May 27, 2020 Planning Commission

STAFF PLEASE REVIEW THE CURRENT LIST OF CONSENT AND INDIVIDUAL REGARD.

UH, PRIOR TO STARTING WITH OUR ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW OUR MEETING FORMAT.

STAFF, PLEASE PROCEED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF COVID 19.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS HOLDING MEETINGS.

THE VIDEO CONFERENCE.

THESE MEETING STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID 19 CRISIS AND ARE IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING WWW ANTONIO.GOV/DSD OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3.

TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENTS, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES.

THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL OF COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING.

STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

STAFF WILL READ INTO THE RECORD ANY EMAILS OR LETTERS RECEIVED.

STAFF WILL ALSO PLAY ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL.

LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE A CALL BACK, WE WILL CALL 'EM TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENTS.

SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED.

THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

[Consent Agenda]

ANY POSTPONED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS? UH, THIS IS LOGAN SPARROW DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CURRENTLY ALL CASES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH HAS BEEN PULLED FROM CONSIDERATION.

AND AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13, WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.

UH, THE BALANCE OF THE AGENDA IS ON THE DEFENSE, UH, AGENDA.

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO ADD ANY ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.

THERE BEING NONE.

UH, STAFF PLEASE READ THE REMAINING CONSENT ITEMS INTO THE RECORD.

ALRIGHT, THANK CHAIR.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AGENDA ITEM, NUMBERS FOUR AND 13, FOUR HAS BEEN PULLED FOR, UH, AND 13 HAS BEEN PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

THE BALANCE OF THE AGENDA IS HEREBY READ INTO THE RECORD OR THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER PROFIT, MOVE.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I WILL MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER PECK.

SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER PECK AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PROFIT.

FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, STAFF, PLEASE DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER JACKSON? YES.

COMMISSIONER ? YES.

COMMISSIONER PROPHET? YES.

COMMISSIONER AURORA EGRIN.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

[00:05:04]

MAKE SURE TO HIT UNMUTE, SIR.

OKAY, GO AHEAD.

DID YOU HEAR ME? YES, I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

UH, COMMISSIONER MCGEE? YES.

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ? YES.

COMMISSIONER PEGS? YES.

AND CHAIR GARCIA? YES.

MOTION PASSES FOR APPROVAL WITH A VOTE OF NINE ZERO.

NOW PLEASE PRESENT ITEM NUMBER 13.

NEXT WE'LL BEGIN WITH OUR INDIVIDUAL HEARING ITEMS AND COMMISSIONERS THAT ALL QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT.

[13. 20-3289 PLAN AMENDMENT CASE PA-2020-1160014 (Council District 1): A request by Vickrey & Associates, Inc., representative, for approval of a Resolution to amend the San Antonio International Airport Vicinity Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Master Plan of the City, by changing the future land from “Mixed Use” to “High Density Residential” on 2.022 acres out of NCB 11880, located at 538 Everest Street. Staff recommends Approval. (Associated Zoning Case Z-2020-10700059) (Justin Malone, Planner, (210) 207-0157, Justin.Malone@sanantonio.gov, Development Services)]

THANK YOU, CHAIR OF CHRISTIE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 13.

A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OF THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

VICINITY LAND FROM MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 5 38 EVEREST STREET.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS A PLAN AMENDMENT TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO REZONE TO MS 33.

WHILE THE EXISTING MIXED USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPERTY, THE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY LAND USE IS ALSO APPROPRIATE.

PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE ARE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THE PROPOSED PLAN USE IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING MIXED USE AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE AREA.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL THERE WERE 11 NOTICES MAILED ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION WITHIN 200 FEET, NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, 29 RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

HOWEVER, A LETTER WAS RECEIVED AND WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD PER OAK PARK, NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY AS WELL.

MR. CHAIR.

UH, DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, THEY ARE ON THE LINE.

OKAY, GO AHEAD.

APPLICANT.

PRESENT, GOOD AFTERNOON.

THIS IS JEFF RY, A VICTORY ASSOCIATE ADDRESS OF 12 9 4 0 COUNTRY PARKWAY, SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 1 6 AND I'M THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR AP COMMUNITY.

HERE'S TO REQUEST A PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW REZONING TO MULTIFAMILY 33 FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 5 38 EDWARD STREET.

THE CURRENT LAND USE IS MIXED USE WITH A REQUEST TO AMEND THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

UM, CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND MAP THE SLIDE? REMEMBER THERE IS A TIME DELAY SO JUST GO AHEAD AND REFERENCE NEXT SLIDE AND THEN WE'LL PUT IT OFF.

DAYCARE AND MEDICAL ABUSES TO THE EAST AND WEST OF OUR PROJECT IS MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS TO THE NORTH WITH A CUSTOM HOME BUILDER USING.

THE AREA LAW, UH, SUNSET, UH, SUNSET HAS BEEN REDEVELOPING FOR ABOUT A DECADE.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT CALLED, UM, CALLED EVEREST, UH, VISTA EVEREST IS PROPOSED FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 64 UNITS OF MULTI-FAMILY COMMUNITY.

THIS IS PLANNED TO BE A GATED HIGH QUALITY, ENERGY EFFICIENT APARTMENT UNIT WITH HALF BEING ONE BEDROOM AND THE REMAINDER BEING TWO BEDROOMS. THE COMMUNITY WILL BE FULLY A D A ACCESSIBLE WILL INCLUDE 106 SURFACE PARKING SPACES.

WE'LL HAVE 2,400 SQUARE FEET OF COMMON SPACE.

UH, AMENITIES WILL INCLUDE PLAYGROUNDS, LAUNDRY, FACILITIES, BUSINESS CENTER AND BUSINESS CENTER.

THE PROJECT WILL LEVERAGE HOUSING TAX CREDIT FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TO ENSURE THE HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IS AFFORDABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL WORKFORCE.

I'M GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE SLIDES AT THIS POINT.

UH, THE FIRST SLIDE IS AN IMAGE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY, UH, WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN RED.

SUNSET IS A MAJOR ROAD IMMEDIATELY TO THE, TO THE SOUTH OR BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN.

OUR FRONTAGE IS ON AVERAGE STREET IMMEDIATE, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY TO OUR WEST NEXT NEXTLY TO OUR IMMEDIATE SOUTH.

WE HAVE MIXED USE OFFICE,

[00:10:01]

UM, AND WE'LL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE FORWARD LOCK AS AN OFFICE AND OUTDOOR STORAGE MATERIAL AND AGAIN, WE WILL COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT THAT PROPERTY HERE IN A MINUTE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY CURRENTLY BEING USED AS A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS WITH AN OFFICE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

HERE'S THE CURRENT ZONING, UH, WITH COMMERCIAL ALL TO THE SOUTH MULTI-FAMILY, UH, TO THE EAST AND WEST INCLUDING MULTI-FAMILY 50 AND MULTI-FAMILY 33.

THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO OUR NORTH IS ZONED R FIVE BUT AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, HAS BEEN OPERATED AS A CUSTOM HOME BUILDER WITH OUTDOOR STORAGE FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 25 YEARS.

NEXTLY, UM, WE ARE ASKING TO AMEND UM, UM, UM, WE ARE ASKING TO AMEND THE LAND USE UM, FROM UM, WHAT CURRENTLY IS UM, MIXED USE COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS A CARRYOVER TO THE SOUTH TO BE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS WHAT IS CONSISTENT TO OUR EAST AND TO OUR WEST.

AND THE CURRENT LAND PLAN HAS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OUR IMMEDIATE NORTH.

NEXT SLIDE.

AND UM, THIS SLIDE SHOWS UM, THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE CURRENT, UH, MIXED USE AND UM, RESIDENTIAL.

THE MAIN, UM, DIFFERENCE BEING OUR REQUEST IS FOR MULTIFAMILY 33.

WE THINK WE'VE SHOWN THAT OUR REQUEST IS HARMONIOUS WITH USES AROUND US AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO UPGRADE THE PROJECT FROM THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE BUSINESS.

AND UH, THAT ENDS MY UH, PRESENTATION CHAIR.

SORRY.

UM, STAFF, CAN WE SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES, THERE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS TO READ INTO THE RECORD.

I'LL START WITH THE LETTER FROM OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING 5 38 EVEREST STREET.

AS A MEMBER OF THE NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE AND ON BEHALF OF OUR INNER NORTHEAST COMMUNITY, THE BOARD OF THE PARK OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD LIKE TO STATE OUR OPPOSITION TO ANY PLAN, AMENDMENT OR ZONING CHANGE TO 5 38 EVEREST STREET, OUR O P N N A BOUNDARIES OR ADJACENT TO SAID PROJECT ACROSS BROADWAY TO THE EAST.

THESE AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES ARE AN INFRINGEMENT INTO AN UNDERREPRESENTED COMMUNITY ADJACENT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOUNDARIES.

THIS ALONG THIS AREA ALONG WEST SUNSET ROAD IS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY.

IN OUR DAY TO DAY LIVE, THE REQUEST FOR AMEN PLAN TO HIGH DENSITY IS INAPPROPRIATE AND INCOMPATIBLE AS ADJACENT LAND USES ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY.

