Loading...
Item 9A - ROBERTS City of Southlake City Council Meeting Jan 15, 2013 Response to CISD application for variance on outdoor lighting in regards to the lighting baseball and softball fields at the CSHS • .or • Vol• �► • r► • •► • r • w • it • •r • • ►r 1/3/2013 Introduction CISD is at it again. - This is their 5t" attempt at lighting the ballfields even after making multiple promises to homeowners and the City of Southlake that they had no plans to do so - Once again, the request made at the last moment, with created emergencies, over a holiday period and trying to bypass the SPIN meetings with the community - And how is this different from their 2004 attempt? Besides a new lawyer and a new contractor for the CISD and that the school is paying for the lights — not a thing - It is time that this settled once and for all and that a solution that is good for the students and good for the whole community is found - We'll be discussing: — The variance request and how CISD has created their own hardship — CISD's promises and how they can't/won't keep them — Other dangers with the approach — The impact on homeowners — CISD's mistreatment homeowners and the City of Southlake 1/14/2013 Lighting Ordinance A Reminder Purpose • Preserve and enhance the lawful nighttime use and enjoyment of property • Protect drivers and pedestrians on nearby travel ways from disabling glare from non vehicular light sources that shine directly into their eyes and thereby impair safe travel • Shield neighboring properties from nuisance glare and trespass resulting from improperly directed or unshielded shield light sources • Preclude or lessen light pollution • Promote efficient design and operation with regard to energy conservation and to curtail the degradation of the nighttime visual environment Variance Granting Summary of lighting ordinance conditions for which the City Council can grant a variance (ORDINANCE NO 6C93, Section 10, paragraphs c (1), c (2) and c (3) c) The city council after receiving a recommendation from the planning and zoning commission may grant a modification or variance from the provisions of this Ordinance in any of the following circumstances 1) Upon finding that strict application of the Ordinance would not forward the purposes of this Ordinance or that alternatives proposed by the applicant would satisfy the purposes of this Ordinance at least to an equivalent degree. 2) Upon finding that an outdoor light or system of outdoor lights required for a particular use cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination for safety or security as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North American for the particular use or other evidence submitted by a professional engineer or other professional organization. 3) Upon finding where a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest or the intent but do substantial justice and be in accordance with the spirit of the regulations and this Ordinance. 1/11/2013 CISD's Application Summary CISD would have the City of Southlake ignore the two key areas of the ordinance — the purpose of the ordinance and how they have created their own hardship for which they are now seeking relief. CISD has concocted or fabricated a legal argument so they could apply under the premise of required safety for the athletes We will take you through these items that CISD would like you to ignore before discussing the applicants request C.1.(a) . . would not forward the purposes of this ordinance . . . Lu mination/1 I I u mination/G la re Lighting Ordinance Area Ordinance CISD CISD CISD North North Specification Softball Baseball Max x Park Park Max x 4b — Luminaires LED orHPS Metal Metal Metal Halide Halide Halide 5a - Illumination of Neighboring .2 .6 2.73 13.6x -.2x .16 properties measured Horizontally at .5' 5a - Illumination of Neighboring .5 2.09 5.84 11.7x .01x .51 properties measured Vertically at 5' 5b - Maximum Illuminaton 20 69 60 3.5x 3x 60 7a - Intensity of lumination .02 .77 4.38 219x 20.5x .41 (glare) 1/9/2013 (* Numbers are taken from northern property border next to Oak Pointe homes) C.1.