* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:05] GOOD AFTERNOON, IT'S 2 0 1. UH, WELCOME TO TODAY'S PLANNING COMMISSION FOR JANUARY 23RD, 2022. UH, GOOD TO SEE SO MANY PEOPLE HERE TODAY FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY WE HAVE THE SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRET INTERPRETER PLEASE. HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS TO INFORM YOU THAT WE DO HAVE SPANISH INTERPRETATION SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE NEEDING THESE SERVICES. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO APPROACH THE INTERPRETER BOOTH, LOCATED RIGHT WHERE THE RED CURTAINS ARE AT NEXT TO THE ENTRANCE. WE WANNA START THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL HAVE TWO, UH, AGENDAS TODAY. ONE WILL BE CONSENT AGENDA, AND WE'LL HAVE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. [Public Comment] UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN, UH, WE DO HAVE A PERSON, LET'S SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR ITEM NUMBER 18. UH, MS. JULIAN KLEIN, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. UH, YES. JULIANA KLEIN AT 7 5 0 2 CASTLE GREEN AND SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 8. UH, SO I'M ASSUMING YOU HAVE THE CASE. THIS IS REFERENCING. SORRY. UM, AND I HAVE TO CHAIR, I I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. UH, WE MAY NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE TO ESTABLISH THE QUORUM. MY APOLOGIES. UH, YES. CAN WE DO THE ROLL CALL, VOTE? SORRY. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? HERE. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? HERE. COMMISSIONER ZUKI. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? HERE. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER. COMMISSIONER MILAM. PRESENT MR. ORIAN? HERE. MR. ANTE? PRESENT. COUNCILMAN? COURAGE PRESENT. COMMISSIONER PUCK PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES. PRESENT CHAIR. PROPHET, PRESENT A COURT. MS. PRESENT? THANK YOU. OH, AS TO EAGER FOR JUST TO BEGIN MY APOLOGIES. PLEASE CONTINUE. UH, IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A DELAY ON THIS IF THIS MEETING COULD BE RESET. ONLY BECAUSE MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT THIS IS AFFECTING, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY GENUINELY KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING YET WHERE THE NEIGHBORS COULD ATTEND TO BE AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS. SO THAT'S, I'VE MARKED OPPOSED RIGHT NOW. BUT HONESTLY, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT I AM OPPOSED, IT'S JUST THAT I DON'T WANNA BE FORCED TO GIVE A, AN OPINION YET ON THIS UNTIL I FEEL LIKE ALL THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED. SO, IF POSSIBLE, IF, IF THIS COULD BE DELAYED SO THAT ALL THE NEIGHBORS COULD BE MADE AWARE OF WHAT'S AT STAKE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY. THA THANK YOU. AND WE, I'M SORRY, THERE'S ONE OTHER GENTLEMAN, GORDON, UH, GRAYVILLE, THAT WAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I DO. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, SIR. I'M GORDON GRAYVILLE. MY ADDRESS IS 5 0 4 3 MERLIN DRIVE, CAMELOT ONE. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE CAMELOT ONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND I'M HERE SPEAKING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. MY PURPOSE IN TALKING TO YOU TODAY IS ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE. THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED WITH A ZONING CHANGE IS GONNA AFFECT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE RESIDENTS ON CASTLE GREEN STREET. WE'VE MADE SEVERAL. WE'VE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO NEGA TO SLOW THE IMPACT DOWN OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. SLOW MEANING TO TRY TO GET MORE BENEFITS FOR THE RESIDENTS ON THE STREET WHO ARE GOING TO BE DISPLACED. MY FIRST COMMENTS ABOUT CHANGE. CHANGE HAPPENS DAILY, AND WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT CHANGE NECESSARILY, BUT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CHANGE WHEN IT'S NOT POSITIVE, WHEN IT'S PROPOSED. [00:05:02] YESTERDAY, FOR INSTANCE, WE HAD NICE WARM WEATHER TODAY. WE HAD A HUGE CHANGE, AND WE'RE USED TO, THAT HAPPENS IN SAN ANTONIO ALL THE TIME, BUT 10 DAYS AGO, THE NEIGHBORS ON CASTLE GREEN STREET GOT A LETTER FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO THAT DRAMATICALLY CHANGE, COULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THEIR LIVES. TALKS ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT THAT CHANGES THE FIELD BEHIND THEIR HOMES WITH WILDLIFE AND PLANTS INTO A BUSINESS PARK. AND WHEN WE ALL KNOW, WHEN THEY SAY A BUSINESS PARK THAT'S A PARK FOR AUTOMOBILES AND 18 WHEELERS, IT'S NOT A GREEN BELT. THAT PARK WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE AT CASTLE GREEN STREET. SO AS I LOOK AT THIS, AND THEN AS THE BOARD OF CAMELOT ONE HAS LOOKED AT THIS, WE SEE THE PROBLEM FOR THE NEIGHBORS ARE 18 WHEELERS, 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, PEOPLE THAT CAN ENJOY THEIR BACKYARDS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE AN 18 WHEELER POTENTIALLY WITHIN 75 FEET OF THEIR FENCE. THAT'S BEEN TWO MINUTES, SIR. DO WANT I GET THREE, JUST TWO, JUST TWO MINUTES. I'M SORRY. MAY I HAVE 30 SECONDS TO CLOSE? NO, THAT'S ALL THE TIME ALLOWED. IT'S ALL RIGHT. WE'D LIKE THE APPLICATION DENIED TEMPORARILY. THANK, THANK YOU. I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY, UH, BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON THE CONSENT, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WANNA PULL ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS? CHAIR I'D LIKE TO PULL, IS THIS ON? CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? OKAY. I'D LIKE TO PULL NUMBER 18 GIVEN THE, UM, PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR. [Plats  ] [Variances  ] UH, SO FOR CONSENT, UH, ALL ITEMS WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 17, 18, 19, AND 20. CORRECT. OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. SO MOVED. APPROVAL BY SECOND, APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER PECK. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL. UH, ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER PECK? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. MR. ORIAN? YES. MR. BUSANTE? AYE. COUNCILMAN COURAGE? YES. COMMISSIONER GABRIEL HAYNES. YES. CHAIR PROPHET? YES. MOTION PASSES. THANK [Comprehensive Master Plan Amendments  ] YOU. UH, THE FIRST ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION WILL BE ITEM NUMBER 17. MAY WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION, PLEASE? GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SUMMER MCCANN PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. ITEM NUMBER 17 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE NEAR NORTHEAST COMMUNITY PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT 7 1 4 VANCE JACKSON. THERE WERE 30 NOTICES MAILED. TWO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, AND THE LOS ANGELES HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED. THE PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL IS REQUESTED IN ORDER TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE, IS NOT APPROPRIATE GIVEN A BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED LAND USE PATTERN. ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY IS ALONG A SECONDARY ARTERIAL, IT IS FRONTING A LOCAL STREET. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EAST SIDE OF VANCE JACKSON, WHICH IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. THANKS. UH, BEFORE THE APPLICANT, I DO KNOW THERE'S ONE CITIZEN TO BE HEARD. UH, REYNA SIMS ARE YOU, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. YOU CAN PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. HI, I ACTUALLY, I AM THE, THE APPLICANT. MY APOLOGIES. GO AHEAD AND PRESENTATION. NO. UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF, I MEAN, GOOD AFTERNOON. FIRST OF ALL, I DIDN'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAD QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING WITH OUR REZONING. SO WE DID CHANGE, WE AMENDED THE REZONING TO NC I, I, I BELIEVE I HEARD SOME SAY COMMERCIAL OR C TWO. UH, SO WE CHANGED THAT TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, UM, WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO PUT A SEAMSTRESS SHOP. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE, OR THAT WE WOULD BE RECEIVING OR GETTING SO MUCH TRAFFIC WHERE IT WOULD CHANGE [00:10:01] THE ASPECT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING. AND I DID NOTICE THAT I WANNA SAY LESS THAN 400 FEET DOWN THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY. THERE ARE, UM, COMMERCIAL USE BUSINESSES, I BELIEVE, UH, LAW FIRMS AND OR TAX OFFICES. SO WE DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, DRASTIC CHANGE TO THE, THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. THANKS. WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS ON MY LEFT AND YES. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UH, STAFF, QUICK QUESTION REGARDING THE BACKGROUND OF THIS APPLICATION OR THIS PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY HAS COME BEFORE THE ZONING COMMISSION IN THE PAST. WAS IT ALSO PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS PREVIOUSLY? NO, SIR. THEY USED THE BASE DISTRICT AND DID A CONDITIONAL USE ON IT IN THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE. ON THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE, YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. I HAVE A QUESTION IF I MAY, SIR. THANK YOU. UH, SO THIS HAS A CONDITIONAL USE. NOW WHAT IS THAT USE? IT'S FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. OKAY. UH, I'LL JUST SAY I USED TO LIVE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM THAT AREA FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. AND SO, I'M SORRY, I MISSPOKE. IT'S FOR HARDWARE SALES. OKAY, THANK YOU. AS I WAS SAYING, I USED TO LIVE AROUND A CORNER ON GREENLAWN DRIVE, ABOUT THREE BLOCKS AWAY FROM THERE. FOR YEARS, I WITNESSED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A LOT OF VERY VALUABLE HOMES GET CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL USE ALL ALONG I 10 AND ALONG VANCE JACKSON AND ALONG WEST AVENUE. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I SAW A LOT OF PEOPLE END UP HAVING TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THEIR BACKYARD OR NEXT DOOR. UH, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT, THAT, THAT IS A USE THAT WE SHOULD BE APPROVING IN THIS PARTICULAR CONDITION. THERE'S A COUPLE OF REGULAR HOMES RIGHT NEXT TO IT. WE KNOW THAT THIS COULD BE CONVERTED NOW AND MAYBE IT'LL BE A SEAMSTRESS SHOP, BUT, UH, TWO YEARS FROM NOW IT COULD BE ANOTHER MAJOR KIND OF BUSINESS, UH, THAT WOULD BE MORE DISRUPTIVE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. SO I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THIS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, WITH THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING, IS THERE A, UH, A LESS INTRUSIVE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT WOULD ALLOW WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR OR SOMETHING LESS? THAT'S WHY SHE AMENDED DOWN TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. THAT IS THE LOWEST THAT SHE CAN GO. UH, SHE CAN'T USE, UH, A CONDITIONAL USE ON THIS BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO MAINTAIN THE HARDWARE CELLS IN ADDITION TO HAVING A TAILOR SHOP AS WELL. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU MR. GARCIA. THEY, NO, THEY DENIED IT. OKAY. BECAUSE EATING UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE LITTLE CHANGES LIKE THIS THAT EVENTUALLY CHANGE THE WHOLE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND LIKE, UH, OTHER COMMISSIONER HAD SAID, THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S BEGINNING TO, TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT AT A TIME. SO I SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER MILER, I'M JUST GOING TO SECOND THAT BRIEFLY. HAVING LIVED IN MANKEY PARK AND HAVING BEEN EXPOSED TO JUST EXACTLY THIS ON MY OWN STREET. MR. SIEGEL, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PECK, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MR. LOPEZ. MR. ZUKI? NO QUESTION. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? NO QUESTIONS. UH, AGAIN, I THINK I AGREE WITH, UH, WHAT THE COUNCILMAN AND FELLOW COMMISSIONER SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, SO I THINK I'LL SUPPORT STAFF AS WELL. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR TO UPHOLD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL. SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMMISSIONER PECK. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MILAM A VOTE PLEASE. ROLL. CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER PECK? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? NO. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? YES. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BUSTAMANTE. AYE. COUNCILMAN COURAGE? YES. COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES. CHAIR, PROFIT? YES. MOTION PASSES AS DENIAL. THANK YOU. I'M NUMBER 18. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SUMMER MCCANN PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. [00:15:01] ITEM NUMBER 18 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION. AMENDING THE CAMELOT ONE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PARK TO BUSINESS PARK, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF EISENHOWER ROAD AND WALHAM ROAD. THERE WERE 54 NOTICES MAILED NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, NONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. NO RESPONSE FROM CAMELOT ONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR BRYCE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PARK IS REQUESTED IN ORDER TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO BP BUSINESS DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK IS APPROPRIATE AND PRESENTS OPPORTUNITY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LAND. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BUSINESS PARK AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO THE NORTH AND IS PRIMARILY ABUTTING OTHER VACANT LOTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN PROXIMITY TO LOOP FOUR 10 AND A PREMIUM TRANSIT CORRIDOR. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU APPLICANT. HAVE A PRESENTATION? YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, JAMES GRIFFIN, KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMAN TEN TEN ONE REUNION PLACE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. UM, WE DO HAVE A QUICK PRESENTATION. I KNOW Y'ALL ALREADY HAD A FULL DAY, SO TRY TO GO QUICK HERE. UM, UH, AS, AS SUMMER MENTIONED, UM, WE ARE SEEKING THE BUSINESS PARK, UM, DESIGNATION IN THE CAMELOT ONE PLAN. YOU SEE OUR PROPERTY THERE. THE, UM, BEEN A LOT OF GROWTH OUT THERE. SO THAT AERIAL IS ACTUALLY REALLY A, A LITTLE OUTDATED. UM, THERE'S A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT, UH, GOING, UH, ACROSS THE STREET ON EISENHOWER. THE OTHER, WHAT WAS THE OTHER HALF OF THIS PROPERTY? THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WHICH IS ALREADY ZONED BUSINESS PARK, UM, AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. UH, WE'LL, UH, BEGIN DEVELOPMENT SOON FOR A, A SIMILAR PROJECT AS WELL. I I THINK Y'ALL PROBABLY SEEN A LOT OF THESE, UH, OFFICE WAREHOUSE, UH, DISTRIBUTION CENTER PROJECTS, UH, GOING ON. UM, HERE'S JUST ANOTHER VIEW, AND YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE GROWTH THERE AT THE HARD CORNER OF WALHAM AND EISENHOWER. THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UH, GIVE YOU A BIGGER PICTURE OF THE AREA. YOU HAVE WALHAM AND ONE UP IN THE WAY. SAN ANTONIO LOVES TO DO. YOU HAVE WALHAM GOING EAST, WEST, NORTH, AND SOUTH THERE. BUT, UH, YOU SEE THE MAIN ROAD OF WALHAM UP AT THE TOP THERE, UH, HEADING OVER TO THE HIGHWAY, UH, THE OLD MALL, WHICH IS NOW RACKSPACE. AND THEN OUR PROPERTY AGAIN, IT WAS, UH, ORIGINALLY ABOUT 120 ACRES, ACTUALLY EVEN LARGER. UH, FIRST DEVELOPMENT COMING OUTTA THIS AREA WAS THE, UH, WALMART, UH, 10 YEARS AGO. UM, IT IS OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, UNDEVELOPED LAND, UH, KIND OF FARMLAND, UH, BEEN THAT WAY SINCE ANNEXATION, UH, AS HAS THE CURRENT ZONING. UM, AND HERE'S THE ZONING AND I KNOW PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT, UH, THE, THE ZONING, UM, REALLY TELLS THE BEST PICTURE GIVEN HOW, UH, OUTDATED THE AERIAL IS BECAUSE OF THE RECENT GROWTH. KIND OF TELLS YOU THE PICTURE OF WHAT'S ON THE GROUND THERE. UH, YOU SEE THE, UH, WHAT I'M CALLING THE OTHER HALF OF THE PROPERTY ON OUR EAST SIDE, UH, IS ZONED BUSINESS PARK. UM, THE CAMELOT ONE PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2004. UH, ALL THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS WERE THERE, UH, IN PLACE, UH, PRIOR TO PLAN ADOPTION. UH, SO YOU HAVE SOME INCONSISTENCIES, UH, IN THE PLAN DESIGNATION. UM, BUT, UH, REALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY IS, IS VERY CONSISTENT COMPATIBLE WITH KIND OF WHAT YOU SEE, UH, ON THE GROUND THERE TODAY AS FAR AS ZONING, UH, AND USES THERE. UM, THERE'S THE PLAN. YOU SEE THAT WHOLE KIND OF SWATH. THERE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. UH, ALTHOUGH WE DO HAVE BUSINESS PARK THAT'S ALL THE BLUE TO OUR NORTH, WHICH IS THE WALMART AND SOME OTHER, UH, YOU KNOW, QUASI INDUSTRIAL USES, UH, ALONG WALHAM AND, UH, SURROUNDING, YOU KNOW, THAT, UM, UH, THAT, THAT AREA TO THE, TO THE NORTHEAST THERE. UM, THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION THAT WE, WE HAVE IN THE PLAN, AGAIN, IS, UH, NOT CONSISTENT WITH, UH, CURRENT ZONING, UH, CURRENT ADJACENT USES, UM, OR OBVIOUSLY WHAT, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE, WE'RE HERE TODAY. UM, AGAIN, THERE IS A ALMOST IDENTICAL DEVELOPMENT, UH, THAT'S ABOUT TO BREAK GROUND ABUTTING THIS PROPERTY, UH, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, UH, TO OUR EAST. AND YOU SEE IT ACROSS THE STREET, UH, AS WELL. UM, UH, ANOTHER IMPORTANT NOTE ON THE ZONING. AGAIN, NOT TO TALK TOO MUCH ABOUT ZONING HERE AT, AT PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT, UH, THE CURRENT ZONING, UH, DOES HAVE ABOUT 20 PLUS ACRES OF, UH, MULTIFAMILY OF MF 33, UH, ALONG AND CLOSEST TO AND REALLY A BUDDING, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, CAMELOT ONE AND, AND BRYCE PLACE THERE. [00:20:01] UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'VE, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE, UH, AREA, I GUESS IN, UH, PAST CASES IS, UM, UH, NEARBY CASES, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW Y'ALL HAVE SEEN IT TOO, THERE'S, UM, ALMOST ALWAYS A, AN AVERSION TO MULTIFAMILY. UH, HERE YOU HAVE A, A LARGE CHUNK OF MULTIFAMILY ZONING, UH, THAT WITH THIS PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST AND, UH, ZONING, UH, REQUEST ASSOCIATED WITH IT WOULD ELIMINATE THAT MULTIFAMILY ZONING, UH, ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. UM, PROBABLY ALSO, UH, IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT, UM, ACTUALLY I'LL, I'LL COME BACK TO THAT SINCE WE'RE WE'RE ON THIS SLIDE HERE. HERE'S THE, UH, DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS PARK, UH, IN THE CAMELOT PLAN. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. YOU SEE THE RELATED ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS IS KIND OF A, WHAT I THINK IS A RARE SITUATION OF THE, UH, DESIGNATION THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. BUSINESS PARK IS THE EXACT SAME NAME AS THE ZONING WE'RE ASKING FOR, WHICH IS BUSINESS PARK. UH, THE, THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING. AND THEN I, I PROMISE I'LL STOP TALKING ABOUT ZONING, UM, IS A KIND OF AMPLIFIED MORE, UM, UH, DESIGNED, UH, COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER USES THAN A TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. AND, AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS IT, IT REQUIRES, UH, INCREASED, UH, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. UH, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING HAS ADDITIONAL CONTROLS ON ACCESS, UH, AND, UM, AND INTERNAL ROADS, UH, ALSO LIMITS, UH, LOT COVERAGE, UH, TO, TO 50%, UH, PER THE LOTS. UM, AND, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROJECT BEING PROPOSED AND THOSE SURROUNDING USES THAT YOU SAW BOTH BUILT UNDER CONSTRUCTION PLANNED OR AS ZONED, UH, ARE ALL CONSISTENT COMPATIBLE WITH THIS REQUEST. UM, HERE'S OUR SITE PLAN. WE ACTUALLY, UH, JUST IN THE PAST HOUR OR SO, RECEIVED AN UPDATED SITE PLAN BASED ON SOME CONVERSATIONS, UH, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, UH, HERE'S THE, THE GENERAL LAYOUT. UM, AND, AND AGAIN, I, UH, TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT, THIS IS A, A 50 ACRE PROPERTY HERE. UM, LOOKING AT, UH, OFFICE WAREHOUSE, DISTRIBUTION CENTER, UM, GETTING RID OF THAT MULTI-FAMILY ZONING. UM, SOME, SOME OF THE CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN, UM, UH, IN DISCUSSING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UH, MR. GRABLE, UM, LIKE HE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, HIS, HIS MAIN CONCERN AS THE, OR MAIN PRIORITY, TOP PRIORITY, UH, AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT, UH, IS, IS TO LOOK OUT FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND COMPATIBILITY. UM, SO SOME OF THE ITEMS HE BROUGHT UP, WHICH, UH, I, I BELIEVE ALMOST ALL WE ARE CERTAINLY WILLING TO AGREE TO, UH, IS ABOUT KIND OF PROTECTING THOSE HOMES YOU SEE TO THE WEST AND, AND, UH, CREATING A COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT THERE. UM, WHAT I WAS GONNA MENTION EARLIER, AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY BEST SUITED NOW, IS, UH, YOU SEE THERE'S A, A LARGE DRAINAGE CHANNEL IN BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY, UH, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE. IT'S ABOUT 55 FEET WIDE. UM, SO YOU KIND OF HAVE A, A PRETTY LARGE, YOU KNOW, BUFFER, UH, WITH THIS NATURAL DRAINAGE CHANNEL. UH, BUT THEN YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL BUFFERS AS WELL. UH, ON OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WE'RE REQUIRED TO AT LEAST PROVIDE A 15 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. UH, THAT INCLUDES A FENCE OR A WALL. UH, THERE'S A NICE, UH, LINE OF TREES, UH, KIND OF RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE, UH, EASEMENT AND OUR PROPERTY. UM, AND WE'RE, WE'RE COMMITTED TO, UH, KEEPING THOSE, UH, PRESERVING THOSE AS, UH, REQUESTED BY MR. GRABLE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, IF THERE AREN'T ANY TREES THAT ARE IN THE EASEMENT, WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, CERTAINLY NOT GONNA REMOVE THEM, BUT, UH, UH, THERE'LL BE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES AND LANDSCAPING, AND THEN SOME SIGNIFICANT, UH, BUFFERS PUT IN PLACE AS WELL. UM, AS FAR AS CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS SOME, UH, PARKING AREAS. UM, WELL, HERE, I'LL USE THIS. UH, THIS HAS BEEN REMOVED, UM, TO KIND OF PUSH BACK PARKING, UH, POTENTIAL PARKING, VEHICULAR TRUCK TRAFFIC, UH, CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THAT'S TURNED INTO BASICALLY A, A GREEN LANDSCAPE ISLAND. AND WE'VE INCREASED THE, UM, LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON OUR SIDE OF THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL THERE. UM, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER I ITEMS THAT, UH, WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND JUST, JUST RECENTLY, UM, WHICH, WHICH PROBABLY AREN'T TERRIBLY RELEVANT TO THE PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE, BUT I, I THINK IMPORTANT TO MENTION AS WELL, UM, IT WAS A REQUEST THAT, UH, THERE WILL BE NO VEHICULAR ACCESS, UH, FROM OUR PROJECT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE, WE ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT, AND IN FACT, CODE PROHIBITS IT AS WELL AS THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL. UM, SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS THAT I MENTIONED, TRASH COLLECTION HOURS, YOU KNOW, NOTHING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT OR EARLY MORNING. UM, THERE WAS A, A [00:25:01] COMMENT OR CONCERN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PRIVACY AND, AND WINDOWS FROM THIS PROJECT LOOKING INTO THE HOMES AND THE BACKYARDS, THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST PROJECT TO PREVENT THAT. UM, AGAIN, UNDER, YOU KNOW, CURRENT, CURRENT ZONING OR EVEN UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, APARTMENTS COULD BE THREE, FOUR STORIES, HOMES COULD BE TWO OR THREE STORIES, WHICH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE WINDOWS BALCONIES, UH, HERE, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE LIMITED IN HEIGHT, BUT MAYBE MORE IMPORTANTLY, UM, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE, UH, ACTIVELY IN, THERE'S CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY NOBODY LIVING, UH, IN THESE BUILDINGS, UH, AND NO WINDOWS, UH, REALLY AT ALL, UH, ON THOSE SHORT SIDES OF THE BUILDING THERE. UM, I GUESS TO, NO, I WAS TRYING TO CHANGE IT WITH THAT THING. UM, THERE, THERE, THERE'S A, UH, UH, RENDERING OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. AND, UM, LEMME SKIP TO THE NEXT ONE. SORRY, I KNOW I SAID I'D BE QUICK AND I'VE BEEN RAMBLING ON HERE. BUT, UM, UH, HERE YOU SEE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, A A, UH, WE'RE ASKING TO AMEND THE PLAN TO, UM, TO ACCOMMODATE A CHANGE IN ZONING TO THAT BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. UH, THE PLAN, UH, CHANGE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TO BUSINESS PARK, UH, AS WELL AS THE ASSOCIATED ZONING TWO BUSINESS PARK, YOU CAN SEE, UH, IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH, UH, ADJACENT USES, SURROUNDING USES. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN NOTHING OCCURRING ON THIS PROPERTY AND IT REMAINING, UH, OPEN SPACE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, FARMLAND, UH, THIS REALLY IS THE LEAST IMPACTFUL USE, UH, CERTAINLY COMPARED TO, UH, WHAT CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS, UH, ON THE PROPERTY. UM, UH, ONE LAST THING TO SAY. UM, YEAH. WE, UH, HAVE, HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION, UH, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND, AND MR. GRABLE, UM, AND, UH, I, I BELIEVE WE CAN, UH, AGREE TO JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP AND, AND MORE, UM, CERTAINLY WANT TO CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM AND, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKE EVERYBODY FEEL AS COMFORTABLE AS THEY CAN WITH THIS REQUEST. SO, UH, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND SORRY FOR TALKING FOR SO LONG, BUT, UM, APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. THANKS, JAMES. START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER GENDLER. SURE. SO JUST A QUICK POINT OF CLARIFICATION. UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE NEITHER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES, CORRECT? THAT, THAT THAT'S CORRECT. UM, YEP. AND, UM, YEAH, WE HAD A LITTLE TROUBLE GETTING CONTACT INFORMATION AT, AT FIRST AND ACTUALLY STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET AHOLD OF ANYBODY AT, AT BRYCE PLACE, THE SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. BUT, UH, WE ARE IN COMMUNICATION NOW. WE'VE HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS AND WE'LL KEEP THAT UP. OKAY, GREAT. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YEAH, NO COMMENTS FOR NOW. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? I'M GOOD, THANK YOU. JUST A QUICK COMMENT. UM, I ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER SAYS, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, JAMES. UM, THIS IS, HAS AN ASSOCIATED ZONING, HAS THAT GONE TO ZONING ALREADY? NEXT WEEK. NEXT WEEK. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YEAH. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE ZONING, JAMES? I'M JUST KIDDING. I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UH, COULD YOU SAY AGAIN, UM, WHAT THE CHANGE WAS TO THAT SORT OF NORTHWESTERN PARKING BAY? UH, YES. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN? SORRY. SO THE, WE HAD SOME, UH, UH, PARKING AREAS THERE, AND THEY WERE ACTUALLY, UH, IT'D BE OVERFLOW, UH, TRUCK TRAILER PARKING, UH, IN THAT AREA. AND, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE DISCUSSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE COMPATIBLE AND, YOU KNOW, PROTECTING THE, THE HOMES BACK THERE, UM, THOSE, UH, IT'S ABOUT 20, UH, PROPOSED PARKING SPACES HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY ELIMINATED. UM, AND NOW IT'S JUST A, A PROPOSED TO BE KIND OF A, A LARGER LANDSCAPE AREA THERE. UH, CORRECT. WE, WE, WE WILL STILL HAVE A DRIVE AT SOME, WE IN SOME FORM OR FASHION, UH, OVER, YOU KNOW, ON THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING. BUT, UH, THIS HAS BEEN COMPLETELY RETOOLED TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING AND, YOU KNOW, SWAP SWAP PAVEMENT FOR LANDSCAPING. OKAY. UM, ARE THERE ANY STATEMENTS THAT YOU COULD MAKE ABOUT THE HOURS OF OPERATION OR THE NOISE FROM TRUCKS AND TRAILERS THAT MIGHT BE MOVING THROUGH? UH, YES. GOOD, GOOD QUESTION. AND, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY AN, AN IMPORTANT, UM, ISSUE AND, AND ONE THAT, UH, UH, MR. GRABLE RAISED ON BEHALF, RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, ONE OF THEM WAS ABOUT TRASH COLLECTION AND A REQUEST FOR TO NOT HAVE ANY TRASH COLLECTION BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 PM AND 7:00 AM. UM, AND WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. UM, AS FAR AS TRUCK TRAFFIC OR ANY ACCESS AND TRAFFIC [00:30:02] IN THOSE SAME HOURS, UM, WE DON'T HAVE, UM, ALL THE TENANTS LINED UP FOR THIS BUILDING YET 'CAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR YEARS FROM CONSTRUCTION BEING COMPLETE. UM, SO WE, WE CAN'T COMMIT TO THAT. BUT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING AND WORKING ON IS TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO, TO BETTER ACCOMMODATE, UM, THOSE OTHER EFFECTS, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, OVERNIGHT OR, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN SIMILAR HOURS PROHIBITING USE OF ANY ROADS ON INTERNAL ROADS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS BUILDING. SO IF THERE, IF THERE ARE ANY, YOU KNOW, AFTER HOURS DELIVERIES, UM, THEY'D, THEY'D HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF COME, COME ON THIS SIDE OF THE PROJECT. UM, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE, WE'RE DISCUSSING IS, YOU KNOW, A, A, A INTERNAL PROHIBITION ON, UH, IDLING. SO IF THERE ARE ANY TRUCKS COMING UP REALLY AT ANY TIME, BUT PARTICULARLY IN THOSE NIGHTTIME HOURS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE UNLOADING, THEY HAVE TO TURN OFF THEIR TRUCK, UM, THEY CAN'T LEAVE IT, THEY'RE IDLING, UM, OR, OR LEAVE THE HEADLIGHTS ON. SO JUST, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO BE, I GUESS, COGNIZANT OF ADJACENT OR NEARBY RESIDENTIAL. MR. MILAM, SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT PERIPHERAL ROAD WILL STILL EXIST, BUT DOES THAT EFFECTIVELY INCREASE THE BUFFER, THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG FROM 15 FEET? UM, IT, IT DOES. SO, SO AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE, THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL, UM, WHICH I JUST MENTIONED. 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, UM, OF, OF ABOUT 55 FEET HERE, UH, THAT WILL NOT BE TOUCHED. UM, THIS, UH, ROAD, UM, YES, WILL, WILL BE MOVED OVER. UM, THE BUFFER WILL BE AT LEAST 15 FEET, UM, WITH LANDSCAPING, UM, WITH A FENCE OR A WALL, LIKELY BE SIGNIFICANTLY WIDER. UM, BUT RIGHT NOW WE, WE CAN COMMIT IN STONE TO THE 15 FEET AND DO BELIEVE AND ARE WORKING TO MAKE IT LARGER. COMMISSIONER GARCIA, MS. HORIAN. YEAH. UH, CAN YOU, UH, TALK ABOUT WHAT DISCUSSIONS YOU MAY HAVE HAD WITH THE, UH, UH, OWNERS, UH, OR OPERATORS OF THE ASSISTED LIVING AT THE CORNER, AND HOW, AND HOW THIS, UH, CHANGE MIGHT AFFECT THEIR, THEIR BUSINESS OR THEIR RESIDENCE THERE? YES. UM, WE, UM, I HONESTLY HAVE NOT HAD ANY, UH, COMMUNICATION WITH THEM. UM, WE LOOKED AT THE, UH, OWNERSHIP, UM, ENTITY AND IT WAS, I, I, I THINK IT WAS OUTTA STATE, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY REACH OUT TO 'EM, GO KNOCK ON THE DOOR. SO, SHORT ANSWER IS WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM, BUT I, I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY PRETTY ACCUSTOMED TO THIS TYPE OF USE. THEY HAVE IT NOW, UH, ACROSS THE STREET AND, UM, ON THE, OKAY. EASTERN PART OF THEIR PROPERTY. I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION ON YOUR SITE PLAN, BUT I JUST DID NOTICE THAT A LOT OF THE BAYS ARE NOT FACING THEM. THEY'RE, THEY'RE AWAY FROM THEM. SO I JUST, UH, WANTED TO MAKE SURE IF THAT WAS INTENTFUL OR THAT WAS PER DISCUSSION WITH THEM, OR, UH, IT, IT, IT WAS, UM, IT, THAT WAS AN, AN INTENTIONAL MOVE THERE, YOU SEE, UM, THE FRONT BUILDING, YOU KNOW, FACING, UH, EISENHOWER TO MAKE, TO MAKE IT LOOK BETTER FROM THE ROAD AND LESSEN THE IMPACT. UH, REALLY JUST KIND OF STOREFRONT ON THAT SIDE. AND, AND YOU'RE CORRECT, THE DOCKS ARE ONLY IN THE BACK. UM, HERE, THEY CALL THAT FRONT LOAD, BUT IT'S REALLY IN THE REAR AS WELL. THE DOCKS WOULD ONLY BE HERE, THE LARGER BUILDING IN THE BACK, THERE WOULD BE DOCKS ON BOTH SIDES. BUT IF, OKAY, FAR ENOUGH, FAR ENOUGH OF BAT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILMAN. COURAGE. YES. I'D LIKE TO ASK, WHAT ABOUT, UH, LIGHTING FOR NIGHTTIME DELIVERY AND SECURITY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT THAT? OR ARE WE MAKING, UH, ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE THERE WON'T BE TOO MUCH LIGHTING DISTURBING THE NEIGHBORS? UH, YES. GREAT. GREAT QUESTION. UM, GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. I, I FAILED TO MENTION THAT IT, IT WAS, IT WAS ACTUALLY NOT BROUGHT UP OR REQUESTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. WE WILL COMMIT TO DOWNWARD LIGHTING, YOU KNOW, KEEPING LIGHTING IN GENERAL AS FAR AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS POSSIBLE, BUT, BUT ABSOLUTELY DOING THE DOWNWARD LIGHTING AND KINDA MINIMIZE THAT, THAT IMPACT. UM, AND THEN, UH, SECURITY SITE WILL BE SECURE. UH, THEY, THEY HAVE, UM, SECURITY PATROL, UM, KEEPING AN EYE ON THE SITE, AND THEN EACH TENANT USUALLY HAS THEIR OWN, UH, SECURITY MEASURES AS, AS WELL. BUT THE, THE LIGHTING WILL BE, YOU KNOW, ENOUGH TO KEEP IT SECURE. BUT, UM, DOWNWARD FACING, UH, DIRECTED AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S GOOD. AND I JUST SAY, IF THE PROJECT GOES FORWARD, THAT SHOULD BE AN ONGOING CONCERN AFTER THE PROJECT'S DEVELOPED. 'CAUSE SOMETIMES THE BEST OF INTENTIONS DON'T ALWAYS LEAD TO THE RESULTS THAT PEOPLE EXPECT. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S HAVING PROBLEMS WITH LIGHTING SECURITY ISSUES, [00:35:01] THAT THOSE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE DEVELOPER AND OF PROPERTY OWNER. THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN TTE. UH, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. UH, I THINK FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, THIS MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR THAT AREA. WE SEE A LOT OF USE FOR THE BUSINESS PARK. UH, AGAIN, I ECHO WHAT A LOT OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID, THAT WE ENCOURAGE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY, UH, TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. UM, ABSOLUTELY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. SO MOVED. APPROVAL BY VICE CHAIR CARILLO HAYNES. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA VOTE. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE. AYE. COUNCILMAN COURAGE? YES. COMMISSIONER PECK? YES. COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES. CHAIR PROFIT? YES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, UH, 19, MR. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS S MAKOS PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. I'M NUMBER 19. IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE WEST SOUTHWEST SECTOR PLAN FROM SUBURBAN TIER TO MISS MIXED USE CENTER, LOCATED AT TEN TWO TWO FIVE BRAUN ROAD. THERE WERE FOUR NOTICES SENT OUT. ONE IN SUPPORT, ZERO IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200 FEET, ONE IN SUPPORT AND 15 IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET AND TWO IN SUPPORT OUTSIDE SITTING LIMITS. THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM ENCLAVE AT LAUREL CANYON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. THE PROPOSED MIXED USE CENTER LAND USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT, ADJACENT TO OTHER VACANT LAND AND RESIDENTIAL USES AND ABUTTING BRA ROAD. A SECONDARY ARTERIAL ARTERIAL A THAT CAN CONNECTS TO HIGHWAY 1604. TRANSITIONING THIS AREA TO MIXED USE CENTER WOULD SUPPORT THE WEST SOUTHWEST SECTOR PLANT OBJECTIVE OF INTEGRATING MIXED USES ALONG THE CORRIDOR AND MAKING THESE AREAS ACCESSIBLE AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY FOR SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. FURTHERMORE, THIS DESIGNATION WOULD ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIVERSE HOUSING OPTIONS NEAR EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS. THE SITE'S PROXIMITY TO HIGHWAY 1604 LENDS TO THE GRADATION OF DENSITY OUTWARD FROM THE CORRIDOR MAKING THE HIGHER DENSITY TRANSITION TO MIXED USE CENTER APPROPRIATE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE PRESENTATION? WE GOT IT. YOU CAN START WITH LINE ONE. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. EMILY WEISLER WITH KILLEN GRIFFIN AND FAIRMAN 1 0 1 0 1 REUNION PLACE, SUITE TWO 50 HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPER. UM, GO AHEAD AND THANK YOU STAFF. LET'S GET STARTED. UH, I WILL BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. UM, THIS PROPERTY IS JUST UNDER FOUR ACRES AT TEN TWO TWENTY FIVE BROWN ROAD. WE ARE WEST OF 1604. UH, THE NEXT PICTURE SHOWS KIND OF THE GENERAL LOCATION. WE'RE REALLY KIND OF BETWEEN GOM AND 1604. UM, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, KIND OF THE SURROUNDING USES IS PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY, UH, WITH NOT A LOT OF COMMERCIAL, UH, DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT. SO THERE, THAT IS A, A DIRECT RELATED IMPACT OF INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. PEOPLE HAVE TO TRAVEL TO GET TO THOSE SERVICES AND GET TO THOSE NEEDS MET. SO, UM, THIS IS A ZOOMED IN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. DO WE HAVE THE POINTER? OH, THERE, IT'S, THANK YOU. UM, AND I WANNA FOCUS ON THIS 'CAUSE YOU CAN SEE OUR, OUR LITTLE SMALL PIECE, UM, HERE, FRONTING BROWN ROAD, JUST UNDER FOUR ACRES. UM, THIS PIECE THAT WE ARE REQUESTING, THE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TODAY IS PART OF A LARGER, ALMOST EIGHT ACRE TRACT, UH, THAT CONNECTS UP LY FIELD AND BEHIND MERIT FIELD. SO KIND OF RUNS ALONG THIS FAR WESTERN BOUNDARY. UH, WE HAD PURSUED A REZONING ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, UH, FOR ALL MULTIFAMILY OF THE ENTIRE TRACT, AND, UH, WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH LAUREL CANYONS, AND THEY WERE VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT THEY DID NOT WANT ANY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT BEHIND THEIR HOMES. UH, SO WE WITHDREW, UM, AND WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD OVER THE LAST 18 MONTHS, UH, TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MINIMIZE THEIR IMPACT, CREATE AS MUCH BUFFERING AS POSSIBLE, AND PRESERVE AS MUCH NATURAL SPACE. WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS LARGE 45 ACRE TRACT, YOU CAN SEE THE LOST WOODS CAMPGROUND, UM, IS PRESERVED NATURAL AREA AS WELL. UM, THIS PIECE, THIS 45 ACRE PIECE IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN. SO NON DEVELOPABLE. UM, OUR PROPERTY IS NOT ENTIRELY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN, JUST A SMALL PIECE, UM, WHICH WE'VE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE SITE PLAN [00:40:01] YOU'LL SEE SHORTLY. UM, BUT WE ARE JUST FOCUSING ON THIS SMALL FOUR ACRE PIECE RIGHT HERE THAT DOES NOT CONNECT OR TOUCH ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. UH, VERY, VERY SPECIFICALLY ON PURPOSE. NEXT SLIDE. UH, SO REAL QUICKLY, IT IS ZONED R FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WE ARE REQUESTING AN M X D REZONING, UH, WHICH IS TRIGGERING OUR NEED FOR A MIXED USE PLAN AMENDMENT. UH, WE ARE PROPOSING A TRUE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH BROWN FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND, UH, TWO TO THREE STORIES OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ON TOP. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THOSE PAST AERIALS, THERE IS, UH, AN ABUNDANCE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UH, AND REALLY A MINIMAL DIVERSITY OF HOUSING OPTIONS IN THIS COMMUNITY WITH A SIGNIFICANT LACK OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE. SO, UM, THIS SMALL DEVELOPMENT KIND OF BRINGS BOTH OF THOSE THINGS TO THE COMMUNITY. SO WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY IS THIS IS A PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE WEST SOUTHWEST SECTOR PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S ALL SUBURBAN TIER. UH, WE ARE NOT TOUCHING THE AREAS THAT ARE PARKS IN NATURAL OPEN SPACE. UM, IT IS A PLAN AMENDMENT TO MIXED USE CENTER, UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT. SO IN THE WEST SOUTHWEST SECTOR PLAN, THERE ARE A MYRIAD OF VARYING DIFFERENT TYPES OF OBJECTIVES AND GOALS IN THE PLAN. UM, THESE ARE JUST SIX OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE WEST SECTOR PLAN THAT VERY SPECIFICALLY CREATE CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR REQUEST. EVERYTHING FROM PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, UH, COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, UH, SPECIFICALLY PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AREAS. ALL OF THOSE THINGS ON A WIDE VARIETY, UH, OF LEVELS IN THE WEST SECTOR PLAN ARE BEING ACHIEVED ON THIS SMALL DEVELOPMENT HERE. SO, UM, WE ARE REQUESTING A MIXED USE CENTER, WHICH IS VERY SPECIFICALLY IN THE PLAN DESIGNED TO SERVE THE SUBURBAN TIER AREAS, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE SURROUNDED BY. SO WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO SERVE THAT LARGER AREA. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE M X D SITE PLAN. UM, YOU CAN SEE THE MULTIFAMILY COMMERCIAL BUILDABLE AREA IN THE, THE RED. UM, IT WILL HAVE A HANDFUL, SMALL HANDFUL OF, UH, UNITS, UH, BUILDINGS ON THIS PIECE. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE A, IN THIS KIND OF FUCHSIA, PURPLE COLOR IS A SMALL STANDALONE COMMERCIAL PAD SITE AS WELL. SO IN, IN THE RED WE'LL BE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE SERVICES. AND THEN MULTIFAMILY ABOVE THAT, A SMALL STANDALONE COFFEE. WE HAVE PERMEABLE PAY OF PARKING, TRADITIONAL PARKING. AND THEN YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THIS PARKING CUTS BACK IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER. UM, THAT'S FOR SOME ADDITIONAL TREE PRESERVATION. UH, WE'RE ALSO GONNA BE INCORPORATING WALKING TRAILS THROUGH THIS PROJECT, UM, THAT ALLOWS RESIDENTS OF LAUREL CANYONS TO WALK THROUGH THE PROPERTY, UM, INTO THE NATURE PRESERVE NEXT DOOR CAN ALSO WALK AND ACCESS THOSE COMMERCIAL RETAIL SERVICES IN THE PROJECT. SO REALLY CREATING KIND OF A COMPREHENSIVE ACCESSIBLE PROJECT, UM, ON THE DEVELOPMENT. UH, SO LAST SLIDE. AGAIN, THIS IS THAT M X D PLAN, BUT IT SHOWS THE ENTIRE PARCEL. SO YOU CAN SEE THE, THE ALMOST FOUR ACRES THAT WE, UH, ELECTED TO REMOVE OUT OF THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. SO THIS, UM, WHICH A, EXCUSE ME, THIS ABUTS MERIT FIELD, ALYSSA FIELD, THAT'S WHERE THOSE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS IN LAUREL CANYONS ARE. THE, IS REMAINING ENTIRELY OPEN, NATURAL PRESERVED SPACE. UM, THERE'LL BE SOME SMALL WALKING TRAILS THAT CONNECT TO THE FLOODPLAIN AREA AND THE CAMPGROUNDS. UM, SO THIS REALLY IS A TRUE MIXED USE PROJECT DESIGNED VERY SPECIFICALLY TO BUFFER THOSE RESIDENTS, CREATE AS MUCH SEPARATION FROM THEM AND THE DEVELOPMENT AS POSSIBLE, UM, BUT ALSO PROVIDE SOME SERVICES AND DIVERSITY OF HOUSING, UH, WHICH IS IN DIRECT ALIGNMENT WITH THE WEST SECTOR PLAN. UM, MYSELF AND THE PROPERTY OWNER ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, UH, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, EMILY. I'LL START WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER BUS DEANTE FOR COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. NO QUESTIONS. COUNCILMAN COURAGE? NO QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER ORIAN. UH, A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. UH, SOME OF THEM ARE RAISED DURING THE WORK SESSION. FIRST OF ALL, UH, THERE IS A M D P IN PLACE IN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS A PART OF. AND ON THAT APPROVED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THIS IS CITED FOR OPEN SPACE. UH, THIS PLAN ALSO CALLS FOR WALKING TRAILS TO BE DEVELOPED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO ONE THING, ONE EASY QUESTION GOT OUTTA THE WAY IS ARE THE WALKING TRAILS THAT YOUR TALK THAT YOU BROUGHT UP IN YOUR, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, ARE THOSE THE WALKING TRAILS THAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BUILD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OR ARE THESE JUST SERVING MULTI-FAMILY FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? BOTH. OKAY. UH, THAT'S THE QUICK ANSWER. YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S NEIGHBORHOOD THERE SERVES MULTIPLE PURPOSES, BUT, UM, SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT THE RESIDENTS ALONG MERRIT FIELD, MANY OF THEM DON'T HAVE FENCES OR HAVE JUST SMALL RED IRON GATES. UM, AND SO CONNECTIVITY TO THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM. MY QUESTION WAS, IS, UH, WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DONE WHAT IN OH [00:45:01] EIGHT, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT BACK IN OH EIGHT, WHAT, WHAT'S TAKEN 14 YEARS? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. OKAY. UH, THE NEXT QUESTION IS, AND THIS ONE'S A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC. SO THE MASTER PLAN ALSO REFERENCES THAT A CASS CONSENT AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY ENTERED IN WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. THIS USED TO BE IN THE HELO TO E T J. YOU DID AN E T J SWAP. AND PART OF THE AGREEMENT WAS THAT THE LANDOWNER WAS GOING TO REQUEST ANNEXATION BY THE CITY, WHICH HAPPENED, UH, WHAT WAS THE CITY GAVE UP WAS NO COMPLIANCE WITH THE T I A, SECTION 5 0 2 OF THE U D C AND NO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE U D C. THAT'S NO FILE O NO DETENTION. SO MY CONCERN WITH THIS STUFF IS, IS, UH, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DEVELOP THIS? ARE YOU GOING TO BE EXEMPTING YOURSELF FROM THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN? OR WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH THIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT GOING FROM UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? THAT'S ONE QUESTION. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE'S TIED TO IT. SECOND PART IS, UH, ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA HAS, IS REQUIRED BY THE CONSENT AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE PLATTING AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF A LOTUS. SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? THAT'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS. YEAH. UM, QUICKLY, I THINK JAMES IS KIND OF CHOMPING AT THE BIT RIGHT HERE NEXT TO ME, UM, READY TO JUMP IN. UM, BUT I WILL ANSWER ONE QUESTION, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE EXTENSIVELY DISCUSSED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS ALSO THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROJECT, UM, WITH FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CURRENT U D C REGULATIONS. UM, SO THIS SITE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR EXEMPTIONS. WE'RE NOT PURSUING ANY EXEMPTIONS OR VESTED RIGHTS. UM, THIS SITE WILL BE FULLY DEVELOPED WITH TODAY'S STANDARDS. YEAH. MY CONCERN WAS THAT THE CITY MAY NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE THOSE, EVEN IF YOU WANT TO. I'M JUST WONDERING 'CAUSE ANY MODIFICATIONS THE CONSENT AGREEMENT HAVE TO BE IN WRITING. UM, AND THAT, SO THAT'S OF CONCERN OF MINE. UH, THE SECOND THING IS, UH, AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, I KNOW YOU'RE WAITING TO GET UP HERE, BUT THE CONSENT AGREEMENT ALSO LIMITS USES TO THOSE IN THE ORIGINAL HE LOTUS MASTER PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED, UH, YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS AGO. AND THAT MASTER PLAN LIMITS YOUR USE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, NOT HIGH DENSITY, BUT REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A BIG CONCERN, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOUR SIDE OF IT, UH, HOW THIS COMMISSION AS CITY OFFICIALS IS TAKING THE FIRST STAB AT BREAKING A CONSENT AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY ENTERED IN WITH THIS DEVELOPER. I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN, I I QUESTION WHETHER WE'RE EVEN ALLOWED TO ENTERTAIN THIS BECAUSE SO FAR THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY, ANY, UM, BREAKING OF THE AGREEMENT. AND I'D HATE TO BE THE ONE WHO DO IT DOES IT FIRST. SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. SORRY, NOT TO, WELL LET MEAN BUTT IN HERE. BUT, UM, UH, JAMES, JAMES GRIFFIN, UH, KEVIN GRIFFIN, FAIRMAN TINTIN ONE REUNION PLACE. UM, SO, UH, A COUPLE THINGS AND, AND GREAT POINTS. UM, UH, GLAD YOU BROUGHT 'EM UP. UM, BUT I I, I DON'T KNOW IF THE, THE PLAN AMENDMENT'S THE, THE RIGHT STAGE, UH, QUITE HONESTLY, YOU KNOW, SO OUR, OUR REQUEST IS, UH, FROM SUBURBAN TO MIXED USE. I MEAN, I I I DO THINK IF WE WERE EVEN DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE IN THE PLAN, IT, IT'D PROBABLY BE A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. UM, AS YOU KNOW, YEAH. WE'LL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE KIND OF NORMAL, UM, REQUIREMENTS AND, AND PROCEDURES, UH, FOR PLANNING, UH, M D P AMENDMENT. UM, A COUPLE THINGS, OR A COUPLE ADDITIONAL THINGS, I, I DO WANNA POINT OUT IN, IN RESPONSE TO THOSE, THOSE COMMENTS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I'M GLAD GLAD YOU BROUGHT 'EM UP. UM, CERTAINLY WE NEED TO, UH, REVIEW THOSE IN DETAIL AND, AND GO THROUGH ALL THAT WITH THE CITY. UM, THE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE, UH, THE CONSENT AGREEMENT AND EVEN THE M D P WAS 2003, UM, WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DEVELOPER. UM, SO THIS IS NOT, AND REALLY WHAT I'M GETTING AT THERE IS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DID, DID OUR CLIENT DO THOSE THINGS? THEY DIDN'T. UM, NOW WHOEVER WAS SUPPOSED TO DO IT, I BELIEVE DID DO IT. WELL, THE MASTER THE MASTER PLAN, DOING A MASTER PLAN IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. THE, WHAT I'M CONCERNED IS, IS THAT, I MEAN, YOU CAN CHANGE A MASTER PLAN THAT'S, I UNDER GET THAT. BUT THE, THE, THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, WHICH IS ALSO APPLIES TO SUCCESSOR AND ASSIGNS AND FUTURE OWNERS, DOES STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DO ANY USE OTHER THAN THAT IN THAT ORIGINAL PLAN BY HE LOTUS. AND THEN IN THAT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, IT, IT LIMITS IT TO SINGLE FAMILY. AND THE USE THAT YOU'RE PURSUING RIGHT NOW DOESN'T ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY. SO I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING BEFORE THIS COMMISSION AND ASKING US TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR, TO, TO OUR CITY COUNCIL IS, IS YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO VIOLATE A, A, A CONSENT AGREEMENT. AND, UH, AND THAT, THAT KIND OF BOTHERS ME. AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN, YOU KNOW, LEGALLY EVEN DO SUCH A THING. YEAH. YEAH. I, IF I MAY, CHAIR AND COMMISSION, UM, JUST TO GIVE AN OPINION REAL QUICK HERE. SO THE PURVIEW IN JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, DOES NOT EXTEND TO INTERPRETING [00:50:01] CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS. UM, AND THE EFFECT OF THOSE CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS, IF THE RESULTING PLAN AMENDMENT HERE, UH, RESULTED IN SOME KIND OF VIOLATION OF A CONTRACT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT GETS ADJUDICATED OR EVALUATED LATER. AND IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WOULD RESULT IN THE FORFEIT OF THOSE RIGHTS, WHICH APPEARS THAT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT INTERESTED IN, IN UTILIZING. UM, SO IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE, THE POWER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ANALYZE AND INTERPRET A CONTRACT AND TO USE THAT AS THE BASIS FOR A PLAN DECISION. WELL, I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE. CAN YOU PLEASE LOOK AT THIS ONE SENTENCE OUTTA THIS CONTRACT AND, AND LET ME KNOW IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON IT OR NOT? YES, WE, YEAH. THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ALLOWED TO VOTE ON IT BECAUSE I'M, I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE REVIEW AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, OF WHICH WE'RE ALL OFFICIALS OF UP HERE. YES. AND THERE'S ONE SENTENCE IN HERE THAT SAYS, THE DEVELOP ALL DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS IN THIS AGREEMENT, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS IT TO BE SINGLE FAMILY. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TELL US WHETHER WE'RE ALLOWED TO VIOLATE WHAT'S IN HERE. YES, I CAN TELL YOU I APPRECIATE IT. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT ACTUALLY ABLE TO USE, UH, THE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSENT AGREEMENT AS ITS BASIS FOR DECISION MAKING IN THIS PROCEEDING TODAY. SO WHETHER OR NOT WE INTERPRET THOSE PROVISIONS WILL NOT BE RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. OKAY. I, I, I PERSONALLY THINK THIS SHOULD BE TABLED TILL WE HAVE A, A LEGAL ANALYST. 'CAUSE I DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WHEN I READ THE ETHICS CODE, EVEN THOUGH A LOT, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT DON'T APPLY TO US AS CITY OFFICIALS 'CAUSE WE'RE APPOINTED, WE'RE STILL HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHICH YES. AND, AND TO CONSIDER THIS CONTRACT AND TO ATTEMPT TO ANALYZE IT WOULD BE ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THIS INSTANCE. SO IT ACTUALLY, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE OPPOSITE. IT WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE TO USE IT AS THE BASIS FOR YOUR DECISION MAKING HERE. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL, I'LL STOP ASKING THAT LINE OF QUESTIONS. SO THE AGREEMENT DOES REQUIRE THE CITY TO ANALYZE TO MAKE SURE IT WAS BEING FOLLOWED EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE 2003. HAVE YOU, HAS YOUR OFFICE DONE THAT? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? WELL, IT, IT, IT OBLIG OBLIGATES THE CITY TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT SINCE 2003 TO MAKE SURE THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. HAVE YOU DONE THAT? RIGHT. AND THAT ANALYSIS WILL OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOUR ANSWER IS THAT FOR THE LAST 16 TO 18 YEARS, YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT, OR YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE DONE THAT OR, OR WHAT COMMISSIONER, IF I MAY, CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES. OKAY. I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF. UH, THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WE HAVE STEPS IN PLACE FOR US STAFF TO DO THOSE EVALUATIONS BASED OFF OF THE AGREED UPON CONSENT AGREEMENTS. IF THERE IS ANY EXPIRATION OF THOSE CONSENT AGREEMENTS OR ANY CHANGE OF PROJECT, THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT WE EVALUATE ON A EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION THAT COMES THROUGH AND WE COMPARE IT TO THE APPROVED CONSENT AGREEMENTS. WE WAS THAT DONE IN THE STAFF REPORT? IF I MAY? OH, GO AHEAD. IN COORDINATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE BRING THEM TO THE TABLE ON EVERY SINGLE ONE. OKAY. SO WE, WE HAVE A CASE BEFORE US IN A STAFF REPORT THAT DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY DISCUSSION OF HOW THIS APPLIES. AND THAT'S A CONCERN TO ME, SO I'M JUST DON'T, AS I BELIEVE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MENTIONED, THAT'S NOT THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION TODAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER GARCIA, I THINK MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. COMMISSIONER MILO, NO QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PECK, NO QUESTIONS FROM ME. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE ITEM COMM VICE CHAIR. UH, HANES, UH, NO QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE THE, THE DIALOGUE AND CONVERSATION FROM, UM, COMMISSIONER ORIAN. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? NO QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? NO, NO QUESTION. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL. UH, UH, SCHINDLER, MY APOLOGIES. NO QUESTIONS. UH, AGAIN, UH, UH, APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION. UH, AGAIN, I THINK AS SMITH POINTED OUT, OUR PURVIEW IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT AHEAD OF US. UH, THERE HAS BEEN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. STAFF DO ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. SECOND. SORRY. UH, COMMISSIONER SIEGEL CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A POINT OF ORDER. I'D LIKE TO PURSUE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FOR LEGAL TO ANALYZE A CONSENT AGREEMENT. COMMISSIONER ORIAN MAKES A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. IS THERE A SECOND? THERE'S ALREADY A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. WE HAVE TO EITHER VOTE OR RESCIND THE MO [00:55:01] CURRENT MOTION. OKAY. I MOVE TO AMEND THE CURRENT MOTION AND CHANGE IT TO A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. UM, AS A POINT OF ORDER THAT THAT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE TO CREATE AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CONTRADICT WHAT THE MAIN MOTION IS STATING. UH, ANY AMENDMENT TO A MAIN MOTION HAS TO BE GERMANE TO THAT MOTION. MOTION. MOTION. OKAY. THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRY OR I HAVE TO, I'M NOT FOR DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION. OKAY. SO A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE WITH A SECOND WE WILL TAKE A VOTE. COMMISSIONER PECK? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? NO. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE. AYE. COUNCILMAN COURAGE? YES. COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES. NO. CHAIR PROFIT? YES. MOTION PASSES. OKAY. NOW WE'LL [Other Items  ] MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 20. UH, THIS WILL BE A DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENTS AND WHETHER THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, WILL MOVE THEM FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. UM, IS THERE A STAFF PRESENTATION? WE DO NOT HAVE A, A FORMAL PRESENTATION, BUT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 20 IS THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS CONSIDERATION OF 40 EXTERNAL U D C AMENDMENTS TO DETERMINE WHICH, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SPONSOR. AGAIN, SPONSORSHIP MEANS IT MOVES FORWARD IN THE PROCESS, IT WOULD GO BACK TO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION ON THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO WE ARE GONNA DO, UH, TAKE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS, UH, ONE ON, UH, ON SPECIFIC ITEMS TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE TAC. AND THOSE ARE ITEMS 6, 1, 6, 3, 6, 4, 6, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 25, 1, AND 31. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UH, TO PUT THOSE, THOSE AMENDMENTS FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. BE A MOTION TO SPONSOR THOSE AMENDMENTS AND FORWARD THEM BACK TO THE, UH, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MOTION TO SPONSOR THOSE NAMED AMENDMENTS AND MOVE THEM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SECOND MOTION BY VICE CHAIR CREW HAYNES. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PECK, TAKE THE VOTE PLEASE. COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? YES. COMMISSIONER PECK? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE. AYE. COUNCILMAN COURAGE? YES. CHAIR PROFIT? YES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. UH, JUST A REMINDER ON THOSE, THEY'LL STILL NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE, BY THE TACTICAL ADVISOR COMMITTEE BEFORE THEY COME, BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT'S CORRECT. MAYBE IF I WERE TO BRIEFLY READ THOSE OUT LOUD FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. JUST TO CLARIFY WHICH ONES WERE JUST SPONSORED. UH, AMENDMENT SIX DASH ONE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL. UH, THAT ITEM WILL MOVE FORWARD TO T AS WILL THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL AMENDMENT SIX DASH TWO SIX, UH, DASH THREE SIX DASH FOUR, SIX DASH SIX, AND SIX DASH SEVEN LOGAN SIX, NOT SIX DASH TWO OH I, I APOLOGIZE, NOT SIX DASH TWO. THAT'S UP FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. ADDITIONALLY, AMENDMENT 25 DASH ONE, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE, DON DAVIES, THAT WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH SPONSORSHIP ATTACK. UH, AND LASTLY, AMENDMENT 30 DASH ONE, SUBMITTED BY JAMES MCKNIGHT, THAT [01:00:01] AUTOMATICALLY MOVES FORWARD TO TAC. SO AGAIN, IF YOU WERE HERE FOR THOSE ITEMS, THOSE HAVE BEEN SPONSORED AND WE'LL MOVE ON IN THE PROCESS. THANK YOU. SO THE REMAINDER OF THE AMENDMENTS, UH, UH, DUE TO THE, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE, UH, WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT THE AUTHORS TO FIVE MINUTES. AND IF YOU'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. AND JUST KEEP IN MIND IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ON MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU COVER THOSE WITHIN YOUR THREE MINUTES. SO WE'LL START WITH, UH, MR. CHAIR, COULD I HAVE A POINT OF INFORMATION? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. I'D JUST LIKE TO KNOW THAT WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE DECIDES TODAY, IS THAT THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAVE ABOUT 30 MORE ITEMS TO LOOK AT AND 25 OF THEM ARE APPROVED TO GO FORWARD FROM THIS COMMITTEE, BUT FIVE OR SIX ARE NOT, DOES THAT MEAN THOSE ARE DEAD AND CANNOT GO FORWARD IN THE FUTURE? THAT, THAT IS CORRECT. SO ANY ITEM NOT SPONSORED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD INTO ANY ADDITIONAL STEPS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. COULD ANY OF THESE BE POSTPONED FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AT ANOTHER TIME? IF THEY'RE NOT DECIDED TODAY? SO CERTAIN, UH, INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS COULD BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE. UH, ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, WE GO THROUGH A U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS EVERY FIVE YEARS, SO IT DOES, IT'S NOT FOREVER, BUT IT COULD ALSO GO THROUGH THE NEXT PROCESS. NO, WHAT I MEANT WAS COULD IT BE POSTPONED TO THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN MAYBE MOVE FORWARD AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION? IT COULD, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE, ONE, UM, IS THE TAKE, PROBABLY TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. I KNOW THERE'S ALSO SOME VOICEMAILS. YEAH, WE, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE 10 VOICEMAILS TO PLAY AND THEN WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL TAKE THE VOICEMAIL AND WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE AUTHORS. MY NAME IS BRANDON AL. MY PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 2 2 5 MADISON STREET, SAN ANTONIO. MY PHONE NUMBER IS NINE TWO NINE EIGHT FOUR THREE. I'M OPPOSED TO AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO AND 16 DASH THREE. THE REASONING PROVIDED FOR THESE AMENDMENTS DOES NOT SUPPORT INFRINGING ON THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNERS. PART OF THE REASONING GIVEN WAS THE RATIO OF TYPE TWO TO TYPE ONE PERMITS ISSUED. THIS IS IRRELEVANT. TYPE 100, TYPE TWO PERMITS WERE ISSUED AND ONE TYPE ONE PERMIT THAT WOULD BE A 100 TO ONE RATIO, YET 100 TYPE TWO PERMITS IS NOTHING TO THE CITY THE SIZE OF SAN ANTONIO. IN REALITY, THERE ARE OVER 500,000 HOUSEHOLDS IN SAN ANTONIO AND ONLY 1,903 TYPE TWO PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED SINCE 2019. THAT'S ROUGHLY 0.38% OF HOUSEHOLDS HAVE EVER BEEN GIVEN A TYPE TWO PERMITS AND LIKELY A FRACTION OF THOSE ARE CURRENTLY IN USE IN ORDER FOR THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BE PASSED. ACTUAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PROVIDED THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF BLOCKS IN SAN ANTONIO HAVE MORE THAN FOUR. TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PER UH, PERMITS IS SO HIGH THAT THERE IS IN FACT A LEGITIMATE THREAT TO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS. OTHERWISE, THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE THIS LEGITIMATE CONCERN FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. FURTHERMORE, THE IDEA THAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD'VE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE HOUSING SHORTAGE SHOULD ALSO BE REJECTED ON ITS FACE, GIVEN THE TINY FRACTION OF DWELLINGS THAT ARE NON-OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN, CURRENT TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNERS MUST NAVIGATE A PERMITTING PROCESS THAT REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING CODES, NOISE ORDINANCES, FIRE SAFETY. HAVING SOMEBODY ACCESSIBLE 24 HOURS A DAY AND ADHERE TO OTHER STANDARDS OF OPERATIONS ON TOP OF THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS TO CHANGE THE STANDARD FROM BLOCK PHASE TO BLOCK WOULD FURTHER RESTRICT THE GAUNTLET OF REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST ALREADY BE OVERCOME TO CHANGE THE ISSUANCE OF TYPE TWO PERMITS THAT THEY'RE NOT BY RIGHT WOULD CREATE A FALSE IMPRESSION THAT THERE IS A CEILING ON THE ISSUANCE OF THESE PERMITS. BUT NO FLOOR APPLICANTS CAN BE DENIED EVEN WHEN ALL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET. INSTEAD, THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL HOMEOWNERS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE RECOGNIZED AND WHEN THEY MEET THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE CURRENT DENSITY ENTITY REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE ISSUED A TYPE TWO PERMIT. THANK YOU. HI, I'M, UH, MY NAME IS CALEB JAMES. MY ADDRESS IS 1 8 0 0 EAST CARSON STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. UM, I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT, UH, AGENDA 20. I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT. THERE'S DEFINITELY A NEED FOR, UH, CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION TREATS THE, UH, CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO AGAINST LARGE COMPANIES. UH, WE DEFINITELY NEED, UH, PREREQUISITES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, UH, BIG BUILDERS TO MEET BEFORE, UM, MAKING LARGE, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE, UH, DISRUPTING THE COMMUNITY. UM, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (956) 404-1754. THANK YOU. CINDY TOWER SIX 14 EAST [01:05:01] CARSON, SAN ANTONIO, AND MY PHONE NUMBER'S (917) 854-2179 AND I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDMENT REQUEST REGARDING ITEM THAT THAT'S IN SUPPORT OF THE U D C AMENDMENT'S AGENDA. ITEM 20, ALL EXTERNAL CITIZENS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND BE REVIEWED BY THE P C T A C, SO I AM IN SUPPORT AGAIN OF AMEND OF THE U D C AMENDMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 20. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS COLLEEN WABA SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ORGANIZED DEVELOPMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS NO N N O D ADDRESS, 1603 TARTAN LANE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 3 1 2 1 0 2 5 9 7 0 6 7. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ORGANIZED DEVELOPMENT. REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPONSOR PROPOSED G D C DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 16 DASH ONE THROUGH 16 DASH 12 SUBMITTED BY THE PIER ONE AND BY THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION NONSUPPORT. THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A GROUP NOT HAS REVIEWED THESE PROPOSED U D LIMITS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THEY REPRESENT IMPORTANT STEPS TOWARD PROTECTING THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND WOULD SERVE TO LIMIT INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THESE MEN WOULD ALSO SERVE TO IMPROVE THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS, ENSURING THAT BOTH CITIZENS AND DEVELOPERS HAVE A VOICE IN THE GROWTH OF OUR COMMUNITY, NOT RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPONSORS PROPOSED U D C DEVELOPMENT 16 DASH ONE THROUGH 16 DASH 12 FOR CONSIDERATION AS IMPORTANT STEPS TO IMPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. COLLEEN WAPAC, PRESIDENT NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ORGANIZED DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS EILEEN ROTH. I LIVE ON 1 0 1 CROFTON AVENUE IN THE KING DISTRICT, AND, UH, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (817) 526-2345. I'M CALLING TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT OF THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENTS FOR THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION. UM, I'M IN SUPPORT OF 16 1 16 2 16 3. UM, ALSO AMENDMENT 16 5 16 DASH 7 16 9 AND 16 DASH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, CULLEN JONES, 1123 NOLAN SAN ANTONIO, SEVEN EIGHT TWO ZERO TWO, DISTRICT TWO, PHONE NUMBER (210) 247-7065. HEY, YEAH, AND THANK YOU FOR THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN LIKE THIS. UH, JUST WANTED TO VOICE, UH, SUPPORT FOR AGENDA ITEM 20 AND THE U D C AMENDMENTS 16 2 16 3 REGARDING BLOCK FACE LANGUAGE, UH, FOR TOP TWO ST. UH, WITH THAT, I KNOW TIER ONE HAS DONE A GREAT DEAL TO, UH, UH, PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, AND THAT, UH, CONVERSATION REGARDING STR HAS GONE ON FOR SO LONG. UH, WITH THAT THOUGH, AGAIN IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THE U D C AMENDMENTS OF ITEM 20, AND THEN, UH, THE AMENDMENT 16, TWO AND 16 THREE. AGAIN, CULLEN JONES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BYE. SO GIVE [01:10:01] US JUST A SECOND. WE'RE, UH, WE'RE TRYING TO LOAD THE NEXT VOICEMAIL. IT'S, UH, TAKING A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, MR. CHAIR, WHILE WE WAIT, UH, POINT OF INFORMATION. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU. JUST TO STAFF REALLY QUICKLY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SPONSOR IF WE WANT IT TO GO FORWARD, WHAT IS THE OPPOSITE? NO MOTION WOULD RESULT IN THE ITEM NOT MOVING FORWARD. VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. YEAH. HI, I AM CALLING IN SUPPORT OF G E A A, THAT'S GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE, U D C AMENDMENT. THAT'S U AS IN USEFUL, B AS IN DOG, C AS IN CAT. MY NAME IS MARJORIE LUCY, L U C E Y IS MY LAST NAME. IT'S (830) 285-1276 IS MY PHONE NUMBER. ADDRESS IS ONE TWO EIGHT THREE FIVE CASTLE BEND STREET, SAN ANTONIO, 7 8 2 3 OH. AND AGAIN, I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENT SPONSORED BY G E A A. AND I THINK THAT TEXAS IS BECOMING NOT JUST OPEN TO BUSINESS, BUT IT HAS BECOME EXPLOITED BY BUSINESS. AND WHEN YOU THINK THAT A MILLION ACRES OF FARMLAND AND RANCH LAND IS DEEMED LOST EVERY 10 YEARS, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO STEP BACK ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. YOU ALL HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND. THANK YOU. HELLO, THIS IS REGARDING ITEM NUMBER 20, THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT. ITEM NUMBER 16 DASH ONE THROUGH 16 DASH 12. MY NAME IS SARAH CARUSO AND I LIVE AT 1 2 3 5 0 MAPLE TREE STREET HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. AND I'M THE INCOMING PRESIDENT OF THE TANGLEWOOD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION. REPRESENTING THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR ASSOCIATION, TANGLEWOOD HAS OVER 800 HOMES THAT MAY BE IMPACTED BY THIS AS WELL AS SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. AND T R A WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT YOU PLEASE SPONSOR U D C AMENDMENT ITEMS 16 DASH ONE THROUGH 16 DASH 12 THAT ARE A RESULT OF NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT REQUESTING RELIEF FROM ISSUES SUCH AS THE LACK OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS, PROLIFERATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS, TYPE TWO GAS STATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS, PROTECTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, AND INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS SAN ANTONIO. THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO STABILIZE AND PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRENGTHEN THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS BY IMPROVING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLES. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPONSOR THOSE AMENDMENTS ITEMS 16 DASH ONE THROUGH 16 DASH 12 THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION ON BEHALF OF ITS COALITION NEIGHBORHOOD MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. MY NAME IS SUE SNYDER. I RESIDE AT 5 6 5 5 LOCKHILL ROAD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 4 0. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF OAKLAND STATE'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I, MY NUMBER IS 1 2 1 0 3 1 6 1 3 4 8. I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE U D C AMENDMENTS INITIATED BY THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, ESPECIALLY 16 DASH FOUR. THOSE AMENDMENTS EMPHASIZE THE CONTINUED USE OF THIS EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS. OAKLAND STATE SAYS A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY USED NEGOTIATE ZONING CASES TO DEVELOP OUR SURROUNDING AREA IN A WAY THAT CONSISTENTLY BENEFITS THE RESIDENTS OF OAKLAND STATES, THE DEVELOPER AND THE RESIDENTS OF SAN ANTONIO. PLEASE HELP US CONTINUE THIS SUCCESS BY SUPPORTING THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. HELLO, MY NAME IS TOM ROTH. I LIVE IN THE KING WILLIAM AREA AT 1 0 1 TON, AVENUE NUMBER 1 0 1, AND I WAS CALLING TO SUPPORT THE T ONE NC PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. UH, 16 DASH ONE 16 DASH TWO 16 DASH THREE 16 DASH FIVE, 16 DASH SEVEN, 16 DASH 19, AND 16 DASH 12. THANK YOU. AND MY PHONE NUMBER IS, UM, (817) 564-6344. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL THE VOICEMAILS WE HAVE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, WE HAVE ANU NUMBER, NUMEROUS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. UH, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND THEN WHEN YOU DO COME UP, IF YOU WILL INDICATE WHETHER YOU ARE ONE OF THE SUBMITTING AGENCIES OR SPONSORS OF THE AMENDMENT. UH, IF YOU ARE, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND THEN A CHANCE TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AS WE ADDRESS THE AMENDMENTS. IF YOU'RE JUST WISHING TO BE [01:15:01] HEARD ON AN ITEM, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. SO FIRST IS CYNTHIA SPIELMAN NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA CYNTHIA SPIELMAN. UM, I LIVE AT 900 WEST WOODLAWN 7 8 2 0 1. UM, I'M HERE AS AN APPLICANT, SO I KNOW I GET FIVE MINUTES, BUT I'VE ACTUALLY TIMED MYSELF AT TWO . GOOD BEGINNING. I COME TO YOU TODAY TO ASK THAT YOU SPONSOR THE PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENTS 16 ONE THROUGH 1612. UM, BUT SPECIFICALLY I ASK YOU TO SPONSOR 16 EIGHT, WHICH EXPANDS NOTICES FOR LAND USE, ZONING CHANGES AND REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES TO INCLUDE MORE RESIDENTS SO THAT MORE MAY PARTICIPATE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ZONING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SPECIFICALLY TO ENSURE A SAN ANTONIO GROWS AND CHANGES THAT NOTICES SENT TO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD. ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN 200 FEET ARE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE REGISTERED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, COMMUNITY PLAN, PERIMETER, SECTOR PLAN, OR ANY OTHER PLAN CODIFIED WITH THE CITY IMPLEMENTING THE CITY'S PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, UH, GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF TRANSPARENCY, INCLUSIVITY, ACCESSIBILITY, RESPONSIVENESS, AND CONTINUITY FOR NOTICES THAT THE CITY SENDS, BUILDS RELATIONSHIPS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND HELPS TO CREATE TRUST IN THE PROCESS. AS IT IS THE ROLE OF CITY GOVERNMENT TO CONNECT RESIDENTS WITH THE SERVICES IT PROVIDES. EXPANSION OF THE NOTICES BY THE CITY WILL BE STRENGTHENED THROUGH MEANINGFUL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION BY THOSE WHO WILL BE IMPACTED. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS SEEKING TO REINSTATE THE PLANNING TEAM NOTIFICATIONS, WHICH WERE ELIMINATED IN THE 2015 U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOT ONLY CREATE A PLAN, BUT TO ENSURE IT IS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH CONTINUOUS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. WHY WOULD THE CITY INVEST MILLIONS OF DOLLARS CREATING THE ESSAY TOMORROW PLAN AND NOT ENGAGE RESIDENTS AS THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED? WHY WOULD RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY LEADERS SPEND SO MUCH TIME AND HARD WORK CREATING PLANS WITH THE CITY IF THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE PLANS? PLAN TEAM MEMBERS ARE STAKEHOLDERS TO EACH RESPECTIVE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS CODIFIED BY THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES. WE ASK THAT CSA RESPECTS THE TIME AND HARD WORK THAT GOES INTO CREATING NEIGHBORHOODS, SUB AREA, AND OTHER PLANS, AND THAT ENGAGED STAKEHOLDERS CONTINUE TO BE PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. 16 EIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. SPIELMAN. UH, NEXT IS STEVE. I, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY JUST TO KEEP THINGS AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE. IT IS PROBABLY BEST FOR NOW THAT WE CALL UP FOLKS TO SPEAK ON ITEMS GENERALLY AND THEN ALLOW APPLICANTS TO SPEAK ABOUT THEIR ITEMS AS WE GET TO THOSE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. OKAY? OKAY. UH, SO I'LL GO THROUGH THE LIST HERE. STEVE VERSUS STEVE, YOU'RE AN AS AN AUTHOR, RIGHT? AN APPLICANT DETA COLE AS AN APPLICANT? YES. THERESA IVANEZ AN APPLICANT. OKAY. MS. DEBBIE REED, APPLICANT, UM, I, SORRY, CAN I, ON SHADWELL DRIVE, I CANNOT, DON'T WORRY. APPLICANT, UH, AN APPLICANT, YES, APPLICANT. MARGARET LEJO LEADS, I'M SORRY. SUPPORT. SUPPORT. OKAY. WE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM YOU NOW AT THIS POINT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. I'M MARGARET LEEDS. I LIVE AT 3 0 8 KING WILLIAM, AND I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND A MEMBER OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE FOR TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION. AND I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AND SPONSOR ITEM 20 16 1, UH, THROUGH 1612 WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON TWO AND THREE, WHICH RELATE TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO. UH, I HAVE SEEN THE TYPE TWOS PROLIFERATE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW THAT DISTRICT ONE HAS LIKE 60% OF THE SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THE CITY, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE [01:20:01] 10 DISTRICTS. SO WE HAVE AN EXCESS AMOUNT. AND WHEN THOSE TYPE TWO RENTALS OCCUR IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, IT KILLS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PART BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO NEIGHBORS IN THOSE HOMES. UM, ONE, UH, BLOCK IN KING WILLIAM, 200 MADISON HAS FOUR RENTALS. THERE'S A BED AND BREAKFAST, WHICH IS COUNTED AS A TYPE TWO RIGHT NEXT DOOR. A PERMIT WAS GIVEN FOR ANOTHER TYPE TWO. AND THEN NEXT TO THAT IS A TYPE ONE, WHICH APPARENTLY SEEMS TO BE OPERATING AS A TYPE TWO AS A WHOLE HOUSE, UH, LOCKBOX, ENTRANCE, ET CETERA, WITH NO ONE LIVING THERE. WHEN YOU HAVE NO ONE LIVING IN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE A NEIGHBOR TO SAY HELLO TO OR TO HELP OUT WHEN THERE'S A NEED. YOU DON'T HAVE CHILDREN GOING TO THE SCHOOLS, YOU DON'T. SO HAVE SOMEONE WHO CARESS ABOUT CONDITIONS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND OFTEN TOO OFTEN YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEONE THERE WHO IS RESPONSIVE TO THE NOISE LEVELS AND PARKING, ET CETERA. THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN THE TYPE TWO RENTAL BECOMES A PARTY HOUSE, WHICH HAS HAPPENED IN ONE OF THOSE ON MADISON THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN CURTAILED RECENTLY WITH A LOT OF HARD WORK. SO WE ASK THAT YOU SEND ON ITEM 20 FOR CONSIDERATION TO PTAC. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM. SEAN CAMPBELL ARE, ARE YOU, I JUST WANNA SPEAK TO ITEMS. UM, 16 TWO. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. HI, MY NAME IS SEAN CAMPBELL. I LIVE AT 5 24 KING WILLIAM. I'M THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION, AND I WANTED TO PUT FORTH THAT THE KING WILLIAM BOARD VOTED LAST MONTH TO SUPPORT, UM, ITEMS 16.2 AND 16 THREE REGARDING SHORT TERM T TWOS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MS. STEPHANIE REYES. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE REYES. I AM C E O FOR THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF SAN ANTONIO, LOCATED AT 86 26 TESORO DRIVE. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL HAS BEEN VERY ENGAGED IN THE U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS. OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, WE'VE BEEN WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS AS WELL AS EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS TO DEVELOP AMENDMENTS THAT PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT. AS TECHNICAL EXPERTS, WE'VE PUT IN THOUSANDS OF HOURS TO MEETING WITH THESE ORGANIZATIONS' STAFF TO REVIEWING LANGUAGE AND, UH, CONDUCTING RESEARCH. THE NINE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE WERE SUBMITTED LAST MINUTE, AND WITHOUT INPUT FROM REAL ESTATE EXPERTS SUCH AS DEVELOPERS OR BUILDERS, AS WELL AS THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THE ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED MOST BY THESE AMENDMENTS AND THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTING IN OUR, OUR COMMUNITY'S GROWTH. CONSEQUENTLY, THESE PROPOSALS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE. THEY WILL INCREASE COST. THEY'RE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ARE CONTRARY TO AQUIFER PROTECTION. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEY CONFLICT WITH THE CITY'S EFFORTS TO PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, A PRIORITY SHARED BY MOST OF US HERE IN THE ROOM. AS AN ORGANIZATION, WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON WORKING COLLABORATIVELY TO FIND REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY'S MOST PRESSING ISSUES. HAD CONVERSATIONS TAKEN PLACE, WE MAY NOT BE HERE TODAY, WE INVITE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BUT THESE ARE MAJOR WHOLESALE AMENDMENTS AND THOSE SHOULD NOT BE RUSHED OR DEVELOPED WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE AROUND THE TABLE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THESE AMENDMENTS WERE NOT VETTED APPROPRIATELY. AND AFTER INITIAL REVIEW, WE HAVE SOME BIG CONCERNS. THERE ARE TECHNICAL EXPERTS JOINING ME HERE TODAY THAT WILL SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ON THOSE CONCERNS, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THIS, WHILE THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MAY APPEAR MINOR, IN MANY CASES, THE IMPACT WILL BE MAJOR AND INCONSISTENT. CONTRARY TO RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, THESE WILL ABSOLUTELY MAKE HOUSING MORE EXPENSIVE. WE ASK THAT YOU NOT SUPPORT THESE OR MOVE THEM FORWARD TO THE P TAC. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK MR RAISES, AARON. GOOD AFTERNOON, AARON RINKY, 86 26 TESORO. I'M A LOCAL PROFESSIONAL [01:25:01] CIVIL ENGINEER REPRESENTING REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF SAN ANTONIO. I'VE WORKED HERE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS, AND I WORK WITH U D C JUST ABOUT EVERY DAY. FIRST, I WANNA ADDRESS U D C AMENDMENT 14 DASH TWO, WHICH CONTEMPLATES LIMITING THE ISSUANCE OF FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS TO ONLY WORK SHOWING A NO RISE CONDITION. FLOODPLAIN AREAS ARE CURRENTLY OF THE MOST HIGHLY REGULATED AREAS OF THE CITY, AND THAT IS BY FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. MANDATING A NO RISE CONDITION COULD NECESSITATE MORE EXCAVATION TO BE INCLUDED IN A PROJECT POTENTIALLY LEADING TO A GREATER AREA OF DISTURBANCE, LOSS OF VEGETATION AND TREES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE NECESSARY UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS. CURRENT REGULATION ALREADY HAS A VERY HIGH BARRIER OF BOTH ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR ANY PROPOSED WORK WITHIN FLOODPLAIN AREAS. AND THE IDEA OF LIMITING ONE FACTOR OF RISE AND FLOW TO ZERO WOULD ONLY LIMIT THE ABILITY TO MAKE NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS ALONG A FLOODPLAIN THAT COULD BENEFIT BOTH RIVERS AND CREEKS THEMSELVES, AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY, WE DO NOT SUPPORT LIMITING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS TO ONLY THOSE PROJECTS THAT HAVE A NO RISE CONDITION. SECOND AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS IS 14 DASH THREE, ALSO RELATED TO ISSUANCE OF FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. THIS ONE PROPOSES TO CHANGE ONE WORD IN THE CODE FROM MAY TO SHALL IT'S RELATED TO DESIGNATED A FLOW AS EROSIVE IN COMPARISON TO VELOCITY THRESHOLD OF SIX FEET PER SECOND. THERE ARE MANY FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN ANALYZING EROSION POTENTIAL WHEN WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN AREA. VELOCITY IS ONLY ONE OF 'EM, AND EROSION CAN, CAN CAN OCCUR WITH FLOWS LESS THAN SIX FEET PER SECOND. IN MANY CASES, FLOW IS ABOVE SIX FEET PER SECOND IN THE NATURAL STATE, GIVEN THAT THERE'S ABOUT 800 FEET OF FALL FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOWN. SO EVEN WITH THE RIVERS WITHOUT AMOUNT, AMOUNT OF FALL, THERE'S PLENTY OF PLACES AROUND TOWN THAT ARE OVER SIX FEET PER SECOND IN THE NATURAL CONDITION. CHANGING THAT ONE WORD IN THE CODE DOES NOT PROMOTE PROPER EVALUATION OF EROSION POTENTIAL WITHIN FLOODPLAIN AREAS AS IT'S CURRENTLY EVALUATED UNDER CURRENT RES CURRENT REGULATION. NEXT AMENDMENT TO ADDRESSES 16.6. WHILE THERE'S OF COURSE ALWAYS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT, I BELIEVE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS A STRONG CULTURE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION DOCUMENTATION IS NOT CURRENTLY MANDATORY IN THE U D C BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE INTENT, NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE INTENT, OR THAT'S NOT IT, THAT IT'S NOT BEING DONE. IT'S BECAUSE THESE EFFORTS ARE OFTENTIMES NOT APPLICABLE TO EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION. SO THE CURRENT WORDING OF THE CODE ENCOURAGES COL COLLABORATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREAS, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE IT BECAUSE IT, IT'S NOT ALWAYS APPLICABLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK CALEB. CHANCE, CALEB. CALEB, CHANCE ON BEHALF OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL, 86 26 DERO DRIVE, I WANNA ADDRESS, UH, AMENDMENT 14.5 AND 14.6, 14.5. UH, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT ALL PROJECTS DETAIN THE A HUNDRED, THE 25 YEAR STORM EVENT ON ALL PROJECTS WITHOUT ANY LOOKING INTO HOW THE FLOODPLAIN ACTUALLY WORKS ITSELF. UM, THIS IS NOT BASED ON ENGINEERING SCIENCE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, DOING, HAVING DETAINING EVERYWHERE WOULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE FLOWS WITHIN THE MAIN CREEKS BY CREATING A PEAK DISCHARGE ON PEAK DISCHARGE WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN. THE, THE CITY HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ADDRESSING AMENDMENTS TO THIS SECTION OF THE CODE AND ADDRESSING DETENTION, UH, WHICH WAS PERFECTED WITH THE CITY OR STAKEHOLDERS OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL MONTHS. UH, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST WHAT THE CITY'S PROPOSING. THIS AMENDMENT ALSO REQUIRES AN ARBITRARY INCREASE OF 10% IN ALL OF THEIR HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS. UH, THIS AGAIN, IS JUST AN ARBITRARY NUMBER THE CITY DOES HAVE IN THEIR CODE, UH, WHAT IS CALLED FREEBOARD, AND THAT THAT, UH, PORTION IS AN EXTRA THAT WE DESIGN ALL OUR CHANNELS FOR AND FLOODPLAINS TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE'S ANY INCONSISTENCIES IN THE MODELING THAT IS TAKEN CARE OF. AMENDMENT. UH, 14.6, UH, IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT MAINLY ASKING THAT DEVELOPERS PAY A FEE OF LIEU P PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF ONSITE DETENTION, THEN CONSTRUCT ONSITE DETENTION, AND THEN PAY OR PARTICIPATE IN AN OFFSITE REGIONAL FACILITY. THIS IS REQUIRING, [01:30:01] OR A COMBINATION OF ALL THREE OF THESE WOULD NE NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE WATERSHED. IT ALSO CAUSED SAN ANTONIO TO BE ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE PLACES TO DEVELOP BASED ON DRAINAGE. UM, IT COMPLETE AND IT COMPLETELY WILL CHANGE THE FLOOD, HOW THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY, UH, WILL GO AND, AND LOSES ITS EDGE OF DEVELOPMENT. WE ASK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT SPONSOR THESE TWO AMENDMENTS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T FOLLOW SCIENCE. UH, THEY GO AGAINST AFFORDABILITY CAUSING MORE, AND IT DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE CITY'S DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT. THANKS, CALEB. FERNANDO, FERNANDO, DIEGO. FERNANDO, DIEGO, 8 6 2 6. TERO, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY. I WILL BE BRIEF. I AM REPRESENTING THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF SAN ANTONIO. I AM THE 2022 PRESIDENT. WE PRIDE OURSELVES AT, UH, BEING AN ORGANIZATION WITH A DEEP SOURCE OF EXPERTISE IN DEVELOPING REAL ESTATE COMMUNITIES RESPONSIBLY AND AS IMPORTANTLY, AFFORDABLY. ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, UH, MY WIFE AND I ARE ALSO, UH, RAISING TWO BOYS, SO I HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THAT OUR CITY GROWS RESPONSIBLY. AS STEPHANIE MENTIONED EARLIER, FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS, REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF SAN ANTONIO HAS SUCCESSFULLY WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH CITY STAFF AND EXTERNAL AGENCIES TO VET OUT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PUTTING FORTH RESPONSIBLE POLICY. WE HAVE TO FIND A GOOD BALANCE BETWEEN THE GROWTH OF OUR CITY, AFFORDABILITY, UH, GROWN, RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITIES, ET CETERA. AND IT IS, IT IS HARD TO DO, BUT WE'VE DONE IT SUCCESSFULLY. THE NINE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE, AQUIFER ALLIANCE, AS YOU'VE, AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF OUR TECHNICAL EXPERTS, UH, ARE JUST IN, IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE DESIRED INTENT. WE DON'T BELIEVE THESE AMENDMENTS WERE PROPERLY VETTED. AND AFTER JUST OUR INITIAL REVIEW, HALF SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS, WE ASK THAT YOU NOT SPONSOR THESE AMENDMENTS. AS STEPHANIE MENTIONED, THESE WILL ABSOLUTELY AFFECT AFFORDABILITY. OUR HOME PRICES, OUR RENTAL, UH, RATES, WHICH ARE IN TODAY'S MARKET ARE ALREADY, UH, UH, HURTING. AND I THINK IT'LL AFFECT THAT WITHOUT REALLY ENHANCING, UH, ANY FURTHER PROTECTION TO OUR AQUIFER. SO AGAIN, I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE NOT SPONSOR THESE NINE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE LIST IS OSIMO COLVIN, AND YOU'RE JUST SPEAKING, UH, ON SUPPORT. YES. COA ALVIN 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE. DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS, I HAVE A BACKGROUND IN REAL ESTATE, BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, AND UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUES, BUT I HAVE LEARNED TO APPRECIATE THE VALUE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND AND LIVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE DAILY. NEVER HAVE I SEEN SUCH COMPASSION, SUCH PASSION AND EFFORT FOCUSED ON DEFENDING AND IMPROVING THAT LIFE, NOT ONLY FOR THEMSELVES, BUT FOR THE CITY AS A WHOLE. I'VE HAD THE HONOR OF SERVING ON THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD, AND THE ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE, AND I AM A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION. I HAVE SERVED ON PTAC AND THE S T R TASK FORCE AND HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A VARIETY OF WORKING GROUPS AROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. TIER ONE STARTED WORKING WITH ITS MEMBERS IN 2019 TO PREPARE FOR THIS MOMENT. WE HELD A WORKSHOP JUST AS COVID WAS REARING ITS UGLY HEAD. I AM ON TIER ONE'S U D C AMENDMENT SUBCOMMITTEE, AND I KNOW THAT THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S MEMBERS' BEHALF COME FROM HEARING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE INCREASINGLY FACED OVER THE LAST DECADE AND WORKING WITH A VARI VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THEM. MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF EXISTING CODES THAT ARE NO LONGER ADEQUATE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND BUSINESS MODELS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS EVERY FIVE YEAR REVIEW IS PRECISELY MEANT TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE THE CODES ACCORDINGLY. I BELIEVE THAT YOU'LL FIND THAT THESE AMENDMENTS ARE WELL INTENDED AND HAVE BEEN WELL THOUGHT OUT. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THIS COMMISSION SPONSOR THESE AMENDMENTS SO THAT THEY MAY F MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS. AND I'M REFERRING TO THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION AMENDMENTS 16 DASH ONE THROUGH 16 DASH 12. [01:35:01] I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE GIA AMENDMENTS. UM, FLOODING IS, UH, CAUSED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT IS AN ISSUE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I THANK COUNCILMAN COURAGE FOR BRINGING THAT TO THIS COMMISSION'S ATTENTION IN THE WORK SESSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. ROSS LANG HEAD ARE, ARE, ARE YOU SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OR, UH, I'M SPEAKING, UH, 11 16TH. OKAY. PLEASE, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO PUT 16 BEFORE, UH, BEFORE MY TIME BEGINS TO RUN? THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. COURAGE COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ROSS LAWHEAD. I RESIDE AT 59 75 LOCKHILL ROAD, 7 8 2 4 0. I HAVE SERVED AS THE VOLUNTEER LAND USE ATTORNEY FOR THE OAKLAND ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SINCE 1997. DEFENDING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS IS THE ONLY LAND USE TOOL FOR OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS LACKING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. FOR EXAMPLE, OAKLAND ESTATE STATES TO 1926. I ASK YOU TO SPONSOR U D C AMENDMENT 16.4, WHICH I DRAFTED TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS. SPONSORSHIP OF U D C AMENDMENT 16 FOUR IS ESSENTIAL BECAUSE DESPITE PERHAPS 20 LISTED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS BEING CODIFIED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS CEASED REVIEWING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS. IN FACT, IT IS ANNOUNCED THAT IT WILL NEVER REVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT. THE UNREVIEWED PLANS WILL EXPIRE BECAUSE THE U D C DIRECTS FIVE-YEAR REVIEW TO PREVENT EXPIRATION. IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE PLANS PROTECTED BY THE CODE. WE HAVE SOMETHING THEY'RE TOLD TO DO WITHOUT WHICH NEIGHBORHOODS ARE HARMED AND THEY'VE DECIDED NOT TO DO IT. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THIS. AMENDMENT. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS SEEN THIS PROBLEM AND ISSUED RID NUMBER 2018 DASH OH OH TWO TO SUSPEND THIS EXPIRATION ONLY PENDING U D C AMENDMENT. THESE PLANS ARE THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS LACKING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS CAN INFLUENCE DEVELOPER PROPOSED DRASTIC CHANGES IN LAND USE AND DENSITY. THEY WERE CREATED BY THE GREAT EFFORT OF CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS. I KNOW I WORKED HARD ON OURS AND OUR PRESIDENT, FORMER PRESIDENT WHO WORKED HARD BEFORE ME WILL ALSO SPEAK. FURTHERMORE, ROBUST NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS WERE THE REASON FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IN 2001. THAT WAS LARGELY DRIVEN BY THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL. HOWEVER, THERE WERE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES. I WAS HIGHLY INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. YOU CAN ASK ROD SANCHEZ FOR CONFIRMATION OR KEN BROWN OR BILL KAUFMAN OR GENE DAWSON. COUNCILMAN COURAGE HAS ALSO HEARD FROM ME ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT AT NOD TWO YEARS AGO. THE AMENDMENT ALSO GRANDFATHERS THESE PLANS TO ESSAY TOMORROW, WHICH PRESENTLY MERELY RECOGNIZES THEM. THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE PARTIES MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED WILL HAVE IT BEST TO MINORITY VOTE ON FUTURE LAND USE WITHIN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS DUE TO THE LARGER PLANNING AREAS INVOLVED. THIS RESULTS IN A DIFFERENT MIX OF CITIZENS INPUTTING TO THE PROCESS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M REVIEWING MY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, MY NEIGHBORS AND PLANNED OWNERS WITHIN THE AREA, ARE THE PEOPLE INPUTTING THE PROCESS. IF IT IS MERELY TREATED AS AN ELEMENT OF A GIANT SUBAR PLAN COVERING VASTLY MORE ACREAGE, THERE WILL BE A FEW CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVES THAT WON'T KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THE PART OF IT THAT'S MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND WON'T CARE NEARLY AS MUCH. THE AMENDMENT ALLOWS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BASED REVIEWS. AM I FIVE MINUTES OR THREE? THREE. I HAVE FIVE. RIGHT? ARE YOU THE AUTHOR? YES, I'M THE AUTHOR. YEAH. THE APPLICANT SEEDS TO ME. I WROTE IT. HE FILED IT. COUNCILMAN COURAGE CAN TELL YOU I WAS PUSHING THIS TWO YEARS AGO. I'M THE, I MEAN CAN WRITER AND APPLICANT. CAN WE HEAR FROM, CAN YOU GIVE ME THAT POINT? CAN BE MY REPRESENTATIVE. AND YOUR, YOUR NAME SIR GARCIA. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. I WAS SHOOTING FOR FIVE. ALL RIGHT, YOU HAVE TWO MORE MINUTES. UM, THIS AMENDMENT CONTINUES TO ALLOW THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INITIATE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BASED REVIEWS OF THE ENTIRE GRANDFATHERED PLANS, EITHER ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE OR AT THE REQUEST OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE PLAN PLAN BOUNDARIES. THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION IN THE PLANNING SESSION. I WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT AFFECT PROPERTY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESSES. THESE OCCUR INCIDENT TO SUCCESSFUL LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER REZONING REQUESTS AND ARE NOT IN ANY WAY [01:40:01] AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH IS SEPARATELY CODIFIED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND UNAFFECTED BY THIS, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY ADVISE THAT IT WILL CONSIDER THE LAND USE ELEMENTS OF EXPIRED PLANS IN ITS SUBAR PLANS, BUT THIS WOULD ONLY BE AT THE DEPARTMENT'S UNFETTERED DISCRETION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. FIRST WE DEVELOPED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PASSED IT THROUGH COUNCIL, THEN THEY TOLD US IT WAS IT REALLY A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAVE A LAND USE MAP. THEN THEY MADE US PASS ANOTHER ONE. THEN WHEN WE PASSED IT, THEY PROPOSED AN ALTERNATE PLAN AND RAMMED IT THROUGH THIS PLANNING COMMISSION. AND WE HAD TO GO TO COUNCIL TO GET OUR PLAN ADOPTED. SO THIS IS WHY I DON'T WANT TO BE TOLD THAT THE SUBAR PLAN WILL THINK ABOUT THE LAND USE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. LET ME BE CLEAR, WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS ARE DEAD. I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LONG TIME. I'M REALLY WELL QUALIFIED. I'VE WORRIED ABOUT IT SINCE 1997, AND I SAT THROUGH, I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TUESDAY NIGHTS TO HELP WRITE THE U D C. ONE OF THE REASONS YOU HAVE A FIVE YEAR REVIEW CYCLE IS I ASKED FOR IT SO NEIGHBORHOODS WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION EVERY YEAR, LIKE PAID LOBBYISTS. THANK YOU. I INVITE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. WE'LL, UH, ADDRESS EACH AMENDMENT AS WE COME BACK TO, UH, BRUCE. MARY, WHILE HE'S COMING UP, I DO JUST WANNA MENTION THAT ALL OF THE RIDS, UH, THAT WERE, UH, ISSUED BETWEEN THE LAST AMENDMENT CYCLE AND THIS ONE ARE AUTOMATICALLY MOVING FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. YEAH, GO AHEAD. YOU'RE, YOU'RE SPEAKING ON THE BEHALF BEHALF. MY NAME IS BRUCE MARY ON BEHALF OF 16 FOUR IN THE TIER ONE, UH, PLANS AND AMENDMENTS. I AM THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT OF THE OAKLAND ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WORKING WITH THE CITY, WORKING WITH, UH, MY NEIGHBORS. WE WENT DOOR TO DOOR TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORS, ASKING THEM WHAT THEY WANTED. IF YOU DON'T KNOW OAKLAND ESTATES, IT IS A JEWEL IN SAN ANTONIO. IT WAS SUBDIVIDED BACK IN THE 1920S, 1926. AND IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, UH, HOLLYWOOD PARK, THE BIG OPEN, LOTS REAL COUNTRY ENVIRONMENT, WELL, WE HAVE THAT NEAR THE CORNER. IT'S IN THE, IN THE TRIANGLE OR THE RECTANGLE BETWEEN PRU ROAD, EBNER BABCOCK, AND FREDERICKSBURG ROAD. AND WE'VE TRIED TO PRESERVE THAT. AND THAT'S OUR INTENT IS TO PRESERVE THAT AND KEEP IT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, OUR NEIGHBORS, AND OUR CHILDREN. WE HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY TO KEEP THIS GOING SINCE THE NINETIES. WE'RE 25 YEARS IN AND STILL DEFENDING AND TRYING TO KEEP OUR PLAN VIABLE. WE NEED THE HELP. WE NEEDED THE AMENDMENT PASSED SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK MONTH AFTER MONTH AFTER MONTH TO TRY AND PRESERVE THIS PLAN. WE NEED THE HELP FROM THIS COMMISSION TO ADOPT IT, PASS IT, AND PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING. ZONING CAN GO THROUGH AND APPLY. UH, ANY ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO BUY IN THERE CAN APPLY FOR A ZONING CHANGE. IT'S NOT GONNA AFFECT THAT. WE WANT OUR PLAN TO BE HEARD, OUR PLAN TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE WE'RE GOING FORWARD. I HAVE REPRESENTED, UH, MY NEIGHBORS IN DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES, AND PARTICULARLY THEIR HEIRS BECAUSE WE'RE A VERY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD AND A LOT OF OUR ORIGINAL RESIDENTS ARE PASSING ON, AND THEIR CHILDREN ARE COMING IN AND WANTING TO KNOW HOW ARE WE GONNA DEFEND THIS THING? HOW ARE WE GONNA PRESERVE IT? WELL, 25 YEARS LATER HERE, I AM STILL TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING. SO PLEASE PASS THE AMENDMENT. LET US PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. LET US PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY FOR WHAT IT WAS AND ALLOW IT TO GO FORWARD. UH, WE WANNA WORK WITH THE CITY. WE DON'T WANT PROBLEMS WITH ANYBODY. WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE'VE GOT AND WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE WORKED SO DILIGENTLY TO HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, RAY MORALES, PLEASE. OKAY. UH, MR. TONY GARCIA, DO YOU WANT TO, WILL YOU BE SPEAKING ON YOUR OTHER AMENDMENTS? UH, YES. I'M GONNA. OKAY. LETICIA SANCHEZ. [01:45:10] HI, MY NAME IS LETICIA SANCHEZ. I RESIDE AT 1710 VERACRUZ, UM, SE 7 8 2 0 7. I'M, UH, THE CO-CHAIR PERSON OF THE HISTORIC WEST SIDE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, WHICH REPRESENTS RESIDENTS IN THE NEAR WEST SIDE OF DISTRICT FIVE. OUR ASSOCIATION IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, AND WE ARE HERE TO SUPPORT U D C AMENDMENT ITEMS 16 DASH ONE THROUGH 16 DASH TWO AND, UH, AMENDMENT ITEMS, UM, 14 DASH ONE THROUGH 14 DASH NINE AS WELL. WE REQUEST THAT YOU ACCEPT AND MOVE THESE AMENDMENT ITEMS FORWARD FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF THE U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS. THE TIER ONE COALITION IS COMPRISED OF CONCERNED RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHO VOLUNTEER MANY HOURS TO WORK ON ISSUES THAT IMPACT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. BECAUSE UDC ARE POLICIES THAT AFFECT DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WE, EXCUSE ME, UH, OUR MEMBERS UNDERSTAND HOW CRITICAL IT IS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AMENDMENT PROCESS. AND AFTER YEARS LONG DISCUSSIONS AND MEETINGS HAVE DEVELOPED AND SUBMITTED U D C AMENDMENT. UH, ITEM 16 ONE, UM, 16 DASH ONE THROUGH 16 DASH 12. THE MAJOR ISSUES BROUGHT UP BY RESIDENTS WHICH CULMINATED INTO THESE AMENDMENTS INCLUDE PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOODS FROM INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT, ENSURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, ADDRESSING AND, UH, PROTECTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS FROM THE INCREASE OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND KEEPING GAS STATIONS OUT OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THESE AMENDMENTS ARE BASED ON DEVELOPMENT ISSUES THAT OUR RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE EXPERIENCE. THE OBJECTIVE OF THESE AMENDMENTS IS ULTIMATELY TO PROTECT THE FABRIC OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. JUST AS EACH OF YOU VOLUNTEERS MANY HOURS TO WORK ON THIS COMMISSION, OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COALITION MEMBERS VOLUNTEER MANY HOURS UNLIKE LOBBYISTS. THERE'S NO FINANCIAL GAIN FOR ANY OF US FOR THE WORK THAT WE DO. WE DO THIS WORK BECAUSE WE LOVE THE UNIQUENESS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND OUR CITY. UDC SHOULD HELP TO PROTECT WHAT MAKES OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND CITY UNIQUE. AND SO WE ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT AND ACCEPT U D C AMENDMENTS 16 DASH ONE THROUGH 16 DASH 12, AS WELL AS U D C AMENDMENTS, 14 DASH ONE THROUGH 14 DASH NINE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MA'AM. JOHN GONZALEZ, APPLICANT. APPLICANT DON DAVIES, APPLICANT MITCH HANEY. HELLO THERE. UH, I AM SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. UM, AND, UH, I SPEAK BECAUSE I'M A, AN URBAN FARMER WHO'S BEEN GROWING, UM, CROPS DOWNTOWN FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS OR SO. SPECIFICALLY, I WANTED TO SPEAK, UH, IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT 6 1 6 4 6 6 AND SIX SEVEN. UH, AND THE REASON IS THAT, UH, URBAN AGRICULTURE CREATES A MORE COMPLETE COMMUNITY FOR OUR CITY THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SOCIAL NETWORK DENSITY, AND FEEDING PEOPLE THEMSELVES, UH, DURING COVID AND ITS ASSOCIATED SUPPLY SHOCKS AND THE HUNGER THAT FOLLOWED THE NEED FOR LOCAL SUPPLY CHAINS WAS REEMPHASIZED AND BECAME MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT. UH, I PROBABLY GOT THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF CALLS DURING COVID FOR MICRO CROPS BECAUSE THERE WAS SUPPLY SHORTAGES AT H E B AND THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FOOD SECURITY, UH, THAT WAS COMMISSIONED BY CITY COUNCIL. UH, A C C R EMERGED THAT WAS SPONSORED BY COUNCILWOMAN HDRA, UH, AND, UH, IT CALLED FOR AN UPDATE TO THE U D C, UH, REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT URBAN FARMS TO REDUCE THE BURDENS ON THOSE FARMS AND GARDENS. UH, CITY STAFF HAS BEEN A GREAT RESOURCE, UM, BOTH DURING COVID AND BEFORE FOR THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL. AND I WANNA THANK THEM FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK TO HELP CREATE, UH, A GOOD COMPROMISE FOR WHAT THESE REGULATIONS SHOULD LOOK LIKE. NEARLY EVERY FARMER THAT I'VE TALKED TO IN THE CITY STRUGGLES WITH REGULATORY BURDENS THAT, UH, OF, OF CITY CODE THAT AREN'T SPECIFIC TO URBAN FARMING. MOST OF THESE FARMS ARE REGULATED IN THE SAME WAY AS STRIP MALLS OR LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, AND THAT'S A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY END UP PAYING TENS OF THOUSANDS OR SO OF DOLLARS THAT OTHERWISE COULD GO TO STARTING GOOD FARMS. AS YOU GUYS PROBABLY KNOW, FARMS HAVE, UH, CHALLENGING MARGINS, AND IT'S A CHALLENGING BUSINESS TO MAKE WORK, ESPECIALLY WITH REAL ESTATE PRICES AND OTHER URBAN CHALLENGES. IF WE CHANGE RULES AROUND STORING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES, UH, RULES AROUND, UH, THE ERECTION OF GREENHOUSES AND THE PLAT REQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN FARMS, UH, I KNOW, AND THE FARMERS THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO ALL AGREE [01:50:01] THAT IT WOULD HAVE MEANINGFUL RELIEF FOR THESE ESSENTIAL SMALL BUSINESSES AND COMMUNITY ASSETS AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S MORE AGRICULTURE THAT CAN SURVIVE WITHIN THE CITY. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AND I, UH, I ENCOURAGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. BIANCA MALDONADO. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BIANCA MALDONADO, RESIDE AT 4 57 CLUB DRIVE. I'M A MEMBER OF THE P TTAC AND I, I THANK COUNCILMAN COURAGE FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UM, FOR YOUR SERVICE ON, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALSO FOR SERVING ON P T A C. UM, I'M ACTUALLY HERE TO SUPPORT ALL THE AMENDMENTS. I BELIEVE THAT, UM, AS FAR AS ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT, THERE'S A HUGE BARRIER TODAY THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE SEEKING TO ENGAGE IN A PUBLIC PROCESS AND ARE HAVING TO COME BEFORE YOU TO ADVOCATE FOR YOUR SPONSORSHIP SO THAT THEY MOVE FORWARD IN THE PROCESS. PLEASE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. I THINK THAT IT'S REMARKABLE FOR ALL THE WORKS, WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THEY HAVE PUT INTO THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU. MANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE BASED ON ACTIONS THAT COUNCIL HAS TAKEN PRINCIPLES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ESSAY TOMORROW. AND THEY ALSO TALK ABOUT STRESSORS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THEIR COMMUNITIES WHEN THEY REFERENCE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THAT REFERENCES A D S D TASK FORCE THAT HAS HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY. AND SO HERE THEY ARE RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITIES AND GIA FOR FLOOD FOR THE FLOODPLAIN, THERE ARE VERY MANY COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ITSELF HAS PROPOSED 40 AMENDMENTS. 40 AMENDMENTS, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. WHERE WERE THE PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR THOSE 40 AMENDMENTS? THEY HAVEN'T OCCURRED. THEY'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THE P TTAC PROCESS. THOSE WERE DONE BY EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS AND SUBMITTED THROUGH THE CITY'S DEPARTMENT. SO, AS AN AVERAGE CITIZEN WHO WANTS TO HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD AND WHO WANTS TO ENGAGE IN THEIR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, PLEASE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. PLEASE SPONSOR ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS AND SEND THEM TO P TAC. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ANISA. PEACE. HI, MY NAME'S ANISA PEACE. I LIVE AT 2 4 7 ARMY BOULEVARD, AND I'M SPEAKING EIGHTH, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE. SINCE WE OPENED OUR OFFICE FOR GIA IN 2004, WE'VE RECEIVED A STEADY STREAM OF COMPLAINTS FROM CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO ABOUT NEW FLOODING AND DRAINAGE ISSUES. UH, THE NUMBER OF ISSUES INCREASED OVER THE YEARS. SO IN 2017, GIA STAFF AND A PANEL OF EXPERTS BEGAN TO MEET WITH THE GOAL OF AMENDING SAN ANTONIO'S DRAINAGE ORDINANCES TO MORE EFFECTIVELY MANAGE STORM WATER. UH, SOME OF THESE EXPERTS WHO WORKED WITH US WERE, UH, ENGINEERS WHO WORKED FOR DEVELOPERS, AND THEY VOLUNTEERED THEIR TIME WITH GIA, UH, TO, UH, WHAT THEY PERCEIVE TO BE ADDRESS, UH, DEFICIENCIES IN SAN ANTONIO'S CODE. SO WE SPENT A LONG TIME A YEAR WORKING ON THESE, AND IN 2018, WE PUBLISHED A WHITE PAPER, UH, AND THEN WE PRESENTED OUR AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY. THIS GOT WIDESPREAD PRESS COVERAGE. WE INVITED INPUT, UH, ON OUR AMENDMENTS, AND WE PUT THEM ON OUR WEBSITE AND ORDINANCE FORMS ALONG WITH THE WHITE PAPER EXPLAINING WHY WE WERE DOING THIS. UH, IN MARCH OF 2020, WE PARTNERED WITH TIER ONE IN ENVIRONMENT TEXAS TO HOST AN ALL DAY WORKSHOP TO ENGAGE CITIZENS IN THE U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS AND GO OVER OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. UH, CITY STAFF ATTENDED AND PRESENTED AS WELL AT THIS CONFERENCE LAST YEAR. WE MET WITH ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DISCUSS OUR AMENDMENTS AND GET THEIR INPUT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE RATIONALE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEING THE GATEKEEPERS OF WHAT COMMUNITY GENERATED AND PROMO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS GO ON FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION BY THE P T A C, IS THAT THE CITY GENERATE, UH, AMENDMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN VETTED THROUGH A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, BUT WE'RE REALLY NOT AWARE, AND WE WERE NEVER INVITED TO ENGAGE IN ANY STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. UH, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO DECLINE FURTHER CON, UH, CONSIDERATION OF OUR AMENDMENTS OR OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE SUBMITTED BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS, WE WOULD STRONGLY OBJECT BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT WE INCLUDED AND ENGAGED A WIDER SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC IN MANAGING STORMWATER THAN DID THE CITY. UH, WE, WE WERE NOT INVITED EVER TO PARTICIPATE OR TO OBSERVE IN ANY STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS REGARDING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, NOR DO WE KNOW WHETHER THESE MEETINGS [01:55:01] ACTUALLY OCCURRED OR WERE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. UH, FOR THIS REGION. WE URGE, UH, YOU, THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PASS ON ALL THE COMMUNITY AND MEMBERS AMENDMENTS TO THE PTAC. WE REALIZE THAT THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN, UH, OUR ORDINANCES, WHAT THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY SAYS THEY NEED, AND EVEN SOME OF THE CITY PRESENTED ORDINANCE. BUT WE THINK THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THAT DISCUSSION IS THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE TO PASS ON TO THE P A. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM. BRENDAN GIBBS CHAIRMAN, I YIELD MY TIME TO, UH, NO, I DON'T, NO, SHE'S ONLY GONNA HAVE FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. SO, OKAY. THANK YOU, UH, NATHAN. GLAD AND CHAIRMAN. UM, I ALSO DECLINE A COMMENT, OKAY. AT THIS TIME, THAT'S ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. UM, WE WILL IN INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDER EACH AMENDMENT, BUT I'M GONNA PROPOSE WE TAKE A LITTLE BREAK RECESS FOR, UM, AND, AND READ ADJOURN ABOUT 4 0 5, IF THAT'S OKAY. UH, SO IT'S 3 57 AND WE'RE IN ADJOURNMENT. ALL RIGHT. UH, IT IS FOUR 10. WE'RE RECONVENING THE MEETING. AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT EACH OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INDIVIDUALLY. SO WE'RE GONNA START WITH, UH, ONE, ONE, AND, UH, MR. DAVID LITTLEFIELD, YOU'LL HAVE, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. MY NAME'S DAVID LITTLEFIELD. MY ADDRESS IS 41 0 4, PADDLING PASS 7 8 2 5 3. LEMME GIVE YOU THE CONCLUSION BEFORE I START, UH, WHAT I'M ASKING. OKAY. WHAT I'M ASKING THE COMMITTEE FOR IS TO SPONSOR A WORKING GROUP, UH, IDENTIFY THE STAKEHOLDERS AND PUT TOGETHER THE REAL DATA TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WHAT THE NEEDS ARE, UH, FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING IN BEXAR COUNTY AND HOW IT CAN BE MET, UH, IN 19 2019. BEFORE COVID, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF ACTIVITY WITH THE REENTRY COUNCIL MEMBERS VOLUNTEERING IN T D C J FACILITIES. UH, THAT PROMPTED ME TO START LOOKING AT GATHERING SOME DATA ON WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH TRANSITIONAL HOUSING IN BEXAR COUNTY. UH, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR THE SUCCESSFUL REINTEGRATION, OTHER PAROLEES BACK INTO SOCIETY, AND I BELIEVE THAT DECISIONS ON THIS OUGHT BE MADE ON DATA, NOT ON EMOTIONAL FEELINGS ON THIS. UH, THERE'S A LOT OF DAYS THAT SHOWS THE NUMBER OF BEXAR COUNTY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITIES IS BELOW THAT OF OTHER MAJOR TEXAS CITIES. IF YOU COULD SCROLL UP JUST A LITTLE BIT BACK UP TO THE, UH, NO, THE OTHER WAY. THERE'S JUST SOME NUMBERS. UH, THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS, UH, ISSUED IN 2000, PROBABLY 2019 DATA. BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT BEXAR COUNTY IS AS FEW NUMBERS OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITIES VERSUS A LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE. AND WHETHER THAT'S, UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DATA. WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BECAUSE BEXAR COUNTY IS OVERREGULATED OR MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER, UH, COMMUNITIES ARE UNDER-REGULATED. WHO KNOWS? THEY'RE PROBABLY SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE DATA WILL TELL US. UH, BUT WHAT'S NOT AVAILABLE IS DATA REGARDING THE HOUSING NEEDS OF THE PAROLEES. AND IF THEY'RE BEING CURRENTLY MET, WE KNOW HOW MANY PAROLEES ARE BEING RELEASED. THERE'S A LOT OF DATA ON WHERE THEY GO, UH, WHAT THEIR CHARGES WERE. BUT WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS HOW MANY PAROLEES COULD BENEFIT FROM TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING, IF THEY CAN'T BE HOUSED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, WHERE ARE THEY GOING, UH, AND WHAT'S THE IMPACT OF THAT? SO THERE'S REALLY TWO PARTS TO THIS, UH, PROPOSAL. ONE IS TO, UH, AUTHOR A NEW SECTION UNDER 35 3 90, WHICH IS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, UH, TO BE DEFINED AS QUALIFIED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. AND, UH, THAT HOUSING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TEMPORARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS OF TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 1 95 81, WHICH INVOLVES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IT WOULD HAVE 24 7 ONSITE SUPERVISION. THE LOCATION, UH, WOULD BE CONTROLLED RELATIVE TO CHURCHES, UH, SCHOOLS, THINGS LIKE THAT. ALL THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH T D C J GUIDELINES, UH, ADMITS ADMITTANCES ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH, UH, PARKING, UH, LIVING [02:00:01] SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR THE, FOR THE TENANTS, THINGS LIKE THAT. UH, THE SECOND PART OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO EXPAND THE ZONING MATRIX FOR QUALIFIED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. UH, THE CURRENT ZER, UH, CURRENT ZONING, WHICH IS PRIMARILY MULTIFAMILY, IS NOT REALLY SUITABLE FOR THESE KIND OF, UH, SMALL COMMUNITY HOUSING SITUATIONS. SO, IF COM COMMITTEE AGREES TO GO FORWARD, UH, AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A, UH, WORKING GROUP PUT TOGETHER TO GET ACCESS FOR THE PERTINENT INFORMATION, WHICH A LOT OF IT WOULD COME FROM THE PAROLE ORGANIZATION, UH, AND DETERMINE WHAT THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ARE AND HOW THEY CAN BE MET. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. LEMME JUST SAY, FIRST OFF, THAT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY IS PAROLEES LIVING IN THE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S IT. UH, I THINK YOU'D BE HARD PRESSED TO GET TOGETHER ANY REALLY FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THERE'S INSTANCES OF, OH, I DON'T KNOW, PAROLEES HARMING THE, HARMING THE RESIDENTS NEXT DOOR. UH, ONE PERTINENT FACT IS THIS IS, UH, SEXUAL OFFENDERS ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER OFFENDERS. SO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS FOR WHERE THEY CAN BE FOUND. UH, BUT I THINK A WAY TO CAPTURE THAT DATA MAY BE TO GO INTERVIEW PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE PROXIMITY OF EXISTING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, UH, FACILITIES, AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK, SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT. UH, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, I GUESS. WE'LL, WE CAN GO RIGHT TO LEFT OR JUST OPEN UP FOR QUESTION. IT'S, IT'S A BIG COMPLEX TOPIC. UH, ORIAN I HAVE A, A, A QUESTION. SO, BIG PICTURE, USUALLY WE SEE A DRIVER FOR ALMOST ANYTHING IS, YOU KNOW, NEED. AND I NOTICED ON YOUR LIST THAT THERE'S THREE, UH, IN BEXAR COUNTY AND A BUNCH IN HARRIS. THEY MAY, THEY DON'T HAVE ZONING THERE, SO THAT MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. YEAH. BUT, UM, DO, DO YOU, DO YOU, YOU HAVE ANY, YOU HAD SAID THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THE ACTUAL NEED. CORRECT. WHAT I, WHAT I DEFINE AS THE ACTUAL NEED WOULD HAVE TO REALLY COME FROM THE PAROLE PEOPLE. ARE THERE GUYS THAT ARE BEING RELEASED THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM LIVING IN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING? THEY, UH, A PAROLEE FIRST OFF IS EITHER RELEASED IN THE COUNTY WHERE HE RESIDED WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED, OR THE COUNTY WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED. OKAY. THE BETTER, THE BETTER PLACE IS WHEREVER HE CURRENTLY RESIDES NOW, YOU WANT HIM TO BE IN YOUR COMMUNITY. SO WHEN THEY'RE RELEASED, THEY'RE ALREADY KIND OF INTEGRATED IN AND CAN GET A, YOU KNOW, CAN GO ON AND BE, UH, USELESS CITIZENS. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION. COULD YOU, UM, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. UM, COULD YOU, UH, SPEAK TO OR DISTILL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THIS TYPE OF COMMUNITY HOUSING MEANS OR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING MEANS VERSUS THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING THAT'S ALREADY COVERED IN THE COVER? YEAH. UH, THE PHYSICAL PART OF IT IS VERY SIMILAR. IT'S SIX, SIX RESIDENTS, UH, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL ZONING, THINGS LIKE THAT. COMMUNITY HOUSING IS PRIMARILY FOR THINGS LIKE, UH, THE OXFORD HOUSES, WHICH THERE'S, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH OXFORD HOUSES, IT'S A, IT'S A ALCOHOL RECOVERY FACILITY. THERE'S 25 OR 30 OXFORD HOUSE HOUSING ALREADY, UH, IN THE CITY FOR THINGS LIKE, UH, MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT, HOUSING. IT'S NOT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR PAROLEES. RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS TO, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DOES THE OTHER COUNTIES HAVE IN PLACE, UH, AND A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU PROPOSED TODAY? CURRENTLY, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. I KNOW IN HARRIS COUNTY, THERE ALREADY WAS KIND AN EFFORT LIKE THIS YEARS AGO, AND THAT'S WHY THEY, YOU KNOW, WHY THEY HAVE WHAT THEY HAD NOW. BUT AS FAR AS WHAT'S, WHAT'S HAPPENING, RIGHT, CURRENTLY, I, I CAN'T TELL YOU, SORRY. BUT WE COULD FIND OUT WHY YOU PROPOSE A MINIMUM THREE, MAXIMUM SIX. WOULD THAT BE DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE RESIDENCE. WELL, IT, THE COMMUNITY, YOU TALK ABOUT COMMUNITY HOUSING, I THINK IT, THE COMMUNITY HOUSING, UH, REGULATIONS, IT SAYS A MAXIMUM OF SIX. SO I WAS REALLY KIND OF TRYING TO STRUCTURE THIS AROUND THE COMMUNITY HOUSING, MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A COMMUNITY HOUSE, BUT JUST THE RESIDENTS WOULD BE DIFFERENT. SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON. THERE'S A COUPLE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COUPLE OF BIG FACILITIES IN TOWN THAT ARE T D C J APPROVED, UH, HAVEN FOR HOPE, UH, CROSSPOINT. BUT THOSE ARE, UH, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE PRETTY BIG, BIG OUTFITS. UH, QUESTION TO THE STAFF. I UNDERSTAND IF THIS IS GONNA MOVE FORWARD TO THE PTAC, THE PTAC HAS THE OPTION TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS IN THE LANGUAGE? THAT IS CORRECT. ANY AMENDMENT [02:05:01] SPONSORED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, UH, AGAIN, BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY IS SIMPLY DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD MOVE ON IN THE PROCESS ITSELF. YEAH. THANKS. AND I'LL, YEAH, MY HOPE IS THIS, THIS IS JUST BASED ON MY PERCEPTION AND THE, THE WORK THAT I'VE DONE. I WOULD EXPECT IF A WORKING GROUP WAS PUT IN PLACE WITH ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS, THAT WOULDN'T, PROBABLY, WOULDN'T LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THIS WHEN IT WAS FINISHED. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? UH, SO CURRENTLY THESE, UH, FOLKS THAT ARE RELEASED, UH, WHAT ARE THEIR OPTIONS? THEIR OPTIONS ARE, UH, THEY CAN GO LIVE WHERE THEY USED TO LIVE, IF THEY HAVE A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE. UH, IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO GO, THEY WOULD GO TO ONE OF THESE, YOU KNOW, UH, FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONAL THINGS LIKE, UH, WHAT IS IT? CORE TECH, SOME OF THE BIG, I THINK THERE'S ONE IN AUSTIN. THERE'S NOT ONE IN BEXAR COUNTY. UH, JUST BACK INTO A A, IT'S, IT'S REALLY UP TO THE PAROLE ORGANIZATION TO, TO, UH, TO OKAY. WHERE THEY'RE GONNA LIVE. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY, ANYBODY ON SPEAKING BEHALF OF LIKE THE PAROLE DIVISION OR DO, HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH THEM? NO, I'VE, I'VE SPOKEN, UH, IN THE PAST I SPOKE WITH AN ANALYST OUTTA THE PAROLE DIVISION. YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. AND, UH, HONESTLY, THOSE FOLKS ARE REAL BUSY AND JUST ME CALLING 'EM ON THE PHONE ASKING FOR STUFF DOESN'T MAKE MUCH HAPPEN. SO HOPEFULLY THERE'D BE A, WE'D GET A LITTLE LEVERAGE ON SOMEBODY AND GET SOME, GET SOME DATA. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. AT THIS POINT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN, UH, ANY MOTIONS I MOVE TO SPONSOR THIS AMENDMENT. SECOND, WE, FOR THESE, WE WILL TAKE VOICE VO VOTES. SO ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? ANY OPPOSED? CAN WE CLARIFY WHO THE SECOND WAS FOR THAT MOTION? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON, UH, AMENDMENT FOUR, TWO. UH, STEVE, TY. NOW, SIR, YOU ARE, UH, THE AUTHOR ON SEVERAL AMENDMENTS? YES. BUT I'M SPEAKING NOW ON 4.4 DASH TWO, CORRECT? YOU CAN, OR YOU CAN SPEAK TO ALL OF THEM AT ONCE? NO, THAT WOULD, I THINK THAT WOULD BE TOO CHALLENGING. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE FORWARD. FOUR, TWO. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. ON FOUR, UH, FOUR DASH TWO, UM, THIS IS, UM, IT, YOU CAN, YOU CAN SEE IF YOU SCROLL DOWN FARTHER, I THINK IN THE APPLICATION, UH, I HAVE, UM, THE, UH, DOCUMENTATION OF WHEN THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED PREVIOUSLY IN THE U D C. UH, IT, IT USED TO EXIST WHERE IT SAID THIS PENALTY WAS A RESULT OF, OF, UM, GOING TO ZONING COMMISSION. THE WORDING WAS CHANGED TO A PUBLIC MEETING, AND IT LOOKS LIKE A LAWYER GOT INVOLVED IN A, IT'S REALLY CONFUSING TO READ. UM, I'M CONTENDING THE INTENT WAS NOT TO CHANGE THE WORDING TO PUBLIC, UH, MEETING WITH A SECRET, MEANING THAT THAT ONLY MEANT CITY COUNCIL. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. UM, SO I THINK THEY DID, BY EXPANDING THIS LANGUAGE AND INCLUDING IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS, IT'S, UH, THE SAME LANGUAGE AS IN FOUR 20 AND 4 21. THE FOUR 20 AMENDMENT IPEN, UH, SUBMITTED WAS ALREADY CLASSIFIED AS EDITING. WHEREAS THIS WAS NOT, I THINK THEY BOTH SHOULD BE HEARD BY PTAC AND, AND, AND THEY SHOULD DETERMINE WHAT THE, WHAT WAS REALLY MEANT BY THIS LANGUAGE. I THINK BY EXPANDING IT TO PUBLIC MEETING, THAT'S WHAT THEY MEANT IS ZONE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION IS A PUBLIC MEETING. AND IF YOU GO THERE, THEN YOU DON'T GET TO JUST DO REDOS, YOU KNOW, EVERY MONTH AND HOPE THAT THE NEIGHBORS DON'T SHOW UP OR SOMETHING. UM, I, I THINK, UM, THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS SHOULD BE, UH, REVIEWED TOGETHER, UH, AS, AS MANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE MULTIPLE REQUESTS, AND, UH, THE POLICY ADMINISTRATOR, YOU KNOW, SAYS THAT ALL THESE WILL BE GROUPED TOGETHER AND, AND THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RULES ARE THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE CONSIDERING ALL, UM, INPUTS. SO, I, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WOULDN'T [02:10:01] BE MOVE FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION. UM, I MEAN, IT'LL BASICALLY GET CONSIDERED WITH FOUR DASH ONE ANYWAY, SINCE IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE. AND BY CHANGING THAT, YOU'D BE, YOU'D BE HAVING CONFLICTED SECTIONS IN THE U D C CODE ANYWAY. SO, UM, I JUST THINK IN GENERAL, ALL THESE, ALL THESE THINGS SHOULD MOVE ALONG. UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COMPLAIN THESE THINGS AREN'T VETTED AND SUCH. WELL, ISN'T ISN'T THAT THE PROCESS WE'RE STARTING TODAY? IT IT, BY, BY NOT MOVING THIS ALONG, AREN'T YOU NOT ALLOWING VETTING? AREN'T YOU CREATING A CATCH 22 FOR PEOPLE WHO WANNA GET THESE THINGS CONSIDERED? UM, SO I, I JUST, I JUST, UH, THINK THAT JUST LIKE ALL THE, ALL THESE EXTERNAL COMMISSIONS, UH, AMENDMENT REQUESTS, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY, UM, THIS GROUP WOULD, YOU KNOW, THINK THAT THEY SHOULDN'T MOVE ALONG. UH, I HAVEN'T HEARD, YOU KNOW, ANY ARGUMENTS THAT, UH, THESE, THESE ARE JUST CRAZY IDEAS AND FRIVOLOUS THINGS, WASTING PEOPLE TIME. I, I HEAR PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH 'EM, THAT'S FINE. WE, WE CAN NOT AGREE. UM, BUT I REALLY JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THESE THINGS WOULD NOT MOVE ALONG. THANK YOU. ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS. I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE ISSUE IS, AND MAYBE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF WITHDRAWAL MEANS WHAT? IN THESE COMMISSIONS AND WITH RESPECT TO THESE APPLICATIONS, IT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE PULLED THEIR CASE FROM CONSIDERATION AND IT IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED. SO IT'S NOT PAUSED IN THE PROCESS. IT IS COMPLETELY WITHDRAWN, AND IF THEY WANT TO START OVER, THEY HAVE TO RESUBMIT. OKAY. AND THAT MEANS PAYING A NEW FEE. CORRECT. THAT, THAT MEANS STARTING ALL OVER IN THE PROCESS. UH, SO THAT GOES BACK TO WHEREVER THEY WERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE POINT AND PAYING, UM, THE FEE BASED ON THE ACREAGE. SO MAYBE THIS IS BROADER. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, UH, IF SOMEONE WERE TO WITHDRAW AND BRING A CASE REPEATEDLY BACK BEFORE THE ZONING COMMISSION, WOULD THE ZONING COMMISSION BE AWARE OF THAT CASE, OR WOULD STAFF MAKE THE ZONING COMMISSION AWARE OF THAT CASE? YES. TO BOTH QUESTIONS. SO, MR. RSTI, I THINK THAT'S MY POINT WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. OKAY. MY, MY POINT COULD I, SORRY, I, I HAVEN'T ASKED YOU A QUESTION, SIR. OH, OKAY. SORRY. THANK YOU THOUGH. IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONS AREN'T DOING THEIR JOB, AREN'T AWARE OF SOME OF THESE CHANGES. YOU KNOW, YOU DO MENTION, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH RESPECT TO THIS AMENDMENT THAT IT COSTS THE CITY MONEY, BUT IT ALSO DOES BRING IN THE FEES. AND I THINK AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, UNLIKE SOME OF YOUR OTHER ONES, IS, YOU KNOW, REDUNDANT AND MAKES SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT I THINK MAY NOT WARRANT THIS RULE GOING FORWARD. BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT, SIR, PLEASE TAKE A BRIEF TIME CONSIDERING WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER NAMES. WELL, I, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE TO TAKE OFF WORK AND COME TO THESE MEETINGS AND OPPOSE IT, ONCE AGAIN, ARE NOT RECEIVING ANY OF THOSE FEES. AND THAT'S AN UNFAIR BURDEN TO THEM. AND I THINK THAT'S A FAIR POINT. UH, BUT AGAIN, I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF AS A COMMISSIONER AT ZONING COMMISSION, AND I CAN SPEAK FROM EXAMPLE TODAY WHEN I SEE A PROPERTY THAT I'VE HAD BEFORE ME, I KEEP THAT IN MIND AND TRUST ME, IT DOES COLOR HOW I LOOK AT THOSE ISSUES. SO THAT'S MY COMMENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR. RSTI. YES. UH, COUNCILMAN? YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION. MAYBE THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE HAS HAD A BRIEFING ON THIS BEFORE, BUT I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T. UH, WHEN ANYTHING IS SUPPORTED AND GOES TO THE P TTAC, WHAT IS THEIR PROCESS? FOR EXAMPLE, DO THEY HAVE TIME TO DO RESEARCH? DO THEY ASK FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND TALK? DO THEY HAVE TIME TO INDIVIDUALLY AS MEMBERS DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH? OR DO THEY JUST HAVE A, A HEARING LIKE WE'RE HAVING TODAY AND THEY MAKE A DECISION? AND HOW MUCH INPUT DOES THE PUBLIC HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, MR. VERTI TO GO AND MAKE HIS CASE AT A P TTAC MEETING? SO, PLANNING COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS REQUIRE, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, A LOT OF PREPARATION. SO WE, WE POST AN AGENDA WELL AHEAD OF TIME. I MEAN, WE, WE POST AGENDAS A WEEK AHEAD OF TIME BECAUSE WE MEET EVERY SINGLE WEEK. SO WE, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO POST IT SOONER THAN THAT. WE PROVIDE THE MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU ARE SEEING TODAY, UH, IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS TO UPDATE THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. YOU KNOW, REALLY TECHNICAL ITEMS. UH, THERE HAVE BEEN SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE TAC CREATED TO REVIEW, UH, ITEMS THAT REALLY REQUIRE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL RESEARCH OR TECHNICAL INFORMATION. UH, AND THEN AS FAR AS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS CONCERNED, EVERY TAC MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. UH, SIMILAR TO TODAY, WE INVITE THE [02:15:01] APPLICANT OF AMENDMENTS TO EACH OF THOSE TAC MEETINGS, UH, SIMILAR AGAIN TO TODAY. THEY INTRODUCE THEIR ITEM, THEY DEFEND IT, THEY ANSWER QUESTIONS AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY FEEL IT'S A GOOD POLICY CHANGE. UH, SO THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT IS PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF THE TAC. UH, CERTAINLY WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING 20 ITEMS ON AN AGENDA, YOU NEED TIME TO PREPARE FOR IT. UH, I THINK THE LAST THING I'LL CHIME IN TO SAY IS THAT IF THERE IS AN ITEM THAT THE TECH FEELS MORE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED BEFORE THEY CAN MAKE A DECISION, THAT ITEM CAN BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE AGENDA. UH, THEY CAN DIRECT STAFF TO GO OUT AND COLLECT AND PREPARE DATA TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TECH SO THAT THEY'RE MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS. THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY ELSE GOT THAT BRIEFING, BUT THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW ANY CHAIRMAN. SURE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I HAVE MOVED TO, UH, NOT MOVE FORWARD. AMENDMENT FOUR, TWO SECOND. A MOTION BY, UH, COMMISSIONER OR MOVE FORWARD THE AMENDMENT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PECK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. JUST FOR THE RECORD, IT'S COUNCILMAN COURAGE WITH A NO. AND ME TOO. AND COMMISSIONER MILAM. OKAY. NEXT, UH, AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER IS SIX TWO. UH, LESLIE VINCE, NOW I'LL JUST REMIND THIS, LESLIE, OH, THERE, THERE YOU'RE MA'AM. JUST REMIND YOU THAT 6 1 6 3 6 4, 6, 5, 6, 6, 6 7 HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED TO MOVE FORWARD. SO WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH SIX TWO. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, CAN YOU HEAR ME? IS IT ON? IT'S THE GREEN LIGHT'S ON. YEAH. IS THAT BETTER? WE CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY, GREAT. UH, SO SIX TWO IS THE ONLY ONE YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, OR, YEAH. ALL, ALL OF YOUR OTHER AMENDMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SPONSORED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. OKAY. SO ONLY THE ONE ON THE SCREEN, UH, IS STILL UP FOR CONSIDERATION. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FIRST OF ALL, FOR SUPPORTING, UM, THE OTHER AMENDMENTS. UM, IN THIS ONE, WE'RE SIMPLY A ADDING SOME LANGUAGE, UH, TO A FIRM THAT, UM, EQUITY IS A VALUE THAT THE CITY, UM, UPHOLDS AND OUR PERSONAL FAVORITE COMMUNITY. FOOD SECURITY IS ALSO A VALUE THAT WE SHOULD UPHOLD AS WE SAW IN THE PANDEMIC FOOD SHORTAGES, UH, BUILDING, UH, LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESILIENCE AND STRENGTH IS, UM, WHAT THE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL, UH, WORKS FOR, UH, WITH OUR PARTNERS IN THE COMMUNITY AND IN THE CITY. SO, UH, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S A STRONG STATEMENT, UH, TO AFFIRM THAT COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY IS SOMETHING THAT SAN ANTONIO WISHES FOR ALL OF ITS CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS. ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO, I'VE GOT A COMMENT. I THINK THAT SOME OF THE DISCUSSION WAS REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT EQUITY WAS INCLUDED IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND WHETHER OR NOT, UM, FOOD SECURITY WOULD BE, UH, ALSO INCLUDED WITHIN PUBLIC HEALTH. PERSONALLY, I, I WOULD SEE THAT THAT'S THEIR UNDERSTOOD AS SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH. MM-HMM. , BUT NOT NECESSARILY PART OF HEALTH IN THEMSELVES. HOWEVER, I I, I WAS A LITTLE BIT UNCOMFORTABLE WITH JUST PUTTING EQUITY OUT THERE AS A WORD, UH, WITHOUT FURTHER SPECIFYING. OKAY. WELL, WE'RE AWARE THAT THE CITY HAS, UH, MADE A COMMITMENT TO EQUITY AS A PRINCIPAL AND A PRACTICE, AND THERE'S A DEPARTMENT OF EQUITY. UM, WHEN, WHEN WE WORKED ON THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, I WAS A MEMBER OF THE EQUITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND SO I KNOW THAT IT'S WOVEN THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY IS DOING NOW. AND, UH, I DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE CONTROVERSIAL TO PUT IT INTO THE U D C, NOT SO MUCH CONTROVERSIAL AS I THINK NOT EVERY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I THINK NOT EVERYBODY FULLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WOULD BE MEANT BY THE WORD IN THIS CONTEXT. RIGHT. UM, EQUITY AS I UNDERSTAND IT MEANS THAT PEOPLE HAVE WHAT THEY NEED. AND SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING TO EVERYONE, BUT IT'S, UM, [02:20:01] WHAT DO THEY NEED? AND SO WHEN WE DO THE EQUITY FOCUS ON CITY COUNCIL ITEMS AND SPENDING IN THE CITY, THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE BEEN LONG NEGLECTED, WHICH ALSO COINCIDE WITH FOOD DESERTS, UM, GET A BIGGER SHARE TO BE ABLE TO CATCH UP, IF THAT HELPS. I HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS ONE IF YOU, IF YOU'RE DONE. OKAY. SO, UH, WHEN WE LOOK, WHEN I LOOK AT THESE U D C AMENDMENTS, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS, YOU KNOW, IS WHETHER, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE GENERAL, UH, TOP SECTIONS, THEY'RE VERY BROAD. YOU KNOW, SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PROMOTING HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS IN THE GENERAL WELFARE, THAT IS A HUGE SPECTRUM. AND WHEN YOU START GETTING SPECIFIC ABOUT ONE THING, YOU START EN UM, ENTERTAINING EVERYBODY ELSE TO BE SPECIFIC IN THESE THINGS. AND IT, IT, IT JUST, I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR SECTION NEEDS TO BE BROAD. AND I THINK THAT THE, YOU SHOULD FEEL GOOD THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOVE FORWARD ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS. 'CAUSE WE, I DO, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE, UH, AT LEAST THAT IT SHOULD BE HEARD AND, AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. BUT I THINK KEEPING THIS GENERAL, VERY GENERAL IN NATURE IS, IS, IS ALSO IMPORTANT. AND IT'S NOT ANYTHING AGAINST WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, BUT, BUT JUST AGAIN, YOU, WE WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR EVERY, EVERY, UH, GROUP AND EVERY, EVERY PERSON'S DESIRE AND WHIM TO, TO BE PUT IN HERE, AND THEN IT WOULDN'T REALLY MEAN ANYTHING. SO WE, WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY. SO THAT, THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER CONDITIONS? AND I THINK THAT EXPLAINS MY COMMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MR. COUNCILMAN, I'D, I'D LIKE TO, UH, REINFORCE WHAT WE'VE JUST HEARD FROM THIS LADY. THAT THIS CITY ADOPTED EQUITY AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE. UH, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE'S FEARFULNESS OF, OF THE WORD EQUITY. I'M NOT SAYING THE PEOPLE HERE, BUT I, I HEAR THAT IN GENERAL TERMS, IN, IN SOME PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, THIS CITY ADOPTED IT. I WOULD THINK THAT, UH, IF IF THIS COMMITTEE DECIDED NOT TO MOVE IT FORWARD, THAT, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD PROBABLY GLADLY MOVE IT FORWARD ON ITS OWN, UH, SHOULD IT BE BROUGHT TO US. UH, BUT I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SUPPORT THIS AND PASS IT ON TO THE P TAC AND I WOULD SECOND IT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COURAGE AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MILAH. ALL IN FAVOR? YES. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO. NO. AND THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, JUST I UNDERSTAND THE, UH, ENGAGEMENT WITH THE CITY ON THIS TOPIC. UH, THAT'S VERY ENCOURAGING. YOU KNOW, WE ENCOURAGE THESE STAKEHOLDERS TO PARTICIPATE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO MOVE THESE FORWARD AND APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION. AND THESE, I DO WANNA THANK, UM, THE STAFF AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THEY WORKED WITH US VERY CLOSELY FOR A YEAR WHILE THIS PROCESS WAS STALLED BY COVID. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. I HEARD MULTIPLE NOSS. DID STAFF GET THE COUNT ON THE, I I WAS ABOUT TO. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE KNOWS WERE COMMISSIONER ORIENT AND COMMISSIONER BUSANTE. THANK YOU. SORRY. MY APOLOGIES. OKAY, NEXT, UH, ON THE ITEM, UH, AMENDMENTS IS EIGHT ONE JUSTIN CROAT. HOPEFULLY SAID THAT CORRECTLY. HOW'S EVERYBODY DOING THIS AFTERNOON? UM, JUSTIN CROW ROBOT. UM, NAME AND ADDRESS. UH, 1 1 6, 1 NUTMEG TRAIL. I'M A RESIDENT OF COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS. I HAVE THE FORTUNATE ABILITY TO WORK ALL THROUGHOUT CENTRAL AND SOUTH TEXAS. I'M A CONSULTING ARBORIST, BOARD CERTIFIED MASTER ARBORIST, AND I'VE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE, UH, OF THE AISLE, I GUESS, HERE. UH, BEING ABLE TO BE A PART OF THE E D C AMENDMENTS BACK AS A PUBLIC SERVANT BACK IN 2010, I GUESS 20, UH, 2015 KIND OF UPDATE TIMELINE, UM, GETTING READY FOR THOSE. AND THEN NOW FROM THE CONSULTING SIDE AND 2022. SO ULTIMATELY WE'RE LOOKING FOR A, UH, UH, A, A ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION STRATEGY, UH, FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UH, TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, UM, BASICALLY JUST ADDS AN ADDITIONAL OPTION, UM, IN, IN, IN LIEU OF, YOU KNOW, PAYMENT INTO THE MITIGATION FUND, PROTECTING TREES OR, UH, MAINTAINING NATURAL AREAS. JUST AN, AN ADDITIONAL OPTION FOR OWNERS AND, UH, CITY STAFF TO LOOK AT IMPLEMENTATION OF AN APPROVED TREE CARE PLAN. SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT, HOW THE, THAT PROCESS WOULD TYPICALLY LOOK LIKE, UM, FROM THE CITY SIDE. BUT ULTIMATELY THAT PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW MITIGATION REDUCTION FOR DO MITIGATION, REDUCTION FOR DOLLAR SPENT ON SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE HEALTH OF RETAINED TREES ON SITE. UM, FOR EXAMPLE, AIST MONITORING, ROOT PRUNING, WATERING MULCHING, [02:25:01] ROOT AERATION, QUILT INJECTIONS, ET CETERA. UM, THESE ARE ALL TREE OR PLANT HEALTHCARE, UH, IMPROVEMENTS, UM, THAT ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE, UH, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. AND ULTIMATELY WE'LL HELP, UH, KEEP THE TREES THAT ARE ONSITE IN BETTER CONDITION THROUGH CONSTRUCTION. AND YOU END UP WITH HEALTHIER TREES, HEALTHIER URBAN FOREST. UM, I THINK IT HAS GREAT IMPLICATIONS TO IMPROVE SUCCESS OF TREE PRESERVATION FOR OUR COMMUNITY. INCENTIVIZE CARE OF RETAINED TREES THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND BEYOND, AND INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES TO PRESERVE TREES IN LIEU OF MITIGATING. UM, SO IT MAKES THE TREES ONSITE MORE VALUABLE, UM, HELPS PROMOTE TREE PRESERVATION. UM, MOST NOTABLY ON THE OWNER SIDE. IT ALL ALLOWS EARLY BUDGETING AND FOR CONSULTING AND REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY CERTIFIED OUR RISK TO MONITOR FOR A DECLINE IN HA IN HAZARDS. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT ON THE CITY SIDE BECAUSE, UH, IT HELPS TAKE THE LOAD OFF. CITY INSPECTORS. THE CITY INSPECTORS ARE ONLY ABLE TO VISIT PROJECTS SO OFTEN, WHEREAS NOW THEY HAVE INCENTIVE TO HAVE AN A THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT. THEY CAN, THEY CAN HELP OR, UH, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER ARBORIST THAT CAN HELP, UM, AND ADDRESS, UH, ITEMS QUICKER AND BE A RESOURCE ALSO JUST IMPROVING THAT URBAN FOREST HEALTH, UH, WHEN NECESSARY. TREE CARE, THAT WOULDN'T BE A PRIORITY IF THERE'S NO INCENTIVE TO DO IT. UM, EVERYONE I'VE, I'VE KIND OF TALKED TO AROUND THIS IDEA BY, UM, THROUGH DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT, UH, FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY ON THE ENGINEERING DESIGN SIDE, THE OWNERSHIP SIDE, PROJECT SIDE. AND, UH, EVERYBODY SEEMED VERY INTERESTED IN THIS AND I WANTED TO BRING IT FORWARD TO YOU TODAY AS A, AS AN OPTION. UM, BUT JUST ULTIMATELY LOOKING AT THE BENEFITS ADDED FLEXIBILITY ON CITY REVIEW SIDE, UM, WITH ONSITE MITIGATION, UM, INSTEAD OF FEE IN LIEU OR OF THE OTHER OPTIONS. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, AS THE, THE SITES GET MORE AND MORE KIND OF CHALLENGING, ALL THE EASILY DEVELOPABLE ONES HERE IN SAN ANTONIO, I THINK ARE, UH, ARE, ARE, ARE DEVELOPED. SO AS WE GET MORE AND MORE CHALLENGING, KIND OF ADDS THAT FLEXIBILITY ON BOTH THE CITY SIDE AND THE OWNER SIDE. UM, REDUCED BURNING ON INSPECTORS AND REVIEWERS. UM, MORE CONTROL ON MITIGATION AND PLANNED EXPENDITURES ON OWNER SIDE INCENTIVIZES, ONSITE TREE PRESERVATION. AND THEN, UH, ULTIMATELY MORE SUCCESSFUL TREE PRESERVATION AND HEALTHIER TREES POST-CONSTRUCTION. SO IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO ANSWER AT THIS TIME, WE'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS WITH THE COMMISSION. YEAH, I, I, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS. I MEAN, I, UH, WHEN WE DO TREE PRESERVATION PLANS AND CANOPY AND WE LOOK AT, SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO PAY FEES, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M SURE EVERYBODY DEVELOPER IN TOWN WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, ENGAGE WITH THIS PART OF IT TO HELP REDUCE SOME OF THEIR ACTUAL COSTS. 'CAUSE THEY SHOULD BE DOING IT ANYWAY. UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THIS PLAY IN, WHAT WAS YOUR INTENT WITH THIS? WITH HOW IT PLAYS INTO, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHERE HERITAGE TREES ARE, ARE SEEN AS A THREE TO ONE RATIO, WHEREAS, I MEAN, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THE CREDIT TO BE APPLIED OFF? RIGHT? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR LIMITATIONS TO IT? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR, UM, ARE YOU IN TRYING TO HAVE TIMELINES FOR, FOR THIS, THESE SORT OF DUTIES? 'CAUSE YOU COULD GO IN THERE AND DO SOME TRIMMING AND TREATMENT, BUT THEN SIX MONTHS LATER DO NOTHING AND THAT MAYBE NOT ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE INTENT WAS. IS THERE SOME SORT OF LONG-TERM ASPECT OF THIS THAT WAS PART OF YOUR INTENT? ABSOLUTELY. GOOD QUESTION. UM, SO, UH, THE PROCESS, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. SO I GET TO WORK IN THE 33 MUNICIPALITIES WITH DIFFERENT TREE ORDINANCES SOUTH OF AUSTIN. SO I GET TO SEE KIND OF A BROAD SPECTRUM OF HOW THIS IS IMPLEMENTED. UM, HOW THIS TYPICALLY WORKS IS, UH, UH, THERE'S A, A SITE SITE DESIGN YOU GET THROUGH WHAT TREES ARE WE SAVING, UM, IF THERE'S MITIGATION THAT'S OUTSTANDING, HOW DO WE MAKE THAT UP WITH EITHER PLANTING ON SITE PAYMENT IN THE MITIGATION FUND, OR THIS WOULD BE MAYBE A POTENTIAL OTHER OPTION. UM, AND THEN LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, HEY, WHAT DO WE NEED? WHAT ARE THE SITE NEEDS? AND THEN WHERE, WHERE ARE WE BALANCE THOSE THINGS OUT. THAT'S SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, AS LONG AS WITH YOUR TREE SURVEY, ALL YOUR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, UM, AND FOR REVIEW WITH THE CITY. SO BASICALLY SAYING, HEY, HERE'S A KIND OF AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY A QUOTE, IF YOU WOULD, OF THE UPFRONT COST OF WHAT WE'RE THINKING WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA SPEND, UM, THAT'S REVIEWED AS PART OF THE SITE. AND JUST SAME AS, AS YOU WOULD, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR TREE PRESERVATION, YOUR LANDSCAPE PLANS, ANYTHING ELSE, UM, BY CITY STAFF. UM, AND THEN THAT ALLOWS KIND OF THE FLEXIBILITY TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE DO WANT TO, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THIS IS VALUABLE AND, YOU KNOW, HERE'S, HERE'S YOUR TOTAL TREE CARE PLAN. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE THINK ARE VALUABLE AND USEFUL. YOU KNOW, AND THERE ARE TYPICAL MILESTONES THAT YOU WOULD HIT PRE, PRE-CONSTRUCTION, FERTILIZATION, MID-CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW UP. JUST DEPENDS ON YOUR TIMELINE AND SCHEDULE AND THE PROJECT, UM, WITHOUT BEING TOO WORDY, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S VERIFIED AT THE END. YOU KNOW, YOU SUBMIT RECEIPTS TO THE CITY AND THEY SAY, HEY, YES, YOU SPENT THAT, THIS WOULD BE A MITIGATION REDUCTION AND YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE. SO SAME POST KIND OF FINAL FOLLOW UP AS YOU WOULD, BUT YOUR, YOUR REQUEST WOULD BE OVER ONCE A C F O IS ISSUED? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. YES. YEAH, IT'S PROJECT BASED. OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU. YES, SIR. HOW BETTER OR IS YOUR COMPANY THAN THE CITY STAFF? UH, DO YOU HAVE HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE COVERING EVERYTHING VERSUS THE CITY STAFF? I MEAN, HOW, HOW CAN YOU DO THAT? YOU, YOU, [02:30:01] YOU CLAIM TO KIND OF DO A LOT OF WORK. HOW DO YOU COVER, UH, SO I, I WOULDN'T CLAIM IT TO BE BETTER THAN CITY STAFF BY ANY MEANS. NO, SIR. BUT, UH, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, OUR, WE HAVE, WE HAVE PRIVATE, YOU KNOW, CONTRACTOR CONSULTANTS AS QUALIFICATION TO BE MORE KIND OF AT THE, AT THE READY, IF YOU WOULD. UM, VERSUS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE MORE DEDICATED TO EACH ONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS VERSUS THE CITY FOLKS HAVE, YOU KNOW, DOZENS OF PROJECTS, IF NOT HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS PER INSPECTOR. AND SOME OF, YOU KNOW, WE, WE MAY BE ABLE TO BE MORE OF A RESOURCE. AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE SEEN AS A SECONDARY BENEFIT TO, TO, FROM THE OWNER'S SIDE OF THINGS IS SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HAVE A, A MORE OF A RESOURCE AND IT'S INCENTIVIZED, UM, TAKE SOME OF THE LOAD OFF CITY INSPECTORS. 'CAUSE INSTEAD OF A, YOU KNOW, UM, INSPECTOR SCHEDULES A FOLLOW UP. THEY GO OUTSIDE SITE'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE. THEY, YOU KNOW, ISSUE WHATEVER KIND OF REMEDIAL ACTION THEY HAVE TO FIX IT. THAT OWNER HAS SOMEBODY THAT'S CONSTANTLY CHECKING ON THEM, AND THAT'S INCENTIVIZED TO THE CITY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. UM, SO YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE, UH, SEVERAL MUNICIPALITIES IN WHICH YOU ALREADY OP OPERATE IS ALSO, IS THAT ADOPTED IN THEIR U D C? YES, IT'S IN THE AUSTIN ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL. AND I KNOW I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE EVERYTHING LIKE AUSTIN, BUT I THINK THIS IS ONE THING THAT THEY DEFINITELY GOT RIGHT. AND IT WORKS REALLY WELL UP THERE. SO THEY'D BE A GOOD RESOURCE FOR THAT. OKAY. UM, ARE ANY OF THOSE CITIES, UH, THE 31 CITIES THAT ARE, UM, OR 27 CITIES WITHIN BEXAR COUNTY? NO, MA'AM. NOT THAT, NOT, NOT THAT'S OFFICIALLY ADOPTED, NO, MA'AM. OKAY. UM, HOW, HOW DOES THIS DIFFER THAN, SO THERE ALREADY IS A PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF TREES WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA SURVEYED AREA. SO HOW WOULD THIS BE DIFFERENT THAN THAT? UM, AND THEN A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, OR GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT AND THEN I'LL HAVE A FOLLOW UP. SO, YOUR TYPICAL PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF TREES IS ONLY GOING TO BE KEEPING IT FROM DYING EFFECTIVELY. I MEAN, THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY KIND OF SET STANDARD TO WHERE IT'S GONNA BE HEALTHY IN REALLY GOOD CONDITION, AND THERE'S NO REQUIREMENTS TO DO ANY OF THE KIND OF THE ACTIVITIES I'D LISTED OFF. UM, AND THERE'S NO INCENTIVE TO DO THAT. SO I MEAN, JUST, FRANKLY, IT'S NOT REALLY HAPPENING, RIGHT? IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S INCENTIVIZED OR PROMOTED BY THE ORDINANCE IN SOME WAY, IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. SO, UM, IF IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT, IT'S THINGS THAT WOULD BE ELECTIVE ABOVE THE REQUIREMENT, SIMILAR TO, YOU KNOW, PROTECTION, MAINTAINING, UM, PAYMENT, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO IT JUST KIND OF GIVE THAT FLEXIBILITY. BUT ULTIMATELY, FENCING TREES AT THE HALF ROOT PROTECTION ZONE IS KIND OF THE MINIMUM PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF TREES. THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE MINIMUM THAT HAPPENS, UH, OUT ON SITE. UH, AND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE INSPECTING FOR AGAINST, UH, CODE ORDINANCES CURRENTLY. SO MY QUESTION THEN, FOLLOW UP TO THAT IS, I GUESS MAYBE FOR STAFF, UM, SO IF AN AN APPROVED TREE CARE PLAN WAS, UH, CONSIDERED OR DEEMED TO BE CONSIDERED PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE, COULD, OR DOES THAT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS U D C PROCESS? OR COULD THAT MAY, DOES IT NEED TO BE OUTLINED IN THE CODE TO BE CONSIDERED PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, UM, GO AHEAD. IF AN APPLICANT WERE COMING FORWARD AND WANTING, REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND WANTED TO PUT MONEY IN, AND ONE OF THEIR MITIGATION OPTIONS WAS PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE, COULD ONE OF THE OPTIONS BE THIS, UH, APPROVED TREE CARE PLAN THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT CURRENTLY? NO. UH, CURRENTLY YOU CAN PRESERVE OFFSITE PLAN, OFFSITE PRESERVE ON SITE. UM, THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS IN THERE THAT PROMOTE NATURAL AREAS AND, AND LAID OUT WITHIN THE CODE THAT MUST BE DONE TO GET THOSE INCENTIVES THAT ARE ALREADY IN THERE OR IT'S PAYMENT. UM, THIS IS NOT CURRENTLY AN OPTION WE HAVE IN THE CODE. SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO BE DEFINED IN THE CODE. YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MM-HMM. , THANK YOU. SO I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S, WELL, I GUESS IT'LL FIRST FOR THE APPLICANT. SO I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THE DEAL IS, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE TO DO A THOUSAND DOLLARS IN MITIGATION ON A PROJECT, RIGHT? AND YOU CHOOSE TO DO THE APPROVED TREE CARE PLAN. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT SOMETHING TO THE CITY WHICH SAYS, HERE'S HOW I'M GONNA GET TO A THOUSAND DOLLARS. I'M GONNA DO THESE THINGS THAT ADD UP TO A THOUSAND DOLLARS, RIGHT? YES, SIR. AND THEN THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THAT WAS DONE PRIOR TO A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. OKAY. SO I UNDERSTAND THE MECHANICS OF IT ALL, AND I, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS GOING FORWARD TO TECH, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS BEHIND THE SCENES THAT MIGHT HAVE, I MEAN, IS THERE, IS THERE AN ADDITIONAL PART OF THE CODE THAT MIGHT HAVE TO GET ADDED TO IT FURTHER? REALLY DESCRIBE WHAT THIS APPROVED TREE CARE PLAN IS AND CONSISTS OF, AND THE PROCESS IN WHICH IT WORKS FOR IT TO BE ENFORCEABLE? REVIEWABLE, WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED A LOT, IT OUTLINED SPECIFICALLY WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, WHAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED, THOSE STEPS, AND THEN HOW IT WAS GOING TO BE REVIEWED AND THEN INSPECTED FINALLY AT THE END. SO I GUESS IF [02:35:01] THIS GOES TO TAC AND WE APPROVE THIS IN PRINCIPLE WITH THIS LANGUAGE RIGHT HERE, THERE'S ANOTHER STEP THAT I THINK IS MISSING. YES, SIR. SO, I MEAN, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT, UH, YOU KNOW, ON, ON A CONCEPTUAL BASIS. IT'S JUST THE, THE DETAILS AREN'T THERE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PUT THIS IN ENFORCEMENT TOMORROW. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE TTAC WOULD BE CHARGED WITH NOW OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD FOLLOW LATER AS LIKE A RIDGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? UH, COMMISSIONER, THIS IS MELISSA RAMIREZ. UM, I, WE WOULD PREFER TO MAKE SURE THAT IS VETTED AT THAT TIME WITH THE PTECH. WE DON'T LIKE TO HAVE GRAY AREAS OR UNCLEAR AREAS AND, UM, LEAVE ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION. SO THE MORE INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD SUPPORT. UM, SO THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW, I THINK WE WOULD, THERE WOULD BE A LOT MORE WORK THAT NEEDS TO GET DONE AT PTECH. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO, IS THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT MORE WORK THAT THIS GOES FORWARD TO TAG ON THIS ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, COUNCILMAN? YES. UM, I DON'T LIKE THE WORD FLEXIBILITY. I WORRY ABOUT THAT. FLEXIBILITY ALSO MEANS THERE HAS TO BE SOME KIND OF INTERPRETATION OR VERIFICATION. UM, AND I THINK OUR TREE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW IS, IS PRETTY DIRECT AND EVERY, EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT. UM, AND HONESTLY TO ME, AND I, NO OFFENSE TO IT, THIS SOUNDS MORE LIKE A WAY THE PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN MAKE MONEY OR THAT DEVELOPERS CAN EASE SOME OF THEIR COST BURDEN BY SAYING, WELL, WE'RE GONNA DO THIS AND WE'RE GONNA DO THAT. UM, SO I DON'T SUPPORT THIS MYSELF. HOWEVER, I I WILL SAY I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING GOING TO PTAC AND BEING DISCUSSED, SO I WOULDN'T BE TRYING TO OPPOSE IT, BUT I PERSONALLY, I'M OPPOSED. AND, UH, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA HELP US WITH ANY BETTER TREE RESOLUTIONS THAN WE HAVE TODAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? SO, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, UH, HOW OFTEN DO DEVELOPERS OPT FOR THIS TREE, UH, CARE PLAN IN LIEU OF, UH, SAVING TREES OR PLANTING TREES OR PUTTING INTO THE MITIGATION FUND? SO WE'RE WHERE IT'S, YOU KNOW, WRITTEN IN THE CODE AND IT'S VERY, LIKE, IF YOU'D LIKE, I COULD PROVIDE THAT. LIKE IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL IN AUSTIN. VERY, VERY DETAILED. AND SO, UH, WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS ON SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE FOR SAN ANTONIO, UM, TO WHERE IT, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES SENSE. UM, BUT IT'S VERY COMMON IN AUSTIN. VERY, VERY COMMON. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, ON, ON FACE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT NEEDS FURTHER EVALUATION WITHIN THE PTAC, BUT, UM, UH, AT THIS POINT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THAT IT, THAT WE SUPPORT IT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILAM, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? I ABSTAIN. AND COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? UH, THAT'S A NO VOTE. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONER, COURAGE AND ABSTAIN. ALRIGHT, ITEMS 12 ONE AND 12 TWO. JOHN GONZALEZ. GOOD. A GOOD AFTERNOON. JOHN GONZALEZ, 1, 8, 6, BRISTOL. UM, I GUESS JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, UH, I'M SURE IT'S A LOT TO DEAL WITH THE TERMINOLOGY THAT I ADDED TO THE, UH, U D C, UM, BASICALLY TO, UH, FOR NOT GETTING, UH, THE RIGHT ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, THAT MY, MY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE TIME OF MY ORIGINAL, UH, ZONING CASE. UM, UM, THERE WAS NO ZONING. UH, ONE ZONING PERSON FOR THAT DISTRICT WAS NOT HELPFUL AT ALL. I DID USE THE WAIVER FEE THAT HAD JUST, UH, STARTED THE PROGRAM IN 2015, UH, TO WAIVE THE FEES FOR THOSE PERMITS. AND OF COURSE, I HAVE THE LAND, MY BROTHER IN CALIFORNIA HAS THE MONEY TO DEVELOP. UM, AND, UH, I ONLY TALKED TO HER A FEW TIMES. THE ZONING COM LADY, UH, SHE ENDED UP QUITTING. I NEVER GOT ANY HELP. I NEVER GOT IN A, A MEETING WITH THE, THE COUNCIL PERSON AT ALL. SHE REFUSED. UM, AND THEN THE TWO SISTERS THAT LIVE NEAR ME WERE OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT. UH, AND THEY HAD A SISTER WHO WORKED HERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. UH, AND SHE DID GO OUT TO HOUSE, UH, WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORS OPPOSING MY, UH, ZONING. AND ONLY I KNEW THAT, 'CAUSE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS TOLD ME THAT. AND SO I FOLLOWED THE COMPLAINT. BUT THE OWNER, THE, THE NEIGHBORS DIDN'T WANNA PARTICIPATE IN SAYING YES OR NO, BECAUSE HE KNEW THE FAMILY FROM WHEN THEY WERE VERY YOUNG. SO HE WANTED TO STAY NEUTRAL. SO [02:40:01] I JUST THINK THAT IT'S FAIR FOR NOT JUST MYSELF OR OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH A PROCESS AND, UH, WASN'T GIVEN A FAIR SHAKE TO REVIEW THE, THE CASE AND DETERMINE WHETHER, UH, I DID GET ALL THE VOTES FROM MY NEIGHBORS. UH, 'CAUSE IT WAS ORIGINALLY MF 33 AND AT THE END WHAT I HAD TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL WAS, UH, TO DOWNGRADE IT. AND I DIDN'T SPECIFY, UH, R SIX CONDITION, WHICH, UH, ZONING RECOMMENDED. I JUST SAID LOWER FROM MF 33, WHICH WAS, UH, BASICALLY, UH, THE R SIX CONDITIONAL. UH, BUT OF COURSE, UH, WHEN I DID HAVE ONE MEETING WITH THE COUNCIL PERSON, AND, UH, SHE SAID, UH, I ASKED HER IF SHE WOULD TELL ME YES OR NO BECAUSE, UH, I COULD HAVE WITHDRAWN MY, MY CASE AT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEN DID IT AGAIN AT SIX MONTHS. UH, BUT IF, UH, THEY DENIED IT, I HAD TO WAIT A YEAR. SO SHE NEVER CALLED ME. SHE SAID SHE WOULD LET ME KNOW BEFORE THE HEARING, AND SHE NEVER DID. AND SO I NEEDED TO SAY, UH, I WENT THROUGH IT. AND SO I WOULD HAD TO WAIT ANOTHER YEAR TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND BY THAT TIME, THEY CHANGED THE, UM, PERMIT FEE, A WAIVER FEE TO NOT INCLUDE THE, UH, ZONING, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? UH, I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, THIS, THIS REQUEST SOUNDS VERY SPECIFIC TO YOUR, TO YOUR CASE. YES. UH, CAN YOU, CAN YOU SPEAK ABOUT HOW IT WOULD'VE BE MORE GENERAL AND, AND, AND, AND SOMETHING WELL, FOR ANY, 'CAUSE I FIRST THOUGHT IT WAS JUST FOR IC CONDITION, BUT IC CONDITION WAS BASICALLY OTHER THINGS LIKE, YOU WANNA PUT A, A A A BOOKKEEPING IN YOUR HOUSE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. UH, SO ANYBODY IN IN THAT CATEGORY, UH, THAT WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND STILL FELT THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE, UH, THE HELP OR THE, THE RIGHT SUPPORT THEY NEEDED, THAT THEY COULD GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF, UH, HAVING IT REVIEWED AND, UH, A SECOND LOOK TAKEN OVER. SO YOU, SO THE PREMISE OF THIS IS, IS TO, TO WHERE IF YOU WERE DENIED AND YOU CAN DRUM UP, UH, ENOUGH SUPPORT FROM THE SURROUNDING, YOU CAN GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS AND CHARGE NO, NO. JUST TO REVIEW ALL THE, THE DATA ON THE ORIGINAL CASE, UH, SHOWING THAT. OKAY. I DID HAVE THE SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE SOME COMMENTS. UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER ORIAN SORT OF PUT HIS FINGER ON IT. UH, THIS SEEMS VERY SPECIFIC TO A SPECIFIC ISSUE, SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH A BROAD BASED U D C AMENDMENT. IT'S ALSO SORT OF THE MIRROR IMAGE OF WHAT MR. STIEG HAD LOOKED LIKE. UH, A WAY TO SORT OF GET A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE AFTER ZONING HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. UH, AND I THINK WE WOULD END UP WITH A LOT OF QUESTIONS AS TO WHO WAS OPPOSED WHEN, WHO WAS IN FAVOR AFTER, AND HOW TO RECONCILE THOSE TWO VISIONS. ADDITIONALLY, FROM THE LANGUAGE IN, UH, I BELIEVE 12 TWO, IT APPEARS TO READ AS IF THE, UM, CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE IS BEING OVERRIDDEN. AND, YOU KNOW, WOULD THAT, RIGHT? SO THIS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT. QUICK QUESTION TO INTRODUCED, WOULD THAT BE ALLOWED ? SO, NO. THIS WOULD BE ILLEGAL STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT THERE BE DUE NOTICE. UM, AND THESE, UM, THESE ZONING CASES BE NOTIFIED, UH, PUBLISHED AND NOTIFIED. AND SO, UH, JUST BY ARBITRARILY APPROVING IT, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT SUPPORT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW. AND, AND THERE'S ALSO PROVISION WITHIN THE CITY CHARTER THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING TO OVERTURN AN ORDINANCE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. UH, SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD MOVE NOT TO RECOMMEND, UH, SUPPORT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE, I HAVE A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER OR BUSTANI SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ORIAN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AND THIS IS FOR 12 ONE AND 12 TWO. DO, DO WE NEED TO TAKE SEPARATE VOTES? I GUESS I SHOULD ASK THAT. NO. OKAY. OKAY. NEXT WILL BE 13 ONE AND I BELIEVE 13 TWO. RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BANEZ. I'M PRESIDENT OF MISSION SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, I'M ONE OF THE APPLICANTS, UH, THERE WERE FOUR, THREE OTHER PRESIDENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THE RURAL HERITAGE BUFFER ZONE, UH, THAT, UH, APPLIED, UH, [02:45:01] FOR, UH, THE AMENDMENT FOR 35.3906, WHICH IS, UH, THE M POD. UM, AND, UH, THAT IS THE MISSION PROTECTION, UH, OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND WHAT WE'RE RE REQUESTING WAS, UH, AN INCREASE OF A THOUSAND FEET, UH, TO THE 2,500 FEET. AND, UM, WHEN THE PRESIDENTS MET, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE UGCS, AND WE WERE, WE WERE HAVING DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY PROBLEMATIC, UH, THING FOR US NOVICES. WE'RE NOT URBAN PLANNERS, WE'RE NOT DEVELOPERS. WE ARE JUST PEOPLE THAT VOLUNTEER FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. AND WE, WE DECIDED, WELL, WHAT, WHICH ONES DO WE WANT TO TRY TO MAKE AN IMPACT, UH, ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS? AND, UM, WE CAME TO THE CONSENSUS OF THE MPO, AND PART OF THAT WAS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WHEN THE DESIGNATION FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE CAME ABOUT IN 2015, WE, UH, WERE WANTING THE CITY TO INCREASE THE RADIUS ORIGINATING FROM THE DISC IN FRONT OF THE DOOR OF EACH MISSION. WHY? BECAUSE WE WANTED DEVELOPMENT, INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT, HIGH RISE HOTELS, HIGH, HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS, AND, UM, WE ARE SURROUNDED MISSION SAN JOSE MISSION, UH, SAN JUAN MISSION ION AND MISSION ESPADA HAVE A LOT OF LAND AROUND US. SOME OF IT IS PRIVATE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, A LOT OF IT IS CITY AND AND COUNTY. BUT THERE'S SOME SECTIONS WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN FRONT OF MISSIONS SAN JOSE THAT ARE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. AND SO THESE NARROW SECTIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THIS 1,500 RADIUS CAN GO THROUGH SOME SEVERE CHANGES THAT AFFECT THE THREE OBJECTIVES FOR HAVING A WORLD HERITAGE DESIGNATION. AND I, I SENT A LETTER TO ALL OF YOU, AND SO I'M NOT GONNA READ IT VERBATIM. I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU SOME EX EXTRA INFORMATION. DO YOU HAVE, UM, THE MAP OF THE AREA FOR THE M POD? UM, AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO BE GOOD STEWARDS AND ENSURING THAT, UM, THOSE AREAS WHERE DEVELOPMENT CAN OCCUR, LIKE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM MISSION SAN JOSE, THIS BEAUTIFUL FARM FIELD ACROSS THE STREET FROM MISSION ESPADA, UH, SAN JUAN IS A LITTLE BIT MORE PROTECTED BECAUSE THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED BY NATIONAL PARK OR, UH, THE RIVER. SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT 2,500 FEET AND YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE ANGLE OF THE VIEW SHED GOING OUT THIS WAY, RIGHT? AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND, UM, AND YOU'RE SEEING IT, IT, IT REALLY ISN'T THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE THAT THOUSAND FEET. BUT IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR ALLOWING MAYBE A HOTEL ON ROOSEVELT, THE 3000 BLOCK OF ROOSEVELT, UH, FROM BEING BUILT THERE, BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE A THREE STORY, FOUR STORY, FIVE STORY. AND SO WHAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS ONE WAS TO, TO SECURE SOME OR SOME SAFETY NET TO SECURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DOES, UH, IS APPROPRIATE FOR AROUND THAT AREA. UM, WE DO, DID DO A LAND USE CHANGE. WORLD HERITAGE HAD A LAND USE CHANGE AND REZONING, UH, ON ROOSEVELT AVENUE THAT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE NEIGHBORS WANTED TO ASSURE IT WAS ANOTHER SAFETY NET TO PROTECT FROM ENCROACHING BUILDINGS. SO WE WON'T END UP LIKE THE ALAMO WITH ALL THESE TALL BUILDINGS ALL AROUND THE MISSIONS. THE OTHER, UH, REQUEST THAT WE MADE WAS FOR SECTION 35 49 ON THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. UM, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES. I THINK IT SHOULD SAY REQUIRED BECAUSE WHEN YOU RECOMMEND FOR A DEVELOPER TO GO TO GO AND SPEAK TO US, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THEY DO NOT COME AND SPEAK TO US. AND RIGHT NOW, AND IN THE PAST, UH, THE PAST COUNCILWOMAN, WE WERE VERY FORTUNATE. WE HAD A COUNCILWOMAN THAT AS SOON AS THEY FOUND OUT A DEVELOPER WAS EAGLE LYING, SOMETHING AROUND US, [02:50:02] THEY DIRECTED THEM TO CONTACT THEM, TO CONTACT US. BUT THEY RECOMMENDED. AND MANY TIMES THEY DON'T COME AND SPEAK TO US. I'M REQUIRED AS A PERSON WHO HAS TO COME AND PAY PERMITS WHEN I WANNA BUILD SOMETHING, I'M REQUIRED TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. AND I JUST FEEL THAT THAT LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. AND ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO DO DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME AND TALK TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WE'RE DOING A BIG PUSH TO GET MORE INVOLVEMENT WITH DEVELOPERS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. I, I ALSO WANTED TO CHANGE, UM, FACILITATING INSTEAD OF, UM, RECOMMEND, UM, MAY FACILITATE, HAVE, MUST FACILITATE AND HAVE, IF, IF A DEVELOPER IS DEVELOPING IN AN AREA THAT MAYBE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF RESIDENTS, BECAUSE MAYBE THERE'S A BIG AREA OF 200 RADIUS MAYBE, AND MAYBE THERE'S ONE OR TWO RESIDENTS, BUT THE OTHER RESIDENTS OUTSIDE THAT PROPERTY DON'T GET NOTIFIED BECAUSE CURRENTLY IT ONLY SAYS 200 FEET THAT IT MAKES A REQUIREMENT TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, IF THAT'S THE CASE, GO OUTSIDE THAT 200 FEET, GO AND TALK TO THE RESIDENTS. YOU WANNA BUILD THIS BIG MIXED USE PIECE OF PROPERTY, GO AND SEE WHAT THOSE NEIGHBORS OUTSIDE THAT 200 FEET FEEL ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO LIVE NEXT TO IT. SO THAT IS WHAT WE WERE, ARE REQUESTING. AND, UM, IN SECTION FOUR, AGAIN, I WANT IT, INSTEAD OF THE WORD SHOULD BE MUST. I KNOW THAT A LOT OF TIMES FOR, UH, THE CITY, I FEEL LIKE THEY DON'T FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE IN TELLING DEVELOPERS THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO CERTAIN THINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT I FEEL RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO NURTURE COMMUNITIES, POLITICIANS, AND, AND OUR, UM, ONE STOP DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PEOPLE TO REALLY COMMUNICATE WITH THE RESIDENTS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS KIND OF LANGUAGE. AND I HOPE YOU SUPPORT MOVING THIS ONTO, UH, THE P T A C SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT IT. I KNOW THAT, UH, THAT MAYBE, UH, IT'S TOO DEFINED, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S REQUIRED RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY WITH THE GROWTH AROUND THE MISSIONS FOR THE IMPO, AND ESPECIALLY WITH COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND MAKING SURE THAT RESIDENTS ARE INVOLVED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. THANKS, MRS. IVANS. IF, IF I MAY, UH, REAL QUICK, I KNOW THAT, UH, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, UH, JUST DISCUSSED, UH, IS RELATED TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN. IT MAY BE EASIER FOR THE COMMISSION TO TAKE UP HER FIRST AMENDMENT AND THEN ALSO CONSIDER AMENDMENT 16 DASH SIX, WHICH IS ANOTHER, UH, PROPOSAL TO THAT SAME CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN. OKAY. SO WE'LL START WITH 13 ONE, WHICH IS THE, UH, EXTENSION OF THE BUFFER M POD. SO ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION. ORIAN. UM, I, I RECALL FROM THE WORK SESSION THAT EXTENDING IT TO 2,500 FEET MAY NOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE OF, IT'S, IT'S A ZONING OVERLAY AND NOT NECESSARILY A, IF YOU CAN, SO IT, IT IS NOT, IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT ALLOWED. IT'S THAT IF THE INTENT IS TO EXPAND THE MISSION PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE MORE THAN JUST A MODIFICATION TO SAY 2,500 IN THIS SECTION OF CODE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE COUPLED WITH A LARGE AREA REZONING PROCESS TO FORMALLY APPLY THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THOSE PROPERTIES. UH, THE ONLY WAY TO ESTABLISH A ZONING IS BY A ZONING ORDINANCE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. SO IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT ALLOWED, IT'S JUST THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A SECOND THING. AND, AND IT'S, IS IT TYPICAL FOR THE CITY TO DO LARGE SCALE ZONING, UH, UH, IN ONE SWOOP INITIATED BY COUNCIL AND NOT NECESSARILY THROUGH THIS PROCESS? YEAH, SO TYPICALLY WE WOULD RECEIVE A C C R DIRECTING US TO START THAT PROCESS TO APPLY A ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THOSE PROPERTIES FOR COUNCIL. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IF THE 2,500 FEET WERE APPROVED AT TAC AND WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR ULTIMATE APPROVAL, THAT WOULD TRIGGER THAT LARGE AREA REZONING, OR THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME? THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A SEPARATE PROCESS. SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD NEED SOME SORT OF C C R OR I SHOULD SAY, A RESOLUTION FROM CITY COUNCIL TO INITIATE THAT STEP. SO APPROVAL OF THE, OF THE, OF THE TEXT IN THE CODE DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER THE, THE NEXT STEP. [02:55:01] SO YOU'D HAVE TO BE SPONSORED BY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO INITIATE WHICH AREAS WOULD BE, WOULD BE, UH, LOOKED AT. AND THEN THERE IS A, A LONGER PROCESS OF PUBLIC INPUT TO DETERMINE, UM, IF IT WILL ULTIMATELY PASS. THANK YOU. OKAY. WELL, WITH THAT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND GO ON A LIMB HERE AND MOVE THAT 13 ONE NOT BE INCLUDED, UH, AS IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR IT TO COME THROUGH A C C R PROCESS FROM COUNCIL. THAT GOOD? WAS THERE? WAS THERE A SECOND? I'M SORRY. SECOND. SO, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN? YES. YOU KNOW, I, I REALIZE I RECOGNIZE THAT, UH, THAT'S A BIG ASK, BUT ALSO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THESE AND GET MORE INPUT, UH, ON THIS. AND I, I JUST CAN'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T CONSIDER AND DISCUSS THESE ISSUES. UH, FOR THE P T A C, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK TODAY WE'RE LOOKING AT 40 ISSUES, 40 RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK I HEARD THAT, UH, THE LAST TIME THAT, UH, WE WENT THROUGH THE U D C, THERE WERE OVER 300 THAT WERE PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION. TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 40. I HEARD THE CITY COUNT, UH, THE CITY DEPARTMENT'S REP, YOU KNOW, UH, TALKING ABOUT 40. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 300. AND BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING, WELL, MAYBE THIS DOESN'T SOUND GOOD, WELL, MAYBE THERE'D BE A COMPROMISE. MAYBE IT COULD BE 2000 FEET, MAYBE IT COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE. BUT WE'RE NOT EVEN WILLING TO GET MORE INPUT AND LOOK AT MORE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE LEGALITY AND GET MORE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY. SO I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT, UH, THIS, UH, AND THE OTHER ONE THAT, UH, WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO CONSIDER IT ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. UM, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF DOVETAIL ONTO WHAT THE COUNCILMAN SAID AND JUST SAY THAT THE, THE MISSIONS ARE ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING THINGS ABOUT SAN ANTONIO. PEOPLE COME FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD TO SEE THEM, AND IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE AN ONGOING DISCUSSION, NOT JUST THIS TIME, BUT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, AND THE NEXT U D C AND, AND AGREE WITH THE COUNCILMAN THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT AND WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF DISCUSSION, OUR TASK IS TO PASS IT ON TO THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE GONNA DO THAT JOB. SO I RECOMMEND IT AND I MOVE THAT WE PASS IT ON. WELL, WE HA WE HAVE A MOTION TO, TO NOT PASS IT ON. I'LL SECOND. WELL, OKAY, HOLD ON. WE HAVE A MO I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BUSTANI. I'M SORRY, ORIEN AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE WOULD BE VOTE THE MOTION IS TO NOT PASS IT THROUGH. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NO, NO, NO. YEAH. WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, YES. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER JAKI? NO. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? NO. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? YES. COMMISSIONER MILAM? NO. COMMISSIONER BUSTAMANTE? YES. COUNCILMAN COURAGE? NO. COMMISSIONER PECK? NO. COMMISSIONER CARILLO HAYNES? NO. AND CHAIR PROFIT? NO. THE MOTION FAILS. WE'D NEED A NEW MOTION. OKAY. SO , I MOVE THAT WE PASS IT ON TO THE C SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILAM. SECOND BY VICE CHAIR HANES. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. YES. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. RAISE YOUR HAND FOR THE NEXT SAME. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, THANKS. WAS THE OTHER ONE, UH, SECTION 35 49 PASSED THAT, THAT WAS FOR, UH, 13 DASH ONE ONLY. LOOK, LOGAN, WHAT WAS THE CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT? YEAH, IT'S AMENDMENT 16 DASH SIX. THE APPLICANT IS STEVE VERTI THAT ALSO PROPOSES TO AMEND 35,409 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. SO, YES, SIR. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, MS. IBANEZ, WE'RE GOING, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR HIS, UH, PRESENTATION, THEN WE'LL TAKE ACTION ON BOTH. OKAY. UH, 16 DASH SIX. CORRECT. UH, STEVE [03:00:01] STE 1 0 5 RENO. UM, SO AMENDMENT REQUEST 16 SIX BEING CONSIDERED TODAY MAKES A CHANGE TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN AND SECTION 4 0 9 AND IS ONE OF THREE REQUESTED REVISIONS TO THIS U D C SECTION. UM, AT LEAST THAT WAS MY COUNT. UH, THIS INDICATES THAT THE SECTION WARRANTS, UM, TECHNICAL REVIEW BY THE PTAC TO ALIGN THESE REQUESTS. UM, I'LL ALSO, UM, I WOULD FIND IT IRONIC THAT WE WOULD, UM, NOT FOLLOW OUR ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INCLUDE ALL INPUT RECEIVED, UH, ABOUT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN IN THE U D C. UM, SO I, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE, THERE IS AN, UM, INST INFORMATIONAL BULLET IN 5 5 8 ON, UM, ON HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS. THAT'S, UH, THAT WAS BACK IN, UH, 2015 STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE U D C UH, SPECIFICALLY SAYS ABOUT THIS PROCESS. AND, UH, IN THAT IT INCLUDES A PROCESS TO REVIEW WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND BRIEFINGS OF ZONING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND H D R C. SO, UM, SO I MEAN, SENDING IT ON IN THIS PROCESS, UH, JUST PROMOTES MORE CONVERSATION AND, AND THERE'S CERTAINLY TIME FOR PEOPLE TO DISAGREE AND REJECT THESE THINGS IN, UH, WITH ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED. BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, BLOCKING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SOMEONE'S SUGGESTION TO IMPROVE IT, UM, THROUGH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, UH, JUST SEEMS, UM, NOT, UH, PROPER TO ME AND NOT, UM, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T, IT JUST DOESN'T SEND A MESSAGE TO CITIZENS THAT, THAT THEIR SUGGESTIONS ARE GONNA BE HEARD AND THEIR INPUT'S GONNA BE, UH, WELCOMED. SO, ANY, ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I HAD, UH, I GOT A QUESTION. SO WE HAD, UM, THE, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME PREMISES TO THIS BIG PICTURE, THINGS TO THIS. ONE OF THEM IS TRYING TO GO BEYOND THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION THAT STATE LAW KICKS IN. DOES THAT POSE ANY CONFLICT WITH THIS BEING, UM, A PROBLEM WITH THE STATE CODE? UH, AND, AND THE SECOND ASPECT OF THIS IS GONNA BE, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THE PREMISE IS FOR THE, FOR AN APPLICANT TO, TO HAVE A MANDATORY MEETING. IF THE, IF THERE IS NO, UH, NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION, OR LET'S SAY THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE A MEETING, CAN HE PERMANENTLY BLOCK THE RIGHTS OF SOME OF AN APPLICANT? SO CAN YOU, CAN SOMEONE SPEAK ABOUT THAT? IN ANSWER TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION? UM, AS LONG AS WE AREN'T DOING SOMETHING THAT, UM, IS CONTRARY TO STATE CODE, STATE CODE SAYS AT, AT A MINIMUM 200 FEET, UM, YOU CAN LOOK AT EXPANDING THOSE BOUNDARIES. CITIES HAVE, HAVE DONE THAT HAVE GOTTEN THEIR HAND SLAPPED SOMETIMES. AND SO IT, IT ALWAYS BEST TO KIND OF, UM, ALIGN WITH STATE LAW. UH, BUT YOU CAN LOOK AT AUGMENTING WITH OTHER PROCEDURES IN ANSWER TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION AS WRITTEN, YES, YOU, IT, IT COULD HOLD UP THE PROCESS FROM SOMEBODY FROM APPLYING. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THAT THIS, THIS CONVERSATION COMES UP EVERY TIME, UH, WITH, WITH THE AMENDMENTS AND THERE ARE SOME NUGGETS TO THIS THAT PERHAPS THAT WE CAN EXPLORE DURING THE T PROCESS TO, TO GET AT WHAT, UM, WHAT WOULD HELP. UH, AND WE WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH THEM TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF SOLUTION TO SHOW THAT, UM, APPLICANTS ARE IN FACT REACHING OUT TO THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, IN ORDER TO START THAT DISCUSSION. SO THAT WAY THEY CAN THEN APPLY. I WANTED TO, UH, MY BIGGEST CONCERN WAS, UH, IN THIS DAY AND AGE WITH EMAIL, I'M SURE THERE'S A WAY FOR RESIDENTS TO REGISTER TO BE NOTIFIED BY ANYTHING, UH, NEARBY THEM. AND, AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME EASE TO THAT. UH, AND, AND, UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS THE RIGHT SECTION OF THE CODE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE MOVE THIS FORWARD, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS GOING TO TRY TO PUT IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND TRY TO ACCOMPLISH SOME OF THE NEEDS WITHOUT TRYING TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE NOTIFICATION RULES? YES. AND I THINK, UH, THAT DISCUSSION CAN HAPPEN AT THE TECH. WE CAN, WE CAN WORK ON TWEAKING, TWEAKING ALL THAT. I JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AND COUNCIL HAD A COMMENT HIS HAND UP. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, I'M, I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE REALLY SHOULDN'T SEPARATE THESE TWO RATHER THAN TO HANDLE 'EM BOTH TOGETHER. AND I, I SAY THAT BECAUSE THE, THE, UH, MISSION DISTRICT IS, IS VERY SPECIFIC AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, AN OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT, THAT PROTECTS THE MISSIONS. AND WHAT I'M JUST SAYING IS THAT COULD BE AN AREA WHERE WE MIGHT REQUIRE TWO MEETINGS IN ORDER TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD. [03:05:01] THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT EVERY PLACE ELSE IN THE CITY HAS TO HAVE TWO MEETINGS AT THE SAME TIME. A LOT OF WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED IN THE SECOND ONE, UH, COULD APPLY JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. SO I'M WONDERING IF WE SHOULD HANDLE 'EM SEPARATELY. SO THE PRIOR A, UH, APPLICANT, UH, DID HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS, ONE RELATED TO THE M P O D. THAT ITEM HAS BEEN SPONSORED AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION. SHE ALSO HAD AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO 35 4 0 9 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN GENERALLY APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE CITY, NOT JUST THE M P O D. UH, I, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE, UH, EFFICIENT TO LOOK AT BOTH PROPOSALS AND CA I DIDN'T WANT ONE TO BE SPONSORED OR NOT SPONSORED. AND THEN 10 AMENDMENTS LATER, YOU'RE LOOKING AT SIMILAR LANGUAGE AGAIN. SO THE, THE M P O D DISCUSSION HAS ALREADY BEEN SPONSORED THAT WILL MOVE FORWARD WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN. AND BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RIGHT NOW IS NOT SPECIFIC ONLY TO THE M P O D. WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT COULDN'T THE PTAC SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT ITEM SHOULD BE RELATIVE ONLY TO THIS AND THEY COULD REWRITE IT THAT WAY. THEY THEY COULD, BUT IF WE, BUT IF WE PUT IT OUT ALL AS ONE PIECE, THEY MAY NOT EVEN KNOW TO THINK ABOUT DIVIDING IT UP. SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IF WE HANDLE 'EM SEPARATELY, UH, YOU KNOW, THEN THEY MAY MAKE THAT KIND OF A RECOMMENDATION. 'CAUSE THEY CAN REWRITE THE LANGUAGE. RIGHT. I WOULD AGREE THAT, UM, BOTH COULD MOVE FORWARD TO THE TEXT SO WE CAN LOOK AT BOTH, EXPLORE THOSE OPTIONS AND DETERMINE WHAT IS THE BEST WAY IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT THERE IS THAT, UM, SEEKING OUT FOR, UH, THE, THE PUBLIC INPUT, IF YOU WILL. I, SO I MEAN, AGAIN, NOT AS WRITTEN, BUT THERE, THERE'S SOME NUGGETS HERE THAT WE CAN WORK ON DURING THE TAC PROCESS. SO CATHERINE, UH, CLARIFICATION, UH, FROM COUNCILMAN COURAGE, CAN, CAN WE MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD AND, AND, AND ADD A STIPULATION TO THE MOTION TO MAKE THAT DISCUSSION HAPPEN? OR DOES, OR WHAT? NO, I THINK THAT THIS DISCUSSION IS GONNA BE ORGANIC. IT'S GONNA HAPPEN REGARDLESS BECAUSE WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY WANNA SEE AND WE, AND WE CAN WORK WITH THEM TO KIND OF FACILITATE THAT TO SEE IF IT GETS THROUGH TACK. BUT I JUST HATE TO SEE THIS NOT GO FORWARD BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT LIKE ONE OR THE OTHER. I, I, I WILL ADD THAT WHILE WE CANNOT ADD A STIPULATION TO THE SPONSORSHIP, WE DO HAVE MULTIPLE FOLKS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT SERVE ON THE TAC AND THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING UP THAT WHEN WE GOT TO THAT ITEM FOR DELIBERATION. I JUST HAVE A GENERAL COMMENT. UM, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, REGARDING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, THIS, THIS COMMISSION ROUTINELY ASKS APPLICANTS IF THEY'VE GONE AND MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, THE NEIGHBORS AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS AND WHATNOT. AND IF THEY HAVE NOT, WE ROUTINELY CONTINUE THE ITEM UNTIL THEY COME BACK WITH PROOF THAT THEY HAVE AND SOME TYPE OF EITHER, YOU KNOW, AGREEMENT TO WORK TOGETHER OR, OR, OR RESOLUTION TO ALL THE ISSUES. SO WE, WE, IN OUR GENERAL COURSE OF BUSINESS DO, DO PUSH THAT. UM, NOW LOOKING AT THESE TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS, 13 TWO AND 16 SIX, I HONESTLY CAN'T GET BEHIND REQUIRING SIGNATURES ON A DOCUMENT OR A PROJECT CANNOT MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THAT AMOUNTS TO A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. UM, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT GOING TO TECH. THANK YOU. UM, I ECHO SOME OF WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER PECK STATED, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPEATEDLY GETS, UM, PLAN AMENDMENTS WHERE WE ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANTS TO GO BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, I THINK WE JUST HAD IT, YOU KNOW, TWO WEEKS AGO AND SOMETHING HAD TO COME BACK TODAY BECAUSE IT WAS, UH, WE ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO GO ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY MORE OFTEN. SO I WOULD ACTUALLY MOTION THAT BOTH OF THESE, UM, GO FORWARD TO PA, TO PTECH AND THAT WE AS THAT COMMITTEE CAN DISCUSS WHAT NUGGETS AS, AS KAT ALLUDED TO, UM, ARE RELEVANT FOR, UM, DISCUSSION. I AGREE WITH GEORGE. THE SIGNATURE ITEM IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I COULD GET BEHIND EITHER, BUT CERTAINLY, UM, I THINK IT'S WORTHY DISCUSSING THE, EXPANDING THE, THE PERIMETERS FOR, FOR WHO WE REACH OUT TO. WE OFTEN GET NOTICES BEYOND THE 200 FEET. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD LOOK AT. SO I'LL, I WOULD MOTION THAT WE MOVE BOTH TO GO, UH, 13 DASH TWO AND 16 DASH SIX TO THE PTECH. I'LL SECOND IT. ANY FURTHER COMMENT? I HAVE A COMMENT. GO AHEAD. UM, WHAT'S SOMETHING THAT STRIKES ME ABOUT BOTH, UH, 13 TWO AND 16 SIX IS THAT IT CREATES A SITUATION WHERE TWO PARTIES ARE INVOLVED, UH, MUST BE INVOLVED, AND YET THE RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ONLY WITH THE APPLICANT. SO BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE SEEN CASES COME, UH, WHERE THE APPLICANT, UH, DID WANT TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION OR THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION. AND THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION CONTINUALLY POSTPONE THOSE MEETINGS OR CANCELED THOSE MEETINGS, OR GENERALLY REFUSED TO COOPERATE BECAUSE THEY JUST DIDN'T WANNA SEE ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN AROUND THEIR HOMES. AND SO I [03:10:01] THINK IT'S A MISTAKE TO REQUIRE A, AN APPLICANT TO SOMEHOW CAJOLE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND TO PARTICIPATING WITH THEM IF THEY'RE NOT WILLING. THAT WAS EXACTLY THE POINT OF MY STATEMENT IS, IS IT A LOT, IT GIVES SOMEONE THE ABILITY TO STONEWALL A PROJECT AND PREVENT IT FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH JUST BY TAKING IN ACTION. AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT. THAT LANGUAGE CAN GET FIGURED OUT AT THE PTAC BECAUSE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T SAY NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, IT SAYS IT SAYS NEIGHBORHOODS OR NEIGHBORS. SO, I MEAN, THOSE ARE ALL SEMANTICS THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT AT THE PTAC. ALRIGHT. AND I'M SORRY TO LITERALLY BEAT THIS DEAD HORSE. I GUESS NOT LITERALLY WHATEVER THE NEW VERSION OF LITERAL MEANS NOW. UM, BUT I, YEAH, I MEAN I THINK, YOU KNOW, MR. HERNANDEZ IS RIGHT, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HERE ARE RIGHT, BUT AT ZONING AS WELL, WE CONSTANTLY ASK FOR PEOPLE TO DO, UH, ASK FOR APPLICANTS TO MEET WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, TO MEET WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO DO THAT. AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THERE IS NO RESPONSE. WE SAW ONE TODAY AND, YOU KNOW, TO MANDATE THIS KIND OF INTERACTION WHEN IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE, UH, IS TO GIVE A VETO TO DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CITY TO PEOPLE WHO JUST MAY NOT WANT DEVELOPMENT. AND SO I'M TORN, UH, I THINK THERE ARE SOME GOOD THINGS THAT WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THE NOTICE. SO I AM GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TO TAC, BUT I REALLY WANT THOSE MEMBERS OF TAC FROM THIS COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THAT REQUIREMENT, TO THINK ABOUT THAT KIND OF VETO POWER, UH, AS THEY CONSIDER GOING FORWARD. YEAH. TO, TO BEAT A COMPLETELY DEAD HORSE. , I'M GONNA ECHO, I MEAN I CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IS, IS IMPERATIVE AND I DO, WE DO SEE IT AND, AND THE, I THINK THE CASES THAT WE GENERALLY MOVE FORWARD, UH, THE APPLICANTS ARE ENGAGED WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THOSE THAT AREN'T, WE USUALLY ASK 'EM TO COME BACK, BUT THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT I HAVE SOME HEARTBURN OVER AND IT'S JUST GONNA BE MORE WORK FOR THE P TAC. BUT, UM, HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET IT RIGHT. AND, UM, JUST TO REFRESH PEOPLE'S, EDUCATE FOLKS ON NOTIFICATION, SO FOLKS THAT ARE WITHIN THE 200 FEET, ANY REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, IT'S ALSO POSTED AS AN AGENDA ITEM. PEOPLE CAN GO TO ESSAY SPEAKS, PEOPLE CAN SHOW UP AT MEETINGS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE WITHIN 200 YARDS. SO, OR FEED, I'M SORRY. SO THERE ARE A VARIETY OF WAYS TO BE ENGAGED. CORRECT. DID I MISS ANYTHING? NO, THAT'S CORRECT. YOU CAN SIGN UP AND GET EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS OF, OF APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. SO YES, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER WAYS TO GET NOTIFIED RATHER THAN WAITING FOR SOMETHING FROM THE POST OFFICE. I, I ALSO WANTED TO ADD THAT AS A, I'M ON MY H O A BOARD AND I REGULARLY GET THE EMAILS ABOUT N C D PERMITS, UH, WITH PLENTY OF NOTICE. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THIS DAY AND AGE, YOU KNOW, EVERY OFFICER OF A H O A BOARD SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REGISTER AN EMAIL ADDRESS AND ANY ZONING OR PLAN AMENDMENT OR WHATEVER THAT GOES ON IN THEIR DISTRICT, THEY SHOULD JUST GET A, AN EMAIL AND, AND THAT WOULD, I THINK, WOULD SERVE THIS PURPOSE. YOU KNOW, I THINK GETTING THAT NOTICE A FEW WEEKS OR THREE OR MONTH OR BEFORE WILL FIX THAT WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS. AND WHILE THE COUNCILING HERE, I THINK JUST ENCOURAGING, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITIES TO REGISTER THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO, AND, AND FOR THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO BE ENGAGED WITH THEIR RESIDENTS SO THAT THEY'RE FULLY TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THEIR COMMUNITIES. SO, UH, I KNOW WE'VE BELIED THE POINTS, SO I FORGOT WHO MADE THE MOTION IN THE SECOND. JULIE MADE A MOTION, UH, MOTION VICE CHAIR HAYNES FOR MOVING TO P TTAC FOR BOTH 13 ONE AND 13 TWO, I'M SORRY. 13 TWO AND 16. SIX. SIX. AND THE SECOND WAS MADE BY, I BELIEVE THE SECOND WAS COUNCILMAN COURAGE. COUNCILMAN COURAGE. ALL IN FAVOR? YES. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER PACK. OPPOSED? THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. IT'S 5 27. UH, VICE CHAIR HANES IS LEAVING THE MEETING. ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR MEETING. I WISH I COULD STAY, BUT I HAVE CHILDCARE ISSUES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE, UH, ITEMS 14, ONE THROUGH 14 NINE. UM, DEBORAH REED. YES. HI, HOW ARE YOU? THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT THESE AMENDMENTS. MY NAME IS DEBBIE REED AND I'M THE TECHNICAL DIRECTOR FOR THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ALLIANCE. AND I WANTED TO KIND OF PREFACE, UM, BEFORE WE DISCUSS SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS, THAT WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A WATERSHED APPROACH TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH AN EMPHASIS ON NATURE-BASED AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS. SO WHAT HAS OCCURRED OVER THE YEARS, AND I THINK ANALISA ADDRESSED SOME OF THIS, IS THAT OUR OFFICE IS A SOUNDING BOARD FOR MANY COMMUNITIES [03:15:01] THAT HAVE ISSUES WITH DEVELOPMENTS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. AND OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WE'VE SEEN THOSE CALLS INCREASE. AND MOST OF THESE ARE DUE TO NEW FLOODING FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT AREAS. SO EVENTUALLY IN 2017, WE DECIDED TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WAS GOING ON. UM, WE DID AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST FOR THE NUMBER OF FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS IN THE YEAR OF 2017, AND THERE WERE 389 ISSUED DURING THAT YEAR. AND ALSO WHAT WE DID IS CREATE A TASK FORCE WHERE WE SAT DOWN WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTITIES AND PEOPLE THAT HAD MORE OF AN, OF AN ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND TO LOOK AT SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES AND HOW CAN WE ADJUST THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MAKE THEM WORK BETTER FOR NEIGHBORHOODS AND PREVENTING LOCAL FLOODING. AND AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT WE DID HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD CONFERENCE IN MARCH OF 2020. AND JACOB POWELL FROM STORMWATER FROM PUBLIC WORKS DID SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. AND SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER WE WROTE SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS UP, WE CONTACTED JACOB AGAIN. BUT AT THAT TIME, HE WAS GETTING READY TO MOVE FROM THE CITY TO GO TO WORK FOR PAY DAWSON. RIGHT? SO , WE LOST THAT CONTACT, BUT HE DIRECTED US TO THE INTERIM, UM, STAFF PERSON FOR STORMWATER. MS. SANTIAGO AND I DID THIS, SET A MEETING WITH HER THAT WAS DURING COVID, SO WE DID IT OVER THE PHONE. SHE HAD THE AMENDMENTS, AND WE DID REVIEW THOSE. SHE MADE SOME GREAT, HELPFUL COMMENTS TO, UM, INCREASE CLARIFICATIONS. AND SO WE MOVED FORWARD ALSO WITH MEETING WITH PARKS AND RECREATION, BECAUSE ONE OF THESE AMENDMENTS IS A DIRECTED AT PARKS. AND AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BASES THAT OUR PARKS PERFORM AN INCREDIBLE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY TO HELP REDUCE FLOODING. SO THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE CAME UP WITH ARE STORMWATER RELATED, OF COURSE. AND THE INTENT IS TO IMPROVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO NOT ONLY AVOID NEW FLOODING AND REQUIRING, BUT ALSO THE NEED FOR NEW FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS. AND ALSO, AS WE GO FORWARD WITH NEW FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, THERE IS AN ONGOING IN PERPETUITY TAX BURDEN THAT THE PUBLIC PICKS UP FOR NOT ONLY MAINTAINING THIS INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT ALSO TO REPLACE IT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. AS A MEMBER OF THE DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL BOND COMMITTEE PASSING THE RECORD, BREAKING $170 MILLION FOR FLOOD CONTROL, I WAS ABLE TO SEE FIRSTHAND THE IMPACT ON RESIDENTS WHERE NEW PROJECTS HAVE CAUSED NEW FLOODING AND TRYING TO FIX IT AFTER THE FACT IS SO MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN JUST PAYING LANDOWNERS TO DEVELOP MORE SENSITIVELY COST EFFECTIVELY. AND THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER EXAMPLES ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHERE THEY ARE EMBRACING THESE CONCEPTS IN A MORE READILY MANNER THAN SAN ANTONIO HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO. SO, EVEN THOUGH I FEEL THAT WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT STORMWATER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WHO IS MOVING IN A VERY GOOD WAY. SO YES, THESE AMENDMENTS MAY DEVELOP, MAY COST DEVELOPMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY UPFRONT, BUT THEY WILL REDUCE FUTURE TAX BURDENS AND, AND THEY WILL ALSO REDUCE SOME OF THE DEGRADATION THAT WE'RE SEEING IN OUR CREEKS AND STREAMS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE SEEN ALMOST CREEK AND, UM, LATELY, BUT THIS IS DUE TO THE INCREASE OF STORM WATER RUNOFF. AND WE SEE THIS CONSTANTLY IN COUNCILMAN, UM, COURAGES DISTRICT. WE WERE CALLED OUT BY NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD HAS CREATED A NEW RAVINE THAT'S OVER THE TOP OF THE HEAD OF PEOPLE. IT'S ACTUALLY A DANGEROUS SITUATION. SO AMENDMENTS 14 ONE AND 14 SEVEN ARE UPDATES STRICTLY DEFINITIONS THAT INCLUDE MORE INFORMATION FOR NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THESE TYPES OF CONCEPTS TO BE BROUGHT FORTH IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THESE CONCEPTS ARE MENTIONED IN ALL OF OUR PLANNING DOCUMENTS FROM 1997 TO SA 2020. AND WE FEEL THAT SOME OF THESE DEFINITIONS AND AMENDMENTS WILL BRING FORTH SOME OF THE GOALS THAT WE HAVE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. ALSO, THESE TERMS WILL CLARIFY VARIOUS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT [03:20:01] STRATEGIES BEING PROMOTED NOT ONLY AT STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS, BUT ALSO AGAIN IN OUR PLANNING DOCUMENTS, AMENDMENTS 14 TWO AND 14 FOUR WOULD RESU REDUCE THE EXEMPTIONS ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT ARE CURRENTLY FOUND IN OUR, UM, FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SECTIONS. THESE GOALS, THE GOALS OF THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD ENSURE THAT FLOWS IN OUR CREEKS AND RIVERS ARE SUCH THAT ALLOW THEM TO FUNCTION, PROVIDING MULTIPLE BENEFITS THAT MEET SOME OF THESE OTHER GOALS, INCLUDING, OF COURSE, THERE'S WATER QUALITY, BUT HABITAT CONTACT RECREATION WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW OUR YOUTH TO BE ABLE TO PLAY SAFELY IN SOME OF OUR STREAMS. AND RIGHT NOW, WE DO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT JUST ABOUT EVERY MAJOR STREAM AND RIVER DO HAVE SEGMENTS OF IMPAIRED WATER ACCORDING TO THE TCE Q'S LIST. THESE AMENDMENTS WILL ALSO REPLACE WHAT IS CURRENTLY A STAFF DRIVEN VARIANCE PROCESS FOR PLA FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WITH A REQUIRED REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ALLOWING FOR A MORE PUBLIC PROCESS. AMENDMENTS 14 FIVE AND 14 SIX ARE DIRECTED TO THE APPENDIX H, THE STORMWATER DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL. TO CLARIFY AGAIN, SAN ANTONIO'S POLICY GOALS AS FOUND IN THE ESSAY 2020 AND OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS. THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD ALSO STRENGTHEN TECHNICAL CRITERIA BY REQUIRING SOME BASELINE LEVEL OF DETENTION ON SITES, JUST AS WE DO MANY OTHER THINGS IN A DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED IN TREE PRESERVATION AREAS, LANDSCAPE AREAS, AND TO BE ABLE TO BE AN AESTHETIC FUNCTIONING COMPONENT OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE OTHER, UM, ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BY NEIGHBORHOODS IS THE FEES IN LIEU OF IT WAS A WONDERFUL CONCEPT, AND WE THINK IT HAS VALUE IN MANY WAYS, BUT WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THERE'S BEEN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BY THE CURRENT FEE IN LIEU DETENTION SYSTEM. SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WHEN FEE IN LIEU OF OR COLLECTED, WHETHER IT JUST BEING IN ONE WATERSHED, LEON, SAN ANTONIO, OR SATO, THAT IT ACTUALLY BE DIRECTED THOSE FEES DIRECTED TO THE SUB WATERSHED BASIN. AND FINALLY, AMENDMENT 14 OR 14 EIGHT IS REGARDING INFILL DEVELOPMENT. IN THIS SECTION, SINCE THIS HAS TURNED OUT TO BE A HUGE ISSUE FOR SOME OF THE INFIELD DEVELOPMENT IN OUR INNER CITY IS TO GET, INCLUDE A LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY THAT WOULD NOT ONLY REDUCE STORMWATER RUNOFF, BUT IMPROVE WATER QUALITY. AND FINALLY, IN AMENDMENT 14 NINE, WOULD IT MAKE SEVERAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS? THIS WOULD PROMOTE FLEXIBILITY, IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WOULD ALLOW TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL, WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE OR ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY THAT CAN BE USED FOR PARK DEDICATION. IN THIS AREA, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO YOUR STREET SCAPE TREES, SIDEWALKS, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND EVEN UTILITIES. THE OTHER ADJUSTMENT WOULD REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 60% OF LAND THAT'S BEING USED TO MEET FOR THIS REQUIREMENT, STAY IN AN IMPERVIOUS AREA AND BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE. WHILE PRIVATE FACILITIES SUCH AS CLUBHOUSES, SWIMMING POOLS AND TENNIS COURTS ARE AN IMPORTANT AMENITY. IT APPEAR, IT IS APPARENT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE COVID ISSUES, THAT THAT NEW PUBLIC LAND AND GREEN, GREEN SPACES ARE NEEDED TO PROVIDE THE OPEN SPACE FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER. WORKING SINCE 2017 TO DRAFT THESE AMENDMENTS, GEA HAS FOLLOWED AN OPEN PUBLIC PROCESS THAT INVOLVED COLLABORATION AND INPUT FROM CITY STAFF, THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS. SPONSORSHIP BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY MEANS THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD RECEIVE A FULL REVIEW ON THEIR MERITS, ALL THE APPROPRIATE BOARDS AND COMMISSION WHERE ROBUST AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC CONVERSATION CAN CONTINUE. WE KNOW OUR A HUNDRED YEAR STORMS ARE BECOMING MORE FREQUENT AND INTENSE, AND OUR U D C MUST KEEP PACE WITH SUCH REALITIES USING THE LATEST SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR REVIEW OF THESE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU MR. REED. I WILL TAKE, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, I THINK RELATED TO ANY OF THE ITEMS 14, ONE THROUGH 14 NINE. I HAVE A QUESTION ON 14 NINE. IS IT IN YOUR, IS IT, IS IT [03:25:01] YOUR INTENT FOR THE 60% TO BE OF PARKLAND DEDICATION TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD APPLY IN A PRIVATE GATED NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL? WELL, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT'S REALLY ADDRESSES THAT IS UP AGAINST, UM, HARBORER PARK AND THAT IT IS, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PAR PRIVATE PARK, BUT IT'S UP AGAINST A PARK AND A FLOODPLAIN. AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE GOALS IS TO HAVE OUR FLOODPLAINS PROTECTED. RIGHT NOW IT SAYS THAT IT'S 50%, BUT WE COULD MODIFY THAT. BUT IT IS A GOAL TO PROTECT THE FLOODPLAINS. WELL, WELL, THE PREMISE OF THE QUESTION IS, IS SO I LIVE IN A PRIVATE GATE NEIGHBORHOOD. MM-HMM. AND TO MEET THE PARKLAND DEDICATION OUR DEVELOPER YEARS AGO, PUT IN A COMMUNITY CENTER, A BASKETBALL COURT, A SWIMMING POOL, A TENNIS COURT. IS IT YOUR INTENT THAT ANYBODY IN THE CITY CAN COME IN THERE AND USE OUR PRIVATE FACILITIES? AND I GUESS MY MY POINT WOULD BE IS THAT YOU WOULD DEVELOP THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE SOME PUBLIC ACCESS TO YOUR PARK AMENITY. OKAY. OKAY. STAFF, IS THAT, DOES THAT, UH, VIOLATE ANY OF THE MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS OR ACCESS? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WHEN YOU'RE IN A PRIVATE GATED NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT THAT SOMETIMES GETS A LITTLE TRICKY. I MEAN, LIKE, POLICE AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO WRITE SPEEDING TICKETS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I, I THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED SOME TIME TO REVIEW THE IMPLICATIONS OF REQUIRING A PRIVATE, POTENTIALLY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT TO OPEN THOSE AMENITIES UP TO THE PUBLIC. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAY I ADDRESS THAT ONE MORE TIME? IS THAT THE PARK DEDICATION FOR THE PUBLIC WOULD BE OUTSIDE YOUR GATED COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL COUNCILMAN. THANK YOU. UM, MS. REED, YOU WERE PROBABLY HERE EARLIER WHEN WE HAD SOME OTHER EXPERTS COME UP AND TESTIFY AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY PRESENTED SOME SCIENTIFIC, UH, RESEARCH THAT THEY HAD DONE. MM-HMM. , ET CETERA. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT GIA HAS THE KIND OF ANSWER TO PRESENT, UH, DO YOU HAVE YOUR OWN EXPERTS, YOU HAVE EXPERTS WHO ARE BETTER THAN THE ONES WHO ARE HERE. UH, DO YOU FEEL LIKE WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING FITS INTO THE GENERAL LANDSCAPE OF THIS COMMUNITY? OR ARE YOU GOING TO STOP DEVELOPMENT BY PUSHING THESE FORWARD? LET'S SEE. THAT'S A MULTIPLE QUESTION. FIRST OF ALL, UM, WE DID SEEK ADVICE FROM STORMWATER ENGINEERS ON SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS. AND YES, THEY ARE IN SOME CONFLICT WITH THE WAY WE ARE PROCEEDING, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE, THE BEAR REGIONAL, UM, BEAR REGIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP HAS KIND OF A FOCUS ON THE FLOODPLAIN FOR FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS. AND AGAIN, WE'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT BACK TO A WATERSHED APPROACH. SO YES, IT IS DEFINITELY, I MEAN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT NEPHI JUST SAW SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS AND I JUST SAW SOME OF HIS AMENDMENTS. THERE'S ONLY 44. I'M STILL GOING THROUGH HIS. BUT I THINK THE BIG THING IS, AS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN A PUBLIC FORMAT, WELL, I GUESS I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT THE KIND OF FACTS THAT ARE, ARE GOING TO JUSTIFY THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU'RE MAKING. UH, AND DO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT ABOUT THAT? YES, I DO. OKAY. WELL, IN THAT CASE, UH, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SUPPORT, UH, ALL OF THESE 14, ONE THROUGH NINE TO GO TO THE P TAC. I JUST WANNA MAKE A COMMENT. UM, FIRST, DEBBIE, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORT IN PUTTING THESE TOGETHER. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU TOOK A LOT OF TIME AND, AND, AND, AND, UH, DID A REALLY GOOD JOB. UM, YOU KNOW, WHILE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH MOST OF THEM, UH, THERE ARE THREE THAT REALLY STAND OUT TO ME THAT, UM, I DO NOT WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE TAC AND IT'S SOLELY BASED ON THE REASONS THAT WE DISCUSSED HER IN WORK SESSION. UM, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD FROM DEFFIE AND HE PROVIDED SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION. AND BASED ON MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE IS, IS IS 14 DASH TWO WITH A NO INCREASE IN WATER SERVICE ELEVATIONS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE CODE TODAY SAYS YOU CAN'T INCREASE WATER SERVICE ELEVATIONS DOWNSTREAM OF YOUR PROPERTY OR HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS, WHICH IS FINE. BUT TO HAVE NO INCREASE IN WATER SERVICE ELEVATIONS ON YOUR PROPERTY IS SOMETIMES UNREASONABLE BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING THINGS DOING CULVERT CROSSINGS, WHICH AUTOMATICALLY INCREASE WATER SERVICE ELEVATIONS. YOU MIGHT BE, UM, IMPROVING A CHANNEL OR DOING, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING THAT WILL INCREASE WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS OR EVEN SOME OF THE NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN. LIKE NE SAID, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUTTING IN VEGETATION AND WHATNOT THAT WILL AFFECT VELOCITIES. AND IF IT SLOWS IT DOWN, IT'S GONNA INCREASE WATER SERVICE ELEVATION. SO THE GOAL [03:30:01] IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAS BEEN, BEEN, UM, TAKEN CARE OF BY THE TIME IT LEAVES YOUR SITE TO WHERE THERE IS NO WATER SERVICE ELEVATION INCREASE DOWNSTREAM AND THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT DOWNSTREAM. SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT FOR THOSE REASONS. 