THE IMMEDIATE NORTH PROPERTY IS MEDIUM DENSITY KEON HILL ON LAWNDALE AND THAT PROPERTY IS APPROPRIATE IN DENSITY AND SCALE ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY USES, WE SUPPORT MAINTAINING THE MIXED AND OR MEDIUM DENSITY USES THAT SPECIFIED IN THE SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VICINITY LAND USE PLAN FROM 2010.

WE DO NOT SUPPORT ANY PLAN AMENDMENT NOR ZONING CHANGE.

HIGH DENSITY LAND USES BELONG ON MAJOR ARTERIALS LIKE WEST SUNSET ROAD AND BROADWAY.

AS YOU MAY KNOW, BOTH OF THE STREETS ARE EXPERIENCING A DEVELOPMENT BOOM THAT MUST BE KEPT ALONG THOSE PRIMARY STREETS IN ORDER TO AVOID DETERIORATION OF PRESENT ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

OUR RESIDENTS ARE ALREADY COPING WITH RISING TRAFFIC CONGESTION AS THE AREA CONTINUES TO DEVELOP WITHOUT PROPER UPDATED INFRASTRUCTURES IN PLACE,

[00:15:01]

STREETS AND DRAINAGE, WE SUPPORT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND VISIONS IN THE FA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VICINITY LAND USE PLAN.

THIS PLAN CALLS FOR MIXED USE WITH NO GREATER THAN MS 25 DENSITY.

MS 18 ACTUALLY IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE AS THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY USAGE.

THE HIGH DENSITY REQUESTED HERE CAN GO UP TO MS 55 DENSITY AND CERTAINLY IS NOT COMPATIBLE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE OF ROADWAY.

PLEASE CONSIDER AND DISCUSS OUR COMMENTS.

WE BELIEVE THE GOALS OF THE PROJECT AND MAINTAINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER CAN BOTH BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MAINTAINING, MAINTAINING A MEDIUM TYPE OF DENSITY.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, PATTY WALLACE, PRESIDENT BY UH, VICE PRESIDENT, EXCUSE ME, OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD.

THIS IS A COMMENT FROM ONE PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 200 FEET.

I AM, THIS IS RIVER CITY ROOFING.

I AM WRITING IN REFERENCE TO THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 38 EVEREST WITH APPLICATION NUMBER PA 20 2116 4 AND FILE NUMBER 20 DASH 32 89.

I LIVE AT AND AM THE OWNER OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND PROPERTY IN THE COMMUNITY THAT IS WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 5 38 EVEREST.

I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE FROM MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALTHOUGH THERE IS ALREADY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.

THEY WERE ALL CREATED WHEN THE AREA WAS MUCH DIFFERENT IN NATURE WITH MAINLY ALL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOMES BUILT IN THE MID 19 HUNDREDS.

THIS AREA HAS BECOME A VIBRANT REINVIGORATED COMMUNITY WITH THE USE OF THE EXISTING MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THE LAND USE CATEGORY WHICH ALLOWS FOR I D D M F 18 AND MS 25 IS THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THE REVITALIZED COMMUNITY.

AS A MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY ALREADY ALLOWS FOR MX 25.

IT SEEMS ILLOGICAL TO CHANGE THE LAND USE TO CHANGE THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY AS IT ALREADY ALLOWS FOR USE THAT IS MOST LIKELY MORE INTENSE THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN HANDLE.

IT IS FOR THOSE REASONS THAT I'M AGAINST THE PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGE ON THE MAY 27TH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND SUGGEST THAT ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS DENY THIS LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME VIC NICHOLSON.

AND NOW THE COMMENTS FROM THOSE OUTSIDE 200 FEET MIKE REINS I'M WRITING TO YOU IN REFERENCE TO THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY ON EVEREST.

WE, THE H O A AT THE HEIGHT OF RETT ARE STRONGLY AGAINST THE REZONING.

THIS IS, THIS IS AREA DOES NOT NEED LOW INCOME HOUSING OF ANY TYPE.

THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS BEING REBUILT WITH NEW MIDDLE INCOME HOMES.

WE PAY A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT IN PROPERTY TAXES AND KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO DEVALUE OUR PROPERTY.

WE ALSO WILL BE WRITING TO OUR COUNCIL PERSON ABOUT THE ISSUE.

WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY AGAINST THIS TAKE.

TAKE THIS AS A HUGE NO VOTE ON THIS REZONING ISSUE.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL ME MIKE REIN.

MOLLY NER PETE, I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

RJ MCCLURE, I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AND MR. MCCLURE IS AT 2 0 6 RIDGE CREST DRIVE.

NUMBER 11 WILL MCCLUSKEY PLEASE DON'T ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO BE CHANGED TO A HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONE.

THE STREET IS ALREADY OVERCROWDED WITH APARTMENT AND CAR WASH JUST ACROSS THE STREET.

KEVIN PURCELL.

I'M WRITING THIS LETTER TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION FOR THE PROJECT AT 5 38 EVEREST.

THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS PROJECT IS REQUESTING A LAND USE CHANGE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

WE ALREADY HAVE SECTION EIGHT HOUSING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

ALL RECENT AND CURRENT PROJECTS ARE FOR TOWN HOME COMMUNITIES IN THE 400,000 TO 600,000 PRICE RANGE PER HOME.

I BOUGHT SUCH A TOWN HOME IN DECEMBER, 2017.

I'M CONCERNED THAT BUILDING MORE LOW INCOME HOUSING WILL DEPRESSED PROPERTY VALUES FOR HOMEOWNERS OF THESE HIGH-END TOWN HOMES.

OF COURSE THAT IF THAT HAPPENS, IT ALSO REDUCES THE TAX BASE FOR THE CITY.

I'M REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT CHANGE THE ZONING FOR 5 38 EVEREST.

AND THIS IS RICHARD KEVIN PURCELL AT 2 0 6 BRIDGE CREST DRIVE NUMBER 14 ETH CRAIG.

I RECENTLY CAME ACROSS DETAILS OF THE LOW INCOME HIGH DENSITY HOUSING PROJECT PLAN FOR 5 38 EVEREST AND WOULD LIKE TO OPPOSE THE MENU, CHANGE THE DEVELOPER'S SEAT.

MY FAMILY AND I LIVE A SHORT DISTANCE FROM THE SITE AT 2 0 6 RIDGE CREST DRIVE AND FREQUENTLY WALK DOWN EVEREST.

THIS AREA JUST INSIDE FOUR

[00:20:01]

10 ALREADY IS REPRESENTED BY A LARGE AMOUNT OF LOW INCOME RENTALS WITHIN BRIDGE CREST APARTMENTS AS WELL AS PECAN HILL APARTMENTS ON LAWNDALE IN ADDITION TO THIS AREA.

IN ADDITION, THIS AREA HAS SEVERAL NON-SUBSIDIZED APARTMENTS NEARBY THAT ARE WELL BELOW THE AVERAGE MONTHLY RENT COST FOR 7 8 2 0 9 WITH A SURPLUS OF AVAILABLE UNIT AT THIS TIME.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE TERRA, WE PURCHASED OUR HOME IN JANUARY, 2020 WITH CONCERN AS OUR HOME IS ADJACENT TO RIDGECREST APARTMENT AND ONE STREET OVER FROM PECAN HILL.

OUR PRIMARY CONCERN BEING PROPERTY VALUE AND ABILITY TO SELL IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY WE WILL HAVE ACCEPTED OUR NEIGHBORS RESIDING IN THE CURRENT HUD OFFERING.

WE DO HAVE GREAT CONCERN WITH THE POTENTIAL ADDITION OF A THIRD LOW INCOME HIGH DENSITY COMPLEX WITHIN A 0.3 MILE RADIUS OF OUR HOME.

RATHER THAN GROWING IN DIVERSITY THIS SMALL CORNER OF 7 8 2 0 9 AND BEING SATURATED WITH HUD OR TAX CREDIT HOUSING, THE DEVELOPER'S INTENTION MAY SEEM HONORABLE BUT THIS IS A BUSINESS DEAL THAT DOES NOT HONOR THE COMMUNITY OR FILL A VOID FOR ITS MEMBERS.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO NEED FOR ANOTHER 64 LOW INCOME UNITS AT THIS LOCATION.

WHEN THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS FROM THIS PROPERTY, PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL THE NEIGHBORS BEFORE MAKING A DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT ANOTHER LOW INCOME HEIGHT DENSITY COMPLEX MAKES SENSE WITHIN THESE FEW RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS.

STEPHANIE AND AND SEAN CRAIG.

THIS ONE IS FROM WILLIAM .

WE ARE WRITING IN OPPOSITION TO 5 38 EVEREST.

WE CURRENTLY LIVE ON AT 2 0 6 RIDGE PRESS DRIVE ACROSS FROM SECTION EIGHT HOUSING AND THERE ALREADY HAVE BEEN INSTANCES OF GRAFFITI DRUG TRAFFICKING AND GUN GUN VIOLENCE.

GIVEN THE FACT THAT THESE CRIMES ARE MOSTLY ASSOCIATED WITH LOW INCOME AREAS, IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT BY BUILDING ANOTHER LOW INCOME HOUSING COMPLEX THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE IN THESE CRIMES.

WE HAVE A BABY ON THE WAY AND IF THESE HOUSING PLANS BECOME APPROVED, WE WILL BE FORCED TO LEAVE A RESPECTED AREA OF THE CITY DUE TO CONCERNS FOR SAFETY.

