[00:00:01]
THAT WE'RE STREAMING.[1:45 p.m. - Work Session]
UH, FIRST THINGS FIRST, DO WE HAVE ANY RECUSALS? I WILL BE RECUSING FROM ITEM NUMBER 13.I WILL BE HANDING OVER THE VIRTUAL GAVEL AND WE ALSO HAVE A RECUSAL FROM COMMISSIONER, UH, CREO HANES ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER, I BELIEVE IT'S 18.
AND I BELIEVE RIGHT BEFORE YOU SAID SOMETHING, DID ANOTHER COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMISSIONER PECK IS OUT.
COMMISSIONER PECK IS OUT, UM, OF TOWN ON WORK.
OKAY, SO JUST ITEMS NUMBER 13 AND THEN ITEMS NUMBER 18, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT FOR REFUSAL.
UH, AND FOR INDIVIDUAL, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OTHER THAN NUMBER 16? UH, AS OF NOW, ONLY 16 IS, UH, ON THE INDIVIDUAL AGENDA.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARINO HAYNES.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL NUMBER 15.
WOULD ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM? OKAY.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS CHRISTIE FLORES.
UM, ON THE ITEM NUMBER 16, THAT IS ON INDIVIDUAL, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO JUNE THE 23RD.
SO, UH, REMIND ME THAT STILL HAS TO GO ON FOR INDIVIDUAL AND THEN WE JUST HAVE TO, UH, STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
I'LL JUST READ THE, THE CAPTION VERY QUICKLY.
NOTE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE AND THEN Y'ALL CAN TAKE ACTION.
CAN WE MOVE BACK TO THE TOP? DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE PLATS? WE HAVE 12 PLATS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER 13? OKAY.
UH, ITEM NUMBER 14, A VARIANCE.
UM, CONFIRMATION THAT THE TWO THREE VARIANCES ARE EXCEEDING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
UH, MARK BIRD CITY, ARBORS? YES, THEY'RE EXCEEDING, UH, MINIMUM PRESERVATION, UH, MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, BOTH OF THEM.
HEARING NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON NUMBER 14, UH, COMMISSIONER CARDILLO HANES HAS PULLED ITEM 15.
UH, COMMISSIONER, DID YOU WANNA ASK ANY QUESTIONS OR DID YOU WANNA HOLD OFF? NO, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, I JUST, UH, WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION AND, UM, I KNOW I HAVE COMMENTS, BUT NO QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UH, FOUR 15.
UM, ITEM 16, ARE WE GONNA VOTE ON IT TODAY OR IT'S GONNA POSTPONE? UH, WE WILL VOTE ON THE, UH, RECOMMEND OR ON THE, UH, REQUEST FOR A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE CONTINUOUS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM 16? OKAY.
AND WE HAVE THE PUB, UH, PUBLIC, UH, RESPONSES.
COMMISSIONER, THIS IS COMMISSIONER SIEGEL.
HAVE WE HAD ANY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NUMBER 17? NO, I'M SORRY.
I WAS, UH, I WAS TRYING TO UN DOUBLE UNMUTE MYSELF.
[00:05:01]
YES.UM, THERE ACTUALLY WERE NO COMMENTS AT ALL ON THIS ITEM.
UH, NOTHING RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
NOTHING RECEIVED IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED, THAT WAS FOR ITEM 17, CHRISTIE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
DID WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON 16? THERE WERE, UH, 33 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED OPPOSED AND NO RESPONSE FROM ROOSEVELT'S NE UH, ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
CHRISTIE, HOW MANY ITEMS WERE, HOW MANY NOTICES WERE SENT FOR NUMBER 17? THERE WERE 25.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NO COMMUNITY CONCERNS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GOING FOR A, A BAR OR A TAVERN, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, WELL, URBAN LOW DENSITY TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND YES, I, I BELIEVE THEY USED IS TO BE ABLE TO, UH, SELL ALCOHOL.
LEMME DOUBLE CHECK THAT USED, MY GOODNESS.
MY PAGES ARE ALL STUCK TOGETHER TODAY.
A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A BAR TAVERN.
AND, UH, HAS THIS GONE THROUGH ZONING YET, OR THAT'S COMING UP? IT'S COMING UP ON JULY 15TH.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR 17? OKAY, HEARING NONE.
UM, IF STAFF CAN JUST KIND OF BRIEFLY PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW.
UM, I'M A, I'M A, I DON'T THINK I'M OPPOSED, I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE SWAPPING AND THE PURPOSE OF IT.
HI, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
I'M WITH THE CENTER CITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE.
I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE, I I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED IF YOU'D LIKE THAT.
UM, GENERALLY THE OVERVIEW IS THAT THERE WAS A DEDICATION MADE TO THE CITY IN 1953, UH, OF 0.1 ACRES ON THE V TO ASSEMBLY PROPERTY.
UH, THAT DEDICATION IS KIND OF A FLAG SHAPED, UH, SENIOR PACKET PACKET, UH, LOT THAT GOES ACROSS THE VITA PATIO.
AND THAT DEDICATION WAS NEVER RECORDED AND WAS NEVER, THE PROPERTY WAS NEVER USED FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE.
SO THE DEDICATION REMAINED IN EFFECT FOR DECADES, BUT WAS NOT, UH, COMING UP IN THE RECORD.
SO EVEN AS RECENTLY AS 2012, IT WAS NOT, UM, IN A 2012 PLAT, IT WAS NOT RECOGNIZED.
SO WE ARE PROPOSING A TRANSFER THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY REVERSE THAT 1953 DEDICATION, BUT THEN DEDICATE BACK TO THE CITY PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY THAT SHOULD BE PUBLIC.
THEY HAVE RESTROOMS ON THEM, WALKWAYS, AND ARE PARTIALLY RIGHT NOW ON C P S PROPERTY.
SO THIS IS REALLY, UM, A SWAP TO CORRECT SOME HISTORICAL OVERSIGHTS AND PROVIDE MUTUAL BENEFIT FOR C P S AND FOR THE CITY.
UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER MIKE GARCIA.