(a) . . would not forward the purposes of this ordinance . . . ru mi nation I l l u mi nation G la re Summary • CISD suggests, in their application, that 13.6x, 11.8x and 219x over the ordinance is marginal • CISD numbers exceed the North Park illumination numbers by factor of 10 to 20 and the lumination (glare) number by a factor of 10. • The North Park homeowners are very upset with the misrepresentation made to them when the variance for North Park was granted. • Former P&Z commissioners regret voting for the variance now that they see how much the homes at Oak Pointe are lit up • These numbers are not fixed. If at installation they find dark areas, like the inability to see foul balls down the line, they will adjust luminaires to increase the luminance in these areas. It is likely that the darkest areas are in outfield — near where the homes are — and would require additional lighting to correct. • CISD has already revised their plan. Current plan as 2 more luminaires per field which has pushed the numbers requested in the variance even higher than what was given to the homeowners 1/14/2013 Variance Granting Summary of lighting ordinance conditions for which the City Council can grant a variance (ORDINANCE NO 6C93, Section 10, paragraphs c (1), c (2) and c (3) c) The city council after receiving a recommendation from the planning and zoning commission may grant a modification or variance from the provisions of this Ordinance in any of the following circumstances 1) Upon finding that strict application of the Ordinance would not forward the purposes of this Ordinance or L, , ac alternatives proposed by the applicant would satisfy the purposes of this Ordinance at least to an equivalent degree. 2) Upon finding that an outdoor light or system of outdoor lights required for a particular use cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination for safety or security as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North American for the particular use or other evidence submitted by a professional engineer or other professional organization. 3) Upon finding where a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest or the intent but do substantial justice and be in accordance with the spirit of the regulations and this Ordinance. 1/12/2013 C.1.(b) . . . Alternatives proposed . . .equivalent degree CISD's Mitigation Promises Overview CISD is promising many items to mitigate the impact of lights • CISD has admitted that mitigation efforts are nothing more than promises/policies that can be changed by a future school board . This is the same excuse they are using with respect to the lights themselves — If they promised the homeowners in the past then the CISD can change their policy in the future • All of these projects are a lower priority as compared to the education priority. Budget constraints have and will limit their ability keep these mitigation promises. (i.e. paying a teacher will always take priority over planting a tree) • CISD's past behaviors are indicative of how well they will keep their future promises C. 1-M . . . Alternatives proposed . . .equivalent degree ProposedMitigation Promises Area CISD Offer History Trees - Engage landscape architect to provide - CISD can't keep current trees alive due to costs and irrigation additional screening for the neighborhood problems (2000 plantings, Aquatics) - CISD has argued that mitigation trees (from 2000) are just that and do not have to be replaced - CISD is looking for volunteers to replace current bufferyard trees. None have accepted so far (18 months). - They claim that a well is needed to water the trees, even though the irrigation zones that already exist has been turned off or broken for years - Dead trees are replaced with small 6-8' - Screening would require 50'&70' trees (Staggered) with costs that are prohibitive to CISD's budget 1/14/2013 Additional C-1.(b) . . . Alternatives proposed . . .equivalent degree 1/13/2013 m. • `' y OWN` C.1.(b) . . . Alternatives proposed . . .equivalent degree Additional Sc eer nin ? 1/11/2013 12 C.1.(b) . . . Alternatives proposed . . .equivalent degree Additional Sc eer nin ? �- 1Q Assuming CISD can even come up with the money to install some 32 full size trees for the E/SE and another 30 trees for the S boundary they would have to provide continual funds for the replacement of these 50-70' -. � trees. Due to the tight location, it will be nearly impossible to replace them if/when they die. 0. Sample e Tree Installation Effort • ► �' r Ar F Mow ' ►� r T �J CISID's History with Trees 2001 Image VOo e �Oo e - _ New Trees -School mitigation Homeowners J. O � O i Trees installed in 2000 by CISD as part of mitigation effort for construction. Park Place Development was new at the time and trees were installed by new homeowners - a 1 y CISD's History with Trees 2011 f ti ` GO CXC interval Course-: � EXC,Inte�rv_al Course�'4�� Trees C<G\�• • • • er care and water ,� �� � � v`I. � � - •i ... j-RJR' f J..I t"�; Ali with proper care and water ark PI Park Pf Park PI Sapp Park PI C. 1.