ALSO, WHEN THE LOW INCOME PROPERTIES ARE BUILT, PROPERTY VALUES TEND DROP CAUSING A LOSS OF EQUITY FOR THE HOMEOWNER AND A LOSS OF TAXABLE REVENUE FOR THE CITY.

WE HOPE THAT THIS PROPOSITION WILL NOT MOVE ANY FURTHER FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

WILLIAM AND ROSE AT 2 0 6 RIDGE CREST DRIVE, 10 HUEY AT 2 0 6 RIDGE CREST DRIVE.

I WOULD NOT LIKE FOR THIS PLAN TO BE CHANGED FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THANKS KENNETH.

THE NEXT ONE IS VICTORIA TAN.

HUEY I WOULD NOT LIKE FOR THIS LAND TO BE CHANGED FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE.

THANK YOU VICTORIA.

THIS ONE IS FROM VICTOR AND DONNY AND I'M THE OWNER OF FOUR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 6 19 6 23 6 31 AND 6 35.

SIMPLE WAY IN THE VICINITY OF 5 38 EVEREST.

I AM ALSO THE CO-DEVELOPER OF THE GREEN HEIGHT SUBDIVISION AND THE DEVELOPER OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AT THE CORNER OF EVEREST AND TERRA ALTA.

I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR 5 38 EVEREST.

THE SAND WOOD STREET FROM PEAK TO EVEREST HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH A COMPLETE TRANSFORMATION THAT INCLUDED THE DEMO DEMOLITION OF A FORMER LOW INCOME APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WAS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS A SOURCE OF BUILT AND CRIME IN THE AREA.

SINCE THEN, 16 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT RAISING PROPERTY VALUES MORE WITH MORE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

OLDER EXISTING HOMES ARE BEING FIXED UP AND NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ON THE WAY ON SAND WOOD LANE, LAWNDALE AND RIDGECREST.

SUNSET STREET IS ALSO GOING THROUGH A SIGNIFICANT TRANSFORMATION WITH NEW OFFICE, MOSTLY MEDICAL BUILDINGS AND THE FUTURE.

BUT FOUNDATION BUILDING THE HOMES LOCATED ON BELFAST COTTON AND CONWAY ARE ALSO BEING FIXED AND RISEN IN VALUE.

AS A RESULT.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS HIGHLY DENSE AND THE TARGET MARKET IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA WHICH WILL DEMERIT IT AND DISCOURAGE HOME SALES AND DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUES.

WE WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO THE PROPERTY BEING OWNED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUCH AS TOWN HOMES OR GARDEN HOMES.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME WITH QUESTIONS.

VICTOR AND DONNIE, PRESIDENT M S G MANAGEMENT, ERICA , PLEASE DON'T PUT THESE EXTREMELY LOW INCOME APARTMENTS HERE.

WE PAID SO MUCH IN TAXES ALREADY TO LIVE HERE.

SHE'S AT 3 0 5 CLOVER LEAF AVENUE SEABROOK JONES.

I'M THE OWNER AT 77 11 BROADWAY STREET.

THIS TOOK MY RESIDENCE A FEW BLOCKS FROM THE PROPOSED BILL.

[00:25:01]

I'M WRITING AN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN LAND USE AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT.

MY FAMILY MOVED TO THIS AREA A FEW MONTHS AGO FROM KERRVILLE, TEXAS.

IN ORDER TO GET OUR CHILDREN INTO THE ALMO HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, WE HAD TO DOWNSIZE A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND ALMOST DOUBLED OUR MORTGAGE.

THIS WAS A SACRIFICE WE WERE HAPPY TO MAKE TO GET THIS WONDERFUL AREA.

THIS AREA IS ASPIRATIONAL AND PEOPLE WORK HARD TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE SO THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE THAT AREN'T MAKING THOSE SACRIFICES IS FRUSTRATING.

I HAVE LIVED IN MIXED INCOME HOUSING IN THE PAST AND HAD A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE BUT I WAS NOT PAYING THE TAXES I AM PAYING HERE.

I WAS ACTUALLY GETTING A TAX CREDIT.

I HOPE THE COUNCIL WILL PRIORITIZE THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THOSE WHO HAVE INVESTED IN THIS COMMUNITY OVER THE PROFITS OF A FLORIDA DEVELOPER.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF PLACES IN THE CITY WHERE SUCH A DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY.

THIS AREA IS SIMPLY NOT ONE OF THEM.

SETH, SANDRA, EXCUSE ME.

SARAH JONES HT CHAD JOHANSON.

I'M THE PRESIDENT, OWNER, DEVELOPER AND BUILDER OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY NEW HOME COMMUNITY WHICH USE THE CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORY AND I D D ZONING ON EAST SAND WOOD AND BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION IS IS THE CORRECT CATEGORY FOR THE AREA.

MY COMPANY CONTINUES TO OWN 15 FOR SALE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES ON EAST SANDALWOOD ALL WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 5 38 EVEREST.

I AND MY COMPANY ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE FROM MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALTHOUGH THERE'S ALREADY HIGH DENSITY, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.

THEY WERE ALL CREATED WHEN THE AREA WAS MUCH DIFFERENT IN NATURE WITH MAINLY ALL THOSE DENSITY HOMES BUILT IN THE MID 19 HUNDREDS.

THIS AREA HAS BECOME A VIBRANT REINVIGORATED COMMUNITY WITH THE USE OF THE EXISTING MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THE LAND USE CATEGORY WHICH ALLOWS FOR I D D M F 18 MX 25 IS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THE REVITALIZED COMMUNITY.

AS THE MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY ALREADY ALLOWS FOR MX 25.

IT SEEMS THE LOGICAL TO CHANGE THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY AS IT ALREADY ALLOWS FOR ABUSE THAT IS MORE INTENSE THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN HANDLE.

IT IS FOR THOSE REASONS THAT MY COMPANY, ME AND I ARE AGAINST THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE ON THE MAY 27TH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND SUGGEST THAT ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS DENY THE LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGE.

THANK YOU AND HAVE A GREAT DAY.

CHAD JOHANSON, PRESIDENT CTHE CREEK HOME.

MEGAN SAM IS ASKED US FOR A CALL.

PHONE CALL.

SO MOVING ON TO ALLISON ECKER.

IT IS CLEAR TO US THAT THE AREA IS GAINING IN PROPERTY VALUE SO IT SEEMS ILLOGICAL TO TURN THE TIDE ON THAT DURING AN ECONOMIC CRISIS MOST PEOPLE HAD TO PAY EXTRA MONEY FOR TAXES AND OTHER PROPERTY RELATED EXPENSES TO BE IN THIS AREA.

IT WILL BE UNFAIR TO NOW ADD EVEN EXTRA COSTS TO THE FAMILIES THAT ARE HERE TO PAY FOR THE EXPENSES OF INCOMING FAMILIES.

WE REZONED TO OUR THREE PUD TO DEVELOP 12 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

FRANCISCO ADELE ADELE GROUP IS REPRESENTING NEW URBAN A DEVELOPER AND BUILDER OF 12 SINGLE FAMILY TOWN HOME COMMUNITY.

WHICH CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORY HAS BEEN BEEN SET.

THE I D D ZONING ON EAST .

WE BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT LAND USE IS CORRECT.

BOTH NEW URBAN AND MY COMPANY ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE FOR MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE ALREADY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA WHICH WERE BUILT WHEN THE AREA WAS MUCH DIFFERENT BACK IN THE MID 19 HUNDREDS.

NOT WITHSTANDING, THIS AREA HAS BECOME A VIBRANT REINVIGORATED COMMUNITY WITH THE USE OF THE EXISTING MIXED USE CATEGORY AND WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THE LAND USE CATEGORY ALLOWING FOR I D D MF 18 M MS 25 IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA.

IN CONCLUSION AND AS OUTLINED ABOVE, WE ARE AGAINST THE PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGE AND SUGGESTS THAT ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS DENY THE LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGE.

THE TEXAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION REQUIRES ALL HOLDERS TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ABOUT BROKERAGE SERVICES FORM AND THE TEXAS CONSUMER PROTECTION NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS.

RESPECTFULLY, FRANCISCO ADELE JUAN FERNANDEZ HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE SAME COMMENT.

UH, HE IS THE BUILDER, UH, CO DEVELOPER OWNER AND BUILDER OF GREEN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION ON EAST CANDLEWOOD LANE.

[00:30:02]

I MY COMPANY ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE FOR MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

WE WOULD SUPPORT A LAND USE CHANGE TO A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS THE AREA THIS AREA HAS HAD TREMENDOUS REVITALIZATION AND NEW DEVELOPMENT AND WE CONSIDER THAT BRINGING HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE AREA.

SINCERELY, JUAN HERNANDEZ, ROBERT .

I LIVE AT AN OWNER OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE COMMUNITY THAT IS WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 5 38 EVEREST.

I'M COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ALTHOUGH THERE'S ALREADY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.

THEY WERE ALL CREATED WHEN THE AREA WAS MUCH DIFFERENT IN NATURE.

BUILT IN THE MID 19 HUNDREDS.

THIS AREA HAS BECOME A VIBRANT REINVIGORATED COMMUNITY WITH THE USE OF EXISTING MIXED USE AND THE CATEGORIES I E C MF 18 AND MF 25.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME ROBERT SVIA.

GARY AND SANDRA PAUL FAVOR OUR WRITING TO OBJECT TO THIS READ TO THE ZONING REQUEST FOR 5 38 EVEREST.

