butch to first briefly address the group to discuss his perspective as the official representative on the midtown region for our neighborhood as well as concerns in more the perspective from the Tier 1 coalition. So, Bruce, I'd like to turn it over to you first. One thing I said last weekend in the seminar that we had found out what Manatee Park has been able to do because, and that's one, the reason for our seminar last week was to get the people that are going to do this next repair. The question to me was, well, Butch, you were on the committee now. How should people prepare to be on the committee? Preparing to be on a committee is very difficult to begin with, but the most important thing that I could convey to anybody is your willingness to do your own research, to go and look to see what's on the web, what's going on city-wide. The second thing is participation. Go to as many meetings other than the San Antonio Tomorrow meetings. How well do you know your council person? How well do you know anybody in city government that doesn't do the zone? Have you been to a zoning meeting? Have you been to a committee meeting of our city council? And see how things work. Get to understand because they're not all working the same way. Have you gone to a city council meeting? See how it works. Either go to A session, but B is all right, but it's not the same thing. There's a level there. And what I had that I did not see in the other neighborhoods is that Ali and Steve and others came to the meetings. The meetings are open to everyone and anyone can come. The ones that are in the discussion are the ones that are on that, but that doesn't mean you can't participate. We also had two or three public committee meetings. Two. There's one more to go. One more to go. Where people can come and participate. It's for the community to become knowledgeable about what San Antonio Tomorrow is. Questions? Is that what you wanted? That's a good start. Just the success of the plan and the implications for our neighborhood really depend upon how much the whole neighborhood participates. Not just the members of the Mankey Park Neighborhood Association Board and tier one. It really depends upon participation and input from all of us. And so we hope for those of you who are not yet familiar with the plan to learn what you can and go to any of the upcoming meetings. Thank you, Birch. Well, I think that we have another point we should keep in mind. Everybody has to participate. Everybody has to be knowledgeable. You should worry and be concerned about what's the city planning for me or for us. And it's being, okay, you've got a former Peace Corps volunteer talking to you. We were trained to be an agent of change. It's, are you willing to accept change? It's been my job, or in my life, to get in there and work on it. I was also on Merris's Narrows Planning Committee when he was doing his strategic plan. So this is not my first go-round. Although he did it completely differently. We had sectors there. Education had one. Employment had one. We had different committees, but then it came together. And that was about when we were doing BRAC and when we were losing Kelly Air Force Base. That was a challenge for those of us that were in technical education. And we had to really work together to get it done. Thanks so much, Birch. And we'll also be looking for you to chime in as the discussion continues. Yes, Mary? Holly, could somebody post these meetings on the Menneke Park Facebook page? I mean, I don't know when they are. I don't know where they are. So, yeah, I could... A lot of them. Various meetings have been previously posted and we'll continue to try and do that, as well as on the Facebook page. You can put a link to Midtown Planning Region. And you can register with San Antonio tomorrow to receive the information. I'll show you the webpage. I'll pass it around to the mail sign-up sheet, as well. Anybody can get that information. And the steering committee act for the tier one, I try to keep the officers informed, but we can also put that out. That would be great. And next, I'd like to ask George Grimes to briefly present to the group. When Garrett met with us last month in the soliciting input, there was a bit of a Q&A at the end of that session. Saraless were surprised when, at the end, someone raised a question about what the Midtown Plan and SA tomorrow, what that would mean for the existing neighborhood plans. And the answer that Garrett gave was perhaps a little bit unclear to some of us and were surprising and concerning to others. And so I would like George to give just a brief history of our neighborhood plan, why it was originally put together, and I guess some of the concerns about SA tomorrow planning for our neighborhood. Thank you. I'm George Grimes. I was on the original neighborhood planning committee that we did back in 1983. And then we updated the plan in 2000 and 2001, how it was on that planning committee. I was also on the planning committee for the Neighborhood Conservation District, and we are currently updating the Neighborhood Conservation District, and I'm on that committee. When we did the Neighborhood Plan in 2000, we had about 38 different residents and other stakeholders, and we met for months and months and months, and it hundreds of hours of meetings to discuss the plan. And so this is