(b) . . . Alternatives proposed . . .equivalent degree ProposedMitigation Promises Area CISD Offer History Well - Pursue the installation of water well at - CISD does not have permission from state yet CSHS - CISD does not have agreement on requirements - Does not solve the problem with irrigation lines which are the root cause for most of the tree loss for the past 2 years Sche - Limit to UIL activity by boys' and girls' - No agreement set yet dule athletics - Does not solve issue overtime or rain delayed games - Capping usage at a number of nights TBD - At mercy of UIL rules - Pursue waiver with UIL for 7pm start - Who polices the school? - Shut the outfield lights off at game end Noise - Mitigate noise from public address - Does not protect nighttime private enjoyment especially when system children are trying to sleep 1/14/2013 Other Past Promises are Indicative of Future Behavior Area History Fence - Took 10 years before CISD came up with funding to replace fence on property Detention -Has been wet for 12 years even though promised dry (see separate presentation) Pond Cell Tower - Flag were to be flown on games days only. Flies all the time now Batting - Practices continue to midnight even though promised to be limited to 9pm practice Tennis Courts - Lights remain on late into the night. - Music is played loudly on school mornings waking up homeowners in the area 1/11/2013 Variance Granting Summary of lighting ordinance conditions for which the City Council can grant a variance (ORDINANCE NO 6C93, Section 10, paragraphs c (1), c (2) and c (3) c) The city council after receiving a recommendation from the planning and zoning commission may grant a modification or variance from the provisions of this Ordinance in any of the following circumstances 1) Upon finding that strict application of the Ordinance would not forward the purposes of this Ordinance or that alternatives proposed by the applicant would satisfy the purposes of this Ordinance at least to an equivalent degree. 2) Upon finding that an outdoor light or system of outdoor lights required for a particular use cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination for safety or security as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North American for the particular use or other evidence submitted by a professional engineer or other professional organization. 3) Upon finding where a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest or the intent but do substantial justice and be in accordance with the spirit of the regulations and this Ordinance. 1/12/2013 C.2 (Safety) CISD's Own Hardship CISD has known for years that installing lights on the fields would be opposed by the homeowners in the area. CISD had been told numerous times that a different solution should be found that did not included lighting up the CSHS fields CISD has had ample time and a number of funding opportunities to create an alternative location like many other school districts have done (i.e. Coppell) CISD has had opportunity to relocate the fields on the CSHS to be more suitable for lighting and did not do so. CISD has created this hardship on their own and is now seeking help from the City of Southlake relief through this variance application Nothing has changed since the last time they reached this stage in 2004. What they do have is a more aggressive general contractor and lawyer under contract to the school board. 1/12/2013 C.2 (Safety) CIDHardship S 's 0wn 1990 CISD and Stonelakes zoned. - Homeowners in the area complain about potential traffic, noise and late night activities - Stone Lakes starts development and first homes built in 1992 1993 CISD builds school and locates - CISD could have located fields on the interior like most other schools. field on outside edge near - CISD promises Stone Lakes homeowners that no lights would be homes. installed - to get their approval for site plan 2000 Softball field installed. Practice - CISD could have positioned field on the interior and moved the fields moved to make way for baseball field. To get approval from homeowners, they promised Softball and detention pond. homeowners that no lights would be installed and then make a request to the City of Southlake to withdraw lights from the site plan 2004 Collegiate team makes deal - CISD tries to obtain variance to the lighting ordinance. P&Z votes 7-0 with CISD for field rental in against. At City Council, when discussion indicates opposition, CISD exchange for lights. withdraws application in middle of proceedings. Both City Council and P&Z commission recommend that CISD find a better location. 2006 Bond Package - No moneys are requested for new field location or lights on existing fields 2009 Bond Package - CISD removes Lights from bond package due to high opposition and cites a need to work with homeowners in the area. No other moneys requested for new field locations 2010 CISD promises that no lights - As part of athletic facility expansion and need for additional locker would be installed at the CSHS rooms, CISD solves a space problem by locating baseball/softball locker and removes them from site rooms near their practice/game fields. (Softball had already moved plan. games to Bob Jones) Other Schools Other ISD's have positioned fields appropriately when building their High Schools. Example nearby schools: - Richland - Grapevine - Colleyville - Byron Nelson Found Other Solutions - Coppell : Built separate ISD field when variance not granted for the HS Coppe' ll # •�., ti�sr. . . P When the Coppell ISD built the Football Stadium sought • a` .