THIS IS A NEIGHBOR THAT ALREADY HAS TWO SECTION EIGHT PROPERTY.

PROPERTY VALUES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE CONTINUED TO INCREASE THIS PROPERTY, CONTINUE TO BE DEVELOPED, THE INTENDED DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WITH LOWER PROPERTY VALUES AND THEREFORE LOWER TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY.

THE POSTING OR NOTIFICATION ON THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LESS THAN 12 DAYS.

MAKING THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE CURRENT SCHEDULED HEARING ON THE 27TH SEEM INAPPROPRIATE.

I AM UNAWARE WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE IN TERMS OF TIMING SO MAYBE I AM CORRECT IN THIS ASSUMPTION.

WE OPPOSE THE REZONING REQUEST.

GARY AND SANDRA SAVER AT 2 0 6 BRIDGE PRESS BUILDING THREE 13 BUILDING 13 CHRISTOPHER YES IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED LAND USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

ONE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CANNOT SUSTAIN A INFL HIGH INFLUX OF RESIDENTS.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE PARKING WIDE SIDEWALKS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY MOVE IN TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA CAN CHANGE THE OVERALL MAKEUP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM SMALL BUT VIBRANT TO CROWDED, NOISY, AND INTENSE.

THREE MIXED USE ALLOWS FOR THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES.

I D D MS 18 AND MS 25 CAN ENSURE THAT ANY BUILDINGS OR RESIDENCES THAT ARE BUILT HAVE SMALLER FOOTPRINTS THAT CAN MATCH THE AESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS FOR THESE THREE REASONS, I'M VERY MUCH AGAINST THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE.

I ENCOURAGE ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS TO CONSIDER DENYING THE LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGE FOR THE GOOD OF THE HOME AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO HAVE INVESTED THEIR TIME AND MONEY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT IS CHRISTOPHER AGA AT 1434 EAST .

GINA DI.

WE ARE AGAINST THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECT THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR THIS AREA.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS APARTMENTS IN THE AREA THAT ARE LOW INCOME.

WE PAY A LOT OF TAXES FOR OUR HOME.

THE TIMING OF THE NOTIFICATION AND HEARING DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE CITIZENS IN THIS AREA WERE GIVEN ENOUGH NOTICE.

NOTE TO REZONING.

THANK YOU WILLIE AND GINA DYLAN AT 2 0 6 RIDGECREST NUMBER NINE DAVE SANCHEZ.

MY WIFE AND I OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT AT 5 38 EVEREST FOR A MULTIFAMILY LOW INCOME APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THAT'S DAVE AND AMY SANCHEZ AT 2 0 6 RIDGE CREST DRIVE, KYLE COUNTRYMAN.

I AM WRITING TO EXPRESS A STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST FOR THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROPERTY.

I AM A HOMEOWNER RESIDING AT 2 0 6 RIDGE CREST DRIVE NUMBER 15.

I PURCHASED A NEW HOME TOWN HOME IN 2017 AT THIS LOCATION CLOSE TO 400,000 AND PAY TAXES APPROACHING 10,000 PER YEAR.

OUR SMALL SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD HAS GAINED QUALITY DEVELOPMENT OF MANY NEW TOWN HOMES, EITHER COMPLETED OR PROGRESSED FROM 400,000 TO 600,000.

I OBJECT TO A HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONING REQUEST.

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS GROWING IN ITS TAX BASED AND PROPERTY VALUES AND I BELIEVE A PROJECT OF THIS TYPE OF HOUSING WILL IMPACT THE AREA IN A NEGATIVE MANNER.

THERE ARE MANY NEW INDIVIDUAL HOMES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTION IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THIS PROPERTY AND I WOULD WELCOME THE ZONING CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE INDIVIDUAL HOMES BUT NOT HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

IN ADDITION, THERE ARE ALREADY TWO OTHER SECTION EIGHT PROPERTIES WITHIN A TWO STREET AREA FROM THE PROPOSED

[00:35:01]

SITE, WHICH IS NOT A COMPLAINT THAT THIS AREA SHOULD NOT SEEK MORE OF THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

I APPRECIATE YOUR YOU HEARING MY OBJECTION AND WELCOME ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

KYLE COUNTRYMAN.

JESSICA WILLIAMSON I LIVE IN AM THE OWNER OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE COMMUNITY THAT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 5 38 EVEREST.

I'M COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE FROM MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THERE.

ALTHOUGH THERE'S ALREADY HIGH DENSITY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.

THEY WERE ALL CREATED WHEN THE AREA WAS MUCH DIFFERENT IN NATURE.

STILL TO THE MID 19 HUNDREDS.

THIS AREA HAS BECOME A VIBRANT RE REINVIGORATED COMMUNITY WITH THE USE OF THE EXISTING MIXED USE WHICH HAS THE LAND USE CATEGORIES OF I D Z 18 AND MX 25.

IT SEEMS ILLOGICAL TO CHANGE THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY AS IT ALREADY ALLOWED FOR USE THAT IS MOST LIKELY MORE INTENSE THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN HANDLE.

128 MORE INDIVIDUALS WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY ADD TO THE TRAFFIC BURDEN THROUGH TRAFFIC WOULD ALMO THOUGH TRAFFIC WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY INCREASE AND DETRACT FROM OUR RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND LIKELY EXTEND WAIT TIME TO ACCESS BROADWAY AND SUNSET, WHICH ARE ALREADY LOCKED.

JESSICA ALGA AT 1434 EAST ALWOOD PLAIN TREVOR LONG HAS ALSO WRITTEN THE SAME LETTER.

TREVOR LONG LIVES AT 6 0 3 SIMPLE WAY AND IS THE OWNER OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE.

WE ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MIXED USE TO HIDE SEA RESIDENTIAL.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN READING THIS, JACQUELINE SUE ROBERTSON DO HAS ALSO WRITTEN THE SAME LETTER.

SHE IS THE OWNER OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 5 38 EVEREST.

I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE FOR MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY FOR THE SAME REASONS NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS TWO LETTERS.

AND THIS IS JACQUELINE SUE ROBERTSON DOG AT 1418 EAST SALMON WOODLAKE.

THIS IS JASON JACOB AND HE WRITES ALMOST THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO, THE HEIGHTS OF BRIDGE TRUST WAS BUILT BY CAL ATLANTIC HOMES FOR THE PURPOSES OF BRINGING ECONOMIC STIMULATION TO AN AREA OF THE CITY, WHICH IS US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION AREA.

EACH PROPERTY OWNER WHO BOUGHT ONE OF THE 16 HOMES DID SO BECAUSE IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE DESIRES FOR THE AREA WAS TO TRANSFORM IT INTO A SIGNIFICANT AND PROSPEROUS AREA.

SINCE THE INVESTMENT EACH OF US PROPERTY OWNERS MADE, THE HOUSES HAVE SPURRED FURTHER DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE C H D O AREA ON EVEREST AND RIDGECREST.

MANY OLDER HOMES HAVE CLEANED UP YARDS AND THEIR APPEARANCES OF THEIR PROPERTIES GIVING COMMUNITY PRIDE TO PLACE A LOW INCOME DENSE APARTMENT COMPLEX WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISH THE TREND STARTED BY THE INVESTMENT IN THE 400,000 OF EACH OWNER OF THE HEIGHTS OF RIDGECREST AND SIGNIFICANTLY REGRESSED THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

LOWER DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES IN MUCH SOUGHT AFTER BY ALMO HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT AREA, REPRESSED HOME VALUES AND DESTROY A BUDDING REINVESTMENT IN THE C HT O DISTRICT.

AFTER SIGNIFICANT PRIVATE AND PUBLIC DOLLARS WERE INVESTED IN THE AREA ON THE ASSURANCES OF SINGLE HOME DEVELOPMENT PLANNING.

I OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST.

HE IS JACOB.

ALRIGHT, TWO MORE GUYS.

THIS ONE IS JOANNA BRUNER BRUNER AND SHE OPPOSES THE PROPOSAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

ONE, THE AREA HAS RECENTLY BEEN REVITALIZED TO GETTING IN 2017 WITH A MODERATE WITH NEW MODERN HOMES, 400 TO 500,000 REPLACING OLD DILAPIDATED PROPERTIES.

THE REVITALIZATION WAS A MAJOR JOB FOR MANY OF US IN THE AREA AND THE MOMENTUM NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO KEEP PROPERTY VALUES STEADY TO INCREASING, WHICH WILL BE GOOD FOR THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE CITY.

ALSO, THERE'S ALREADY SECTION EIGHT HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUILDING MORE WILL LIKELY LEAD TO A INTEGRATION OF PROPERTY VALUES WITH RESULTANT LOSS OF TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY AND DETER FUTURE INVESTORS IN HIGH END PROJECTS.

NUMBER TWO, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY CONTAINS A FAIR NUMBER OF APARTMENTS AND NEWLY CONSTRUCTED TOWN HOMES AND GARDEN HOMES WITH GREATER DENSITY THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RESULTING IN AN INCREASE IN CONGESTION AND TRAFFIC ADDING 64 MORE UNITS AND LIKELY

[00:40:01]

NUMBER THREE, I HAVE A CONCERN THAT ALAMO HIGH HIGHEST C COULD NOT EASILY ACCOMMODATE THE INFLUX OF NEW STUDENTS AND QUALITY WOULD SUFFER AS THIS IS ONE OF THE MAJOR DRAWS TO THE AREA KEEPING DEMAND HIGH AND PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE AND MAY ALSO NEGATIVELY IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES.