IS THERE GOING TO BE A PRESENTATION MADE, LIKE A GRAPHIC? I, I WANTED TO SEE HOW EXACTLY THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN.
UM, IF YOU'LL EXCUSE ME, THIS IS MY FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESENT AT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I JUST WILL DO DURING THE MEETING OR IF YOU SEE THE SLIDES NOW.
SO IF, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GONNA ENTERTAIN A FULL PRESENTATION, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT ITEM BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA, ARE YOU REQUESTING, UM, TO PULL IT FOR INDIVIDUAL? YES.
OR DID YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS? OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 18? DO WE KNOW WHO THE BUYER IS AND WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO WITH THE BUILDING? THAT INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC.
UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME REPRESENTATIVES FROM C P S ON THE PHONE IF THEY'RE ABLE TO CHIME IN.
[00:10:01]
GOOD DAY EVERYONE.JOHN LEAL FROM C P S ENERGY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS.
I SHOULD BE JOINED ON THE CALL BY KURT BROCKMAN AND, UH, RODRIGO FIGUEROA.
KURT, ARE YOU ON? YES, GOOD AFTERNOON.
THIS IS, I'M HERE WITH KURT BROCKMAN AS WELL.
UH, I THINK WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE ASKING FOR IS JUST A VERY QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSACTION.
AND, AND I THINK, UH, ERICA OR RAGSDALE, UH, WALKED THROUGH THE, THE JUST KIND OF THE HIGH LEVEL, THE, THE, UH, THE TRANSACTION, BUT IT, IT IS TRULY TO CORRECT, UM, OR TO REVERSE A DEDICATION FROM 1953 FROM C P SS ENERGY TO THE CITY, UM, THAT HISTORICALLY WAS NEVER USED BY THE CITY.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THAT, THAT PROPERTY LIES IN, IN, IN RELATION TO THE V A B PROPERTY, IT COVERS PART OF THE PATIO.
UM, AND, AND AGAIN, PORTIONS OF THE V A B PROPERTY OR THE VITA PROPERTY THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN USED BY THE CITY HISTORICALLY AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, KIND OF THE SURVEY AND THE, THE LAYOUT OF THAT PROPERTY, THERE ARE, THERE'S A, A GOOD PORTION OF IT WHERE THE RESTROOMS ARE LOCATED AND, AND SOME OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN USED BY THE PUBLIC AND BY THE CITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE HARNESSES AND RIVER THEATER.
SO, UM, IN, IN C P S ENERGY IS PLANNING TO, TO SELL, UH, THE VA B THE VITA PROPERTY.
AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING TO KIND OF CLEAN UP THESE BOUNDARY LINE ISSUES AND REALLY JUST COM, YOU KNOW, UM, REVERSE THE 19 50 53, UH, DEDICATION.
AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME DEDICATE TO THE CITY THE PORTIONS THAT THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN USING, UM, IN CONNECTION WITH THE AES AND RIVER THEATER TO REALLY LAY OUT THE BOUNDARY LINES CONSISTENT WITH HOW THE PARTIES HAVE HISTORICALLY USED THAT PROPERTY.
RODRIGO, THE COMMISSION DID ASK ABOUT THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY, SO I THINK THAT'S THE RESPONSE THAT THEY WERE, THEY WERE WAITING FOR.
I WAS HOPING C P SS COULD ADDRESS THAT.
SO SINCE THE, THE TRANSACTION HASN'T CLOSED YET, C P S ENERGY HAS NOT PUBLICLY DISCLOSED THE, THE, THE NAME OF, OF THE PURCHASER.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING, AND JOHN AND KURT, I THINK YOU, YOU CAN, UM, CONFIRM THIS, BUT ONCE THE, THE, THE SALE ACTUALLY IS CONSUMMATED AND THE TRANSACTION CLOSES AT THAT POINT, C P S ENERGY WILL PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THE, THE
UM, WE'RE UNDER NON-DISCLOSURE AND, UH, ARE NOT DISCLOSING, UH, THE BUYER OR THE PROPERTY UNTIL, UNTIL AFTER, AFTER IT'S CLOSED AND FUNDED.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? YEAH, COMMISSIONER ORIAN, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT.
UM, FROM WHAT I KNOW, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS.
DOES IS CITY SAN ANTONIO AND C P S, UH, ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT UNDERLINING OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OF WAY THAT THEY'RE SWAPPING IT, IT IT'S ACTUAL OWNERSHIP, UH, THAT, THAT WOULD BE SWAPPED.
THE REASON WHY I ASK IS ON THE, THE TWO SURVEYS, THE, THE TWO LAND, UH, IN QUESTION THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO BE SWAPPED SEEMED TO OVERLAP EACH OTHER, AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE OVERLAP PORTION OF IT.
YEAH, SO, AND THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
THE, AND THAT'S WHY JUST SEQUENTIALLY, UM, WHAT WILL HAPPEN FIRST, ALTHOUGH ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY THEREAFTER, THE, THE SECOND PART WILL HAPPEN.
BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN FIRST WILL BE THE, THE TRANSFER FROM THE CITY BACK TO C P S ENERGY OF, OF THE, THE PORTION OF THE, THE PROPERTY THAT WAS DEDICATED 1953.
AT THAT POINT, LEGALLY SPEAKING, C P S ENERGY WILL BE IN, IN AN EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
AND AGAIN, SIMULTANEOUSLY, THEREAFTER, C P S ENERGY WILL THEN CARVE OUT A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY AND TRANSFER IT BACK TO THE CITY.
AND THAT'S THE PORTION THAT INCLUDES THE RESTROOMS AND, AND THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS USED, UH, IN CONNECTION WITH A AND RIVER THEATER.
SO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT PART OF ANY SORT OF SALE THEY'RE GONNA MAINTAIN AS A PUBLIC USE? NO, NO, NO.
THAT'S THE, AND, AND RODRIGO SAID THIS, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO TRUE UP THE PROPERTY LINES, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING, ACCORDING TO HOW THE, YOU KNOW, HOW THE FACILITY HAS BEEN RUNNING AND OPERATED FOR 56 YEARS AND WE DID A SIMILAR, UH, SWAP, IF YOU WILL, UH, ON THE NEW HEADQUARTER BUILDING.