- rv•oAndy L-ake�Rd _CO � • • •HS, they +,_. T lighting ordinance for the football, softball and baseball fields. The city granted r,la�y_ tit' i• 'L � r, � request for football field which is located on the interior of the property. The variances for the softball . • baseball fieldswere not granted. Coppell ►heI F•d ^ W Bemel Rd 3 4 installed new fields at different location a t � d w Practice • LLwr_s Original Homes ` LC Game • cn I 1/13/2013 hSchool Findings Otr e 23 fields in NTx area without lights Description Public School Private School Play at other ISD 4 (2 ISDs) 0 location Play at public park 5(5) 5(3) Play at Other 2(1) 1(1) Location (College, YMCA) Start games at 2(2) 4(4) 4/4:30 1/14/2013 Variance Granting Summary of lighting ordinance conditions for which the City Council can grant a variance (ORDINANCE NO 6C93, Section 10, paragraphs c (1), c (2) and c (3) c) The city council after receiving a recommendation from the planning and zoning commission may grant a modification or variance from the provisions of this Ordinance in any of the following circumstances 1) Upon finding that strict application of the Ordinance would not forward the purposes of this Ordinance or that alternatives proposed by the applicant would satisfy the purposes of this Ordinance at least to an equivalent degree. 2) Upon finding that an outdoor light or system of outdoor lights required for a particular use cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination for safety or security as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North American for the particular use or other evidence submitted by a professional engineer or other professional organization. 3) Upon finding where a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest or the intent but do substantial justice and be in accordance with the spirit of the regulations and this Ordinance. 1/11/2013 C.2 (Safety) CISD Safety Problem CISD has indicated that they need the lights for the safety of their athletes . They have provided two possible requirements : - The extracurricular activity is considered an extension of the classroom and thus, per UIL, lights are a requirement to provide a safe environment - It is dangerous to have students play at non ISD facilities like Bicentennial park C.2 (Safety) CISD Safety Problem - UIL To approve this variance, CISD is asking the City of Southlake to set a precedent and in effect, make a legal decision on a new legal interpretation of CISD's own creation. Nothing has changed since 2004 except for - New contractor - New lawyer - New legal interpretation . C.2 (Safety) CISD Safety Problem — UIL background Some key items that are known and the grey areas that are not known 1) An extracurricular activity like baseball is, per TAC 76.1001 sAA: `The activity is not necessarily directly related to instruction of the essential knowledge and skills but may have an indirect relation to some areas of the curriculum.' 2) The "Extension of Classroom" phrase has been used in support of all UIL academic contests and in the case of athletics — to set and maintain high standards of sportsmanship, ethics and integrity in our schools and our society. 3) Officials of UIL athletic sports have used the phrase "Extension of the classroom" as an interpretation aid in treatment of behavior of athletes and coaches during contests. 1/12/2013 C.2 (Safety) CISD Safety Problem — UIL background Some key items that are known and the grey areas that are not known cont: 4) TAC 61.1032.a makes the following definitions: • (1) Instructional facility--real property, an improvement to real property, or a necessary fixture of an improvement to real property that is used predominantly for teaching the curriculum required by Texas Education Code (TEC), §28.002. • (2) Noninstructional facility--a facility that may occasionally be used for instruction, but the predominant use is for purposes other than teaching the curriculum required by TEC, §28.002. • (3) Necessary fixture--equipment necessary to the use of a facility for its intended purposes, but which is permanently attached to the facility, such as lighting and plumbing. 