DR.

JOANNA NER AT 2 0 6 RIDGECREST DRIVE NUMBER SIX AND THE LAST SECOND TO THE LAST COMMENT.

BRENDA CROWDER.

I'M BRENDAN CROWDER OF 2 0 6 RIDGECREST NUMBER EIGHT I.

MY HOME IS VALUED AT AROUND 400,000 AND I PAY A ABOUT 9,000 FOR A TAX OF ABOUT 9,000 PER YEAR.

I'M OPPOSED TO THE FLORIDA DEVELOPER BUILDING LOW INCOME HOUSING ON MY BLOCK.

WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH THOSE CLOSE BY OPPOSED RESPECTFULLY, BRENDA .

THE LAST LETTER IS SALARY CARMONA I LIVE AT AND I'M AM THE OWNER OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A COMMUNITY THAT IS CLOSE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 5 38 EVEREST.

AND THIS IS THE SAME FORM LETTER THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM PREVIOUSLY.

MS. CARMONA IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND WOULD SUGGEST THAT ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS DENY THE LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGE.

RESPECTFULLY, GUSTAVO AND VALERIE CARMONA.

MY, MY CELL PHONE NUMBER IS TWO TEN FOUR ONE ZERO TEN SEVENTY.

PLAY VOICEMAIL NEXT.

THAT'S I THINK TWO VOICEMAILS TO PLAY AND CROWDER, C R O W D E R.

UM, MY ADDRESS IS 2 0 6 RIDGECREST AT THE HEIGHTS AT RIDGECREST, UNIT NUMBER EIGHT, SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 0 9.

I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE, UH, TO THE 5 38 EST, UH, PROJECT OR PROPOSAL PA 2020 DASH 16 0 0 0 1 4.

UH, THE FLORIDA BASED DEVELOPER IS PLANNING THIS, UH, LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECT ON FIVE 30 EVEREST.

I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT I OPPOSED THIS.

UH, I'M A NEIGHBOR RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.

UH, OUR UNITS ARE, UH, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OF $400,000.

OUR TAXES ARE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OF $9,000 A YEAR AND WE WANT TO TRY TO DEVELOP OUR COMMUNITY TO, TO KEEP IT AS CLOSE TO THAT, THAT, UH, MARGIN AS POSSIBLE.

WE ALREADY HAVE ONE, UH, COMPLEX THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET ON RIDGECREST AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD OPPOSE HAVING ANY MORE IN THAT AREA.

THE AREA'S ALREADY CONGESTED ENOUGH AT THIS TIME.

UH, THAT IS, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

ALL RIGHT.

MY NAME IS MAR VAR AND I LIVE AT 1422 EAST SANDBROOK LANE IN SAN ANTONIO.

MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 5 5 2 5 0 4 2.

THIS MESSAGE IS REFERENCED TO THE PROPOSED LAND USE CASE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 3 8 EVEREST APPLICATION NUMBER PA 2 2 1 1 6 0 0 0 1 4.

FILE NUMBER 20 32 89.

AND I JUST WANTED TO LET KNOW, I AM AN ONLY VETERAN WHO LIVES AND AM AN OWNER OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE COMMUNITY WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF 5 38 EVERETT, AND I WANTED TO STATE THAT I COMPLETELY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED PLAN.

ADEM CHANGE FROM MIXED USE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

UH, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S ALREADY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE AREA, UH, THAT WAS WHEN THE AREA WAS MUCH DIFFERENT NATURE, MAINLY ALL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

BUT THE AREA HAS BECOME A VIBRANT REINVIGORATED COMMUNITY WITH THE USE OF THE EXISTING MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY.

AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THE LAND USE CATEGORY WHICH ALLOWS FOR I U D AND 18 AND MS 25 IS THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THE OTHERWISE COMMUNITY THAT I HAD CHOSEN TO RETIRE IN.

SINCE THE MIXED USE LINE USE CATEGORY ALLOWS FOR MS 25, IT SEEMS WRONG, CHANGE THE EXISTING LINE USE CATEGORY, IT ALREADY ALLOWS FOR USE THAT IS MOST LIKELY MORE INTENSE

[00:45:01]

THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HANDLE.

THAT IS WHY I AM AGAINST THE PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORY CHANGE AND I HAD TO RECOMMEND THAT DESIGN THIS LANDING CATEGORY TANKS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

AND WE DO HAVE ONE CALLER NAME IS MEGAN SAND.

I HAVE MEGAN SAND ON THE LINE.

AS A REMINDER, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

WE HAVE TWO MINUTES.

GO AHEAD PLEASE.

MY NAME IS .

I LIVE ON 2 0 6 RIDGE BUILDING FIVE.

I'M WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF THE SAND COMMUNITY.

UM, I'VE ALSO IN, I'M A SINGLE MOM, UM, BOTH CHILD SUPPORT.

I WORK VERY HARD TO GET HERE AND INTO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

AS THE OTHER COLLEGE HAVE MENTIONED, THERE ARE TWO OTHER SINGLE INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

IF YOU ACTUALLY WORK THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'LL SEE A VERY, LIKE COLLEGE MENTIONED, VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE IS A LOT OF HOUSES THAT NEED TO BE REDONE AND THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF NEW HOUSES.

WE WITH THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD CONTINUE TO BE AND REVITALIZE NOT GO THE OPPOSITE WAY.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AND I AM EXTREMELY WORRIED THAT MY BIGGEST INVESTMENT THAT I BOUGHT IS JUST MY HOUSE AND SUPPORT.

THIS AREA IN THIS COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE ERODED.

I SAID 10,000 A YEAR AND TAXES TO THE CITY.

I MOVED INTO THIS DISTRICT TO GET MY SON INTO A GOOD SCHOOL ON A SINGLE YEAR INCOME, MY SON.

AND NOW I'M WORRIED THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA ERODE MY PROPERTY VALUE.

AND DURING THIS TIME OF CRISIS, I MEAN, MY BIGGEST ASSET WITH THE STOCK MARKET CRASH AND EVERYTHING IS MY CURRENT PROPERTY.

SO IT'S A VERY PROPOSAL.

THE DEVELOPER, UM, HAS NOT REPRESENTED THE DIVERSITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE FACT THAT WE HOUSING THE FACT THAT I DID TOOTH MY SEVEN YEAR WATCHING THIS WEEKEND, ME ALMOST AN, UM, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO COME UP.

WE THIS AND, UM, ALL THE COMMENTS I'VE BEEN HEARING.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT IF THIS VOTED OUTSIDE FROM FLORIDA, WE'LL BE GOING AGAINST SINGLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WISHES AND WE'LL BE PROVIDING A DIRECT DEPOSITION OF THE TAXPAYERS WHO REPRESENT THE COUNCIL.

SO CHAIR AT THIS POINT, BUT SINCE WE STILL HAVE HER ON THE CALL, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.

WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER JACKSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CALLER? I DO NOT.

NO QUESTIONS.

UH, COMMISSIONER CARDILLO, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO.

COMMISSIONER PROPHET, UH, THANK YOU FOR CALLING IN.

UH, NO, NO QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.

UH, COMMISSIONER , I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

UH, COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA, UH, NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

SAID, WELL, THIS IS THE AREA I CAN AFFORD.

COMMISSIONER MCKEE? NO, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

GO AHEAD, SIR.

UM, YOU NAMED THE LIT ISSUES THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, CONCERNING WHAT A CHANGE IN THE ZONING WOULD ACCOMPLISH.

UH, WHAT IS YOUR PRIORITIZE OR ISSUE IN, IN TERMS OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF, IF THE BOARD WOULD APPROVE THIS, UH, REQUEST? WELL, IF SEE THAT IT'S VERY, UM, THEY'RE VERY DILAPIDATED AND THEN THERE'S NEW HOUSES RIGHT NEXT TO 'EM, BUT MOST OF THE HOUSE IS SINGLE FAMILY, FAMILY.

I'M CALLING FROM .

THEY'RE ACTUALLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE KIND OF PRIVATE HOME STYLE.

THEY'RE NOT HIGH DENSITY.

UM, MOST OF THE AREA IS GOING THAT WAY AND ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ANY OF THE OLDER HOUSES ARE BEING, UM, RENOVATED INTO NEWER VERSIONS OR THEY'RE COMING IN AND JUST RENOVATING THE CURRENT OLD HOUSE.

SO A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS IS STILL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND WE DO HAVE SOME APARTMENT COMPLEX ALL OVER THE EDGE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM US.

WE HAVE HAD HOUSING.

I MOVED IN HERE KNOWING THAT, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE TWO COMMUNITY COMPLEXES WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF ME WITH LOW INCOME HOUSING.

SO, UM, LET TURN THE QUESTION ON YOU.

YOU HAD, WHEN YOU WERE COMING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD IMMEDIATE REVITALIZATION AND YOU, AND YOU MOVED INTO A GOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR YOUR AND

[00:50:01]

THAT'S BE NICE, IDEAL FAMILY HOUSING, KNOWING THAT HOPEFULLY THE REST OF THE WILL CONTINUE TO IMPROVE AND THAT'S YOUR BIGGEST INVESTMENT.