the final plan. It's 72 pages with some appendices, and it covered a lot of areas. And as I understand what we're doing with this midtown plan, we're talking about mostly land use. But the Neighborhood Plan has goals and categories for the neighborhood development, transportation, infrastructure, community facilities and quality of life, and so forth. And then we dealt with a lot of areas other than just land use. We had one goal, we had to do quality of life for elderly adult residents. We had goals on safety, animal care, crime prevention, code compliance. I mean, it was a really comprehensive plan. So to me, it's really disturbing to hear that this plan is going to go away. And the FAQs, I went on the community development website, and one of the questions was what will happen to the adopted land use plans, neighborhood plans, et cetera. And to me, the answer was kind of ambiguous. They said, as we produce the new regional center community corridor plans, we'll work to incorporate elements from the existing adopted plans that address land use. When I went and looked at the minutes of the city council meeting, that where this was adopted was in August 2016, one of the amendments to the plan that was adopted was a change that said to include neighborhood and community plans should be respected as appropriate as they're integrated into the sub area. And the community plans would integrate and eventually incorporate. And that was in the past. So what I'm concerned about is what happens to our neighborhood plan once it's adopted. Is that plan still effective? Is that still part of the ordinance as the city of San Antonio? So when it comes to the land use and development policies, effectively the Midtown plan will replace the Mankey Park plan. And so that's the short answer is that the Mankey Park plan will be replaced by the Midtown plan. The Tobin Hill Community Plan, the Five Points Neighborhood Plan, another neighborhood plan that addresses areas by Fredericksburg Road, and the West Fort Alliance plan will also be replaced. That it's the same case with many other neighborhood plans around the city is that they'll be replaced by the new plans that we're making. So there's things within the plan that you created in 2001-2002 that we can incorporate and carry over as ideas that remain relevant given existing conditions and that still reflect community values. But they won't be incorporated by reference. Like the Mankey Park plan is hereby remains adopted. It's still part of the Midtown plan. It's more like we take ideas from it. So what happens to all that work we did? What happens to all the goals that don't, I mean what I see of this plan is it's only about land use and it's only about justifying higher intensities of use for our neighborhoods. And that's a small part of what's in our neighborhood plan. Yes, and then we'll go to Morgan. She had her hand up. And then I'd also like Charles Mazzuca who is here from Councilman Shaw's office, District 2. Mr. Mazzuca is the zoning and policy advisor for District 2. So, but yes. Okay, I just want to make it clear that San Antonio tomorrow is more than just land use. Land use is the last part that we're working on. That and the goals. What has preceded this was a whole thing on sustainability. There's a sustainability plan which suggests the environment, the culture, and dealing with health and wellness. There's a whole, and go out and look at it. There's a three-pronged plan for San Antonio tomorrow one is San Antonio tomorrow comprehensive plan land use. And the other was the corridor plan which deals with transportation. And you heard the mayor in the last couple of weeks starting to talk about that and how we begin to deal with the need to get all these people to work that are coming. So that's a separate plan, the corridor plan. And then the sustainability was a separate plan. My point being just that, you know, what I heard was it's only land use. No, it's not. Land use is the last part that we're dealing with. And fortunately, you all are having an opportunity to get Jared feedback on that. So we're also going to have a commission meeting tomorrow, comprehensive plan committee meeting of the council, and we're dealing with the land use plan in part. So it's not done. And the other, one more thing, and then I'll get out of the way, I'm sorry, you need to take over. The San Antonio tomorrow is 20,000 feet up. It's not in the weeds. It's not dealing with the minutiae for the neighborhood at that point. It's looking at what's happening to San Antonio in general. I'll button it up. Thank you, Bletch. I didn't want to come back to that issue in Morgan. So what's the possibility of still keeping our neighborhood plans? Is that to put down for you not looking for input on whether or not we want to keep that? So we're not looking for input on whether or not the neighborhood plan will remain the adopted official plan. I have multiple copies of the neighborhood plan, and I'm going to continue to have them. And when we update the Midtown plan in five to 10 years, it'll continue to be useful as a reference. It can also continue to be useful as a sort of strategic guide and memorialization in more detail than we can get to in the Midtown plan of some neighborhood values and information and history. I mean, it's an incredible resource and an interesting