I, I WAS JUST, MY BIG POINT OF CONFUSION WAS THE, THE RED LINES ON THE TWO SURVEYS HAD THAT OVERLAP, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF ONE WAS RIGHT AWAY AND ONE WAS FOR AN EASEMENT AND ONE WAS MM-HMM.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER 19? UH, A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
[00:15:02]
UH, THESE WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, CORRECT? CORRECT.THIS IS DEBORAH BELL WITH NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
IT WILL BE TWO HOMES FOR MANY.
UM, AND WHAT'S THE KIND OF PRICE RANGE FOR THOSE HOMES? UH, THAT HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED YET, BUT IT HAS TO BE, UM, SOMETHING THAT QUALIFIES FOR SOMEONE MAKING 80% OR UNDER.
AND WILL THEY BE, THOSE WILL ACTUALLY BE SOLD? YES.
AND HAVE WE, DO YOU KNOW WHEN WE'LL HAVE RESULTS ON THE COMPARISON? 'CAUSE THEY'RE COMPARING, UH, COMPARING DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION METHODS WE'RE GONNA GET, IS THERE GONNA BE UPDATES ANNUALLY OR EVERY FIVE YEARS, OR HAS THAT BEEN WORKED OUT? NO, IT HAS NOT BEEN WORKED OUT YET.
IT'D BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW IT, HOW IT TURNS OUT BECAUSE IT'S, UH, DIFFERENT KIND OF CONSTRUCTION.
SO YEAH, WE VERY, WE ALL VERY INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THAT'S GONNA TURN OUT.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS, UM, FOR ITEM NUMBER 19? I, OKAY.
UH, SO I WILL REITERATE ITEMS NUMBER 13 AND 18 ARE BE BEING PULLED FOR PURPOSES OF RECUSAL ITEMS 15, 16, AND 18, UH, BEING PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL, UH, CONSIDERATION.
AND THEN JUST TO LET EVERYONE KNOW AS WELL, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY VOICEMAILS OR LIVE CALLERS OTHER THAN THE APPLICANTS THAT WILL PATCH THROUGH FOR THOSE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
I THINK WE'RE READY TO GO INTO OUR MEETING WHENEVER, UH, STAFF IS READY.
ALRIGHT, CHAIR, WE ARE READY WHEN YOU ARE.
[2:00 P.M. - Call to Order]
OKAY.IT IS, UH, JUNE 9TH, UH, 2:02 PM I WILL CALL THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
IF STAFF CAN PLEASE PLAY THE SPANISH INTERPRETER SERVICES STATEMENT.
BUGS SAN ANTONIO'S NEW ANIMAL LAWS ARE ABOUT PROTECTING PETS AND PEOPLE FIND OUT MORE FROM ANIMAL CARE SERVICES AT SSAA NET.
WE ARE NOW ACCEPTING SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APOLOGIZE FOR THAT TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY.
COMMISSIONER JACKSON, PRESIDENT COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES PRESENT, COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA PRESENT, COMMISSIONER SIEGEL PRESENT, COMMISSIONER ZUKI PRESENT, COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
PRESENT, COMMISSIONER PROFIT PRESENT.
PRESENT, PRESENT, COMMISSIONER ORIAN PRESENT AND MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ PRESENT, A QUORUM IS PRESENT.
IF C A STAFF CAN READ THE MEETING FORMAT FOR TODAY, CERTAINLY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF C OVID 19.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS HOLDING MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE.
THESE MEETING STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONSE TO THE C OVID 19 CRISIS AND ARE IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING WWW.SANANTONIO.GOV/DSD OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3 TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES.
THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL OF COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING.
STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS RECEIVED ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL WRITTEN RECORD
[00:20:01]
FOR ITEMS ON INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, STAFF WILL PLAY ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL.LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE A CALLBACK, WE WILL CALL THEM TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENTS.
SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT, ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTIONS.
[Consent Agenda]
HAVE TWO AGENDAS THAT WE'LL BE, UH, CONSIDERING TODAY.THE CONSENT AGENDA AND INDIVIDUAL.
UM, ALL ITEMS ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS NUMBER 13 AND 18, WHICH ARE BEING PULLED FOR PURPOSES OF RECUSAL AND ITEMS NUMBER 15, 16, AND 18 BEING PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
I WILL, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.
COMMISSIONER, PROFIT MOTION COMMISSIONER CARDILLO HAYNES.
FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
COMMISSIONER CARRILLO HAYNES? YES.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
COMMISSIONER ZUKI APPROVED COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.
AND MADAM CHAIR GONZALEZ? YES.
[13. 21-4173 21-12000001: Request by Leo Gomez, Brooks Development Authority, for approval of a three (3) year time extension in accordance with Section 35-430(f)(2) of the City of San Antonio’s Unified Development code (UDC) for Plat # 170481 – BCB – Inner Circle Dr., Unit 4, generally located west of the intersection of South New Braunfels Avenue and Research Plaza. Staff recommends Approval. (Joshua T. Orton, Planner, (210) 207-8050, Joshua.Orton@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
I'M GOING TO HAND OVER THE GAVEL TO COMMISSIONER PROFIT.IT IS 2 0 7 AND MADAM CHAIR HAS TURNED OFF HER CAMERA AND MICROPHONE.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 13? APPROVE.
A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA AND SECOND BY CHRISTOPHER GARCIA.
BACK YOUR ROLL CALL PLEASE? YES, SIR.
COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
COMMISSIONER ZUKI APPROVED COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
PRO TEM COMMISSIONER PROFIT? YES.
IT'S 2 0 8 AND I, MADAM CHAIR JOINED AND I PASSED THE GAVEL BACK TO HER.
UH, NOW IT IS 2 0 8 AND COMMISSIONER CARDILLO HAYNES HAS TURNED OFF HER CAMERA AND HER AUDIO.