WOULD YOU WANNA LIVE THIRD LOW INCOME HOUSING THAT MIGHT VALUE THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR BIGGEST ASSET WILL? YOU'RE TAXES? IF YOU'RE ASKING ME A QUESTION, MY RESPONSE WOULD BE I DO LIVE RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THAT SITUATION AND TWO ALREADY TWO SIR, ALREADY ACROSS FROM ME.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

TELL ME ONE PERSON ON THIS CALL, YOUR CONSTITUENT HERE IN THE CITY.

THIS, I MEAN, I MEAN, I ALREADY HAVE TWO CONTINUE IN LINE WITH THE KIND OF, EVEN IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT HERE, THE FAMILY HOME, ALL, I MEAN, BE BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THIS COMMUNITY WANTS IT.

YOU DID ASK ME.

I WAS GIVING YOU A RESPONSE.

I MEAN ACTUALLY I I, WITH, WITH YOUR REQUEST AND I AM FULLY UNDERSTAND, UH, BECAUSE, UH, IT DOESN'T HAVE AN, AND IT DOES HAVE AN EFFECT ON COMMUNITIES, LAND LOW FROM HOMES ARE BUILT.

UM, HOWEVER, I HAVEN'T READ A FILE TO BE ENSURE THAT IT IS LOW INCOME.

UM, BUT, UH, NEVERTHELESS, I DO SUPERVISE WITH YOUR ISSUE.

I, THAT ENDS MY QUESTION.

YES, BUT I MEAN, THE LOWEST RENT IS FIVE A MONTH.

THE HIGHEST RENT A MONTH IS THE TAXES.

I VERY GOOD.

I YIELD TO CHRISTOPHER.

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.

UH, COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CALLER COMMISSIONER? WHICH ONE WAS THAT? UH, COMMISSIONER PECK.

UH, NO, NO QUESTIONS FOR THE CALLER.

UH, YOU HAVE NO QUESTIONS? NO, SIR.

UH, COMMISSIONER EZ IS NOT HERE WITH US TODAY.

UH, I DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE CALLER.

CALLER, THANK YOU FOR CALLING AND LETTING YOUR, UM, LET US KNOW WHAT YOUR OPINION IS ON THIS PROJECT AND CARING ABOUT YOUR COMMUNITY.

I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE IF I SOUND ANGRY.

I'M JUST SCARED.

I'M JUST VERY SCARED OF WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO, AND TO ADD THIS WITH THE BUDDING OF THE, AND SO I'M SCARED.

SORRY.

THAT'S OKAY.

WE, WE UNDERSTAND YOU MOVED THERE AND, AND YOU SEE A CERTAIN CHANGE AND YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL CHANGE, UH, ESPECIALLY THIS DEVELOPMENT MOVES FORWARD.

WOULD LIKE ADD THAT WITH THE COVID CRIME AND MY EXHUSBAND AND WIFE, I HAVE NO CHILD SUPPORT MY ASSET LITERALLY AND THE POTENTIAL OF THE INVESTMENT THAT IT WOULD COME CONTINUE TO.

A HIGHER QUALITY PROPERTY FOR THE WORKFORCE HOUSING AT REDUCED RENT, WHICH WILL BE NEEDED MORE NOW THAN EVER IN THIS POST COVID ERROR.

WE, WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND TRUST ME, I THINK EVERYBODY IS, UH, LOOKING DIFFERENT STRESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COVID 19 SITUATION.

UM, IT JUST AMPLIFIES, UM, STRESSES THAT WERE ALREADY THERE ON EVERYBODY.

UM, UH, NOT TO YOU FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION.

UH, DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AVAILABLE FOR A REBUTTAL IF THEY SHOULD STILL BE THE CALL? YES, I'M HERE.

UH, DO YOU HAVE A, A REBUTTAL FOR THE NUMEROUS COMMENTS THAT ARE INTO THE RECORD? YES, SIR.

UM, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS.

UM, MOST OF 'EM TO THE EFFECT OF, UH, NOT IN MY BACKYARD OR SOMEWHERE ELSE.

UM, THIS IS NOT SECTION EIGHT LOW INCOME HOUSING.

THIS PROJECT WILL USE T E A C A TAX CREDIT FUNDS TO BRING IN PRIVATE EQUITY TO CREATE

[00:55:01]

THIS REQUEST IS TO MOVE FROM MF, POTENTIALLY FROM MF 25 TO 33, NETTING A ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL 14 UNITS.

WE SEE THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE, UH, LANDSCAPE BUSINESS THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.

THE, UM, DEVELOPER, UM, UM, AP COMMUNITIES IS BASED OUT OF FLORIDA WITH OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OF BRINGING PROJECTS LIKE THIS INTO EXISTENCE, BUT THEY HAVE PARTNERED WITH A SAN ANTONIO BASED PARTNER OF O C I HEARD.

UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE AT THIS MOMENT.

WE'RE NOW GO TO COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS STARTING WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER JACKSON.

OKAY, SIR, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER CARILLO.

UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO HE MENTIONED RIGHT NOW IN HIS REBUTTAL ADDITIONAL 14 UNITS.

SO CAN YOU JUST, UM, TELL ME AGAIN HOW MANY UNITS YOU PLAN TO PUT IN THIS, UM, SPACE AND WHY THE, THE, THE MIXED USE WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE YOUR PLANS? SO THE, UM, IT'S, UH, THE PROPERTY IS JUST OVER TWO ACRES AND WE ARE SEEKING TO PUT IN 64 UNITS.

UH, THE CURRENT, UM, CURRENT LAND USE PLAN AS MIXED USE RESTRICTS THAT TO THE ZONING TO MF 25, WHICH WOULD LIMIT US TO, UH, 15 UNITS.

FIVE ZERO.

UM, BECAUSE I, I DO REMEMBER A, A, A SIMILAR, NO, I SHOULDN'T SAY SIMILAR, BUT ANOTHER PROJECT, UH, THAT WE HAD BEFORE US, UM, IN THIS PAST YEAR IN THE GENERAL VICINITY.

AND MY, MY COMMENTS FOR YOU ARE THE SAME AS MY COMMENTS FOR THAT APPLICANT IN THAT THIS AREA IS, UM, IS, IS ALREADY VERY HIGHLY POPULATED.

THERE IS DENSITY ALONG THE SUNSET.

I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA.

AND, UM, MY, MY CONCERNS ARE NOT ABOUT THE LOW INCOME HOUSING, EVEN LOW INCOME HOUSING.

I THINK THAT THAT IS, UM, SOMETHING THAT, THAT IS NEEDED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

MY CONCERN IS THE DENSITY IN THAT AREA, AND AS ONE OF THE LETTERS I BELIEVE STATED, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT ON THE MAIN ARTERY OF SUNSET OR BROADWAY, UM, AND NOT, UH, SURE ABOUT THE MAJOR TRANSPORTATION.

UM, THERE'S VIA TRANSPORTATION OR THERE'S OTHER, UM, IF IT'S ON SUNSET OR IF IT'S CLOSER TO BROADWAY.

BUT, UM, I I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS, UH, IT JUST, IT'S TOO MUCH IN THAT AREA.

THERE'S ALREADY SO MUCH TO A HIGH DENSITY, UM, LOCATED IN AROUND THAT AREA THAT THAT'S, THAT THIS PROJECT, UM, I UNDERSTAND IT'S ONLY ADDING 14 ADDITIONAL UNITS WITH THIS CHANGE IN LAND USE.

BUT, UH, I, I WOULD HAVE TO BE OPPOSED ON TO IT BECAUSE OF THAT ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN DENSITY.

NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.

UH, COMMISSIONER PROFIT.

UH, THANK YOU, UH, MR. TORE AND THEN, UH, TO ALL THE NUMEROUS OWNERS WHO HAVE MADE COMMENTS IN THE CALLER.

UM, A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

UH, ONE, A COUPLE OF STAFF, A COUPLE OF THE ADJACENT OWNERS MENTIONED THE TIMING NOTIFICATION.

WAS THAT DONE IN THE PROPER TIMING? YES, SIR.

THE SIGNS ARE POSTED APPROXIMATELY 12 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

UH, BUT THERE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THAT.

THAT IS JUST A PRO, UH, PROCESS BASED, UH, INTERNAL STAFF POLICY.

SO, SO THE RESIDENTS AND, UH, JASON, UH, LANDOWNER RECEIVED AMPLE NOTICE ABOUT THIS? YES, THERE DID.

THE NOTICES THAT ARE SENT, UH, PER THE REQUIRED STATE LAW REQUIREMENT WERE MAILED, UH, WITHIN THE, UH, REQUIRED TIMEFRAME, AND THEY WERE MAILED TO THE PRO, THE 11 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WE NOTED.

THE PROPER ZONING IN THEIR SEPARATE MEETING, BUT ALSO THE, UH, THEY'LL MAKE APPLICATION FOR TAX CREDIT.

AND AS FAR AS THE TAX CREDIT PORTION OF THAT, I MEAN, WE HAVE TWO OTHER ISSUES IN ONE, THE ZONING, UH, ZONING COMMISSION WILL DETERMINE

[01:00:01]

SO IT'LL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO, UH, TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS, I THINK AT CITY COUNCIL.

CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

THERE IS A STEP, UM, THAT IS REQUIRED OF CITY COUNCIL CALLED THE RUG RESOLUTION, UM, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO FINISH THEIR APPLICATION THROUGH TO THE T D H C A, UH, PROCESS.