1/12/2013 C.2 (Safety) CISD Safety Problem — UIL background Some key items that are known and the grey areas that are not known cont: 5) TAC 61.1033 and TAC61.1036 provide that school district must follow the local building code 6) TAC 61.1033.0 and TAC 61.1036.f.4.F state the "School District facilities shall comply with all other local, state, and federal requirements as applicable" 7) IESNA defines the purpose of security lighting is to prevent crime 1/13/2013 C.2 (Safety) CISDSafetyProblem S CISD would have the City of Southlake agree that baseball and softball are required curriculum and that apparently, the CISD has not been providing a safe environment for these athletes for the past 22 years. The Lighting Ordinance variance provision for safety or security was not intended for this usage. The provision was intended for such things as parking lots, emergency exits, streets and sidewalks where pedestrian safety and security are needed. IESNA does not include sports/athletic lighting in descriptions of lighting for safety purposes. CISD is using creative interpretation and piecing together snippets from many sections of code and guidelines to define this need for a variance. Their approach, while creative, is appalling in its abuse of the intent of the state code and local ordinances. 1/13/2013 C.2 (Safety) CISD Safety Problem - Summary But following the creative logic of CISID, then the following should also be considered : • Playing in daylight is safer than playing at night • Spectators and athletes would risk higher exposure to West Nile Virus due to the CISD's inability to properly manage drainage in the area (mosquitoes are more numerous at dusk) • The CSHS has many areas that would be dangerous at night (forest, creek, detention pond, sink holes) • Increased risk for students driving away and back between school and the game as well as driving home late after a game C.2 (Safety) CISD "Classroom " Safety A Slippery Slope We imagine that this is the first time an ISD has used the "extension of the classroom" as justification for outdoor lights. Implications are: - Anything can be done on any school property if it can be tied to the "the classroom" - Lights could be installed on every ballfield, practice field, track in the City of Southlake without concern to nearby homeowners - Practices and associated noise (i.e. band) could be held at any time at any ISD location - Every square foot of property will have to be lit for safety - Property and ball fields will be lit at any luminance level that would be deemed safe. Brighter they are, the more safe they are. - Eminent domain can be used to acquire property for athletic fields 1/13/2013 C.2 (Safety) CISD Off-Campus Safety During P&Z,, CISD made heavy use of the safety concerns about playing off-campus using these concerns as a reason for putting lights on-campus C.2 (Safety) Off Campus is Unsafe If we are to believe CISD then their logic suggests the following. (We believe the argument has always been a red herring) - Bicentennial is unsafe - Their restricted budget security is a better solution than the Southlake Police - Crimes do not exist on campus - Teams should be banned from playing tournaments at any public park. (Cross Country Teams would have to be dissolved as they run most if not all their meets at public parks) - All other ISD locations would have to submit to a safety verification before CISD students would be allowed on their campus Other Problems • Creek Drainage • Property Values • CISD Behaviors Creek Drainage CISD has not been able to control a creek and drainage area on the SE corner of the CSHS where the Baseball and Softball fields are located . - Yards have flooded - Pools filled with mud - Standing pools of water supporting mosquitoes prevail - Creek downstream has been caused to dry out for the first time as the Carroll portion of the creek flow has been disrupted CISD is planning to install the poles and more mitigation trees in this creek Creek Drainage Issues Current L I 1/13/2013 The Creek l[Ill - rr � 1/11/2013 Creek Drainage Issues with mitigation trees I ' 1/11/2013 r k Drainage C ee -Current approach to using concrete weirs has led to _ water eddying and eroding the banks leaving standing pools of water. -Adding trees to the creek bed in a required staggered to formation will increase the water turbulence given that no natural flow path is available _ - Erosion of banks will endanger the stability of the light poles that are installed outside the outfield fence - With high number of tornadoes in the area, a pole is therefore likely to fall and towards the homes ' -CISD's inability to keep trees alive will likely leave holes in the screening allowing poles to fall into the yards and throwing luminaires at homes 1/11/2013 Creek Drainage Issues Pole Failure Tornadoes in Tarrant, Dallas, Denton, Collin Counties FO F1 F2 F3 F4 F? Total 50's 6 5 5 4 4 24 60's 13 10 10 3 1 37 70's 15 36 18 1 3 73 80's 9 8 4 1 