09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 9 - Public Comments — original pdf

Backup

From: To: Subject: Date: Charles d"Harcourt Estrada, Nancy Case C814-06-0175.07 Friday, February 6, 2026 11:52:30 AM [You don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] . Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution Dear ms. Estrada, The membership of the Hancock Neighborhood Association has voted to oppose the request in case C814-06-0175.07 to increase the maximum allowable height of the property in question from 160 feet to 270 feet and to allow currently prohibited vehicular access from that property to Concordia Avenue. We will be presenting the reasons for the opposition at the planning commission meeting where this will be reviewed, which I believe is currently set to be the February 10th meeting. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if I have any questions. Thanks and best regards, - Charles d'Harcour ______________________________________________________________________ Charles d'Harcourt, Hancock Neighborhood Association volunteer and current president +1 512 484 9625, CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 91 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 92 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 93 of 27Letter in opposition to 1012 Concordia - C814-06-0175.07 Dear Ms. Estrada, I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning at 1012 Concordia Avenue. 1. The request fundamentally departs from the Concordia PUD master plan The site at 1012 Concordia Avenue was originally planned as part of the Concordia Planned Unit Development, with building heights up to approximately 65 feet and a clear intent to manage scale transitions adjacent to existing residential areas. That framework was the result of coordination between the City and surrounding communities and has guided successful development within the PUD to date. The current request represents the third major height increase for this site, from 65 feet to 120 feet in 2020, to 160 feet in 2023, and now up to 270 feet. A building of this magnitude would be more than four times the height originally planned for the site and would dramatically exceed the scale envisioned by the adopted PUD framework. 2. Incremental height escalation is wrong at this location A 270-foot building would be the tallest structure in the city outside of downtown, West Campus, and The Domain, and far taller than anything in the surrounding Hancock neighborhood or even the high-density, high-amenity Mueller development, which has no heights near what is being requested. 3. The proposal grants major entitlements without a defined or implementable project The requested rezoning seeks to grant maximum height entitlements in the absence of a defined or fully planned project. The applicant has acknowledged that plans for a 270-foot building are not yet developed and would only be pursued if the rezoning is approved. 4. The proposal fails to deliver public benefit or advance City priorities High rises on small sites are challenged to provide meaningful ground floor active uses do to the ground floor infrastructure needed. Mid-rise does not have the ground floor challenges that high rise does. The site’s location immediately adjacent to I-35 places it at the center of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to align land use decisions with the City’s broader goals for the I-35 redesign, including improved urban form, connectivity, and long-term community benefit. Development decisions on parcels abutting I-35 will play an outsized role in determining whether this 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 94 of 27 investment supports those goals or simply locks in isolated intensity without corresponding public benefit. The goal is to connect east and west along I-35, and a potential wall of height will simply divide east and west. The City already permits towers of this magnitude in areas specifically planned for extreme height and intensity, where zoning anticipates tall buildings, multimodal access, and a full range of services. Granting comparable entitlements in a low-rise, predominantly residential area governed by a PUD framework is neither necessary nor consistent with the City’s planning approach, and provides substantial private benefit without corresponding public return. 5. Approval would undermine trust during ongoing comprehensive planning efforts The City is currently undertaking major updates to its comprehensive planning framework through City of Austin’s long-range planning efforts, including revisions to the Imagine Austin framework. These processes rely on public trust that adopted plans, district frameworks, and negotiated development standards will be respected over time. Approving a project that so clearly departs from an established PUD master plan, particularly through successive rezoning requests, sends the opposite signal: that even carefully negotiated plans offer no durable guidance. This undermines not only this neighborhood’s confidence, but the City’s broader ability to engage communities constructively in comprehensive planning going forward. 6. Financial viability is not a planning justification The applicant has suggested that additional height is required for project viability, citing both financial considerations and the loss of developable land associated with the I-35 expansion. However, private profitability is not a planning criterion. Moreover, the applicant moved forward with this project fully aware of the site’s constraints, including the impacts of the I-35 project. These known conditions do not justify a rezoning that so dramatically departs from the adopted planning framework. Increases to entitlements, like this, increases land costs and fuels speculation. This directly works against affordability. For these reasons, I respectfully urge denial of the requested rezoning and to uphold the integrity of the Concordia PUD framework and the broader planning principles it represents. Sincerely, Bart Whatley 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 95 of 27 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 96 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 97 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 98 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 99 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 910 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 911 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 912 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 913 of 27undermines planning predictability and places an unnecessary burden on future public review. This concern is compounded by the fact that repeated rezoning requests for the same site impose a cumulative burden on residents and neighborhood associations, requiring ongoing engagement simply to preserve previously agreed-upon planning outcomes. This dynamic disproportionately favors applicants with resources and erodes meaningful public participation. 