'CAUSE ON YOUR SITE, YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO MAKE IT WORK. AND I KNOW SOME OF THE THINGS COMING FROM, FROM THE CITY IS NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN AND LOOKING AT SHEARER STRESSES AROUND CULVERTS AND BRIDGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH WILL HAVE BEEN A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE WATER SERVICE ELEVATION. 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA DECREASE VELOCITIES THERE BY INCREASING WATER SERVICE ELEVATIONS. THE OTHER ONE I CAN'T REALLY GET BEHIND IS 14 DASH FIVE, WHICH IS DETENTION EVERYWHERE. THE REASON FOR THAT, HONESTLY, IS PRETTY SIMPLE. UM, IF YOU DETAIN EVERYWHERE, IT BASICALLY DELAYS THE PEAK AND IT BASICALLY WHAT IT DOES, YOU DETAIN EVERYTHING FOR THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME. IT ACTUALLY INCREASES THE PROBLEM. IT JUST PUSHES IT LATER. YOU END UP WITH WORSE FLOODING WITHIN 24 HOURS THAN YOU WOULD IF YOU JUST LET SOME OF IT GO AND DETAIN OTHER PARTS OF THE WATERSHED NET'S ANALOGY WITH THE TRAFFIC WAS PERFECT. UM, DETENTION EVERYWHERE DOES NOT WORK. IT'S SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, ACTUALLY. UM, THE LAST ONE THAT I REALLY CAN'T GET BEHIND IS 14 DASH SIX, WHICH IS THE ONE WHERE MANDATORY DETENTION, MANDATORY WATER QUALITY AND PAY THE FEE. UM, I DON'T THINK THAT DOING ALL THREE REALLY IS THE WAY TO GO. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE SYSTEM, THE WAY IT IS NOW MAY HAVE SOME FLAWS, BUT IT PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU'RE HAVING ADVERSE IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM OR THERE ARE ALREADY ISSUES DOWNSTREAM PAYING THE, UH, DOING ONSITE DETENTION IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO. UM, IF THERE'S NO IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM AND THERE'S NO ISSUES DOWNSTREAM, THEN PAYING THE FILO IS THE WAY TO GO BECAUSE THEN THAT CAN BE USED TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S ACTUAL VISION IN THE CODE, WHICH IS REGIONAL STORMWATER DETENTION. UM, I DO LIKE YOUR IDEA OF MAKING THAT. SO IT'S MAYBE NOT WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR WATERSHED. MAYBE IT'S MORE CITYWIDE. I DON'T KNOW. THERE'S GOT, MAYBE THERE'S SOME MECHANICS THERE THAT CAN BE WORKED ON. UM, BUT I CAN'T GET BEHIND REQUIRING ALL THREE ON EVERY PROJECT. 'CAUSE THAT THAT IS AN AUTOMATIC INCREASE IN COSTS. AND REALLY WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH AFFORDABILITY NOW. UH, WE'VE GOT BUILDERS PUTTING HOMES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY'RE SELLING FOR 200,000 THAT ARE 500 SQUARE FEET. AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BECOMING A REAL PROBLEM IN THE CITY. AND THIS WOULD REALLY EXACERBATE THAT PROBLEM. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE ONES, BUT 14, 2, 5, AND SIX, I WOULD NOT, ME PERSONALLY WOULD NOT LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE TAX. I ALSO CAN'T SUPPORT, IN ADDITION TO WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER PECK SAID, I CAN'T SUPPORT 14, EIGHT AND NINE. UH, THE REASON WHY IS THAT, UH, PARKLAND DEDICATION IS A, IS IS MOVING. IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF YOUR PROPERTY, THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT YOU HAVE, YOU NEED CERTAIN THINGS ON THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS, YOU NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY THE FEE. I'M NOT A FAN OF THE INTENT TO INCREASE THE, THE 50,000 TO 150,000 THRESHOLD. THE 50,000 THRESHOLD IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS I'VE DONE ON A SMALLER JOB HAS ALWAYS BEEN SLIGHTLY MORE THAN IT TAKES TO ACTUALLY BUILD THE PARKLAND. SO THERE ALREADY IS AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO DO STUFF FROM, IN MY RESPECT. AND I CAN'T GET BEHIND THE INTENT FOR, UH, PRIVATE OR OR CERTAIN PARKLAND DEDICATION BE ACCESSIBLE TO RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. I MEAN, WE HAVE, WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING PUBLIC PROJECTS AND, AND THEY DON'T WANT THE WHOLE CITY TO SHOW UP AND, AND, AND HANG OUT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY, THEY, WE, THEY GET ENOUGH. I GET ENOUGH OF THAT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW, WE GET 30 PEOPLE SHOW UP PLAYING BASKETBALL AND TRASH IN OUR PLACE, AND ONLY ONE GUY LIVES THERE, YOU KNOW? AND SO I JUST CAN'T, I CAN'T HAVE THAT SORT OF, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT INCENTIVE. UM, I JUST CAN'T GET BEHIND THOSE TWO. IN ADDITION TO THE THREE THAT COMMISSIONER PECK BROUGHT UP POINT OF INFORMATION, MR. CHAIR DID, UH, MY MOTION GET A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY, UH, COUNCILMAN COURAGE AND SECOND BY MR. BUSANTE TO MOVE FORWARD ON ALL ON 14 1 14 1 THROUGH 14 NINE. YES, MR. CHAIR. AND, AND TO BE CLEAR, I THINK BOTH COMMISSIONER ORIAN AND COMMISSIONER PECK MAKE GREAT POINTS. AND I HOPE THAT WITH WORK FROM THE CITY STAFF AND FROM, UH, THE GREATER EDWARDS AQUIFER ASSOCIATION, UH, THAT THESE WILL BE ADDRESSED AND WORKED OUT AND A LOT OF THE CONCERNS CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMISSION COMMITTEE. UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I, I I CAN'T SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE ITEMS AS WAS MENTIONED BY THE COMMISSIONER OREN AND PECK, UM, FOR THE SAME REASONS. I MEAN, I THINK HINDERING DEVELOPMENT IS A CONCERN WITH AFFORDABILITY, UM, AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES WITH THE DETENTION WITH THE INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF FLOODING. UM, BUT WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, SO, UH, TAKE A VOICE VOTE FOR ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF MOVING THOSE ITEMS FORWARD. YEAH. COMMENT AS WELL. OH, I'M SORRY. I WANNA ALSO VOICE MY CONCERNS WITH, UH, THE COMMENTS THAT SHARED FROM THE AUDIENCE EARLY [03:35:01] TODAY ABOUT, UH, THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF MAKING CHANGES FROM THIS AMENDMENT TO THE FLOOD PLAINS. AND I ALSO HAVE A CONCERN ON SOME OF THOSE ADJUSTMENTS AS WELL. HOWEVER, I, I WOULD LIKE, UH, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE PTAC TO HAVE, UH, STORMWATER FLOOD ZONE EXPERT OR ENGINEERS TO GO OVER THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND YOU CAN BRING YOUR STORMWATER ENGINEER AS WELL TO DEFEND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH I DISAGREE WITH. UH, BUT I WILL GIVE YOU THE CHANCE TO PRESENT THAT CASE WITH THE PTECH AS WELL. BUT I SHARE MY VOICE ON THE CONCERN ON THOSE I UNDERSTAND. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I, I DO RECOMMEND WE TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE FOR THIS MOTION. OKAY. WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON? ? THIS, THIS IS A VOTE FOR YOUR, UH, YOUR MOTION TO MOVE ALL OF THEM FORWARD. COUNCILMAN COURAGE. AYE. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE AYE. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? AYE. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? YES. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? NO. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? UH, NO. COMMISSIONER PECK? NO CHAIR PROFIT? NO. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU, MS. REED. OUR NEXT ITEM IS 16 ONE. UM, AND MR. RAY MORALES. OKAY. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE? YES. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M RAY MORALES, UH, 11 DISTRICT 10, UH, 2 0 3 MEDFORD DRIVE. I'VE RECENTLY STARTED, UH, VOLUNTEERING FOR DISTRICT FIVE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, AND, UH, I ALSO WORK WITH T ONE NC, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION. I ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT AND SPONSOR AMENDMENT 16 DASH ONE, WHICH IS A 25 FOOT ONE AND A HALF STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR R ONE, R TWO AND R THREE DISTRICTS. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON AMENDMENT PROPOSAL 16 DASH ONE. THIS AMENDMENT SEEKS TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS AND ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND USE CHARACTER AND SIZE PER THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE SAN ANTONIO TOMORROW PLAN, THE 1997 MASTER PLAN POLICY ONE B AND THE COMMUNITY PLANS ALREADY ADOPTED BY THE CITY SUCH AS THE GUADALUPE WEST SIDE COMMUNITY PLAN, HAVING A 35 FOOT STRUCTURE, WHICH IS WHAT THE CURRENT, UH, UH, CODE SAYS, UH, IS IN CONGRESS NEXT TO OUR LOW SCALE RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN OUR SMALL INNER CITY LOTS. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO GROWTH, NEW DEVELOPMENT OR GREATER DENSITY. THEY WILL HAPPEN. WE JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT WE BE INCLUDED IN IMPROVING AN ONGOING PLANNING FRAMEWORK, WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE THE RATE OF GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITIES. UH, I'VE CUT MY PRESENTATION SHORT, UH, BECAUSE, UH, INTEREST OF TIME AND, AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. WE DO APPRECIATE THAT. UH, ANY COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, PLEASE CHAIR, I MAY CHIME IN. I THINK, UM, THIS IS A GOOD ONE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON BECAUSE, UH, THESE R ONE IN OUR TWO DISTRICTS WERE JUST RECENTLY A, UH, APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2019. SO IT'D BE GOOD TO FIND OUT, UH, EXACTLY. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USED VERY MUCH. UM, YOU CAN'T GO THROUGH, YOU CAN'T HAVE R ONE AND R TWO WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A REZONING, SO IT'D BE GOOD TO FIND OUT WHAT, WHAT'S NOT WORKING, UH, WHEN WE JUST, UH, APPROVED IT. AND THEN THE HALF STORY THAT HE HAS INCLUDED IN THIS IS ALSO A GOOD DISCUSSION WITH THE OTHER HALF STORY, UM, AMENDMENT THAT'S, UH, CITY STAFF PUT FORWARD, AS WELL AS A THIRD, UH, HALF STORY, UM, DEFINITION THAT IS ALSO, UH, IN THIS LIST TODAY. SO, UH, THAT, THAT'S JUST, UH, MY, MY TAKE IN THAT WAY. WE JUST HAVE THAT, THAT ONGOING DISCUSSION AT THE TAP. OKAY. IS IT APPROPRIATE TO, WHAT IS THE OTHER AMENDMENT WITH THE HALF STORY? 16, FIVE. THE OTHER AMENDMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE DEFINITION OF A HALF STORY IS AMENDMENT 16 DASH FIVE. SO I THINK SIMILAR TO LA THE LAST ONE. UH, STEVE, IF YOU WANT TO, IS HE STILL HERE FIRST? IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND JUST DISCUSS THAT, WE CAN KIND OF TALK ABOUT BOTH SAME TIME. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT'S MR. VERTE. OKAY. STEVE VERTE, UH, 1 0 5 RENO, UM, AND [03:40:01] MEMBER OF THE TIER ONE STEERING COMMITTEE. UH, YES. SO, UM, AND I BELIEVE ALSO, UH, 1612 REFERS TO THE SAME TABLE AND HALF STORIES AS WELL. UH, BUT THIS ONE SPECIFIC TO THE HALF STORY DEFINITION ITSELF AND THE APPENDIX, WHICH, UM, GOES ALONG WITH STAFF'S, UM, OTHER AMENDMENT TO ACTUALLY, UH, REDEFINE THE DEFINITION IN THE APPENDIX. UM, SO STAFF, UH, SPECIFICALLY REMOVED, UH, THE DORMER, UH, UH, WORDING, WHICH THE WAY IT WAS IN THERE WAS, WAS CONFUSING. AND, AND SO THAT, THAT THE CONFUSION REALLY IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS A HALF STORY WAS, WHAT WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? UM, I THINK TO THE LAY PERSON, A HALF STORY DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME HEIGHT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, FEEL OF A FULL HEIGHT OF A STORY. I MEAN, THAT, THAT WOULD BE WHAT IT WOULD IMPLY. STORIES AND HEIGHT ARE GENERALLY IN BUILDINGS CONSIDERED, UM, SOMEWHAT SYNONYMOUS. UM, SO THE, THE WAY THE WORDING ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ALLOWS CASES WHERE, BECAUSE ON THE THIRD FLOOR YOU MIGHT SUBTRACT THE STAIRWAY, THE CLOSETS, THE BATHROOMS, AND YOU COULD HAVE A FULL FOOTPRINT, THIRD STORY THAT IT'S THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE SECOND AND THE BOTTOM AND THE FIRST FLOOR, AND IT GETS DEFINED AS A HALF STORY. SO YOU'VE GOT WALLS GOING ON, FOUR SIDES, GOING THREE STORIES HIGH, AND THEN A PEAK ON TOP OF THAT. AND THAT'S CONSIDERED TWO AND A HALF STORIES. AND, AND THIS IS AN ISOLATED CASE. THIS HAS HAPPENED IN MANY PLACES IN THE CITY. UM, AND THIS IS, UH, I THINK NOT THE COMPROMISE THAT WAS INTENDED, UM, WHEN THIS WAS PUT IN THE CODE A FEW YEARS AGO, UM, AS A COMPROMISE AND A HALF STORY, IT WAS NOT TO BE SO IMPOSING AS A, AS A FULL THIRD STORY, WHICH BY, UH, CONVENIENT LAYOUT ARE. WE HAVE A FULL THIRST, UH, THIRD STORY BEING DEFINED AS A HALF STORY. SO I THINK THAT'S THE GENERAL GOAL OF TRYING TO RE REDEFINE. UM, NOW THE LANGUAGE IN THIS PARTICULAR, UM, AMENDMENT HERE WAS, UH, CONTRIBUTED BY A COUPLE ARCHITECTS. AND, AND MAYBE THIS ISN'T THE EXACT LANGUAGE WE NEED, UM, WITH 12 BY 12 SLOPES. UH, BUT THE POINT IS HOW DO WE DO BETTER DEFINE, UH, SOMETHING THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON SAYS, OH, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A FULL STORY. THAT'S LESS THAN A FULL STORY. AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT HERE. SO, UM, THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE. I'D LIKE TO ADD, UH, TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS. D S D STAFF ALSO SUBMITTED AN AMENDMENT TO DEFINE THIS. SO SHOULD IT MOVE FORWARD TO T WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THESE HOLISTICALLY, YOU KNOW, COUPLE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS. UM, ADDITIONALLY, MR. MORALES'S FIRST AMENDMENT ALSO HAD EDITS TO OUR THREE 10 TABLE, AS DOES AMENDMENT 16 DASH 12. AGAIN, IF WE'RE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THEM HOLISTICALLY TOGETHER, THOSE ARE ALSO VERY SIMILAR. MS. JOHNSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT NOW SO WE CAN, UH, MS. JOHNSON ISN'T HERE. UM, I, GEORGE, ARE YOU WOULD, CAN YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR MARY? IS THAT OKAY? SO MY NAME IS GEORGE DE LA GARZA. I LIVE AT 4 4 3 CHADWELL DRIVE. I'M A RETIRED ARCHITECT, AND, UM, I GUESS I'M SPEAKING FOR MARY JOHNSON, BUT, UH, HER, HER AMENDMENT RELATES TO MINE. UM, BUT I WANTED TO SAY, UH, I'M WITH THE JEFFERSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I WORKED ON THE N C D IN 2008, AND, UH, I WAS ALSO ON THE TWO TH 2007 I D Z, UM, C C R AND THE 2000 17, 0, 17 R M M F, UM, UH, TASK FORCE. SO, UM, AND I'VE WORKED WITH MANY PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, THE COUNCILMAN, THE, THIS SIDE OF THE, UH, PROFESSIONALS, EVEN DEVELOPERS. UM, BUT WHAT MARY'S INTENT WAS, [03:45:01] UH, WE GRAPPLED WITH A HALF STORY BECAUSE WE HAD TWO ARCHITECTS IN THE ROOM, AND I HAVE EVEN A DIAGRAM HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD PUT THAT UP. BUT ANYWAY, THE, I THINK THE BEST, WHAT WE FINALLY DECIDED ON THE HALF STORY WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE HALF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE STORY BELOW IT. AND, UH, THE BEST WAY TO BRING THE SCALE OF THAT DOWN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH HAVE SMALLER, UH, SMALLER HOUSES OR SINGLE STORY HOUSES, WAS EITHER SIDE WAS TO SLOPE THE ROOF, UM, WITH, UH, FROM A THREE 12 TO 1212 PITCH. SO IF YOU DO THAT, AND THERE'S SEVERAL WAYS TO DO THAT, AND YOU USE DORMERS, THEN THE APPEARANCE OF THAT UPPER, THAT THIRD STORY, UM, OR HALF STORY, CAN BE MADE TO BROUGHT, UH, BE BROUGHT INTO SCALE WITH A 23 FOOT, UH, GABLE, UM, SURROUNDING THE BUILDING. SO, UH, HER DEFINITION, SHE WANTS TO PUT IN, UH, AS NOTE 14, AND THEN INCLUDE THAT IN, UM, UH, THE APPROPRIATE, UH, PLACES IN TABLE, UH, THREE 10 WITH AN ASTERISK. AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE I THINK OUR FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX. SO THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE SHE WAS GONNA PRESENT TO YOU. AND MARY AND I WORKED, WE'RE KIND OF TIED TOGETHER ON MINE AND HERS. I'M ON, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA DISCUSS THE, MY AMENDMENT, WHICH IS 69, BUT, UH, WE WERE ON THE RM MF TASK FORCE. AND WHAT WE WERE CHARGED WITH WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE THREE STORY DEVELOPMENTS IN THESE SINGLE STORY NEIGHBORHOODS WERE OF THE SCALE AND CONTINUITY AND, AND CON AND BE AND CONTEXTUAL TO THE REST OF THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WE ACCOMPLISHED SOME SETBACK ISSUES, SOME BLOCK A, UH, BLOCK FACE AVERTING ISSUES, BUT WE LEFT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS, UM, ON THE TABLE. AND, UH, SOME THOSE THINGS WERE THE DENSITY, UH, UH, DENSITY LOT COVERAGE, SIZE, HEIGHTS, ROOF PITCH AND OPEN SPACE AND PARKING, UM, INCLUDING BUFFERING. SO, UH, IN MY 69, IF I CAN GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT IT, UM, WE WERE GOING TO, UH, UH, MODEL AFTER, THERE'S A CURRENT SECTION OF THE U G C. IT'S A COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT HOUSING, AND WE JUST USE THAT SECTION TO, UH, DEFINE A NEW ATTACHED DWELLING SECTION OR STRUCTURES, IF YOU MAY. AND THE CITY IS NOW IN THEIR, UM, AMENDMENT 5 35 DEFINED THE SINGLE STRUCTURES FOR RM FOUR, FIVE, UH, FIVE AND SIX AS ATTACHED. SO KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF US TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO IMPLEMENT THIS. WE'VE KIND OF HAD TO CHANGE GEARS A LITTLE BIT, BUT WHAT WE'VE DESIGNED, THE, UH, WHAT'S IN THE LOWER SECTIONS OF THE, OF, UH, THE ATTACHED DWELLING INFRASTRUCTURES, UH, IS, UH, REGULATIONS FOR THE SIZE AND LOT COVERAGE, THE HEIGHTS IN THE ROOF PITCH, WHICH IS RELATED TO MARY'S, UM, AMENDMENT AND DENSITY AND SETBACKS. UM, SPECIFICALLY IN THE COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT, UM, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, IT LIMITED THE, UH, LOT COVERAGE FOR 40%. THAT'S PRETTY CRITICAL BECAUSE ON A SIX ACRE LOT YOU PUT, UH, THREE ATTACHED UNITS ON THERE AND YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH LEFT. UM, SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH LEFT FOR LANDSCAPING, PARKING, BUFFERING, ALL OF THOSE. UH, AND, AND THIS WAS OUR BEST WAY I THINK, TO USE THE COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AS A TEMPLATE TO, UH, UH, MAKE SURE THAT, UH, WE ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL AND, UH, RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE RESPECT TO SCALE CONTEXT AND CONNECTIVITY OF THE IMMEDIATE AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING BUFFERING AND SCREENING OF, OF, UH, ADEQUATE SCREENING. SO IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT EITHER ONE OF THOSE AMENDMENTS, I THINK I'M HERE TO ANSWER THOSE. OKAY, THANKS. SO WE, WE HAVE, WE'RE KIND [03:50:01] OF DISCUSSING 16 1, 5, 9, AND 12. SO, UH, COMMISSIONER BUSTANI, UH, YES, MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, I THINK IT'S CLEAR FROM THE MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS OF HALF STORY THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED. SO CERTAINLY I WANT TO INCLUDE THAT. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING THE TABLES THREE 10, UH, BUT AT THIS TIME I WOULD MOVE TO SUPPORT 16 1 16, 5 16 9 AND 1612. SECOND. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? UM, I HAVE COMMENTS. UM, UM, THESE FOUR AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING, REALLY THE ONE, FIVE AND 12 IS WHAT I'M REFERRING TO NOW. UM, THE, THE LANGUAGE AND THE DEFINITION OF A HALF STORY GETS VERY PRESCRIPTIVE, DOESN'T IT? AND I WONDER IF THAT'S GOING TO BECOME SOMETHING THAT IS A CONFLICT WITH, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DIFFERENT, UH, OTHER KIND OF DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT MAYBE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. YES. UM, SO I DO SUPPORT THIS MOVING FORWARD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT, UM, I, UM, I FEEL CAUTIOUS ABOUT THAT PRESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE, UM, REGARDING WHAT A HALF STORY MAY BE DISCUSSION. AND, AND I THINK THAT WE ALSO, UM, NEED TO CONSIDER THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THESE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE IN, BECAUSE ZONING DISTRICTS APPLY ACROSS MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND NOT JUST IN A PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BUNGALOWS OR COTTAGES OR SINGLE STORY STRUCTURES. THEY MAY NOT HAVE HOUSES WITH SLOPED ROOFS. IN A LOT OF THE CASES, THEY MIGHT HAVE A LOWER SLOPE OR A FLAT ROOF. AND SO CONTEXT TO ME IS GONNA BE MORE IMPORTANT HERE THAN LAYING A BLANKET HEIGHT OR LOT DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION OVER, OVER THESE, UM, ZONING DISTRICTS. SO, THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER? CO COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? SO WE HAVE A, A I FOR FORGOT. COMMISSIONER BUSTANI, DID YOU MAKE THE MOTION? YES, I MADE A MOTION FOR TO MOVE FORWARD 16 1 16 5 AND 1612. AND I INCLUDED NINE AS WELL IN MY MOTION. 16 NINE AS WELL. OH SIX, ALL FOUR, CORRECT? YES. YES. MR. CHAIR. ALL FOUR. THE SECOND WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER ORIAN. COMMISSIONER ORIAN. OKAY. ANY FURTHER COMMENT? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. YEAH. 6 0 6 AND, UH, COMMISSIONER LOPEZ IS LEAVING THE MEETING. I THINK WE STILL HAVE QUORUM. CORRECT. OKAY. UH, NEXT ITEM. UH, MR. GARCIA, UH, I THINK ITEM 16, 2, 3, AND FOUR. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS AND COUNCILMAN COURAGE. MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA. I AM A MEMBER OF THE, UH, TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE, A BOARD MEMBER OF THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. AND BY THE WAY, THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION IS A COALITION MEMBER. I WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE CITY'S TASK FORCE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND I D Z. ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS FOR AGENDA ITEM 20, AMENDMENT 16 DASH TWO AND 16 DASH THREE ON TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO FURTHER STABILIZE AND PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND HELP ALLEVIATE THE ACUTE HOUSING SHORTAGE IN THE CITY, IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. SINCE 2019, WHEN THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL CODE WAS IMPLEMENTED IN SAN ANTONIO, THE TYPE TWO STR, WHICH ARE NON-OWNER OCCUPIED, HAVE PROLIFERATED TO A RATE OF TWO AND A HALF TIMES OVER TYPE ONE OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS, DSDS SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UH, 2021 ANNUAL ANNUAL REPORT SHOWS FROM YEAR 2019 THROUGH END OF 2021, 1,903 TYPE TWO PERMITS WERE ISSUED WHILE IN THE SAME PERIOD, 765 PERMITS FOR TYPE ONE WERE ISSUED. AIR DNA'S INDUSTRY OUTLOOK IS FORECASTING THIS YEAR, A GROWTH RATE OF 15 TO 20% OVER 2021. AS THE US CONTINUES TO REBOUND FROM THE COVID [03:55:01] PANDEMIC, AS WE MOVE INTO THE COMING YEARS, WE EXPECT SAN ANTONIO WILL CONTINUE TO SEE ITS HOUSING INVENTORY TRANSITION TO MORE TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY BLOCK OF HOMES AS NEIGHBORHOODS. WE HAVE ALREADY EXPERIENCED HOW TYPE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTALS HAVE CHANGED THE COMMUNITY LANDSCAPE AND THE INTENT OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING. LET US BE CLEAR, WE ARE NOT PRO, UH, PROMOTING THE PROHIBITION OF TYPE TWO RENTALS, BUT BELIEVE THEY NEED TO BE BETTER MANAGED TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES. THEREFORE, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SPONSOR THE, UM, THE AMENDMENTS ITEM 16 DASH TWO AND 16 DASH THREE PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION MEMBERS. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. ANY QUESTIONS? UH, I HAVE, I HAVE A, A COMMENT, AND I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO CUT ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS OFF, BUT, UH, I JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE SEE THESE VARIANCES ON THE B O A AND THIS STUFF HASN'T BEEN OUT THAT LONG, AND THERE'S NO HARM IN JUST HAVING A DISCUSSION. YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE SOME TWEAKS. AND I THINK THAT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE LAST THREE OR SO YEARS WITH THIS STUFF, IT'S COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE. AND IF NOBODY WOULD OBJECT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, 16 TWO AND THREE AND JUST MOVE 'EM FORWARD TO THE TAC SECOND MOTION BY, UH, COMMISSIONER ORIAN AND SECOND BY COUNCILMAN. I NEVER HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS, ANY JUST FURTHER DISCUSSION. YES. IS, IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR, UH, THE, UH, SUBDIVISION THAT IT'S MANAGED BY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION BECAUSE THEY, THEY WILL HAVE ALREADY A REGULAR PLACE THAT CONTROL THESE NUMBERS. YEAH. WE BELIEVE THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS HAVE ALREADY THE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE. SO YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR THE AREAS THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HOMEOWNER. YES. AND, UH, WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE A REPORT HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN. CAN YOU PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN? THIS IS THE FIR THIS IS THE FIRST PAGE OF THE, UH, THE ANNUAL REPORTS, UH, PUBLISHED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. IT GIVES YOU AN INDICATION WHERE MOST OF THE, UH, UH, ST ARE LOCATED MAINLY IN DISTRICT ONE AND DISTRICT TWO. ALL RIGHT. UH, I WILL, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD. . ALRIGHT, WE GOT, WE GOT TO SEE YOUR GRAPH THOUGH, SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY, NO PROBLEM. UM, WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. SO, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY MUCH. WE, WE STILL HAVE 16 FOUR TO CONSIDER. SO YES, I HAVE A STATEMENT FOR 16 FOUR, AND, UH, I WOULD ALSO LIKE MR. LAWHEAD TO COME UP FROM OAKLAND ESTATES, UH, IF WE HAVE ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS. AGAIN, MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA. I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST SATCH HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION'S STEERING COMMITTEE WHO WORKS SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE OAKLAND ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS FOR AGENDA ITEM 20 AMENDMENT 16 DASH FOUR ON NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS. THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST IS NEEDED TO HELP STABILIZE AND PROTECT THE ESSENCE OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE RESPECTIVE LAND USE PLANS, AS WELL AS STRENGTHENING THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND ITS NEIGHBORHOODS BY IMPROVING ITS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLES. THE AMENDMENT ALLOWS EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS TO BECOME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ESSAY TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND ALSO PRESENTS A PATH FORWARD FOR OUTDATED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS. A AS IMPORTANT, THIS AMENDMENT EN ENSURES THAT LOCAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WILL BE A CENTRAL CORE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE SA TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SPONSOR THIS AMENDMENT. ITEM 16 DASH FOUR PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION MEMBERS. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, COMM, UH, COUNCILMAN? THANK YOU, MAYOR. UH, EXCUSE ME, , NOT YET. NOT YET. MOTION. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE LOOKED AT, UM, 16, ONE THROUGH 12 SO FAR. WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED 1, 5, 8, 9, 12, 2 AND THREE. THERE'S 4, 6, 7, 10, AND 11 LEFT. AND LET [04:00:01] ME JUST SAY THAT IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THIS ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS REALLY A GROUP OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR HELP ON TRYING TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. AND I THINK THAT IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE CITY TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT ASSISTANCE BY, UH, HEARING AND OFFERING, UH, OUR OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO MAKE THOSE PRESENTATIONS. EVEN WITH THE, UH, THE OTHER FOUR OR FIVE THAT WE HAVEN'T HANDLED YET, UH, IT WILL GO TO PTAC AND PTAC WILL LISTEN TO THEM, BUT THEY'LL ALSO LISTEN TO BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS, HOME BUYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS. THEY'LL LOOK AT OUR CITY STAFF, THE EXPERTISE THAT WE HAVE. ALL OF THAT WILL GO INTO THE MIX. AND THEN WE WILL HAVE BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE WHAT P T A C RECOMMENDS FROM ALL OF THAT INPUT. AND I JUST THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, ON THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS, ITEMS NUMBER 4, 6, 7, 10, AND 11, I WOULD JUST, UH, ASK FOR THE SUPPORT AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS COMMITTEE SUPPORT THOSE PRESENTATIONS TO THE PTECH BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING HARMFUL IN ANY OF THOSE. NOTHING THAT IS GOING TO STOP DEVELOPMENT. NONE, NOTHING THAT'S GOING TO, UH, ENFORCE ANYBODY TO HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. UH, IT'S JUST GOING TO GIVE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THOSE INTERESTS AND LET THE PTAC MEASURE THOSE AND BRING 'EM BACK TO US. AND WE STILL WOULD MAKE A FINAL DECISION AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE. SO, THAT'S MY MOTION THAT THOSE ITEMS, 4, 6, 7, 10, AND 11, UH, ITEMS 16, 4 6, 7 10 AND 11, UH, BE SUPPORTED BY THIS COMMUNITY J JUST TO MAKE SURE, THAT WAS 4, 7, 8, 10, AND 11. SIX. SIX WAS ALREADY APPROVED. SIX WAS ALREADY APPROVED. I STAND CORRECTED. CAN WE VOTE ON, ON NUMBER SEVEN INDIVIDUALLY? I, I'M JUST NOT A FAN OF THAT ONE. AGREED. ALRIGHT, I'LL WITHDRAW THAT AND SAY 4, 6, 10 AND 11 SINCE YOU'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SEVEN SEPARATELY. THANK YOU. I SECOND THAT. SO, YEAH. ALRIGHT. SO UNDERSTOOD. 4, 8, 10 AND 11. WE'LL DO SEVEN SEPARATELY. CORRECT? I THOUGHT WE ALREADY DID EIGHT. WE ALREADY DID SIX. SIX. OH, OKAY. MY, MY MISTAKE. 4, 8, 10, AND 11. THANK YOU. SO THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COURAGE. IS THERE A SECOND? UH, ORIAN COMMISSIONER ORIAN FOR PUSHING FORWARD TO ATTACK? UH, 16 FOUR. UH, 16 EIGHT. 1610 IS 1611. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. YES. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASS. THANK YOU. THANKS MR. VERTI. WE WILL JUST TAKE ON 16 SEVEN. THIS ONE'S JUST SO SPECIFIC. I WHAT IS ABOUT THIS? THEY DON'T WANNA ALLOW THE GAS STATION. OKAY. AGAIN, STEVE ORTEIG 1 0 5, RENO MEMBER OF TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE. UM, SO THREE AMENDMENT REQUESTS, TEN SEVEN BY THE ZONING COMMISSION AND THIS 1 16 7 AND ALSO 26 1, WHICH IF WE'RE FOLLOWING THIS SIMILAR PROCEDURES, WE'LL PROBABLY HEAR RIGHT AFTER THIS, I WOULD THINK, UM, ALL DEAL WITH WAYS TO, UM, HANDLE, UM, UH, THE ALLOWANCES FOR, FOR A GAS STATION ZONING. UH, GAS STATIONS ARE, UM, PERMITTED BY WRIGHT AND C TWO RIGHT NOW. UM, ZONING COMMISSION HAD SUGGESTED MAKING IT A SPECIFIC USE, UM, CONTRARY TO WHAT WE HEARD EARLIER TODAY THAT ALREADY WENT TO PTAC SO THAT THESE SISTER TYPE ONES LIKE WON'T APPARENTLY GO ALL AT THE SAME TIME TO PTECH, BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THEY COULD MAYBE REVISIT THAT AND THESE TWO ALL AT THE SAME TIME AS THEY ALL TOOK DIFFERENT APPROACHES. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, WE'RE VERY SENSITIVE TO, UM, PUTTING ANY KINDA RESTRICTIONS ON SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED. UM, HOW NOT TO DO THAT I THINK IS SOMETHING FOR PTAC TO DISCUSS. UM, THIS PARTICULAR 1, 16 7 THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING USED AN EXISTING SECTION OF THE CODE WHERE THERE WAS A, A RE FOOTAGE, UH, DISTANCE REQUIREMENT AND SIMPLY PUT GAS STATIONS IN THERE. UM, SO, UM, THE, THERE ARE, [04:05:01] UM, THERE ARE HEAD SHOPS THAT AREN'T A THOUSAND FEET. UM, I JUST SAW ON THE OTHER DAY OVER IN AVERAGE, I THINK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S EXACTLY RIGHT BEHIND THE HEAD SHOP . SO I DON'T KNOW THAT, UM, USING THIS APPROACH NECESSARILY, UM, CAUSES ANYONE TO GO OUTTA BUSINESS. BUT, UM, I THINK AGAIN THAT THIS, THESE DIFFERENT APPROACHES SHOULD ALL BE DISCUSSED BY PTAC. I MEAN, ANOTHER THING THAT, UH, I, I KNOW WE'VE HEARD EARLIER TODAY THAT THINGS WEREN'T VETTED AND DISCUSSED, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET STARTED IN THIS PROCESS. JUST AS THE COUNCILMAN REFERRED TO, WE, WE WANNA HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS. UM, THERE'S A BIG SUSTAINABILITY PUSH IN THIS CITY. THERE'S TWO LARGE COMMITTEES. UM, HOW TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW. 'CAUSE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION ISN'T PUBLIC. UM, SO HOW TO GET IN INVOLVED IN THAT IN COVID. I, I, I GUESS WE, WE COULD HAVE GOT IN SOME OF THEIR MEETINGS MAYBE, AND, AND MAYBE THAT'S BAD ON US, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I, I THINK THIS STARTS THE PROCESS OF, BECAUSE THE CITY, UM, KNOWS HOW TO GET ALL THESE STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE, THE, UM, THE, THE BULGE AND PUT OUT ON HOW THIS PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. THAT'S WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. UM, SO SUSTAINABILITY, WHY, WHY IS THAT RELEVANT OR WHY MIGHT THAT BE RELEVANT? UH, WELL, UM, CAN YOU DISPLAY THAT? UM, I MEAN THIS I GOT FROM THE STATE. THIS IS, UM, THIS IS ALL THE, THIS IS ALL THE TANKS IN SAN ANTONIO, ALL THE UNDERGROUND TANKS IN SAN ANTONIO, UH, 90 SOMETHING PAGES, UM, OVER 20, NEARLY 28 MILLION GALLONS OF STORAGE. AND, AND SO I THINK IN, IN THE TERMS OF PLANNING, WE'RE HERE AT PLANNING COMMISSION. I, I THINK WHAT WE'D BE THINKING ABOUT IS FOR SUSTAINABILITY IS THESE COMPANIES, UM, THEY, THEY COME IN FROM OUTTA STATE OUT OF TOWN. THEY HAVE A GREAT PRODUCT, BUT WHAT THEY DO IS THEY WANNA FIND SOME CHEAP LAND THEY DON'T AND, AND, UM, DEVELOP A NEW GAS STATION, PUT MORE TANKS IN THE GROUND. AND, AND WHAT THEY END UP DOING IS THEY, THEY PUT OTHER, UM, GAS STATIONS OUT OF BUSINESS, UH, WHICH IS FAIR. IF THEY'RE BETTER AND THE OTHER ONES GO OUT OF BUSINESS, MAYBE THAT'S FINE. BUT, UM, I THINK THERE REALLY OUGHT TO BE SOME SUSTAINABILITY, UM, INCENTIVES FOR THEM TO BUY THOSE OUT, BUY THAT LAND OUTRIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND, AND NOT PUT MORE TANKS IN THE GROUND. IF, IF WE'RE REALLY GONNA BE CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2050 AND NOT USING ALL THIS FUEL, DO WE REALLY WANT MORE TANKS IN THE GROUND? I THINK THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT SHOULD REALLY BE HAD. UM, SO I, I THINK THIS, UH, AGAIN, IS, IS JUST ANOTHER APPROACH. JUST LIKE, UH, I, WE'RE GONNA HEAR ABOUT 26 1, IT TAKES A DIFFERENT APPROACH WITH A CHART AND IT TRIES TO EXEMPT, YOU KNOW, EXISTING USES. MAYBE THAT LANGUAGE ISN'T RIGHT. MAYBE A LAWYER NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT. BUT, UH, LET'S, LET'S CONSIDER ALL THESE PLEASE. THANK YOU. UH, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER 26 1 AS WELL. MS. COLE, WHICH ONE? GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DT COLE. I LIVE AT 1 0 5 RENO STREET IN THE BACK PART OF GOVERNMENT HILL IN DISTRICT TWO, AND I'M A SMALL RETAIL BUSINESS OWNER IN DISTRICT 10. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 26 DASH ONE. THIS AMENDMENT WILL ADD A SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATION FOR GAS STATIONS. NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE NEXT TO A GAS STATION. URBAN NEIGHBORS ARE DIS DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY GAS STATION DEVELOPMENT. THE REASONS THIS GAS STATION DISTANCE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE SPONSORED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ARE RIGHT NOW. OUR SAN ANTONIO U D C ALLOWS GAS STATIONS TO BE BUILT WITHIN A FEW FEET FROM A HOME. RIGHT NOW, OUR SAN ANTONIO U D C ALLOWS GAS STATIONS TO BE BUILT WITHIN A FEW FEET FROM A SCHOOL. RIGHT NOW, OUR SAN ANTONIO U D C ALLOWS GAS STATIONS TO BE BUILT A FEW FEET FROM A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE GOOD PLANNING? NUMBER TWO, NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE LAVACCA, GOVERNMENT, HILL DEL CREST, BEACON HILL SHOULD NOT HAVE TO FIGHT ENCROACHMENT ON THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS BY GAS STATION DEVELOPMENT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE DOES LITTLE TO PROTECT NEIGHBORS. ONCE A PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, IT SEEMS [04:10:01] CITY PLANNERS COME UP WITH NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLANS THAT CAN BE, IS EASILY DISREGARDED. THE CITY IS PUTTING TIME, EFFORT, AND MONEY INTO BUILDING NEW SA TOMORROW PLANS. BUT WILL A RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECT YOU FROM A MEGA GAS STATION BEING BUILT NEXT DOOR? IT WILL NOT BECAUSE ONE PLAN AMENDMENT APPROVED BY A SITTING CITY COUNCIL WILL ALLOW HOMES TO BE DEMOLISHED AND MORE GAS STATION TANKS PUT INTO THE GROUND. WITH THE EXCEPTION IS IF YOU LIVE IN A GATED COMMUNITY, THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. UM, OLDER URBAN LEGACY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE MOST AT RISK OF LOWER COST RESIDENTIAL LAND BEING CONVERTED FOR COMMERCIAL USE, SPECIFICALLY IN, IN THIS CASE, MEGA GAS STATIONS. OLDER URBAN LEGACY OR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE OFTEN IN DENSER CLUSTERS WITH CLOSE LOT LINES. OLDER HOMES LACKING SUFFICIENT INSULATION. SMALL HOMES ON SMALL STREETS, OLDER URBAN LEGACY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE OFTEN THE LEAST CAPABLE OF OPPOSING THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCESS, WHICH CAN BE INTIMIDATING. UH, THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE DUE TO WORK SCHEDULES AND AGE AND LACK OF ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY OR KNOWLEDGE THEREOF, NEIGHBORS CANNOT RELY ON MASTER PLANS TO BE DEFENDED BY THE CITY. BOTTOM LINE, THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS ON HOW CLOSELY A GAS STATION CAN BE BUILT TO AN EXISTING HOMESCHOOL OR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU ALLOW FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ENGAGEMENT, THIS IMPORTANT PROCESS BY SENDING THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST THROUGH TO P TAC FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS EITHER 16, SEVEN OR 26. ONE, I HAVE A COMMENT. I I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF, OF, OF THIS WAY OF REGULATING LOCATIONS OF GAS STATIONS. I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO PUT A, TO PUT AN SS UH, IN THE ZONING CODE AND MAKE 'EM GO THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE OR SOMETHING. BUT, BUT I, I JUST CAN'T GET BEHIND A DISTANCE REGULATION FOR A GAS STATION THAT JUST DOESN'T DO IT FOR ME. SO MY, THAT'S MY 2 CENTS COUNCILMAN. THANK YOU. I HATE TO DISAGREE WITH MY NEIGHBOR. IT'S OKAY. UM, MY CONCERNS, UH, ARE, UH, ABOUT THE LEGACY OF THESE GAS STATIONS, PARTICULARLY WE HAVE ALL OVER THE CITY. WE HAVE GAS STATIONS BEEN CLOSED FOR 20 YEARS, 30 YEARS, AND STILL TANKS ARE UNDERGROUND THAT WERE NEVER PULLED OUT. AND IT STILL ADD TO THE, UH, UNSAFE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SOME OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THOSE GAS STATIONS. AND WHAT, WHAT ARE WE GONNA HAVE FIVE YEARS FROM NOW? WE'RE GONNA HAVE GAS STATIONS OR ARE WE GONNA HAVE EV STATIONS? I THINK ALL OF US KNOW THAT'S WHERE AUTOMOBILES ARE HEADING. AND TO PUT IN A GAS STATION TODAY IS PROBABLY NOT A PARTICULARLY GOOD INVESTMENT. YEAH, THERE'LL BE SOME CARS THAT'LL BE DRIVING AROUND USING GAS FOR 10 YEARS OR 15 YEARS. I WON'T BE, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE SOME. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE NEED MORE GAS STATIONS, BUT WE DO NEED MORE, UH, FACILITIES THAT CAN PROVIDE FOOD OR DRINKS OR OTHER CONVENIENCES WE HAVE. AND THAT'S WHERE THESE PLACES MAKE MOST OF THEIR MONEY. THEY SELL GAS ONLY A FEW PENNIES OVER THE COST THAT THEY PAY JUST TO PEOPLE TO GET PEOPLE TO STOP THERE. LET'S GET THEM TO START PUTTING IN MORE EV STATIONS THAT'LL GET PEOPLE TO STOP THERE INSTEAD OF BEARING MORE GAS TANKS IN THE GROUND. AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A POINT OF DISCUSSION THAT THE PTAC SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE THEY'RE PLANNING FOR FIVE YEARS. WELL, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW THERE MAY BE 30%, 40% MORE EVS ON THE ROAD THAN CARS, BUT WE'LL STILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF GAS STATIONS UNLESS WE START DOING SOMETHING ABOUT ENDING THE GROWTH OF GAS STATIONS IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S MY 2 CENTS. A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW ANY OF THESE, THERE'S GONNA END THE GROWTH OF GAS STATIONS, YOU KNOW, JUST BY LIMITING WHERE IT'S GONNA BE, ISN'T GONNA DO THAT. BUT WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHAT'S, WHAT I THINK WAS MENTIONED DURING WORK SESSION. I WOULD LIKE A REFRESHER ON THAT IS SPECIFICALLY 16 DASH SEVEN, IF WE, UH, YOU KNOW, LIMIT THEM, YOU KNOW, GAS STATIONS TO 1000 FEET FROM ANY OF THE PROPOSED USE OR THOSE USES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED THERE. CAN YOU ADDRESS THE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS ISSUE THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN POPS UP AND WHAT THE SEVERITY OF THAT IS AND HOW THAT'S ALL SNARLED? YES. WE, UH, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WHEN THE OTHER AMENDMENT WENT THROUGH, UH, P T A. SO YES, CREATING THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT, IF THAT WERE TO PASS, THEN THAT DOES CREATE A NON-CONFORMING SITUATION FOR THOSE GAS STATIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. UM, NON-CONFORMING MEANS THAT, UM, YOU, IF YOU WANT TO IMPROVE IT, UH, BY MORE THAN 50% OF THE VALUE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT HOW EVEN JUST, YOU KNOW, IMPROVING THE TANKS OR REPLACING THE TANKS COULD ALREADY, UH, TRIGGER [04:15:01] THEM OVER THAT OF 50%. THEN THEY HAVE TO REZONE BECAUSE NON-CONFORMING, YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO DO, UM, MINOR, UH, REPAIR MAINTENANCE LESS THAN 50%. AND AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CLOSE IT DOWN FOR MORE THAN A YEAR, YOU'RE ABLE TO, TO KEEP THAT AND, AND GRANDFATHER IT IN PERPETUITY. UM, SO YES, IT WOULD CREATE A SITUATION HOWEVER, AND, AND THEN AS THIS TEXT IS WRITTEN, YOU, YOU CAN'T EXEMPT NON-CON YOU CAN'T EXEMPT THEM FROM BECOME NON BECOMING NON-CONFORMING. 'CAUSE NON-CONFORMING COMES FROM STATE LAW. UH, SO IT, IT APPLIES TO ALL, OR IT APPLIES TO NONE. SO YOU CAN'T EXEMPT THEM AND SAY WE'RE GONNA CREATE THIS ROLE, BUT YOU GUYS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE ARE, ARE NOT NON-CONFORMING. THEY AUTOMATICALLY WILL BECOME NON-CONFORMING. THAT'S HOW STATE LAW WORKS WITH NON-CONFORMING. SEEMS LIKE THERE WOULD BE A HUGE NUMBER OF THESE BECAUSE I MEAN, A LOGICAL SPOT FOR A GAS STATION IS NEAR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU CAN, ON YOUR WAY HOME STOP AND PICK UP A GALLON OF MILK AND FILL YOUR CAR UP. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, A GAS STATION, YOU KNOW, A NON-LOGICAL SPOT IS, I MEAN, THEY'RE THERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, MAJOR HIGHWAY INTERSECTIONS AND WHATNOT. I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD SPOT. BUT I MEAN A LOT OF THESE ARE, ARE, ARE PAIRED WITH, WITH NEIGHBORHOOD STORES, RIGHT? SO YOU SEE THEM IN THOSE AREAS A LOT. AND IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT LIMITING, YOU KNOW, TO A HOUSE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS JUST, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS. IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT'S JUST NOT GOOD. IT SEEMS, IT SEEMS UN IT SEEMS TO UNFAIRLY LIMIT THOSE BUSINESSES. I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT POINT. UH, IF SOMETHING BECOMES NON-CONFORMING AND THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS AND THERE'S A CONCERN THAT THE TANKS ARE IN THE GROUND, I WAS TOLD, UH, THAT IF YOU'RE NON-CONFORMING, IT'S, IT'S, BANKS WON'T GIVE YOU A LOAN. SO, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S AN ISSUE WHERE IF SOMEBODY IS WANTING TO BUY PROPERTY THAT'S NONCONFORMING AND THEIR GOAL IS TO MOVE TANKS, THEY MAY, THEY MAY BE STIFLED BY NOT BEING ABLE TO GET A BANK LOAN TO DO THAT PROJECT BECAUSE OF THAT. AND THAT, THAT'S ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE. UM, BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S, YEAH. UM, I LIVE IN THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE RECENTLY HAD, UM, SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A GAS STATION POTENTIALLY MOVING INTO THE FORMER COMMERCIAL REFUELING ZONE THERE BETWEEN FLORIDA AND CAROLINA. AND, UM, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS UNDESIRABLE TO HAVE A GAS STATION GO IN NEXT TO AN EXISTING HOME. UM, I, I SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT. UM, SO I HAVE SOME SORT OF, UH, QUALMS WITH HOW SOME OF THESE ARE PHRASED, BUT I THINK THAT THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT IN THE TACK. UM, I AGREE THAT THESE ABANDONED TANKS ARE DETRIMENTAL TO, UM, OUR ENVIRONMENT AND TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND OUR STREETSCAPES AND OUR CITY. UM, AND, UM, I ALSO, SORRY, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY , I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. . SURE. UM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY ARE CONFLATED WITH HEAD SHOPS IN, UM, 16 SEVEN. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. UM, SO I'M JUST GONNA STOP TALKING, BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU STAFF. ONE MORE QUESTION. IS THERE A, IS THERE A SPECIFIC USE REQUIREMENT FOR ZONING DISTRICTS TO HAVE A GAS STATION OR ARE THEY'RE JUST FLAT OUT ALLOWED IN C TWO? SO CURRENTLY THE CODE ALLOWS A GAS STATION BY RIGHT IN C TWO THERE WAS AN, THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT A ZONING COMMISSION PUT FORWARD TO REQUIRE AN SS IN C TWO. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE WAY HANDLE, SO THAT'S MOVING FORWARD TO THE PROCESS. OKAY, THANK YOU. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IF THROUGH ZONING IS A MORE APPROPRIATE WAY TO HANDLE THAT. UM, AND LIKE COMMISSIONER ORIAN SAID, THERE MAY BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WITH DENIABILITY OF FINANCING ON THESE ABANDONED SITES IF YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THEM, , AND WE CAN'T REDEVELOP 'EM. SO, UM, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WANNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I THINK WE CAN TAKE 'EM SEPARATELY OR TOGETHER. UM, BUT LET'S MAYBE MOVE SEPARATELY ON 16 SEVEN. WE SEPARATE? YEAH, LET'S START WITH 16 SEVEN. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO NOT ALLOW IT TO GO TO TECH SEC. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PECK. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUKI ON 16 SEVEN TO NOT MOVE FORWARD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED NA NAY NA, ALL. COMMISSIONER PECK? YES. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? NO. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? NO. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? YES. COMMISSIONER LOPEZ. OH, SORRY, HE'S OUT. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER? NO. COMMISSIONER MILAM? NO. COMMISSIONER BUSTAMANTE? NO. [04:20:02] COUNCILMAN. COURAGE? NO. CHAIR. PROFIT? YES. MOTION. MOTION FELLS. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE THIS ISSUE, UH, WITH SUPPORT TO THE P TTAC FOR 26. ONE FOR 16 DASH SEVEN 16 DASH SEVEN. THE, THE MOTION. I APOLOGIES. YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY. MOTION BY, UH, COUNCILMAN COURAGE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL, DO WE NEED TO A VOICE FOR IT OR SHOULD WE DO ROLL, ROLL CALL. VOTE. I, I RECOMMEND ANOTHER ROLL CALL. OKAY. COUNCILMAN COURAGE? YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGEL? YES. COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES. COMMISSIONER ZUKI? NO. COMMISSIONER SINNER? NO. COMMISSIONER MILAM? YES. COMMISSIONER ORIAN? NO. COMMISSIONER BUSANTE? YES. COMMISSIONER PECK? NO. CHAIR PROFIT? NO. MOTION FAILS. NO. MOTION FAILS. IT WAS FIVE FIVE. WE HAVE NO MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE, UH, THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. UM, COMMISSIONER ORIAN, CAN I, UH, MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD 26 1 TO THAT? YES. I, I AGREE. SO THE MOTION IS TO MOVE FOR CONTINUANCE ON 16 SEVEN AND 26. ONE. YES. TO THE NEXT, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH IS MARCH, WHATEVER. IT'S SEVENTH. MARCH 7TH. NINE. MARCH 9TH. MARCH 9TH. MARCH 9TH. DO YOU WANNA DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE? WHO, WHO, WHO? YEAH. WE NEED A SECOND FOR THAT. I THINK WE HAD A, A MOTION BY I CAN GIVE A SECOND. RIGHT. SECOND. SO, MOTION BY ORIAN. SECOND BY BUSTANI. RIGHT? I, I THINK VOICE WAS FINE. ALL ALL IN FAVOR? A. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. IT'S 6 36. WE ARE GONNA TAKE A, UH, BREAK. AND THEN MY APOLOGY. I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, BUT WE NEED A BREAK. UH, WE'LL RECONVENE AT SIX 50. IS THAT ENOUGH TIME? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 6 36 FOR ADJOURN. ARE WE READY? 30 MINUTES. FIRST BATCH. ALRIGHT, IT'S UH, 6 55. WE'RE GONNA RECONVENE AND WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS, UH, AMENDMENT 17 ONE. MS. JOHN ANDERSON TIER. SO I DO WANNA READ, UH, A STATEMENT INTO THE RECORD. THIS ITEM WAS SUBMITTED BY JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO. THEY WERE HERE EARLIER. THEY HAD TO LEAVE. THEY'VE CONVEYED TO US THAT, UH, SOME OF THEIR STAFF THAT WOULD ORDINARILY BE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED, UH, FOR VARIOUS REASONS. UH, BUT THEY HAVE ASKED THAT WE READ THIS INTO THE RECORD, UH, THAT J B S A IS IN SUPPORT. THIS AMENDMENT IS MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH THE COMPATIBLE USES AS OUTLINED IN THE 2019 LACKLAND AQS LAND AREAS BELOW MILITARY AIRPORT, TAKEOFF AND FINAL APPROACH, PATHS ARE EXPOSED TO SIGNIFICANT DANGER OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO LIMIT THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT AND IN INTENSITY OF USES IN SUCH AREAS. MR. BECK, I HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS ONE. I AM, UH, I'M IN FAVOR OF IT MOVING FORWARD TO THE TACK FOR DISCUSSION. BUT THERE WAS A, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE YEARS AGO, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A WORKING GROUP THAT, THAT DISCUSSED THE J L AND ALL THE, HOW THE MILITARY'S MISSION AND DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING USES IN THE CITY CAN WORK IN HARMONY TOGETHER AND KIND OF LAID SOME GROUND RULES FOR ALL FOR HOW THAT ALL, YOU KNOW, GETS PUT TOGETHER. UM, THIS AMENDMENT, I DISCUSSED TH THIS WITH SOME OF THOSE FOLKS, AND THIS AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN SEEN BY ANYBODY ON THAT TASK FORCE. SO, WHILE I'M NOT IN, WHILE I'M IN FAVOR OF IT MOVING FORWARD TO THE TAC BEFORE IT GETS TO THE TAC, I WOULD REALLY LIKE IT TO GET BACK TO THAT WORKING GROUP SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED ABOUT THIS CAN LOOK AT IT AND COME TO MAKE SOME TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION OR MAYBE MAKE SOME CHANGES. I HONESTLY DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE TAC THAT'S PROBABLY EVEN QUALIFIED TO TALK ABOUT THIS 'CAUSE THEY HAD NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR [04:25:01] QUESTIONS? I MOVE TO SEND THIS ITEM TO THE TAC WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER PECK'S RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SO, UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ORIAN, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PECK TO MOVE 17 ONE FORWARD TO THE TAC WITH COMMISSIONER PECK'S COMMENTS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NEXT ITEM IS 19 ONE. UH, MELISSA BRYANT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. UNFORTUNATELY, MELISSA BRYANT IS NOT HERE. MY NAME IS SANDY POLLINI. I'M AN ENGINEER WITH SAN ANTONIO AUTHORITY, UH, A HUNDRED EAST ZA STREET. LOOKS LIKE OUR PRESENTATION IS NOT UP, SO I'M JUST GONNA TALK, IT'S JUST TWO SLIDES, SO IT'S NOT GONNA TAKE TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME. SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A PROPOSAL FOR, UH, CREATING A WATER QUALITY OVERLAY AREA WITHIN, UH, WESTSIDE CREEKS. IT'S BASICALLY TO SUPPORT THE, UH, INVESTMENT THAT'S COMING IN FOR WEST SIDE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, 75 MILLION FROM, UH, ARMY CORPS AND A TOTAL OF 115 MILLION. UM, THE DIFFERENCE BEING PAID THROUGH, UM, BEAR COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS. SO THIS IS THE, UH, BOUNDARY OF OUR WEST SIDE CREEKS RESTORATION PROJECT. AND THE WATER QUALITY OVERLAY AREA BOUNDARY MATCHES EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE. IT'S FOUR CREEKS, AMAZON, APACHE, MARTINEZ, AND PART OF SAN PEDRO. SO AGAIN, UM, WE HAVE WEST SIDE CREEKS FUTURE INVESTMENT PROTECTION. THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS HERE. BETWEEN, BETWEEN THESE FOUR CREEKS, UH, IN THE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREA, WE WILL BE REQUIRING, UH, STREAM, UH, TREATMENT FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF. AND THE PROTECTION AREA IS ONLY ABOUT A HUNDRED FOOT FROM BOTH SIDES OF SAN ANTONIO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, UH, BOUNDARY. SO IT'S ONLY A HUNDRED FOOT FROM THE S A C I P BOUNDARY. IT'S NOT THE COMPLETE AREA. SO ONLY THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE WHOLLY ARE PARTIALLY WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR BOUNDARY WILL BE PART OF THIS, UH, REQUIREMENT. IT'S MAINLY TO PRE, UH, PREVENT ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON FROM THE STORM WATER THAT'S COMING OFF OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THESE CREEKS. AND TO MAINTAIN THE NATIONAL HABITAT SAFETY AND THE ACCESS TO THE TRAILS. BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF TRAILS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA AND THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, NEW TRAILS THAT ARE COMING UP IN THAT AREA WITH THE BOND 2022 PROJECTS AS WELL. VERY SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD. UH, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONER. UH, I HAVE A COMMENT. UH, WE HEARD DISCUSSION IN THE WORK SESSION THAT, THAT THERE, THERE WASN'T ANY REAL OPPOSITION TO WHAT THE LANGUAGE WAS OR MOVING IT FORWARD, BUT THE TIMING OF IT BECAUSE, UH, THE MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION OF SARAH IS ISN'T IN IN PLACE YET, AND IT MAY NOT BE FOR MANY YEARS. CAN YOU SPEAK ONTO THAT? YES. UH, WE HAVE HEARD THAT ACTUALLY NE WE HAS BROUGHT THAT UP COUPLE OF TIMES. UM, ONE OF THE THING, MAIN REASONS THAT WE WANTED THIS TO GO FORWARD, UH, I'LL GIVE YOU TWO REASONS. ONE, UH, BEING THE FACT THAT WE ARE ALREADY SEEING REDEVELOPMENT HAPPENING IN THAT AREA. WE WANT TO GET AHEAD OF THAT CURVE, UM, ESPECIALLY TO PROTECT THE, UH, WATER QUALITY, UH, COME COMING INTO THE CREEKS. TWO, WHEN CORE DOES PROJECTS, IF THESE THIS AMENDMENT OR THIS, UH, LEGISLATION GOES IN EFFECT BEFORE CORE COMES IN, ANYTHING THAT THEY DO FOR NEXT FIVE, 10 YEARS, HOWEVER LONG THAT PROCESS TAKES FOR THE RESTORATION TO HAPPEN, THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO FIX IT. SO IF EVEN IF WE GO NEXT, YOU KNOW, WITHIN NEXT FIVE YEARS AND SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS AMENDMENT. SO WE HAVE, UM, WE ARE REQUIRING THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE ADJACENT, UH, LOTS TO, UH, BUILD IN BMPS IF CORE FOR SOME REASON HAS DISTURBED IT BECAUSE IT'S JUST LOTS AGAIN, AND IT'S A LARGER GENERATION PROJECT. WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS GOES IN BEFORE CORE COMES IN AND THEY START DOING THEIR WORK SUCH THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE INVESTMENT THAT WE HAVE PUT IN IS SAFE. SO ONE, WE HAVE SEEN, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING, SO IT'LL BE BETTER TO TIME IT NOW ONLY THIS IS, THIS ONLY APPLIES TO REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES OR NEW DEVELOPMENT. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY THERE. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. OKAY. WELL, AND I, AND WE ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS, UH, THERE THERE'S A LOT OF, OF, OF REVIEW AND, AND, AND, AND, UM, OVERSIGHT THAT'S BEING GRANTED TO SARAH DUE TO THIS REQUEST. I MEAN, THOSE, THAT'S ANOTHER BIG TENANT WHEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY WE WOULD PROMOTE SENDING SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE YOU YOU GUYS, UH, RIGHT OF REVIEW [04:30:01] AND RIGHT OF DENIALS, UH, WHEN YOU'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DESIGNATED PLAYER YET, I GUESS IS A WAY TO PUT IT. THE REVIEW PROCESS IS MORELY COORDINATION, JUST SO WE HAVE, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF TRAILS THAT WE MAINTAIN AND OWN. AND, UH, THE ACCESS TO THOSE TRAILS, IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE, YOU KNOW, THE REVIEW PROCESS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE IN TERMS OF WATER QUALITY REVIEW IN RIO. WELL, I MEAN, WE HEARD, WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM OUR MAN, UH, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, UH, ENGINEERS AND STAFF THAT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO WAIT, UH, YOU KNOW, UNTIL THAT, AT THAT TIME WHERE SARAH HAS MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION AND I'M, I'M GONNA FOLLOW THEIR, THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS. SO I, I WON'T BE IN SUPPORT AT THIS TIME. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I THINK IT'S TOO PREMATURE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, SIR. WHAT KIND OF OBLIGATIONS DOES THIS PUT ON ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION BESIDES THE WEST SIDE CREEK GROUP? OKAY, SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY COORDINATED WITH, UH, REAL ESTATE COUNCIL. WE HAVE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC WORKS, D S T DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, UH, EVEN, UH, UH, WITH, WE HAVE SPOKEN TO COUNCIL WOMEN CASTILLO, AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING IN, UH, COORDINATION, UH, WITH DISTRICT ONE AS WELL. SO WE'VE SPOKEN TO ALL OF THEM ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THESE WILL, UH, UH, END UP ON THEIR PLACE, ANY, ANY ISSUES THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE. AND WE'VE HASHED OUT ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT. AND, UH, BECAUSE THIS AREA IS, IS, YOU KNOW, WELL ALREADY FULLY DEVELOPED, UH, WE'VE BEEN VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR GRANDFATHERED IN, UH, PROPERTIES, THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, AND WHAT APPLIES, WHAT DOESN'T APPLY FOR A A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IF THE LOT IS A CERTAIN SIZE. SO ALL THE OBLIGATIONS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE ARE ALREADY BEING, UM, UM, VETTED THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER INPUT PROCESS WITH EVERYONE IN THERE. BECAUSE I THINK I SAW THE RIVER AUTHORITY AND THEY'VE ALREADY AGREED TO ASSUME WHATEVER FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES ARE INCURRED IN ORDER TO ENFORCE ALL OF THIS. OR, YOU KNOW, SAWS IF, IF THEY MAY BE PART OF IT OR, YOU KNOW, MAINTENANCE IS, YOU KNOW, A MAINTENANCE HAS AS IN WITH ALL THE WATER ARE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE RIO 35, 2 10 IS THIS IS GONNA BE EXACTLY THE SAME. THE MAINTENANCE AS IT APPLIES TO THAT, WHICH, UH, THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE CITY. EVEN THIS ONE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE CITY. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, ALL THE COORDINATION, THE WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO, BECAUSE WE ALREADY DO DEVELOPER COORDINATION FOR ACCESS AND EVERYTHING WE HAVE, WE HAVE, UM, TAKEN THAT RESPONSIBILITY FINANCIALLY AND THE STAFF TIME TO MAKE SURE THIS COORDINATION HAPPENS. IT'S MORE, MORE CO COORDINATION THAN ANYTHING ELSE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BRING IN EVERY, EVERYBODY TO THE TABLE AND HAVE THE PROJECTS BUILT THE RIGHT WAY, MAINTAIN THE RIGHT WAY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID, UH, DISCUSS ABOUT IS THAT EVEN IF WE, IT'S A MANDATORY ZONE, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE TREATMENT IN THE MANDATORY ZONE, THERE ARE OFFSITE PROVISIONS. ONE OF THE OFFSITE PROVISIONS IS BASICALLY GO OFFSITE, UH, USE, UH, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS OR, UM, BASICALLY RIGHT OF WAY IF YOU CAN HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY OR DO NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECTS THAT, UH, PUBLIC WORKS HAS BEEN SUPPORTIVE ABOUT WHEN YOU MENTIONED, UH, THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATION THAT YOU WOULD TAKE ON WHAT IS GONNA BE YOUR SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR ANY OF THOSE OBLIGATIONS. I WAS GONNA TAKE IT. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S ALISON ELDER. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICES AT THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TONIGHT. I'M ADDRESSED AT 100 EAST GUNTHER STREET. AND, UM, TO ANSWER YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION, SIR, WE WOULD BE, UH, JUST AS WE PROVIDE OVERSIGHT THROUGH AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF MUSEUM REACH AND MISSION REACH, WE WOULD BE, UH, ANTICIPATING PROVIDING THOSE SAME TYPE OF SERVICES WITH REGARD TO THIS SPECIFIC OVERSIGHT COORDINATION OF CONNECTIONS TO THE TRAIL, AS WELL AS ANY, UH, STORM WATER COORDINATION THAT NEEDED TO OCCUR. ALL OF THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE, UH, FUNDED AS IT IS THROUGH OUR GENERAL OPERATING FUNDS. AS YOU MAY KNOW, WE HAVE A VERY SMALL AVALOR TAX. UH, WE DO QUITE A BIT OF FEE FOR SERVICE WORK WHERE WE ARE PAID BY OUR GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERS, UM, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION FEES, AS WELL AS A LOT OF GRANT FUNDS, UM, SUCH AS THE $75 MILLION, UH, FEDERAL INVESTMENT THAT WE'RE SO EXCITED ABOUT NOW. YEAH, I JUST SAW [04:35:01] THAT ADDITIONAL 40 MILLION 'CAUSE IT CAME UP TO 115 MILLION. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S COMING. OH, YES. FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE THAT WILL BE FROM A LOCAL, YEAH, A LOCAL SPONSOR. I BELIEVE THAT A LOCAL SOURCE IS THE RELIABLE SOURCE OF BEXAR COUNTY FUND. SO MUCH OF OUR STORM WATER. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. UM, I WANTED TO JUST THANK YOU GUYS, SARAH, FOR, UM, REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, THE CITY, AND EVERYBODY THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THIS LONG BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS POINT TODAY, SO THAT, UH, IT JUST KIND OF MAKES IT EASIER WHEN, YOU KNOW IT'S NOT JUST DROPPED IN YOUR LAP. SO IT'S EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND, AND EASIER TO PUSH FORWARD. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'LL, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF PUSHING THIS FORWARD TO THE TECH. YOU TO, UH, ANY COMMENTS OR WE MAKE A MOTION, MAKE A MOTION TO PUSH THIS FORWARD TO THE TECH. SECOND, UH, MOTION BY, UH, COMMISSIONER PECK, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIEGEL TO MOVE FORWARD 19 ONE TO THE TAC. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL. I BELIEVE THIS IS OUR FINAL AMENDMENT FOR THE EVENING 29 1, UM, THAT LEAN HAWKINS. THIS IT, 29 1. OH THAT ONE. OH NO, IT'S ME AGAIN. UM, STEVE STE 1 0 5 MARINO. I, UH, MARLENE WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT. I AM A MEMBER OF HER ASSOCIATION THAT SHE PUT THIS IN UNDER GOVERNMENT HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. SO, UM, THIS, THIS IS REALLY, UH, AND IT, AND IT'S SIMILAR TO, UM, ONE THAT I DIDN'T GET TO DISCUSS THAT I, I DID SUBMIT UNDER TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, WHICH WAS 16 DASH 10. THOSE BOTH ADDRESS SECTION 4 0 8. UM, THERE WERE ALSO TWO OTHER INTERNAL ONES BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING AND SERVICE TO MAKE SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS TO THAT AS WELL. UM, SO, UH, BUT MARLENE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE HERE WAS ABOUT COMMUNICATION. AND I THINK, UH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. UM, I THINK NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICES, WHEN THEY HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGISTRY, TRIED TO, UM, PROMOTE MORE COMMUNICATION. UM, UH, I THINK SOME PEOPLE, UM, SEEMED TO MISINTERPRET WHAT THAT IS. I MEAN, THIS IS ABOUT BEING INCLUSIVE. I KNOW IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT YOU CAN JUST SIGN UP AND GET AN EMAIL, UH, BUT IT'S REALLY JUST NOT THAT SIMPLE FOR PEOPLE. UH, THE EMAILS YOU GET ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, SAY THE ZONING CO COMMISSION, UM, AGENDA CAME OUT AND THAT TAKES YOU TO A WEBSITE WHERE YOU GOTTA FIND IT AND YOU GOTTA GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE, UM, ONE, THERE IS NO WAY TO SIGN UP, UM, TO GET, UM, IT, IT, UH, NOTICES ABOUT ONES IN YOUR AREA. THERE'S NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE G I S SYSTEM AND SA SPEAK UP. UM, I MEAN, I DID, I DID TRADE SOME EMAILS WITH BRIAN DILLARD, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT. BUT, UM, THAT, I MEAN THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WOULD REALLY ENVISION HERE. UM, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, BE, THESE NOTIFICATIONS COULD, UH, BE REALLY MORE PRECISE. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS AMENDMENT ABOUT IS ABOUT. SHE, SHE'S ABOUT BEING INCLUSIVE IN THAT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS BE BESIDES, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE COMMUNICATION THAT GOES OUT NOW, THE EMAIL THAT GOES OUT NOW AND, AND CREATE A BOUNDARY. UH, SO THE CITY DOES HAVE ABILITY TO DO THAT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND WHY CAN'T THEY DO THAT FOR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR AREA? UM, UNTIL WE GET TO THAT FUTURE STATE WHERE EVERYBODY COULD MAYBE GET THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL ONES, BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A SIMPLE, UM, ASK TO BE MORE INCLUSIVE ON THIS LIST OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GET NOTIFIED. AND THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A LETTER NECESSARILY THAT COSTS THE CITY MORE TO SEND OUT. THIS COULD BE AN EMAIL NOTIFICATION. UM, SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S REALLY JUST ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC COMMUNICATION AND NOT, NOT MAKING, UH, THESE CONCERNED ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TO SIFT THROUGH EVERY TENTATIVE ZONING LIST UNTIL THEY FIND OUT ABOUT SOMETHING. UM, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S JUST REALLY HARD FOR PEOPLE IN THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WANT TO HELP THE COMMUNICATION AND HELP SPREAD THE WORD IN THEIR AREA. I THINK, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE HELPED BY GETTING THIS NOTIFICATION. THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS? YES, MR. COUNCILMAN? THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, CHAIR, I'VE, I'VE SEEN THIS OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS [04:40:01] WHERE YOU'VE GOT DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS ARGUING WITH EACH OTHER ABOUT WHO SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IF SOMETHING'S HAPPENING IN THE AREA. AND THERE'S INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SAID, WELL, I WANNA BE ON THAT LIST. I, I DON'T BELONG TO AN ASSOCIATION, BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN MY AREA. AND IT SEEMS TO BE TO ME THAT WE'VE HAD BARRIERS WHERE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS HAVE SAID, WELL, WE ONLY GIVE OUT THIS INFORMATION. OH, WE ONLY ACCEPT THIS GROUP OR, OR THIS PERSON AS PART OF THAT, THAT CONTACT LIST. AND, UH, WHEN I TALK WITH BUILDERS, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO TALK TO EVERYBODY IN THE AREA, NOT JUST ONE OR TWO. AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO CREATE, UH, A SYSTEM WHERE ANYBODY WHO LIVES ANYWHERE IN THE CITY CAN GO AHEAD AND, AND CLICK ON SOMETHING THAT SAYS, WHAT'S GOING ON IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD? AND THEY CAN SIMPLY HEAR IF THERE'S GONNA BE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OR ZONING OR PLANNING OR A STREET PAVING. YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUST PUT IN THEIR STREET ADDRESS OR THEIR NAME AND THEIR EMAIL AND THEY SHOULD KNOW ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO BE HEADING TO. AND NOT RESTRICTING SAYING, WELL, ONLY THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FINDS OUT 'CAUSE THEY'RE THE REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, EVEN IF YOU GOT ANOTHER REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. SO I, I GOT TIRED OF, OF HEARING THOSE ARGUMENTS. I THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO BE MORE INCLUSIVE AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THROUGH THIS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND I AGREE. I MEAN, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. THE MORE PEOPLE ENGAGED, THE BETTER. UH, JUST A MATTER OF FINDING THAT MECHANISM TO ESTABLISH THAT. SO ANY MOTION FOR THIS MOVE TO SENATE ITEM 29? ONE TO THE, UH, ATTACK. SECOND. YEAH. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ORIEN. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA TO MOVE TWAIN NINE ONE FORWARD. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OUR LAST ITEM IS, UH, THE [Approval of Minutes  ] MINUTES. UH, ANY, UH, DISCUSSION OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. MOVE. WHO WAS THAT? UH, COUNCIL MOTION FROM COUNCIL? OH, COUNCILMAN, COURAGE. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. MY, UH, COMMISSIONER PECK , CAN WE DO VOICE VOTE? YEP. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED, MR. CHAIR? I ABSTAIN. THANKS. THE, THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA [Director’s Report  ] IS A DIRECTOR'S REPORT ON THE 2021 U D C AMENDMENT UPDATE, UH, SENSING THAT YOU'VE PROBABLY CONSIDERED THAT ENOUGH TODAY. UH, REALLY THE ONLY THING TO SHARE IS WE WILL TAKE THE AMENDMENT SPONSOR TODAY TO TAC UH, AND, UH, AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THOSE WILL COME BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION, UH, WHERE YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WHAT TAC UH, ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDED. SO THAT'S ALL. ALL RIGHT. SEVEN 15. WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.