AND JEFF, UH, UM, WHAT TYPE OF, UH, TAX CREDIT ARE YOU APPLYING FOR? HAVE THEY TURNED THAT, IS THE APPLICANT STILL THERE? HELLO? GO AHEAD.

WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

WHAT, UH, WHAT TYPE OF, UH, CREDITOR THEY APPLIED FOR? I DO NOT HAVE THAT IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF ME.

UM, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK AS A COMMISSION TO LOOK AT, UM, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOMES, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SEEMS TO BE PRETTY GOOD ACCESS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO, TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TO 2 81.

SO, YOU KNOW, IN GENERAL, I, I THINK I HAVE OPPOSITION.

I'M, I'M AN APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT AND, UH, I THINK THE RESIDENTS, IF THEY HAVE OPPOSITION TO THE, TO THE TAX CREDIT PORTION OF IT WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT IN FUTURE MEETINGS.

SO THANK YOU.

UH, COMMISSIONER ROHR, HALL GREENY.

HI.

I ACTUALLY HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS, SOME OF WHICH I THINK HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED.

UM, YOU SAID YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TYPE OF TAX CREDIT, UM, WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE OF UNITS THAT WOULD BE, UM, ELIGIBLE FOR THE, THE TAX CREDIT IN THIS PROPERTY? WELL, ALL OF 'EM BE, UM, ELIGIBLE OR WHAT'S THE VARIATION? UH, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THAT, UH, HAVE THAT SPECIFIC APPLICATION IN FRONT OF ME.

UM, I DID GET A, A MESSAGE, UM, WHILE, UH, MR. UH, PROFIT WAS TALKING THAT IT IS A HOUSING TAX CREDIT, UH, APPLICATION THAT WILL BE BEING MOVED FORWARD.

I'M BEING RESPONSIVE AND I MIGHT A HUNDRED PERCENT IS THE ELIGIBLE.

SO ALL, ALL UNITS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE AND, AND YOU DON'T, I GUESS YOU DON'T HAVE SPECIFICS ON WHAT THAT ELIGIBILITY LOOKS LIKE.

SO, UH, 80% A M I, 60% A M I, ET CETERA, I BELIEVE IT'S 80%.

UM, I, I ASK THAT BECAUSE I, I DO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH, UM, UH, PROBABLY 400 UNITS WITH ANOTHER, UH, 50 OR SO COMING ONLINE THAT ARE, UM, VARIATIONS, UM, ON, UH, WORKFORCE AND LOW INCOME HOUSING.

UM, SO I KNOW, I KNOW WHAT THAT'S LIKE.

UM, AND, AND I ALSO PAY A LOT OF TAXES.

UM, BUT I, UH, WE ACTUALLY SUPPORT LOW INCOME HOUSING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND FIGHT FOR IT.

SO I, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH LOW INCOME HOUSING.

I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN THIS PARTICULAR COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGES AND, AND WHAT THAT IS IN RELATION TO WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

UM, LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER CARILLO, I'M, I'M ACTUALLY CONCERNED MORE ABOUT THE DENSITY.

SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO LOOK UP WHERE THE NEAREST VIA BUS STOP IS.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE THAT INFORMATION, EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? HOW SO? WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT LOW INCOME HOUSING AND WHETHER OR NOT, UM, AT THIS TYPE OF PROPERTY IS SUITABLE, ESPECIALLY, AND ACTUALLY HIGH DENSITY HOUSING, UM, PART OF THE ADVANTAGE OF HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IS THAT PEOPLE ARE LESS LIKELY TO USE CARS.

SO, SO THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS WHERE IS THE NEAREST BUS LINE, UH, BUS STOP IN PROXIMITY, UH, BECAUSE YOU WANNA PUT HIGH DENSITY HOUSING WHERE THERE'S A BUS STOP.

SO DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? SHE, UM, THIS IS KAT, WE'RE PULLING UP THE INFORMATION OFF GOOGLE, BUT IT IS SERVED BY, UH, BAR NUMBER NINE.

AND WE'RE GONNA GONNA SHOW WHERE THE, UH, LINE, UH, TRAVELS FROM.

WELL, SO THE ANSWER, YOUR, UH, THE BUS STOPS, THERE ARE THREE ROUTES ON SUNSET, THAT SERVICE, UH, SERVICE, THIS AREA, I DON'T HAVE THESE SPECIFIC ROUTE NUMBERS, BUT, UH, UHHUH ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, WHY DO WE NEED TO INCREASE THE DENSITY FROM, UH, 50 TO 64? AGAIN, IT IS A FUNCTION OF, UH, PROJECT FINANCING.

SURE.

THAT'S ALWAYS MY, MY FIRST QUESTION, IS IT, AND IT'S REALLY ACCESSIBLE TO SOMEBODY WITHOUT A CAR, WHICH IS THE ADVANTAGE OF HIGH DENSITY.

UM, WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT, UM, CAN THE APPLICANT TELL ME, I, I, SO I UNDERSTAND YOU WANNA GO FROM 50 UNITS TO 64.

WHY, WHY ARE 50 UNITS NOT SUFFICIENT?

[01:05:03]

WE DO HAVE, UH, WE DO HAVE A, UH, SET, UH, FIXED, UM, EXPENSES FOR THIS PROJECT.

UM, AND DISTRIBUTING THOSE, UH, OVER MORE, MORE UNITS, UH, REDUCE THE OVERALL COST PER UNIT HERE, AGAIN, TRYING TO MAKE THE, THE, UM, THESE PROJECTS AFFORDABLE.

WITH THE, WITH THE TAX CREDIT, UM, ALLOW US BACK, IS THE BUILDER CREDITS TO BUILD AT A LOWER COST.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO ARE YOU SAYING EVEN WITH THOSE, UH, FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT ASSIST IN THE BUILDING, 50 UNITS WOULD STILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO, UM, TO RENT AT A LOWER RATE? CORRECT.

UH, OKAY.

SO THEN MY LAST QUESTION RELATES TO THE SIZE.

YOU SAID THEY'RE GONNA BE ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS, ABOUT 50 50.

UM, WHAT IS THE OCCUPANCY EXPECTED TO BE FOR THOSE, OR WHAT CAN, WHAT OCCUPANCY CAN YOU HAVE FOR A ONE BEDROOM, UM, APARTMENT? SO ALL OF THOSE OCCUPANCY GUIDELINES ARE ESTABLISHED BY, UH, T D H C GUIDELINES THAT SET LIMITS TO THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS PER, UH, PER UNIT.

RIGHT.

SO, SO WHAT IS IT? IS IT 2 4, 1 BEDROOM? IS IT FOUR? JUST, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHO WOULD BE LIVING THERE TO DETERMINE WITH 64 UNITS, HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT LOOKS LIKE, AND I, WHEN I THINK OF LOW INCOME HOUSING, I'M USUALLY THINKING OF FOR FAMILIES.

SO IF A ONE BEDROOM A SUITABLE FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR, UM, OR IS THAT GOING BE LIMITED TO A FAMILY TOO? I, I, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

MAYBE STAFF HAS TO ANSWER ABOUT OCCUPANCY.

SO A ONE BEDROOM WOULD TYPICALLY BE APPROPRIATE FOR TWO RESIDENTS TO TWO BEDROOM, TYPICALLY NOT MORE THAN FOUR.

SO ABOUT HALF OF IT WOULD BE A, A COUPLE OR A MAYBE A SINGLE PARENT AND A, AND A CHILD.

UM, OKAY.

UM, MY LAST QUESTION IS, UM, I, I KNOW THEY, THEY'VE MADE A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT BEING A FLORIDA DEVELOPER.

DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THIS DEVELOPER HAS DONE IN SAN ANTONIO? UH, THIS DEVELOPER HAS, UH, HAS, UH, COMPLETED TWO OTHER PROJECTS HERE IN SAN ANTONIO AND HAS TWO ADDITIONAL UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

CAN CAN YOU TELL ME WHICH ONES THEY ARE? UM, ONE OF 'EM, UH, THE NAME IS, UM, THE BRISTOL APARTMENTS OFF OF ROAD.

UM, THE, UM, SECOND ONE THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED, UM, UM, I'M DRAWING A BLANK OF THE NAME RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY'RE, UH, FRONT OFF OF, UH, UH, LUKE 1604.

SO THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THAT'S FURTHER INSIDE, CLOSER TO TOWN.

UM, SO THANKS, THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.

UM, I REALLY, UM, MY MAIN CONCERN IS, IS NOT THE, THE LOW INCOME, UH, PROVIDED IT'S IT'S BALANCE.

I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LOT OF STEPS THAT FOLKS HAVE TO GO TO TO GET, UH, TO GET INTO SUCH APARTMENTS.

AND I, I, I DID PULL UP THE, THE MAP FOR THE BUS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT A HALF A MILE AWAY, WHICH IS, IS NOT UNREASONABLE FOR A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT, UM, THERE IS THIS HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ACROSS THE STREET FROM A NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

I KNOW IT'S NOT DIRECTLY ACROSS, BUT, UM, LOOKING AT THE STREET MAP, THE, THE BLOCK RIGHT OFF OF THAT IS SINGLE FAMILY.

UM, AND THE HIGH DENSITY IS PRETTY INTENSE FOR THE AREA THAT ALREADY HAS HIGH DENSITY.