4. The proposal fails to deliver public benefit or advance City priorities The proposed development is entirely residential and does not include meaningful mixed-use components. This is inconsistent with the intent of the Concordia PUD master plan and with the development model the City has repeatedly stated it prefers for projects of this scale and prominence. The site’s location immediately adjacent to I-35 places it at the center of a once-in-a- generation opportunity to align land use decisions with the City’s broader goals for the I- 35 redesign, including improved urban form, connectivity, and long-term community benefit. Development decisions on parcels abutting I-35 will play an outsized role in determining whether this investment supports those goals or simply locks in isolated intensity without corresponding public benefit. Approving extreme height increases on this site in the absence of a comprehensive, mixed-use plan risks squandering that opportunity by granting permanent entitlements that do not clearly advance the broader objectives of the I-35 redevelopment. More broadly, the City already permits towers of this magnitude in areas specifically planned for extreme height and intensity, where zoning anticipates tall buildings, multimodal access, and a full range of services. Granting comparable entitlements in a low-rise, predominantly residential area governed by a PUD framework is neither necessary nor consistent with the City’s planning approach, and provides substantial private benefit without corresponding public return. 5. Approval would undermine trust during ongoing comprehensive planning efforts The City is currently undertaking major updates to its comprehensive planning framework through City of Austin’s long-range planning efforts, including revisions to the Imagine Austin framework. These processes rely on public trust that adopted plans, district frameworks, and negotiated development standards will be respected over time. Approving a project that so clearly departs from an established PUD master plan, particularly through successive rezoning requests, sends the opposite signal: that even carefully negotiated plans offer no durable guidance. This undermines not only this neighborhood’s confidence, but the City’s broader ability to engage communities constructively in comprehensive planning going forward. 6. Financial viability is not a planning justification The applicant has suggested that additional height is required for project viability, citing both financial considerations and the loss of developable land associated with the I-35 expansion. However, private profitability is not a planning criterion. Moreover, the applicant moved forward with this project fully aware of the site’s constraints, including 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 914 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 915 of 27From: To: Subject: Date: R K Estrada, Nancy Opposition to height increase Thursday, February 5, 2026 4:11:25 PM [You don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] . Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Ms. Estrada, I am emailing to note my clear opposition to the proposed rezoning at 1012 Concordia Avenue. Please see below a detailed list of reasons why the height increase request should be rejected. The points below explain why this rezoning represents a significant departure from the Concordia PUD master plan, establishes a problematic precedent for incremental height escalation, and risks undermining public trust in the City’s planning process at a critical moment. 1. The request fundamentally departs from the Concordia PUD master plan The site at 1012 Concordia Avenue was originally planned as part of the Concordia Public Utility District (PUD), with building heights up to approximately 65 feet and a clear intent to manage scale transitions adjacent to existing residential areas. That framework was the result of coordination between the City and surrounding communities and has guided successful development within the PUD to date. The current request represents the third major height increase for this site, from 65 feet to 120 feet in 2020, to 160 feet in 2023, and now up to 270 feet. A building of this magnitude would be more than four times the height originally planned for the site and would dramatically exceed the scale envisioned by the adopted PUD framework. 2. Incremental height escalation sets a dangerous precedent Approval of this rezoning would set a dangerous precedent for incremental height escalation within planned districts. If a site can move from 65 feet to 270 feet through successive rezonings, the original PUD framework becomes effectively meaningless, and similar requests elsewhere become difficult to deny. This is particularly concerning given that a 270-foot building would be the tallest structure in the city outside of downtown, West Campus, and The Domain, and far taller than anything in the surrounding Hancock neighborhood or even the high-density, high-amenity Mueller development. 