reading. I already have a problem with the city not fully upholding our NCB. So you're saying that you're going to take bits and pieces of this neighborhood plan and use that for your decisions, but in reality, that's not realistic. So this is basically just a broad stroke over all these neighborhood plans. You're just eliminating all the character and detail of these over-established neighborhoods. And that just doesn't seem like good planning. So we're actually not trying to eliminate the character and detail of neighborhoods. The Midtown plan that we're at the tail end of writing right now emphasizes in multiple places that the growth and change that's supposed to occur is supposed to really primarily happen outside of neighborhoods along the primary transit corridors and in some areas. So on the blocks adjacent to Broadway, for example, or just right next to the one block. Yeah, so and even then the idea is that if it feels like a traditional neighborhood area, there's not supposed to be a lot of change going on there. So I don't want to get overly formalistic about the definition of a block. So that's the idea. There's also some other areas like between McCullough and San Pedro, south of San Antonio College, south of Cyprus where there's lots of parking lots and there's room for growth in a way that wouldn't affect an existing traditional residential area. But specific to our neighborhood in the land use map that you shared with us last month, then I think there's one or two copies on each table that the streets south of Funston are all identified as a future future high density residential. That's my street by the name. Which includes streets that have many single family homes on on on the still. And so I think that's a concern that there is a zoning issue. And I'd like maybe Mr. Mazzuca to address some of the zoning issues and the issue about the neighborhood plan as well. Just to make it clear, this ULDR based on our other meetings is up to three units on one residential lot. These are R50 by maybe 140 where there's one residence right now. Those could be developed instead of just into a duplex. You could have three units, am I correct? So what we're what we're writing into the plan is that you could only and it's based probably on the feedback you gave us before and it's what all the other neighborhoods want as well. Is that we recommend no zoning changes in the traditional neighborhood areas. So right now, for example, north of Mecky Park, it's mostly a single family and duplexes are allowed, I think on many of the lots in our four area. And the idea is that that's not supposed to change. So we're writing into the plan that even though this broad category that we also have to use in other parts of the city says that you could conceivably have up to a fourplex even if more than three units on a 4,000 square foot lot, if you could figure out a way to put the parking on it, which typically doesn't work. You give up to a fourplex, you could also have neighborhood commercial in that area. But we know that's not, you know, it common sense to me at this point based on the conversations that I had that that's not appropriate in the neighborhood area. And so we have to add text into the plan to get more specific and what the map can set. Why don't you do that in your neighborhood rather than in the old times? But everyone as you speak, please say your name. Oh, I'm Colleen. I'm actually going to, I'm sorry, I was speaking to you with my that's okay. I'm going to move up here so that you can see me. But I am, that's okay. I'm sorry, Colleen, would you please repeat your question? Why is it that you're going to go ahead and take advantage of our space? Why don't you, you know, you're planning make new subdivisions where you can do this, you know, right from the very beginning? So we're making plans for all areas of the city over the next five years. Every community in San Antonio will have a chance to participate in making a plan. We think it's important to continue revisiting plans and older areas of the city as well as new conditions arise, new realities. Like Polly said, by 2040 there's going to be a lot more people in San Antonio, a lot of people, a lot of San Antonio is being born here and a lot of people moving here. And it's worthwhile to revisit and revisit plans. Now, in some ways it's like we're not making radical new plans, right? Like the neighborhood, like I said, we're recommending that it primarily stay the same and that the change occur just adjacent to the larger busy streets and some of the areas where there's vast amounts of vacant land and surface parking. So have you gone around and put this map together? Have you actually visited these areas? Like because you're talking about blocks by Broadway, okay? If you look at, for example, my street and Parham Street, we're right there. So if you add any more commercial to that, then our whole street is commercial. And so who's gone from the city and really looked at our neighborhood and said, hey, these are where it's really appropriate. Because if you just leave it blanket like this and even though you say it's not going to change, someone's going to interpret it. You have to really be very, very specific in this. And then that's the whole problem that we've had with the city is the city, people that are making a lot of decisions