Corpusfishing.com

[The Trash Heap]

Been out of town since the 15th. I think these are the developments reported/posted since re beach closures.

Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_4549241,00.html
Beach access group may petition again
By Brandi Dean Caller-Times
March 17, 2006



The Beach Access Coalition members don't know what the City Council will vote on Tuesday, but they're almost certain they're against it.

"Whatever it is, we don't trust it," said Pat Suter, a member of the group.

The coalition formed in October after the City Council first voted to restrict vehicles on 4,200 feet of Padre Island Beach. Members petitioned for two months to have the issue put on the November ballot. But after gathering about 6,000 signatures, the petition was voided in December when the council voted to undo its original decision and allow for the option of including more beach in the restriction. Austin developer Paul Schexnailder said he needed an additional 3,200 feet vehicle-free to make a $500 million resort community feasible.

The city staff has spent the past three months looking into the possibility of closing 7,400 feet of beach - the original 4,200 feet along the seawall, plus 1,800 feet to the north and 1,400 to the south - and will present its recommendation to the council Tuesday. Mayor Henry Garrett said the ordinance that the council members will vote on includes all 7,400 feet, but they'll have the option of voting on different combinations of the three sections.

Coalition members had a news conference Thursday to warn the council they are ready to start a new petition right away if the council votes to close any of the beach to traffic.

"Probably within the next week it will be up and running," said member John Kelley. "We're not going to waste any more time."

The only traffic control they would consider acceptable is adding short wooden posts, to the beach to separate traffic from beachgoers.

Contact Brandi Dean at 886-3778 or deanb@ caller.com

Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_4552457,00.html

Nick Nelson/Caller-Times

Vehicles would be banned on 7,216 feet of Padre Island beach if the City Council gives its go-ahead on Tuesday and a planned development is built. The Beach Access Coalition is prepared to petition against the move.

Plan: ban vehicles for more than mile

City could give OK; petitioners ready to oppose

By Brandi Dean Caller-Times
March 18, 2006




Vehicles will be banned on 7,216 feet of Padre Island beach if the City Council gives its go-ahead on Tuesday, but not until construction starts on the planned island resort that spurred the ban.

The City Council will vote Tuesday on whether to restrict vehicles from 7,216 feet of Padre Island beach, with certain requirements on amenities and construction benchmarks that would have to be met before the restrictions could go into effect. The same ordinance also calls for a city charter amendment election that would require any further beach restrictions to be decided by voters.

The council voted in October to close 4,216 feet of beach along the Padre Island seawall to traffic, but undid the vote in December. Austin developer Paul Schexnailder said he needed another 3,000 feet of car-free beach for a planned $500 million resort community to be feasible. The resulting 7,216-foot stretch meant the city would have to rework its parking plan to satisfy the requirements of the General Land Office. Now that plan is done, and it includes much more than parking:

Three parking lots with a total of 706 spaces - 226 more than the land office's rule that there be parking for one vehicle for every 15 feet of beach where vehicles are banned. That includes the lot already built on the seawall and one at each end of the beach.

A ramp over the seawall that would make the beach wheelchair-accessible.

A 12-foot-wide sidewalk from the north parking lot to the south jetty of Packery Channel, which would make the jetty wheelchair accessible.

Public restrooms with outdoor showerheads near the north parking lot and restrooms at the south end.

And a question to be put before voters on Nov. 7, asking whether the city's charter should be amended to require voter approval before any other beach within the city limits is closed to vehicles.

The city won't ban cars on any of the beach until all of these things are completed, but that's not all it will take.

The company that intends to build the resort, which the Caller-Times learned in December is Vancouver-based Intrawest Corp., would be required to start construction on $75 million-worth of development before the beach north of the seawall could close to vehicles. And work on the hotel or houses to be built south of the seawall would have to begin before that portion could be car-free. The developer would also provide the sidewalk to the south jetty.

Schexnailder said the city staff was prudent to craft an ordinance that restricts traffic both north and south of the seawall. He said the entire project needs beaches that are consistently vehicle-free.

"That's why the 7,200 feet is vital," he said. "You can't treat one end of the seawall one way and the other end another way. (The ordinance) is a recognition by the city that it's a singular resort area."

For the city's part, the beach restrictions require changes to several ordinances and plans.

First of all, the beach would be set aside as a "pedestrian-safe beach," a designation that doesn't currently exist. Part of the ordinance the council is voting on would call for an addition to the city code that defines the term. It would mean the beach wouldn't allow vehicles and would limit other watercraft and motor-powered vessels. Also, fires, camping, livestock and mobile vending would be prohibited, and dogs would have to be on a leash.

The definition would also require adjacent property owners to help provide access for the disabled, and parking. And in return for providing maintenance and lifeguards, the adjoining property owners could be the exclusive vendors on the beach.

Other parts of the city code - such as one that dictates which way traffic flows on that section of beach - would be amended. And the Packery Channel Tax Increment Financing district board will have to vote to change the TIF Plan.