[18. 21-4042 A request by the Center City Development Office for approval of a resolution for 1) the transfer of use and control from City of San Antonio to CPS Energy of a 0.100 acre (4,374 square feet) tract of land and 2) the transfer of use and control from CPS Energy to the City of San Antonio of a 0.042 acre (1,842 square feet) tract of land, generally located at 401 Villita Street. (Erika Ragsdale, Special Projects Manager, 210-207-0108, Erika.Ragsdale@sanantonio.gov)]
ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 18.I BELIEVE THIS ONE WAS PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
SO DO WE WANNA HAVE, UH, C C D O DO THEIR PRESENTATION? I KNOW WE HAD A REFUSAL, BUT WE ALSO HAD A REQUEST THAT THAT BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.
I'M WITH THE CENTER CITY DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT.
SO, C P S ENERGY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY THAT'S ROUGHLY SHOWN IN YELLOW IN 1942, AND THEY DEDICATED A 10TH OF AN ACRE TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IN 1953.
UH, THAT AREA IS SHOWN IN KIND OF A STRIPED RED, UH, PATTERN, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT WAS INTENDED FOR THE ESAN RIVER THEATER EXPANSION.
THE ESAN RIVER THEATER SEATING AREA IS IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THIS PROPERTY.
UH, SO THAT WAS IN 1953, THE DEDICATION AND THEN THE THEATER EXPANSION DID NOT COME TO FRUITION.
AND INSTEAD, THE VITA ASSEMBLY BUILDING THAT IS KNOWN THE MOST, BUT IT'S THE ROUND BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY, OPENED IN 1959.
SO THE 1953 DEDICATION WAS NEVER RECORDED IN, IN THE DEEDED RECORDS AND WAS THEREFORE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED FOR DECADES, INCLUDING
[00:25:01]
IN THE MOST RECENT PLAT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS RECORDED IN 2012.UH, CURRENTLY WE ALSO NOTICE THAT SOME OF THE PUBLIC WALKWAYS AND RESTROOMS AT THE VTA LATA RESTROOMS ARE PARTIALLY LOCATED ON THE TO ASSEMBLY PROPERTY.
SO FOLLOWING A THOROUGH INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW, WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL HISTORICAL OVERSIGHTS THAT COULD BE CORRECTED TO THE BENEFIT OF BOTH PARTIES.
AND I HOPE THIS CLARIFIES THE CONFUSION OVER IT IS, IT'S, IT'S DEFINITELY A WEIRD ONE, BUT, UH, THERE, THE TWO AREAS THAT ARE SHOWN IN THE SURVEYS AS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS POINTED OUT, ARE NOT, UH, THERE IS SOME OVERLAP BETWEEN THE TWO.
SO, TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, WE ARE PROPOSING A TRANSFER OF USE AND CONTROL AGREEMENT WHEREBY TWO ACTIONS WOULD HAPPEN SIMULTANEOUSLY.
FIRST IS THE TRANSFER OF THE 1953 DEDICATION, THE 0.1 ACRES BACK TO C P S.
SO WE'VE KIND OF REVERSED THAT ON THE RECORD.
THE SECOND PART OF THIS IS C P S TRANSFERRING BACK TO THE CITY, THE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY THAT INCLUDE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
SO IN WHAT'S LABELED AS EXHIBIT A ON THIS SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE CITY OWNERSHIP WITHIN THAT RED LINE INCLUDES HALF OF THE PUBLIC RESTROOM.
UH, YOU'LL, THE RESTROOMS ARE THIS RECTANGULAR, DON'T THINK YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR, BUT TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE PROPERTY, UH, YOU'LL SEE THE CITY BOUNDARY GOES THROUGH THE MIDDLE.
SO WE WOULD CONVEY THIS BACK TO C P S AND THEN THEY WOULD CONVEY TO THE CITY THIS ENTIRE WALKWAY, INCLUDING THE STAIRS, WALKING DOWN TO THE RIVER WALK, AND INCLUDING THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT OF THE, UH, PUBLIC RESTROOM.
SO AGAIN, WE FELT THIS WAS A SOLUTION THAT WOULD PROVIDE MUTUAL BENEFIT TO BOTH PARTIES, CLEAR THE TITLE FOR THE FUTURE SALE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT WOULD LOCATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON CITY PROPERTY AND RELEASE THE CITY'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE PATIO THAT WAS NEVER USED FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE.
UH, AND C P S DOES PLAN TO REPL THE PROPERTY ONCE THIS TRANSFER IS APPROVED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS.
UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER MIKE GARCIA.
HOW MUCH ARE WE ENHANCING THE VALUE FOR C P S TO SELL THIS PROPERTY? WE WE'RE JUST GIVING IT AWAY AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A PROFIT SELLING THIS PROPERTY.
SO INITIALLY BEFORE WE RECOGNIZED ALL OF THE HISTORICAL OVERSIGHTS, WE DID APPROACH IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING AN EQUAL VALUE SWAP.
AND THE MORE THAT WE LOOKED AT IT BETWEEN, UH, C C D O, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S, OFFICE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS, WE RECOGNIZED THAT THIS WAS REALLY A MUTUAL BENEFIT, UM, FOR THE CITY AS WELL AS C P S.
MR. GARCIA, DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FIGURES WERE, BUT I GUESS OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE ALREADY FIGURED OUT THAT IT WOULD BE, UH, AN EQUAL SWAP, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER, UH, TEAM, THE C P S ENERGY TEAM HERE, RODRIGO.
ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THOUGH IS I, I WANTED TO POINT OUT, SO WHAT, WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE CITY TO DO IS TRANSFER BACK THAT, UH, THE, THE, THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT YOU SEE ON EXHIBIT A.
SO THAT'S JUST A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE, THE, THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY C P S ENERGY.
UM, SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO, UH, THE CITY TO DO IS, IS JUST TRANSFER BACK THAT POINT, UH, ONE, UH, ACRE OF, OF, OF THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, EVERYTHING TO THE LEFT OF THAT THAT YOU DON'T SEE ON THE, THAT DEPICTION IS ALREADY OWNED BY C P S ENERGY, IT WOULD BE PART OF THE SALE.