22 90's 19 12 9 1 41 00's 32 10 1 4 47 10's 5 2 2 9 TOTAL 99 83 49 13 1 8 253 dal ;,.,.; 1/11/2 3 42 Property Values • CISID has promised no lights and the City has repeated the same. Homeowners paid for homes under this assumption . Installation of lights would damage property values ( per Appraiser) • Night games would limit ability to enjoy property • Late games would intrude on ability for children to sleep Property Values Property Value loss estimate : - 15-20% for homes next to the school - 5-10% for homes that can see the school - 5% for all other homes in the subdivision based on real estate comps - $ 10-20,000,,000 loss of value would result in $ 100-200,000 loss of tax revenue to City and County - Expanded to every home near a ISD property . . . . Other Problems • Creek Drainage • Property Values • CISD Behaviors Property Values 20-301,0001000 and upto $300,000 in loss of property tax revenue to the City and County. • All if CISD is allowed to use the "extension of classroom" argument, then the homes around any CISD campus would be subject to loss of property values. Property Tax — CISD Story • At the 12/13 meeting with homeowners, CISD stated that property tax losses do not affect the CISD due to Robin Hood and thus has no bearing as an issue concern for them • CISD has argued that the Natatorium project was successful and did not impact property values : — We agreed to the changes made at the natatorium. We do not agree to the mitigation efforts for the lights — Natatorium was set back, heights adjusted lower, no lights on the backside and three rows of trees installed — No homes have sold since the Natatorium project and thus no real impact Other Problems • Creek Drainage • Property Values • CISD Behaviors CISDBehaviors CISD approach to the lights has been to promise cooperation but then do anything but. . .bully the homeowners . . . Nov/Dec in a statements to the local homeowners, CISD claim they only became aware of the request in Oct. Facts: - Lights were not on the Bond Action Committee list of projects as of April 2012. - Umpires send message to CISD regarding scheduling concerns - Parent made a request to school board in May - Musco submitted estimates on May 18t" at the request of some CISD representative - May, in a letter to the AD, the subject matter of the lights is mentioned as it "has the potential for generating a significant amount of emotion in the community. The group that ends up on what they might perceive to be the "losing end" will potentially harbor bitter feelings towards administration, the board, and anyone else that they believe has been part of the situation." - Lights were added to the BAC July meeting - Lights are on the Bond list in August 1/14/2013 CISDBehaviors CISD approach to the lights has been to promise cooperation but then do anything but. . . bully the homeowners . . . P&Z 2010, CISD promises no lights would be installed and no matter what, they would work with the homeowners in the area before hand . Facts : — CISD gave a 5 day notice for homeowner meeting which was scheduled the day before the vote by the school board — At Nov 12 homeowner meeting, CISD told homeowners: • CISD has followed Southlake zoning and variance procedures in the past as a favor to the city and that CISD did not need to do so • Past promises for no lights are considered nothing more than policies of a past board and that no future board could be bound by them • CISD could try some mitigation like setting limits on nights but these would only be policies. It is unlikely that they would ever enter into a binding contract and like other policies, could be changed in the future. 1/14/2013 CISD Behaviors CISD approach to the lights has been to promise cooperation but then do anything but. . .bully the homeowners . . . Dec School Board . For the first time, CISD discusses options to the field and decides to vote for CSHS lights. Facts : — The options to the CSHS were dismissed within an hour. Some of the options had incomplete data and were tossed for this lack of data — More time was spent building up the CSHS option than was spent on finding answers to the gaps on the other options. CISD Behaviors CISD approach to the lights has been to promise cooperation but then do anything but. . . bully the homeowners . . . Dec, CISD votes to install lights at the CSHS and instructs their staff to follow Southlake procedures. Facts: — CISD created a mitigation package that was not discussed with the homeowners — CISD instructs City staff that no SPIN meeting is needed as the meetings with the homeowners had sufficed thus eliminating opportunity for other Southlake community members to be made aware plans — Argument to use "extension of classroom" and corresponding safety issues was never discussed