don't ever go out and really visit the neighborhood. So I still need to know where all of that came from and how they would be decided. Can I follow up on something she said? Johnny said, I'm Francie O'Reilly and I live on Elmhurst. Johnny said that the newer plan will be more vague and that our plans are specific. And I think that is the crucial difference between the San Antonio tomorrow plan and neighborhood plans. There are probably people who would really welcome vagueness in plans because those people can then go to the city council and as you say, interpret those plans to their benefit. When things are clearly stated as they are locally in neighborhood plans, that is more difficult. It's more difficult to override the wishes of the neighborhood. And I think that's where ordinances and specifics are really important. You can have vague ordinances about pet care, but until you say a dog may not be chained on a six-foot chain, it's not clear what people may and may not do. I don't want them to be as clear as possible. So there's sections of the plan where we can say things like there should not be commercial encroachment beyond Margaret or her beyond Margaret and Ketapa, right? And they shouldn't be commercial encroachment beyond where the land use snap says the next use up a lot of Davis court. Well, to be honest, the plans are fundamentally recommendationally. It's not the zone code itself. So it's just an honest way of talking about long range plan. It's recommendation oriented. And the zoning commission and city council, when they consider a rezoned request, they're supposed to follow the plan. And our intention is to update the plans often enough that they feel confident that they continue to reflect the most up to date and relevant permission and that they can follow them as closely as possible. So I appreciate that. I mean, that would be a concern about about slavery and that there's been real experiences where that's it feels like that's been taken advantage of specific examples that multiple people in this room probably have. And that that's a real concern. But once again, how about I think that's the same question. Mike Vanberg, we've got all these neighborhood plans that will be substituting. Why not work out where there's a conflict between the neighborhood plan and San Antonio plan, clean up that area and about these as annexes to those plans? These are specific years. Well, I guess I'm not really prepared to answer that question. So the decision to make these plans, the way that we're making them, was made over a year ago, a year and a half or two years ago. And it's, as far as I know, a done decision. We proceeded, you know, I proceeded to work on the status. And I really tried to learn as much as I can and make a plan for all of them to the neighborhoods and everyone in the area. As we know from the news report, city council can overwrite anything. Yeah, they can, you know, like, like I said, they can overwrite anything too. Yeah, you're, we're planning on making plans for every part of the city in the next five years. Well, that's dependent on city council decided that we should continue to do so. Well, going back to the ordinance, the amendment that was approved said, change the language degree to include neighborhood and community plans should be respected as appropriated as they're integrated into the sub-area plans. And another change was community plans should be integrated and will eventually incorporate. So it sounds to me like at least in August 2000 to extend the decision was to incorporate these neighborhood plans into the body bill. Now, who made the decision that changed that? That's a city clause. That's an ordinance. And why didn't we know this was happening until last month? So, was it this council and this mayor that made the decision to change it? So, so when I visited Menke Park last year, when I communicated with the planning team and when we did another public meeting to fight this question of what will happen to the neighborhood plans, I think it's been raised in almost all the meetings. And I've tried to say plainly that the plans are being replaced while also, you know, trying to say that they could continue to be useful in some ways. But, you know, like I said, I'll try to state that. Well, I think I asked that question. I don't think I heard an answer until the last meeting when Shawland, Lucas, at the end of the meeting specifically said, is this going to supersede the neighborhood plan? And he finally said yes. Yeah. And before we had always been told too that you're going to have this plan until it's on the region and that there would be a section for Menke Park for the different neighborhoods. There would be a section. We were told that. And now it doesn't seem like we're going to have this section where we have our MCD pass on maybe these other points that are in the plan that would be specific to our neighborhood. So I don't hear that we're going to have that. So there will be a section about the, primarily about the residential areas of Menke Park. And it's going to be very short. It's going to be probably about two pages worth of tests. Instead of 78, I think. So, and there's actually a copy of that on all of the tables. And it looks like this. It's red and black text. And so it boils down some of the, where I've heard to be some of