SO IT IS JUST A VERY SMALL PORTION THAT IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO THAT WE'RE ASKING THE CITY TO TRANSFER BACK.
AND OBVIOUSLY IN, IN EXCHANGE, WE'RE TRANSFERRING BACK TO THE CITY, UM, THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE, THE RESTROOMS ARE LOCATED AND WHERE THE WALKWAY TO THE RIVERWALK IS LOCATED AS WELL.
SO WE, WE THINK IT'S, TO ERICA'S POINT, WE THINK IT'S MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL, UM, TO BOTH SIDES.
UH, COMMISSIONER DKI, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ZUKI?
[00:30:03]
OKAY.UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA.
COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER PROFIT? NO, JUST A COMMENT.
I, I GUESS TO MAYBE TO KIND OF, UH, JUST TO COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA'S POINT, SO THAT ADDITIONAL HALF ACRE THAT'S NOW GOING TO C P S WILL NOW BE IN THE TAX ROLLS.
SO IN IN ESSENCE, I THINK THAT MAY BE BENEFICIAL, UH, WHEN, WHEN THE LAND DOES SELL, SO AM AM I RIGHT IN THAT REASONING? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ONE ACRE AND THE 0.042 ACRES BECOME A PRIVATE OWNER AND ON THE TAX ROLLS THAT, UH, THIS IS MARY FORS.
I WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS REAL ESTATE AND I ASSISTED WITH THE CANVASSING OF THIS REQUEST.
AND YES, THAT IS CORRECT, AS IT WILL BE RETURNED TO THE TAX ROLL.
AND IN ADDITION, UH, THE CITY REALLY DOES NOT HAVE A SALEABLE INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY.
THERE WAS NEVER A DEEDED THAT WAS RECORDED.
IT WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT GAVE THE CITY A PROPERTY INTEREST, BUT THAT WAS UNRECORDED.
AND, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THOUGH, DID SAY THAT THE CITY DOES HAVE AN INTEREST AND JUST TO CLEAN UP THE TITLE, THAT WE SHOULD RELEASE OUR INTEREST IN THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, UH, BEFORE THEY DO THEIR SALE.
UH, I HAD ONE OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTION.
UH, TYPICALLY ON THESE SORT OF, UH, UH, PUBLIC ENTITY LAND TRANSACTIONS, THERE'S A RETAIN A RETAINED RIGHT FOR NEEDED EASEMENTS, AND I'M JUST CONCERNED IF, IF THE INTENT IS, IS FOR C P S TO SELL, UH, WHAT THE, WHAT THE RESIDUE IS WHEN, WHEN THEY OWN ALL THIS, IS THERE GONNA BE ANY SORT OF EASEMENTS GRANTED TO THE CITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RESTROOM OR ANY UTILITIES THAT MIGHT BE PRESENT IN THE AREA THAT THEY'RE GONNA RETAIN? OR IS THAT DONE, UH, DURING THE PLATTING PARK? TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSED, UH, DURING THE PLATTING PHASE.
AND THE RESTROOMS, OF COURSE, WOULD BE ON CITY PROPERTY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT ACCESSING THEM FROM THE PERIMETER.
YEAH, MOST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PUBLIC ALLEY.
I KNOW I, I SEE IT FROM THE EAST, BUT ON THE WEST THAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS RUNNING ALL RIGHT ALONG THE BUILDING WALL.
AND, AND USUALLY YOU NEED TWO OR THREE FEET JUST TO, FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS GONNA BE ANY SORT OF A, OF AN, OF AN ACCESS.
OF ACCESS JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE.
BUT IF THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR PURVIEW, I'M, I I CAN, I CAN JUST STOP ASKING FOR THE QUESTION NOW.
I, I GUESS I JUST HAVE A COMMENT TO SORT OF PICKING UP ON, UH, COMMISSIONER GARCIA'S AND COMMISSIONER PROFIT'S COMMENT.
UH, I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE WE CAN'T GO INTO, UH, A SESSION WHERE WE CAN GET THE CITY ATTORNEY'S PERSPECTIVE ON THIS.
AND I WILL ALSO SAY I'M NOT A REAL PROPERTY ATTORNEY, AND IT'S BEEN ALMOST TWO DECADES SINCE I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL, BUT THIS SEEMS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VALUE, JUST A VERY SIMPLE, QUIET TITLE ACTION THAT WE NEED TO TAKE JUST TO CLEAN IT UP SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE END OF MY COMMENT.
UH, CAN STAFF, SO, UM, WHAT I UNDERSTAND, C P S INTENDS TO SELL THIS THAT WILL RESULT IN A PLATT, WHICH WILL ESSENTIALLY COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
CAN Y'ALL EXPAND ON THE FUTURE, UM, PROCESS AND, UM, THE PURVIEW THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE IN WHATEVER THE FUTURE OF THIS PROPERTY WILL BE? WELL DE DEPENDING UPON HOW THE PLATT IS SUBMITTED, IF IT RE, IF THERE ARE CERTAIN PLATTS THAT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE ARE CERTAIN PLATTS THAT CAN BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF D S D.
SO WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THAT PLATT LOOKS LIKE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE SUBMITTED, IF IT'S ALSO INCLUDING SOME SORT OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE REALLY THE THINGS WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SEE BEFORE I CAN GIVE YOU A, A DEFINITIVE ANSWER.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS ON THIS?
[00:35:03]
HEARING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 18.SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PROFIT.
WAS IT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CHRIS GARCIA? YES.
COMMISSIONER, UH, CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
COMMISSIONER GAUDIO HAYNES CAN NOW JOIN THE MEETING? I, I DON'T SEE HER ON THE MEETING.
OR IS IT JUST ME? OH, I SEE HER NOW.
COMMISSIONER CARDILLO HAYNES HAS RETURNED TO THE MEETING.