3. The proposal grants major entitlements without a defined or implementable project The requested rezoning seeks to grant maximum height entitlements in the absence of a defined or fully planned project. The applicant has acknowledged that plans for a 270-foot building are not yet developed and would only be pursued if the rezoning is approved. Granting such a substantial increase in height without a defined project raises the risk that the rezoning functions primarily as an entitlement expansion rather than an implementable plan. If the site is later sold or redesigned under these expanded entitlements, the City and surrounding community would be forced to reengage in a new, resource- intensive planning and permitting process, despite having already conceded the most consequential development parameter: height. That outcome undermines planning predictability and places an unnecessary burden on future public review. This concern is compounded by the fact that repeated rezoning requests for the same site impose a cumulative 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 916 of 27burden on residents and neighborhood associations, requiring ongoing engagement simply to preserve previously agreed-upon planning outcomes. This dynamic disproportionately favors applicants with resources and erodes meaningful public participation. 4. The proposal fails to deliver public benefit or advance City priorities The proposed development is entirely residential and does not include meaningful mixed-use components. This is inconsistent with the intent of the Concordia PUD master plan and with the development model the City has repeatedly stated it prefers for projects of this scale and prominence. The site’s location immediately adjacent to I-35 places it at the center of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to align land use decisions with the City’s broader goals for the I-35 redesign, including improved urban form, connectivity, and long-term community benefit. Development decisions on parcels abutting I-35 will play an outsized role in determining whether this investment supports those goals or simply locks in isolated intensity without corresponding public benefit. Approving extreme height increases on this site in the absence of a comprehensive, mixed-use plan risks squandering that opportunity by granting permanent entitlements that do not clearly advance the broader objectives of the I-35 redevelopment. More broadly, the City already permits towers of this magnitude in areas specifically planned for extreme height and intensity, where zoning anticipates tall buildings, multimodal access, and a full range of services. Granting comparable entitlements in a low-rise, predominantly residential area governed by a PUD framework is neither necessary nor consistent with the City’s planning approach, and provides substantial private benefit without corresponding public return. 5. Approval would undermine trust during ongoing comprehensive planning efforts The City is currently undertaking major updates to its comprehensive planning framework through City of Austin’s long-range planning efforts, including revisions to the Imagine Austin framework. These processes rely on public trust that adopted plans, district frameworks, and negotiated development standards will be respected over time. Approving a project that so clearly departs from an established PUD master plan, particularly through successive rezoning requests, sends the opposite signal: that even carefully negotiated plans offer no durable guidance. This undermines not only this neighborhood’s confidence, but the City’s broader ability to engage communities constructively in comprehensive planning going forward. 6. Financial viability is not a planning justification The applicant has suggested that additional height is required for project viability, citing both financial considerations and the loss of developable land associated with the I-35 expansion. However, private profitability is not a planning criterion. Moreover, the applicant moved forward with this project fully aware of the site’s constraints, including the impacts of the I-35 project. These known conditions do not justify a rezoning that so dramatically departs from the adopted planning framework. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City to deny the requested rezoning and to uphold the integrity of the Concordia PUD framework and the broader planning principles it represents. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Robert Kaler Architect CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 917 of 27From: To: Subject: Date: carol journeay Estrada, Nancy Opposition to 1012 Concordia height increase Thursday, February 5, 2026 3:46:20 PM [You don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Ms. Estrada, I am writing to note my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning at 1012 Concordia Avenue. Below I detail why this rezoning request should be rejected. 1. The request fundamentally departs from the Concordia PUD master plan The site at 1012 Concordia Avenue was originally planned as part of the Concordia Public Utility District (PUD), with building heights up to approximately 65 feet and a clear intent to manage scale transitions adjacent to existing residential areas. That framework was the result of coordination between the City and surrounding communities and has guided successful development within the PUD to date. The current request represents the third major height increase for this site, from 65 feet to 120 feet in 2020, to 160 feet in 2023, and now up to 270 feet. A building of this magnitude would be more than four times the height originally planned for the site and would dramatically exceed the scale envisioned by the adopted PUD framework. 2. Incremental height escalation sets a dangerous precedent Approval of this rezoning would set a dangerous precedent for incremental height escalation within planned districts. If a site can move from 65 feet to 270 feet through successive rezonings, the original PUD framework becomes effectively meaningless, and similar requests elsewhere become difficult to deny. This is particularly concerning given that a 270-foot building would be the tallest structure in the city outside of downtown, West Campus, and The Domain, and far taller than anything in the surrounding Hancock neighborhood or even the high-density, high-amenity Mueller development. 