at board meetings or the one homeowner meeting 1/sa/zoi: Response Summary • CISD is trying to bully their way to installing lights by asking for fast procedures, declaring a timing emergency, running things through during the holiday period and purposely not working with community members to find a solution that is good for all • CISD's variance request argument is has no legal precedence and the City of Southlake should not try to set one for them • CISD has created this problem for themselves and ignored opportunities to correct it. They are now punting the problem to the City. The City should not enable this behavior. • Its time to work on a new solution that is good for the athletes, good for the school, and good for the whole community Hip Pocket Past Promises to P &Z P&Z Clip #1.rrp4 P&Z Clip #2 rrp4 Transcript for April 22, 2010 P&Z meeting: • P&Z Council Member: "Specific question is accessory use includes a lighted baseball field. Please tell me that's a mistake" • City Planner: "This is actually the uh proposed, these regulations have been revised over uh, several zoning, previous zoning cases. These are the same uh, zoning cases previously, I mean, uh, I mean same regulations previously approved" • P&Z Council Member: "Well, please tell me lighted baseball fields is a mistake, shouldn't be on there" • (Architect & CISD Representative talking but inaudible in the background) • P&Z Council Member: "Okay, is that, because- I thought that was removed last time Dr. Is that correct? " • (CISD Representative - in the background again but a little more audible) • CISD Representative "I don't know why someone put it in the chart but I can tell you the school or the district has no plans to put baseball lights or softball, on the softball or baseball fields." • P&Z Council Member: "Okay, so can we remove that one?" • (CISD Representative says something but inaudible.) • P&Z Council Member: "okay, thank you, sir." 1/3/2013 Current Application Timeline • April - Umpires send email to AD requesting help with moving games to a later start time. • April — Lighting the ballfields are not on the Bond project list. • May— School Board trustee(s) meet with parents who were presenting a request for lighting of the ball fields. The intent of the meeting was to keep it small but emails suggest that the attendance was very large. Email also notes that the subject matter "has the potential for generating a significant amount of emotion in the community. The group that ends up on what they might perceive to be the "losing end" will potentially harbor bitter feelings towards administration, the board, and anyone else that they believe has been part of the situation." • May 18 — MUSCO submits quote for lighting of the ball fields. • May/June - Supporters speak at CISD School Board public forum requesting lights funded by extra 2009 bond money. CISD instructs Bond Committee to investigate • June — Band parents are angry about lights going up the ball fields and other ball field improvements while the band instruments are suffering • July— BAC adds the lights to the list of projects • Sept - Supporters speak at CISD School Board public forum requesting lights funded by extra 2009 bond money. • October 22 — Supporters again request lights during public forum. Topic put on Nov 5 meeting • Nov 5 — CISD Trustees discuss lights. Motion made by one trustee to notify homeowners • Nov 7 — Homeowners notified of meeting to discuss lights before final vote. Meeting sched for Nov 12, final vote scheduled for Nov 13 • Nov 12 — Homeowner meeting. Trustees tell homeowners that plan is underway, any promises in past were just policy and could be changed by any future school board. This would apply as well to any potential mitigation plans • Nov 13 — Bond surplus vote meeting. Mayor proposes BiCentennial park as an option. Trustees vote to install lights at one of the high school campuses. Final decision on Dec 3 • Dec 3 — Many options presented. All but the CSHS option are quickly removed even though CISD admits they did not have enough data for many of them. CSHS lights are approved using 2006 bond money. Many mitigation projects are proposed as well — none are discussed with homeowners • Dec 10 — CISD applies for variance. Requests no SPIN meeting citing that they had already met with homeowners. 1/14/201: History Summary • CISD uses same tactics every 3-4 years. — Promise homeowners no lights — Try to install lights — When approval is not apparent, they remove application and renew promise for no lights • They are back again . For the 5t" time. • Just like the High Density and Jellico Cir applications who keep trying — hoping a mistake will be made — P&Z and City Council need to remain vigilant and deny this application 1/3/2013