[15. 21-4288 TPV 21-082: Request by Mr. Richard Mott, P.E., for approval of a tree preservation variance request from Unified Development Code 35-523 (h), “significant trees shall be preserved at eighty (80) percent and heritage trees at one hundred (100) percent preservation within both the 100-year floodplains and environmentally sensitive areas”, general located Southwest of Old Pearsall Rd and Loop 410 intersection. Staff recommends approval. (Herminio Griego, (210) 207-6042, herminio.griego@sanantonio.gov, Development Services Department)]
THE AGENDA PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSENT IS ITEM NUMBER 15.DOES STAFF HAS A, HAVE A PRESENTATION? IF, IF, IF WE CAN, UH, ITEM NUMBER 16 IS, UH, A SIMPLE REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE.
IS IT OKAY IF WE, UH, GET THAT ONE OUTTA THE WAY REAL QUICK? YES, SIR.
THIS IS CHRISTIE FLO, PLANNING MANAGER OVER, UH, ZONING.
THE REQUEST TODAY FOR ITEM 16 IS TO AMEND THE DOWNTOWN REGIONAL CENTER PLAN FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE TO URBAN MIXED USE, LOCATED AT 5 41 ROOSEVELT AVENUE.
THERE WERE 33 NOTICES MAILED, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED AN OPPOSITION AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE APPLICANT, UH, HAS CONFIRMED IN WRITING AND VERBALLY THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO JUNE THE 23RD.
MADAM CHAIR, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? SO, SO HE IS GOING TO REPRESENT THE CASE ONE MORE TIME IN, IN OUR NEXT MEETING.
HEARING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 16, UM, ACCEPTING THE TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE, OR NOT A MOTION TO, UH, MOVE TO A GRANT CONTINUANCE.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PROFIT.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA.
FOR A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO JUNE 23RD.
COMMISSIONER CARRILLO HAYNES? YES.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA? YES.
COMMISSIONER ZUKI APPROVED COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
OKAY, NOW WE'RE READY FOR ITEM NUMBER 15.
IF YOU CAN PLEASE HAVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS CITY ARBORIST MARK BIRD.
ITEM NUMBER 15, T P V 21 DASH 0 8 2 CRESCENT HILLS UNITS TWO AND THREE.
UH, LOCATION COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST VOL PIERCE HALL ROAD AND MO FOUR 10.
THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO A VARIANCE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE FOR SIGNIFICANT TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT 80% PRESERVATION WITHIN BOTH A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
HERITAGE TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT 100% PRESERVATION WITHIN BOTH THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
UH, GENERAL INFORMATION, UH, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
[00:40:01]
IS LENAR HOMES RICHARD MOTT REPRESENTING APPLICANT TRAVIS SEF WITH K F W ENGINEERING.THE HARDSHIP DUE TO ATLAS 14 FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION.
THE PROPOSED SITE MUST BE EMBANKED TO PROPERLY DETAIN RUNOFF AND MEET U D C REGULATIONS.
EXCESS EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT ARE NECESSARY TO MITIGATE RUNOFF BY USING THE TWO PROPOSED DETENTION PONDS ON THE PROPERTY.
SEVERAL LOTS BORDERING THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN NEED TO BE EMBANKED ABOVE THE ATLAS 14 INUNDATION BOUNDARY.
TO FOLLOW CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DESIGN CRITERIA, THE MASS GRADING OF THE PROPOSED SITE RESULTS IN THE INABILITY TO PRESERVE THE FEW TREES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 30 FOOT RIPARIAN BUFFER.
OVERALL, UH, REQUIREMENTS, UH, FOR TREE PRESERVATION IN THE FLOODPLAIN BUFFER IS 80% PROPOSED PRESERVATION IN THE FLOODPLAIN BUFFER, 61 POINT 0.5%.
THE TOTAL PROTECTED, UH, SIGNIFICANT INCHES WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN BUFFER IS 52 INCHES.
A TOTAL OF 32 INCHES WILL BE PRESERVED, 20 INCHES WILL BE REMOVED.
UH, THIS IS A, UH, AN EXHIBIT SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE FOUR PROTECTED SIGNIFICANT TREES IN THE RIPARIAN BUFFER AND THE LOCATION OF THE TWO TREES TO BE REMOVED.
TOTAL MITIGATION REQUIRED FOR THE REMOVAL OF TWO TREES AND BELOW.
UH, 80% PRESERVATION IS 9.6 INCHES.
MITIGATION WILL BE MET BY PLANTING THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.
THERE WILL BE 324 TREES PLANTED, RESULTING IN 162 INCHES.
UH, THE, UH, OVERALL MITIGATION IS 152.4 INCHES ABOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF 9.6 INCHES.
THE PLANTING OF TREES ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH WAS SPARSELY, UH, UH, POPULATED WITH TREES IS GONNA RESULT IN 66,398 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ABOVE THE MINIMUM 38%.
FINAL TREE CANOPY, UH, COVERAGE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF T P V 21 DASH 82 FOR GOING ABOVE THE REQUIRED MITIGATION.
THE RESULTING MITIGATION WILL BE, UH, UH, FROM UPSIZING THE TREES FROM THE MINIMUM ONE AND A HALF INCH CALIPER TO TWO INCHES.
AND PLANTING OF THE ADDITIONAL TREES, UH, FOR, UH, WILL BE AN INCREASE OF 2.69% CANOPY ABOVE THE 38% FOR THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER ZUKI, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, NO QUESTION FOR ME.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, NO QUESTIONS AS THE, UH, MITIGATION EXCEEDS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? UM, YES, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM, THANK YOU MARK, FOR THE PRESENTATION.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT DISPLAYED THE, UM, THE, THE TREES THAT WERE BEING REMOVED IN THE RIPARIAN BUFFER? SO I WAS, I WAS TRYING TO, UM, SEE WHERE THAT WAS ON THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN THAT WE RECEIVED.
UM, SO I, THIS IS, THIS IS MORE FROM MY OWN UNDERSTANDING.