3. The proposal grants major entitlements without a defined or implementable project The requested rezoning seeks to grant maximum height entitlements in the absence of a defined or fully planned project. The applicant has acknowledged that plans for a 270-foot building are not yet developed and would only be pursued if the rezoning is approved. Granting such a substantial increase in height without a defined project raises the risk that the rezoning functions primarily as an entitlement expansion rather than an implementable plan. If the site is later sold or redesigned under these expanded entitlements, the City and surrounding community would be forced to reengage in a new, resource- intensive planning and permitting process, despite having already conceded the most consequential development parameter: height. That outcome undermines planning predictability and places an unnecessary burden on future public review. This concern is compounded by the fact that repeated rezoning requests for the same site impose a cumulative burden on residents and neighborhood associations, requiring ongoing engagement simply to preserve previously agreed-upon planning outcomes. This dynamic disproportionately favors applicants with resources and erodes meaningful public participation. 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 918 of 274. The proposal fails to deliver public benefit or advance City priorities The proposed development is entirely residential and does not include meaningful mixed-use components. This is inconsistent with the intent of the Concordia PUD master plan and with the development model the City has repeatedly stated it prefers for projects of this scale and prominence. The site’s location immediately adjacent to I-35 places it at the center of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to align land use decisions with the City’s broader goals for the I-35 redesign, including improved urban form, connectivity, and long-term community benefit. Development decisions on parcels abutting I-35 will play an outsized role in determining whether this investment supports those goals or simply locks in isolated intensity without corresponding public benefit. Approving extreme height increases on this site in the absence of a comprehensive, mixed-use plan risks squandering that opportunity by granting permanent entitlements that do not clearly advance the broader objectives of the I-35 redevelopment. More broadly, the City already permits towers of this magnitude in areas specifically planned for extreme height and intensity, where zoning anticipates tall buildings, multimodal access, and a full range of services. Granting comparable entitlements in a low-rise, predominantly residential area governed by a PUD framework is neither necessary nor consistent with the City’s planning approach, and provides substantial private benefit without corresponding public return. 5. Approval would undermine trust during ongoing comprehensive planning efforts The City is currently undertaking major updates to its comprehensive planning framework through City of Austin’s long-range planning efforts, including revisions to the Imagine Austin framework. These processes rely on public trust that adopted plans, district frameworks, and negotiated development standards will be respected over time. Approving a project that so clearly departs from an established PUD master plan, particularly through successive rezoning requests, sends the opposite signal: that even carefully negotiated plans offer no durable guidance. This undermines not only this neighborhood’s confidence, but the City’s broader ability to engage communities constructively in comprehensive planning going forward. 6. Financial viability is not a planning justification The applicant has suggested that additional height is required for project viability, citing both financial considerations and the loss of developable land associated with the I-35 expansion. However, private profitability is not a planning criterion. Moreover, the applicant moved forward with this project fully aware of the site’s constraints, including the impacts of the I-35 project. These known conditions do not justify a rezoning that so dramatically departs from the adopted planning framework. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City to deny the requested rezoning and to uphold the integrity of the Concordia PUD framework and the broader planning principles it represents. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 919 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 920 of 27implementable plan. If the site is later sold or redesigned under these expanded entitlements, the City and surrounding community would be forced to reengage in a new, resource-intensive planning and permitting process, despite having already conceded the most consequential development parameter: height. That outcome undermines planning predictability and places an unnecessary burden on future public review. This concern is compounded by the fact that repeated rezoning requests for the same site impose a cumulative burden on residents and neighborhood associations, requiring ongoing engagement simply to preserve previously agreed-upon planning outcomes. This dynamic disproportionately favors applicants with resources and erodes meaningful public participation. 4. The proposal fails to deliver public benefit or advance City priorities The proposed development is entirely residential and does not include meaningful mixed-use components. This is inconsistent with the intent of the Concordia PUD master plan and with the development model the City has repeatedly stated it prefers for projects of this scale and prominence. The site’s location immediately adjacent to I-35 places it at the center of a once-in-a- generation opportunity to align land use decisions with the City’s broader goals for the I- 35 redesign, including improved urban form, connectivity, and long-term community benefit. Development decisions on parcels abutting I-35 will play an outsized role in determining whether this investment supports those goals or simply locks in isolated intensity without corresponding public benefit. Approving extreme height increases on this site in the absence of a comprehensive, mixed-use plan risks squandering that opportunity by granting permanent entitlements that do not clearly advance the broader objectives of the I-35 redevelopment. More broadly, the City already permits towers of this magnitude in areas specifically planned for extreme height and intensity, where zoning anticipates tall buildings, multimodal access, and a full range of services. Granting comparable entitlements in a low-rise, predominantly residential area governed by a PUD framework is neither necessary nor consistent with the City’s planning approach, and provides substantial private benefit without corresponding public return. 