the main priorities from the neighborhood. Anyone need copies? Raise your hand. And there'll be one of these for each of the neighborhoods. They'll be one for Southern Hill. And there'll also be things, you know, beyond those two to three pages. There'll be things that are in the rest of the plan that you normally would have found in the Menke Park neighborhood plan. Like, there's going to be a land use map, right? It addresses all the neighborhoods together. Well, that would have been part of the 7K page Menke Park plan. There'll be a section on infrastructure and amenities. It's just, it's addressed at a broader level. So, again, to try as plain as possible, it's not the same thing. It is more general. It addresses more common issues and priorities across neighborhoods than purely local ones. And the three page part is mostly for the, like, more local issues and priorities. Charles, would you, do you want to say something? Oh, I wanted to ask Eric if maybe with regard to the amendment that George read, how that amendment reconciles with today's implementation. And if you don't know that or don't have that answer, maybe you can email me that technical language and I can disperse it back to the neighborhood association. But that expectation that George read, as I understand it, was an expectation that would be carried on through the implementation process that we're doing now on, or that will become staff's recommendation to the council. So, if you can't answer that now, that's good. But if you want to take some time and send me an email to get better language on that or more technical language on that, just putting that out there for you. Regarding the amendment that George read, how that reconciles with? As far as you know, did the council change that ordinance or has there been something to supersede it or? No, so I mean, my understanding is that we incorporate neighborhood plans by trying to incorporate the information and values that remain relevant after several years into the big town plan. So, that's, but Charles, yes, I will speak with the director who would have been, you know, is in charge of our department about that. Okay. I'll go ahead. This, these meeting minutes refer to an ordinance and the amendments are by page and section number of some document. And I didn't find any place on the development services website a copy of that document so I could look at these by page number or item number to find out what they can say. What, what, what did this, what document did this set of meeting minutes adopt? I'm helping with that. If you look at how they sent out to you a picture of what I talked about on Saturday and in there is a slide where there are at least 20 references to the community, to the neighborhood plans in the comprehensive plan as a doubt because tier one worked with city council before they approved the comprehensive plan to make sure and it's in the first paragraph of the comprehensive plan that you must look at the neighborhood plan or the neighborhood plan is the building block and this book neighborhood plan is the building block but there are 20 references to the comprehensive plan to the neighborhood plan. Okay, my question is what is the document that this, I don't think I found a copy of that. It's a copy of the plan. So, yeah, I can take a photo of it and you can look at it. So, I mean I, I spent hours today on the website and there's always summaries and discussions and all this stuff but I never found anything that said to page, you know, page 17.1, page 17.4 working. What document is this for? The comprehensive plan is 300 and 30 pages long and I know 17.1 is one of the four, the one that's that's for it. Okay, is that, is that plan? Section 17.1, that's page 17. So, George, the comprehensive plan is a bigger plan and then the Midtown is underneath it. Yeah, but it's, it's, it's, it's on the city's website. Yes. Yes. Where is it? The numbers. That's a section. Okay. So, so, www.sa-plan. So, two-piece. Okay. And I can email you that. When I get there, then how do I get to this document that's recurrent to it? Look for a tab that says documents, libraries and email me if it takes you longer than two minutes to do it and I'll send you a link. Okay. I'm going to leave you just, I'm going to send you a link and welcome to the board. I have the link. So, but when you're, you're saying, so, because I was part of that rewrite and everything with, with the tier one and that's really a very high level, right, that plan, the comprehensive plan. Now we're going deep into, we're going into Midtown and that's how everything's going to be implemented. So, all those places where we're talking about neighborhood plans are going to be included in the Midtown plan, in the regional plans. It comes to this. And this just tells me these are just some of our priorities. I don't know how it's going to be used to guide to make decisions when you're actually in meetings or zoning meetings. They can get these out and say, oh, this one right here, that's a real challenge for them. So, we probably shouldn't have proved this because it's a challenge. That's how I'm getting down to that specific because we need something that we can use at those meetings to guide. Yeah. So, there'll be a section called land use, the land use section for the whole area. And where we're headed right now