I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, UH, DURING THIS PROCESS, WHEN THEY ARE REMOVING TREES FROM THE, THE FLOODPLAIN OR IN THIS CASE THE, THE RIPARIAN BUFFER, UM, HOW DID THEY, HAD THEY REMOVED FOUR LESS TREES OR AN A, AN EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT AMOUNT THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE RIPARIAN BUFFER, WOULD THEY HAVE HAD TO COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A VARIANCE? DOES THAT QUESTION MAKE SENSE? UH, I'M NOT SURE I I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.
UM, THEY, UM, IF YOU CAN TRY TO RESTATE THAT.
SO I JUST WAS, AND I WAS LOOKING AT THE OVERALL TREE PRESERVATION PLAN.
UM, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT TREES
[00:45:01]
OUTSIDE THAT RIPARIAN BUFFER THAT ARE BEING REMOVED, UM, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR EXAMPLE.THEN, AND WITHIN THAT RIPARIAN BUFFER HAD, HAD THEY HAD THE DEVELOPER JUST REMOVED FEWER TREES OR LEFT THOSE INTACT THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULD THEY HAVE HAD TO COME TO US FOR A VARIANCE OR IS THE VARIANCE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S IN THE RIPARIAN BUFFER? UM, Y YES.
THE, THE VARIANCE IS SPECIFIC TO THE RIPARIAN BUFFER.
COMMISSIONER, THIS IS STEVEN STOKING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEER.
UM, PER THE U D C, UH, WE'RE REQUIRED TO BRING ANY OF THE, UM, VARIANCES THAT FALL WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE AREA, WHICH IS THE FLOODPLAIN BUFFER OR THE STEEP SLOPES, WHICH IS WHY THE MAJORITY, YOU KNOW, THE ONES YOU HAVE SEEN HAVE ALL BEEN IN ASSOCIATION WITH ONE OF THOSE TWO THINGS.
UM, AS FAR AS THE OTHER VARIANCES OR SAVING TREES OUTSIDE OF THAT, UM, IT DOESN'T IMPACT THIS.
THESE ARE STANDALONE AS WE LOOK AT 'EM FOR JUST THAT CATEGORY WHEN THEY COME BEFORE YOU GUYS.
SO OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTED AREAS, THE DEVELOPER WAS STILL WITHIN THEIR, THE CODE AND, AND WITHIN THEIR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE AMOUNT OF TREES THEY WERE REMOVING FOR THIS PROJECT? NO.
THEY WERE REQUIRED TO GET AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION FOR BELOW, UH, 20% PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT TREES WITHIN THE, UH, NON E S A AND NON FLOODPLAIN AREA.
BUT THAT DOES NOT COME TO US FOR APPROVAL.
IT, IT, IT MIGHT COME TO YOU IF THE, THE PROCESS WOULD BE THAT STAFF REVIEWS IT AND THROUGH OUR PROCESS OF A, UH, UH, TREE CODE MODIFICATION REQUEST, WE REVIEW IT WITH, UH, DIRECTOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEER.
IF IT WERE DENIED BY STAFF, THEN IT GOES TO THE DIRECTOR AND AT THAT POINT THEN IF THE DIRECTOR DECLINES THAT IT WOULD GO TO, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT SEEMS LIKE A LONG, UM, PROCESS, BUT I, I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION.
THAT DOES HELP MY, YOU KNOW, MY COMMENTS WERE REALLY CENTERED AROUND THE SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVAL WITHIN THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, NOT SO MUCH THIS PROTECTED AREA.
I DO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WITH, WITH THE SLOPING AND THE GRADING THAT THIS IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT TO PROCEED.
SO, UM, HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET TO SEE THIS PROJECT AGAIN.
BUT I, I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER JACKSON? UH, I HAVE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
MAD CHAIR, COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? UH, MY QUESTION'S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED.
I DO HAVE JUST A GENERAL QUESTION.
UH, MARK, UH, SO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, THEY'RE PLANTING 324 TREES AS PART OF THE MITIGATION.
AND IN THE, IN WHAT WE RECEIVED STATES THAT THE, THE PLANTS ARE TO BE NATIVE SPECIES PER THE SAN ANTONIO RECOMMENDED PLANT LISTS.
SO THE DEVELOPER COULD STILL COULD PLANT ANY TREE, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, WELL, THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD BE, THEY'RE RECOMMENDED BECAUSE IT'S A BROAD LIST OF, OF TREES AND PLANTS TO CHOOSE FROM, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE GENERALLY MEDIUM TO LARGE SPECIES TREES ON THAT LIST.
SO THEY DO HAVE TO PLANT TREES THAT ARE ON THAT LIST? YES, SIR.
THAT'S WHAT I, THE CLARIFICATION ON HERE, SO, ALRIGHT.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MARK, I HAVE A, A MINOR QUESTION.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE, UH, THAT OUTLINED, UM, HOW MUCH THEY'RE EXCEEDING THE TREE CANOPY? I THINK IT WAS LIKE 2% AND THEN YOU HAD 152, UH, INCHES.
THIS ONE OR NO, THIS ONE THE STAFF RECOMMENDS.
SO JUST CLARIFICATION, DO WE KNOW, SO THEY'RE PLANTING TO THE 152.4 IS THE 324 TREES THAT THEY'RE PLANTING? UH, YES.
THAT, THAT'S, UH, THE, UH, THE AMOUNT OF MITIGATION BASED ON THEY GET, THEY UPSIZE THE TREES AND SO THAT'S HOW THE, UH, MITIGATION ABOVE WAS CALCULATED FROM AN INCH AND A HALF TO TWO INCH.
SO THEY GOT AN INCH CREDIT PER LOT FOR THE TWO TREES PLANTED.
[00:50:01]
ON THE TREE CANOPY, THE ADDITIONAL 2.69%, IS THAT BASED ON THE TREE CANOPY AT COMPLETION OF DEVELOPMENT OR THE PROJECTED TREE CANOPY? SO THAT IS, IT IS A PROJECTION.IT'S BASED ON THE, UH, ON THE, UH, ON 90% OF WHAT WE EXPECT THE MATURE, UH, SHADE VALUE OF A TREE TO BE.