5. Approval would undermine trust during ongoing comprehensive planning efforts The City is currently undertaking major updates to its comprehensive planning framework through City of Austin’s long-range planning efforts, including revisions to the Imagine Austin framework. These processes rely on public trust that adopted plans, district frameworks, and negotiated development standards will be respected over time. Approving a project that so clearly departs from an established PUD master plan, particularly through successive rezoning requests, sends the opposite signal: that even carefully negotiated plans offer no durable guidance. This undermines not only this neighborhood’s confidence, but the City’s broader ability to engage communities constructively in comprehensive planning going forward. 6. Financial viability is not a planning justification 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 921 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 922 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 923 of 2709 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 924 of 27 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 925 of 273. The proposal grants major entitlements without a defined or implementable project The requested rezoning seeks to grant maximum height entitlements in the absence of a defined or fully planned project. The applicant has acknowledged that plans for a 270-foot building are not yet developed and would only be pursued if the rezoning is approved. Granting such a substantial increase in height without a defined project raises the risk that the rezoning functions primarily as an entitlement expansion rather than an implementable plan. If the site is later sold or redesigned under these expanded entitlements, the City and surrounding community would be forced to reengage in a new, resource-intensive planning and permitting process, despite having already conceded the most consequential development parameter: height. That outcome undermines planning predictability and places an unnecessary burden on future public review. This concern is compounded by the fact that repeated rezoning requests for the same site impose a cumulative burden on residents and neighborhood associations, requiring ongoing engagement simply to preserve previously agreed-upon planning outcomes. This dynamic disproportionately favors applicants with resources and erodes meaningful public participation. 4. The proposal fails to deliver public benefit or advance City priorities The proposed development is entirely residential and does not include meaningful mixed-use components. This is inconsistent with the intent of the Concordia PUD master plan and with the development model the City has repeatedly stated it prefers for projects of this scale and prominence. The site’s location immediately adjacent to I-35 places it at the center of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to align land use decisions with the City’s broader goals for the I-35 redesign, including improved urban form, connectivity, and long-term community benefit. Development decisions on parcels abutting I-35 will play an outsized role in determining whether this investment supports those goals or simply locks in isolated intensity without corresponding public benefit. Approving extreme height increases on this site in the absence of a comprehensive, mixed-use plan risks squandering that opportunity by granting permanent entitlements that do not clearly advance the broader objectives of the I-35 redevelopment. More broadly, the City already permits towers of this magnitude in areas specifically planned for extreme height and intensity, where zoning anticipates tall buildings, multimodal access, and a full range of services. Granting comparable entitlements in a low-rise, predominantly residential area governed by a PUD framework is neither necessary nor consistent with the City’s planning approach, and provides substantial private benefit without corresponding public return. 5. Approval would undermine trust during ongoing comprehensive 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 926 of 27planning efforts The City is currently undertaking major updates to its comprehensive planning framework through City of Austin’s long-range planning efforts, including revisions to the Imagine Austin framework. These processes rely on public trust that adopted plans, district frameworks, and negotiated development standards will be respected over time. Approving a project that so clearly departs from an established PUD master plan, particularly through successive rezoning requests, sends the opposite signal: that even carefully negotiated plans offer no durable guidance. This undermines not only this neighborhood’s confidence, but the City’s broader ability to engage communities constructively in comprehensive planning going forward. 6. Financial viability is not a planning justification The applicant has suggested that additional height is required for project viability, citing both financial considerations and the loss of developable land associated with the I-35 expansion. However, private profitability is not a planning criterion. Moreover, the applicant moved forward with this project fully aware of the site’s constraints, including the impacts of the I-35 project. These known conditions do not justify a rezoning that so dramatically departs from the adopted planning framework. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City to deny the requested rezoning. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michelle North University Neighborhood Resident Michelle M. Mace President, M3B Inc. 480.460.8100 (office) www.m3binc.com 1101 W. 34th Street #206 Austin, TX 78705 “Wherever you go, go with all your heart.” 09 C814-06-0175.07 - East Avenue PUD Amendment #7, Parcel A; District 927 of 27