with it is to write it there that in areas designated for remote density residential, zoning changes are discouraged, both up zones and down zones. So, what's there is the existing zoning should remain the same. And frankly, for this area that you talked about, it's designated high bed city residential south of Mankee Park, the park south of Fronsten. It's mostly zoning F-33 and we're headed towards recommending that the zoning just stay the same there as well. And for those of you who don't know, would you define what's in that F-33? F-33 allows for up to 33 units per acre, which on a 5,000 square foot lot, there's let's see eight and a half 5,000 square foot lots in an acre. So, that's the south of Mankee Park, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. And there are lots and lots of single family homes. So, it could be like a triplex or a fourplex on a 5,000 square foot lot? If the recommendation's going to be keep the zoning the way it is, why don't we need a recommendation at all? Well, because, and so that's an important question, because the map, this feature land use map has really, it has these broad categories and there are a set of categories that we're using in plans throughout the city. And so, if you were to just look at the map without having that text recommendation, you could think like I mentioned a little while ago about sitting over there that the plan is just recommending that quadplexes and commercial establishments are okay in the neighborhoods, because that's what the category itself would lead you to believe. But really, if they're not, so we have to say that with some extra text. Because the categories we're using are city-wide, so we're using a common set of categories. I have one question from here. And so it just needs some extra text. So that would be then with the land use for many cars, extra text in some of the different places where it says you can have like for the BLDR, there's like R6 or 18, and there's a lot of different things that are in there. And that we have multi-family 18 years later. Yeah, 18, that's low. But it's there, it's there. And so you're saying then with the land use map for Mickey Park this section with Mickey Park, then you would have that extra text. Is that how it's going to work? Yeah, so it's cities far by, they use a common set of land use categories. And then the communities that are actually part of these plans and the planners that are actually working with the communities, you know, have to get down to more detail. And so it sounds, I appreciate that it sounds contradictory, like, well, why you're contradicting yourself. You have a category that says you can do these things, and you're adding this extra text that says you can't. And the text that says you can't. The extra modified text. Well, I wouldn't, yeah, I wouldn't be here telling you that we'd write those things if it was, uh, so, so the last time we met with you, you passed out this definition of some of these terms. And for example, urban low-density residential, which is what you've got as a name for the north part of the neighborhood, says permitted zoning districts, R3, R4, R5, R6, RM5, RM6, MF18, which I, as soon as 18 units greater than NC. So, so what this suggests is it's okay for properties that are now R4 to be resolved, it means these higher density zoning categories. Yes. Okay. And by the same token, this high density residential, you've got RM4 in a 25, in a 33, which is what most of it is. And then in the 40, and I don't know what these are, NAH, NXC, and MPH, but I presume that these are higher densities. So, so what you're doing with this map is suggesting that it's okay to rezone essentially the entire residential neighborhood at the higher densities that it is now and mostly higher densities than it's actually built at. And so I'm going to ask the city council to have our name that would live from this point. Yeah. And Garrett, I just, I just wanted to say that what George was grilling down to is been the majority of some of the questions that I've been receiving in our office on those specific examples. And then not knowing if there was an opportunity for consensus on what would be acceptable from the association to add that at this point, if there was a way to do that other than what George had recommended that he was going to ask the council to do, was there any room for that kind of negotiation or if the group gets together and goes through the categories as George read out and said, you know, maybe we're okay with art on the floor, but those other densities were not. Is there still room for that? Yeah, so we're not done writing the plan. The way the categories are set up, those are those are categories that I and other project managers working out the other parts of the city have to use. Right. But like I said, the extra text that we add is, I mean, that's stuff that can be revised until the very end. And based on what I've heard so far, it would have us writing that the zoning stay the same rather than changing to that long list that any of those things on the list that George read. Yeah, I'm not sure what the point is of having this like subtext for our neighborhood, why not just reference our neighborhood plan? Yes, yes, yes. Because we've been asked to use a common set of land use categories throughout the whole city of San