The original plan only provided funding for the channel itself and parking lot at the seawall. If the council votes to ban vehicles on all 7,200 feet, the TIF would also need to fund the additional parking lots and restrooms. But City Manager Skip Noe said he doesn't expect that to be a problem.

"In the end, we're confident that if this resort is constructed, the revenue from the TIF will more than cover these two parking lots and restroom facilities," he said.

It's more than an issue of money to the members of the Beach Access Coalition, however. The group has been working against the vehicle restrictions since the first vote in October by petitioning to put the question before voters. After collecting 6,000 signatures, their petition was made null and void when the council rescinded its original vote. But the group says it's ready to start all over on Tuesday.

"This is about class," said John Kelley, a member. "There's such a thing as cooler segregation. People won't go further than they can drag their cooler. They can say that it's not privatization, but it is de facto privatization. I think (the petition) will go faster this time. There are more people that are angry about it now."

Councilman Mark Scott said he hoped that wasn't true. The city had tried this time around to address many of the complaints made by the public during the first vote, he said. People wanted to know that the development prompting the vehicle ban was really going to happen, he said, and the construction requirements give them that assurance. They wanted to know that amenities would be provided, he said, and the city has outlined plans for bathrooms and showers. They wanted to know that this wouldn't set a precedent, he said, and the ordinance calls for a charter amendment.

"I think it's a pretty thorough document," Scott said. "I'm hopeful that the council, as well as the public, will respond positively."

Councilman John Marez said Scott couldn't count on his support. He voted against the original restriction and the motion to rescind it, and he expects to be a dissenting voice again Tuesday. Even with the proposed charter amendment, he's concerned about the precedent it sets, and whether other developers could come along and insist on equal treatment. He plans to question the city attorney about that before voting.

"I would say, barring any major earth-shattering news coming this way, I don't anticipate changing my stance," he said.

Councilman Rex Kinnison falls somewhere in the middle. He said he'll have a lot of questions to ask before he decides how to vote, and he pointed out that the ordinance could change before the end of Tuesday's meeting.

"It's written as a package, but there's nothing to say one of us can't make a motion to call for a vote just on the charter amendment," he said. "We could end up with one vote, two votes, three, four "

Contact Brandi Dean at 886-3778 or deanb@ caller.com. Staff writer Nick Nelson contributed to this report.

Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_4552456,00.html
City: Scott can vote on beach

By Brandi Dean Caller-Times
March 18, 2006



Councilman Mark Scott has been one of the strongest advocates for creating a pedestrian beach on Padre Island, but some members of the Beach Access Coalition wonder if he should have a say in the matter at all.

Scott works for San Jacinto Title Co. The firm has a history of doing title work for Austin developer Paul Schexnailder and Gulf Shores Joint Venture. Gulf Shores owns much of the property adjacent to the beach, and Schexnailder owns 50 percent of Gulf Shores.

Schexnailder has said in the past that the beach needed to be car-free for a $500 million resort community in the works to be feasible. Because San Jacinto Title does work for Schexnailder, members of the Beach Access Coalition, which has tried to block vehicle restrictions on the beach, say Scott stands to benefit financially by banning the vehicles.

"The resort represents new property to be titled," said Michael McCutchon, a member of the coalition. "It is a conflict of interest for Mark Scott to be voting on an ordinance which Scott himself says would be a make or break for getting the resort here."

Scott disagrees. He said he voted on Whataburger Field even though his company had done work for the Port. The company has done work for downtown developers, but he still voted on the American Bank Center. And although San Jacinto Title had done work for Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, he voted on an extension to Ennis Joslin Road that would benefit the university.

"If you believe that line of thinking, I never should have been elected to the council," he said.

City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer agreed that there was nothing in the beach-access ordinance that would keep Scott from voting. The action does not specifically involve Scott's employer, and it's only speculation to guess whether the company may get work if the beach is closed to vehicles.

"I think the key is people are assuming something that may happen in the future," Fischer said. "The law says the question must be answered from circumstances that exist at the time of the vote. This doesn't even seem close."

Contact Brandi Dean at 886-3778 or deanb@ caller.com.

------------------------------------------

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://www.mysanantonio.com/global-includes/printstory.jsp?path=/opinion/letters/stories/MYSA031906.4H.responsefocus.1bbd3f5f.html

------------------------------------------

http://www.cctexas.com/?fuseaction=main.view&page=39

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[Dexter]

Thanks for the update Johnny. I need to go rent an apartment just so I can cast a vote.
Dexter
_________________
Pinsbeach

><(((*> ~.~.~ ><(((*> ~.~.~ ><(((*>

[rabbit]

Sounds like the council is still trying to blow smoke up peoples A44S
_________________
Fishing and Kayaking its a rough life but somebody has to do it.

[MJW]

yes it does...
_________________
Work hard to play harder!!!
MeetMikeandLori.com