UH, AND SO WHEN THEY'RE PLANTING AN INCH AND A HALF TREE, WE EXPECT THAT IN, UH, UH, 10 TO 15 YEARS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, UH, UH, PROBABLY A 15 INCH TREE WITH A CANOPY OF 875 SQUARE FEET.
SHARON, MAY I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? YES, MA'AM.
UM, AND I, AGAIN, THIS IS FOR CLARIFICATION AND MY OWN UNDERSTANDING, BUT WHEN YOU'RE PRESENTING THIS DATA, MARK, THIS IS FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT, IS THAT, OR IS IT JUST IN RELATION TO THOSE FOUR TREES BEING REMOVED? SO ARE THEY, SO NO, THE, THE THE, BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE, UH, UH, REQUIREMENTS.
ONE FOR THE, IN THIS CASE THE E S A, THE FLOODPLAIN BUFFER, THEY BROKE OUT THEIR MITIGATION TO BE SPECIFIC TO THIS REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE.
AND ON THE A E V R, THEY HAVE IT BROKEN OUT TO MEET IT SPECIFIC.
SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT BLENDED, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY SEPARATE, UH, MEETING THEIR, IN THEIR INDEPENDENT, UH, MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.
UM, QUESTION? YES, COMMISSIONER JAKI, HOW, HOW MANY TREES DID THEY REQUEST TO BE REMOVED? UH, THERE, THERE WERE A TOTAL OF FOUR PROTECTED TREES IN THE FLOODPLAIN BUFFER.
THEY REMOVED TWO OF THEM AND THAT BROUGHT THEM BELOW THE, THE 80%, UM, MITIGATE, UH, PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR THAT FLOODPLAIN BUFFER.
SO YOU'RE REQUESTING TO REMOVE FOUR OR TWO? ONLY TWO.
AND WE, WE WORKED WITH THEM VERY HARD TO TRY TO PRESERVE AT LEAST ONE OF THEM TO PUT THEM AT ABOVE 80%.
BUT THE, THE AMOUNT OF GRADING AND THE EMBANKMENT THAT HAD TO BEEN BE DONE ON THIS PROJECT, IT, IT WASN'T FEASIBLE.
BUT WE, THERE WAS NO IMPACT IN THE FLOODPLAIN AS A RESULT OF THIS TOO.
THE NUMBERS MENTIONED IN THE AGENDA ON THE DESCRIPTION DOCUMENTS PROPOSING THREE, UH, I'M, I I I THINK IT'S IN OUR STAFF LETTER, IT SAYS FOUR TREES WITH, UH, TWO OF THEM BEING PRESERVED.
THAT'S THE LETTER THAT WAS SIGNED BY THE CITY? YEAH.
SO
THE FOUR PROTECTED TREES TOTALED UP TO 52 INCHES.
WE CAN GO BACK TO THE OTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWS THAT, UH, TWO OF THE, TWO OF THE FOUR TREES WILL BE PRESERVED RESULT.
AND THEN THAT, THAT, THAT'S ONLY 32 OF THE INCHES.
SO THE OTHER 20 INCHES WERE FROM BETWEEN TWO OTHER TREES.
ALRIGHT, SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE ENTIRELY REMOVED.
IT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT REMOVAL IN THE FLOODPLAIN BUFFER.
I JUST HAVE A, A, A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY MATCHING THE MAP ON YOUR POWERPOINT WITH THE MAP THAT WAS, UH, PROVIDED IN THE, THE AGENDA ITEM.
THE, THE, THE ONE IN THE POWERPOINT IS THE BLOW UP TO MORE CLEARLY SHOW, UH, THE LOCATION OF THE TREES AND IDENTIFY THE TREES TO BE REMOVED.
UH, THE SCALE ON, ON THE PLAN IS JUST SO, SO SMALL THAT IT'S NOT CLEARLY VISIBLE.
SO STAFF THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD GIVE A CLEAR IDEA OF, UH, A BETTER PICTURE OF HERE THERE ARE FOUR TREES THAT ARE IN THE FLOODPLAIN BUFFER ONLY FOR, WITHOUT SHOWING THE WHOLE FLOODPLAIN, UH,
[00:55:01]
AND FLOODPLAIN BUFFER AREA.AND JUST ZOOM IN ON THAT AND THEN CLEARLY HIGHLIGHT THE LOCATION, UH, OF THE FOUR TREES AND THEN MARK CLEARLY WHICH TWO TREES WERE BEING REMOVED.
ASIDE FROM THAT, UH, THE MAP PROVIDED ON THE DOCUMENTS, UH, HAVE CLEARLY MENTIONED ONLY THREE TREES WITH THREE LOCATIONS TO BE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
UM, JUST FOUND OUT THAT YOUR POWERPOINT IS MENTIONING FOUR AND THE FOURTH LOCATION IS NOT MENTIONED ON THE MAP PROVIDED.
SO I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED.
I I KNOW WE HAD ANOTHER VARIANCE.
I'LL, I'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THIS, SIR.
I KNOW WE HAD ANOTHER VARIANCE THAT ONLY HAD THREE TREES ON IT, UH, THAT WERE VERY CLOSE TOGETHER.
COMMISSIONER, THIS IS MELISSA EZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR THERE, MARK IS CORRECT.
THERE ARE TWO TREE VARIANCES ON THE AGENDA.
YOU MAY BE LOOKING AT THE SECOND, UM, DOCUMENT BECAUSE I HAVE PULLED UP ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME AND THEY, THEY'RE SAYING FOUR TREES TOTAL WITH TWO BEING REMOVED.
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO, WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH YOU.
UM, IF WE NEED TO, TO ON THESE SPECIFICALLY BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING.
AT THIS TIME I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 15.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIS GARCIA.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA APPROVED.
[20. 21-2416 Consideration and Action on the Minutes from May 26, 2021.]
NUMBER 20, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION TO APPROVE.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JACKSON.
COMMISSIONER CARRILLO HAYNES? YES.
COMMISSIONER CHRISTOPHER GARCIA.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.
THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S MEETING.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVE SECOND.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO THE ROLL CALL.
THANK YOU ALL FOR PARTICIPATING YOU'ALL.