Jose. You're already saying you're doing it, but what I'm saying is when you get to the subtext that is specific to our neighborhood, why not just reference the neighborhood plan? So that's an interesting question. I mean, I can look at it and we can talk about referencing some of that text. Make your job easier? Well, I mean, I think the answer is, if we're going to do this at all, is that you keep the neighborhood plan in place and it's only modified to the extent of conflict with this plan. Neither document needs to be changed. This document doesn't need to be changed. What we say is the neighborhood plan is still in place to the extent there's a conflict with the Midtown plan, the Midtown plan for the best. Because again, we have built a lot of issues in here that don't involve land use and we deal with issues specifically to the neighborhood, traffic on specific streets, drainage on specific streets. We got a list in here someplace, all the sidewalks that we're playing, and it's by street. I mean, this is in exquisite Midtown because people spent hundreds of hours over a period of the year working on it. And I just don't see why we're throwing this out, you know, for a plan that it looks like to me is nothing but a justification for increasing density. And the problems you have with adding the text or whatever text to the zoning is, that's just a recommendation and it can get overruled and get lost. You have all those different categories within that one on land use that property can be that. But for Mickey Park, it's recommended not these things, but that's going to get lost and it will get argued and No, the idea is not for it to be lost and for it to be lost. I mean, we have enough problems with trying to do our neighborhood plan and our MCD with just having words saying, you know, that it's not recommended for to use these categories. I just don't see how that's going to work. Holly, can I ask one question here? One more. We're almost out of time, and I know there are several of you in the room who've not had a chance to ask any questions, so I'd like to invite you specifically. Yes. I don't have a question, but just a comment. The land use scares the crap out of it. It changed from land use because we have parking lots where we didn't want them. We have high rises where you don't want them. There are all kinds of developers wanting to grab up the land and develop it for their own use in higher density. We have businesses where we don't want them in the middle of residential streets. All the stuff keeps happening, which is why we're so crazy about how land use is going to change for the neighborhood. Anyone else who's good, can I have your presentation as a question? I have a clarifying question. Since the plan, we said the comprehensive plan in the town plan is built on the comprehensive plan instead of recommendations. Even if we dot the point where instead of having recommendations in text, we said reference the existing neighborhood plan. The existing neighborhood plan isn't currently adopted in like coordinate form and wouldn't be, even if we use that as the reference text. Correct? Is it all just suggestions that are supposed to guide decisions moving forward? Correct? Yeah, so the neighborhood plans were recommendations. They're policy. They're not regulation and law, per se. They're policy recommendations. The midtown plan will be policy recommendations. But, for example, those recommendations might be used to make decisions about incentives for developers. Sure. Yeah, where should incentives be used and where should they not be used? What should be incentivized? Sure. Anyone else in the butch? You have the question. Well, my big concern and I've made the mistake of going and looking at the corridor plan today. Nice. Got me in trouble. And no, and we need to be concerned about it because there's been a fight over this in Montevista, the TOD zoning. When you look in the Broadway and Hildebrand, which is one of the stations, and for the comprehensive, for the corridor plan, because we've got all the traffic from Thousand Oaks all the way down, Austin Highways feeding through down in the Broadway, and you have to have stations along cops along the way. And one, that makes sense to put Hildebrand in Broadway. But my concern is the land use that was in the plan, the corridor plan, has that coming a half mile on either side to do high density. And that would be Manatee Park. That's a good point. I'm just trying to get the marriage there. Where is it? Right. And you mentioned also the sustainability plan, the transportation plan, and these seem to be happening in Peaceville, and I feel like we lost track of the transportation plan. And at some point, we need to revisit those to see what's going on. We need updates on those, and we'll try to arrange for that as well. But we really need to wrap up. What are we going to do with this? When I came tonight, I had a presentation. I was planning on facilitating some discussion about that in the land use plan. And that's, this has been fine as an alternative. And we creep back. But so in any case, what's here is based on conversations from prior conversations with our neighborhood people, the making work plan, and the March meeting. And I can be revised to this after the March meeting to reflect the over hour long discussion that we had and some of the feedback that we got. And we're also revising the land use map based on the discussion from the March meeting. And it's not shown here. We have changes to make in several areas of the town. And where we're headed is including some lower density than what's here, mixed use on Broadway, and changing the high density residential to medium density residential for the most parts off of the park. But in any case, the idea is that you just say the same. So that further in relation to the change. In any case, you can take this and read it. And you can email me and I have an email for the presentation. There's business cards on the tables. And maybe I'll, I don't know if I can pull it up, you know, the principal starts to just go on. But if you want my email address, come to me and have a way to write and we will post it on our Facebook page and also next to our neighborhood. And the whole draft plan is going to be coming up online, not in months, not in days, but in weeks. Okay, so it'll be there for you to look at. And they'll be my contact information as there has been for some time and forms that you can fill out to submit, to submit comments. And I can come back to additional neighborhood meetings. And you said there was a midtown meeting planned, was it? Midtown meeting, technically planned for around June 1st. So we will try our best to publicize that to the neighborhood. And there is, I'm sorry, but there is a email sign-up sheet on this table. And it'll be here for five minutes or so if you want to get here to go. That's many of you are already on the email list, but some of you are not. Okay, thank you so much, everyone. Just a few quick announcements. If you have it signed in with Gary Cox, our treasurer, the bathroom, Gary raise your hand. Please do so before you leave. I know there have been a number of posts both on our Facebook page and emails that have been sent to the neighborhood association, both about the recent, the fee in the neighborhood, as well as concerned about the traffic situation on Claremont. We have notified Mr. Shaw's office and we have been, we'll be connecting with various departments in the city to assist with that. Mr. Mazzucca said he also notified us and into the police department specifically about the speeding issue on Claremont. And we'll be discussing it at our board meeting next Monday. Yes. Is there any, like, any chance of meeting? Officer Martinez, if you go to the website, it's for us. And we'll also follow up with Mr. Mazzucca, and you can probably even grab him right now before he leaves and ask him that specifically. And our safe officer is here, Mr. Lopez. A code enforcement, I'm sorry, a code enforcement team. Oh, sorry. And so if there are issues that you're concerned about or you have questions, we'd be happy to answer them for you. And also we have a representative from Ms. Gergen Hawkins' office. Yes. Just please introduce yourself and if you could briefly say a word. So again, my name is Joey Pawlik. I was introduced, I believe, at the January meeting when Representative Gergen Hawkins was here. My name is Joey Pawlik. I'm your consistent services and community outreach manager for Edition 120. And just let me know if you ever have any concerns. I left some newsletters up at the sign desk over here. They're from this past fall, but they're about for the last legislative session in the 85th. Of course, we're coming out to the 86th in January 2019. But of course, we have any questions or concerns, how we can help you with other safe agencies or recommendations for the legislation. Feel free to reach out to our office. So thank you. Thank you. And I guess we need to wrap up. Thank you all for coming. Yes. It is our meetings now regularly going to be here and start at seven o'clock. That's the plan. Does anyone have an objection to that? Did we get kicked out of Linesfield? No. No. But there was a request from some of our younger neighbors that this might be a more conducive to an inviting venue for families and for children, especially because the playground is right outside the store. And also several people indicated that they'd like to, they thought they could more easily walk to the meeting if it was here, as opposed to Linesfield where he would walk to Linesfield. Sorry, sorry, sorry about the talk, please. Did anyone object to the so many clock starts on? Well, one of the problems is people who might have an objection may not be you. Well, I had assumed that the early years of your time had to do with families being able to come with young children. I see more family here with young children, and otherwise I see older people. So, um, is that... Well, who here would prefer a seven o'clock start start? We're on 18 to 30, bring on. Okay. Todd, raise your hand. I'd like to sit. Is anyone prefer the seven thirty start time? But I do remind you that this is what I need to do again here. Another reason to catch more people, what's going on in the neighborhood, and just let them know that their voice matters and we want to hear it. So, we started implementing the happy hour right after the meeting. So, the earlier start time really essentially gives us more time. This is more time to communicate. Now we can go, I'm sure there are a lot of people here right now, and we can keep these discussions going in the morning. Yeah, it's tapping.