UM, THERE, I KNOW THERE THAT'S BEING USED AS A REASON FOR ADDING BORE, BUT IT DOES CONCERN ME THAT THERE, THE STREETS, UM, CAN'T QUITE HANDLE THE PRESSURE OF THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY.

UM, OKAY.

TH THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

UH, COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

SO MY QUESTION IS FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT.

SO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT

[01:10:01]

YOU PLAN HERE, UM, CAN YOU TELL ME IF ANY IMPROVEMENT, UH, TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, STREETS AND SIDEWALKS AND DRAINAGE ARE PLANNED FOR THIS AREA AS PART OF YOUR PROJECT? SO CERTAINLY THERE ARE STREET IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THIS PROJECT.

UM, VERY MUCH THAT, LIKE, THERE WERE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STREET ACROSS THE WAY, AS WELL AS, UM, UH, SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PROJECT.

WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT WE WILL END UP, UH, NEEDING TO PROVIDE ONSITE DETENTION.

SO WE WILL TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN DETENTION NEEDS.

WORKFORCE HOUSING, WHICH, OKAY.

UM, CAN YOU TELL ME, SO WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND OUT, UM, ANY OF THE PROPORTIONS, SO SAY FOR INSTANCE, UH, WORKFORCE HOUSING VERSUS, UH, LOW INCOME VERSUS MARKET RATE, WERE YOU ABLE TO, UH, FIGURE THAT OUT IN BETWEEN NOW AND THE, UH, LAST COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS 100%.

WORKFORCE HOUSING.

AND CAN ANYBODY HELP STAFF OR APPLICANT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORKFORCE HOUSING AND I GUESS THERE'S DIFFERENT, UH, LEVELS OF WORKFORCE VERSUS LOW INCOME AND TERMINOLOGY? I DON'T THINK WE ALL SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

UM, I, I DON'T KNOW.

I KNOW THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE WITH T D H C RELATED TO THE PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS THAT THEY APPLIED FOR, BUT MM-HMM.

, UM, IF YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT, UH, TERMS RELATED TO LOW INCOME HOUSING VERSUS WORKFORCE HOUSING, , THIS TERMS, BUT WE, WE REFER TO IT IN, UM, IN OUR PROFESSION AS WORKFORCE HOUSING.

MM-HMM.

AND HOW MANY, UH, SQUARE FEET APPROXIMATELY WERE, UH, THE UNITS, UM, THAT YOU WERE, UH, PLANNING ON? SO, A VARIATION OF THE ONE AND TWO BEDROOM.

SO THE, UM, ONE BEDROOM UNITS ARE, I BELIEVE, AROUND SEVEN.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT STYLES THAT THEY AVERAGE ABOUT 700 SUITES SQUARE FOOT.

AND, UM, THE, UH, TWO BEDROOMS ARE IN THE RANGE OF, UM, OF ABOUT A THOUSAND.

AND, UH, FOR THIS APPLICATION THAT YOU'RE APPLYING FOR, HOW MANY YEARS ARE YOU REQUIRED TO, UM, LEAVE IT AT, UM, WORK FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING? IS IT FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS INDEFINITE? UM, UH, TYPICALLY I BELIEVE IT IS 30 YEARS.

MM-HMM.

, AND, UH, THEN THERE ARE MEANS AND METHODS THAT, UM, THAT THE DEVELOPER, UH, TYPICALLY EXTENDS THOSE OUT, UH, BEYOND THAT.

UH, OKAY.

AND AGAIN, SO I'M JUST GONNA GO BACK TO THE 50 VERSUS THE 64.

SO IS IT, UM, A REQUIREMENT FOR THE APPLICATION THAT YOU, UH, OR, OR IS IT JUST FOR THE LENDERS, UH, MAKING THE NUMBERS WORK? UH, THE 50 VERSUS THE 64, IT, IT, IT IS A FUNCTION OF MAKING THE NUMBERS WORK, UH, FINANCIALLY.

I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.

UM, I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS GONNA BE ABOUT 164 PARKING SPACES, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, 106 PARKING SPACES.

YOU SAID 106? 1 0 6.

YES, SIR.

SO LESS THAN TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT.

SO THE AVERAGE MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, UM, UH, PROVIDES 1.5 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, AND WE ARE PROVIDING 1.65.

SO IN EXCESS OF WHAT THE STANDARD MULTI-FAMILY, UH, WOULD PROVIDE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S NORMALLY PROVIDED.

MY CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOUR PROPERTY IS, UM, OTHER THAN THE COMMERCIAL AND THE, AND THE, UM, BUSINESSES NORTH OF YOUR PROPERTY THAT IS SURROUNDED BY HIGH DENSITY PARKING OR HIGH DENSITY UNITS.

MY OBSERVATION ON DRIVING DOWN SANDALWOOD AND UH, EVEREST IS THAT MOST, THEIR ALMOST ALL , THE STREETS ARE COVERED WITH PARKED CARS, MAKING THOSE STREETS QUITE TREACHEROUS, UH, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CHILDREN BEING IN THE VICINITY.

AND I WAS JUST WONDERING, UH, ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BECAUSE THAT, THAT, THAT'S SOMEWHAT OF AN ALERT TO

[01:15:01]

ME.

UM, BECAUSE IN GENERAL, REGARDLESS, UH, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PARKING IS ALWAYS IN, UH, IN MOST OF THE DESIGNS AROUND THE CITY .

UM, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE, I MIGHT HAVE FOUND SIX BUS STOPS, UH, WITHIN THE AREA OF THE BLOCK OF THE, OF THE, OF THE UNIT THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON.

UM, I WOULD STILL THINK THAT SINCE THIS IS A WORKFORCE AREA, THAT A NUMBER OF THOSE WILL BE DRIVING THEIR OWN VEHICLE.

UM, AND THAT CONCERNS ME THAT IT HAS SO FEW PARKING SPACE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE, I JUST HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME WITH THE PARKING.

UM, UH, OTHER THAN THAT, UH, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER PECK? UH, YEAH, ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

JEFF, UM, DID YOU GUYS, YOU AND YOUR CLIENT, OR JUST YOUR CLIENT, DID, HAVE YOU MET WITH, UH, H O A, THE PROPERTY OWNERS NEAR, NEARBY TO KIND OF GO OVER YOUR PROJECT AND TRY AND NEGOTIATE WITH 'EM OR BRING THEM ALONG TO YOUR SIDE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? YOU, ANY DISCUSSIONS? OKAY.

SO THIS, UH, THIS SPECIFIC AREA DOES NOT FALL WITHIN A, UH, REGISTERED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

UM, WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE, UM, PUT A POSTING ON THE PROPERTY SIGN NOTIFYING OF A PUBLIC MEETING.

UM, THAT PUBLIC MEETING WAS HELD, UM, ON, UH, FEBRUARY 12TH AT, UH, AT ONE OF THE LOCAL CHURCHES THERE.

UM, WE HAD A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE, UH, ATTEND THAT, UH, NOTIFICATION, UH, AS A RESULT OF THAT NOTIFICATION.

UM, ACTUALLY HAD HAD NO OPPOSITION AT THAT TIME.

UM, AND, UM, UH, WE, WE, WE, WE HAVE DONE, WE TRIED TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO REACH OUT TO, UH, TO THE COMMUNITY, UH, AGAIN, UH, BY POSTING A, UH, A, A A A A A FLYER SOMEWHERE TO WHAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WOULD DO.

AND WE ALSO DID REACH OUT BY LETTER TO THE ADJACENT OWNERS.

WAS A PROJECT BACK THERE BACK THEN IN FEBRUARY.

THAT PUBLIC MEETING WAS A PROJECT MARGINALLY SIMILAR WHAT YOU HAVE GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

THERE WASN'T DRAMATIC CHANCE TO IT, UH, THE IDENTICAL PROJECT.

I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

UM, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

UH, SOMEBODY, UH, HOPEFULLY STAFF COULD CLARIFY, THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC.

UM, AND WHEN TRAFFIC NUMBERS ARE CALCULATED, DO YOU TYPICALLY SEE MORE TRAFFIC WITH MIXED USE OR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, OR IS IT ABOUT THE SAME? UM, YOU'LL TYPICALLY SEE, UH, MORE TRAFFIC WITH COMMERCIAL USES, UH, BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE MORE, UH, TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF THOSE THAT JUST LIVE THERE.

UH, SO A T I A WOULD ONLY KICK IN IF THE PEAK HOUR TRIP, UH, MET OR EXCEEDED 76 PEAK HOUR TRIP.

NOT SURE IF THIS ONE MEETS THAT THRESHOLD WITH ONLY 64 UNITS, SO IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD, UH, BUT JEFF CAN COMMENT ON THAT.

BUT DEFINITELY WHEN YOU HAVE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL, WE'LL BRING MORE TRAFFIC, UH, UH, GREEN AND A TYPICAL, UH, MIXED USE DEVELOP WOULD BRING FAR MORE TRAFFIC THAN, UM, RAN A MULTIFAMILY.

UM, PRETTY MUCH ON A, A FACTOR OF STUDENTS.

UH, TYPICALLY, UM, AGAIN, THIS IS, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS WORKFORCE HOUSING.

THIS IS YOUR DOCTOR, OR EXCUSE ME, A NURSES OR, UH, FRONTLINE WORKERS, UM, TYPICALLY LEAVE, UH, LEAVE FOR WORK.

UM, AND, AND QUITE OFTEN STAGGERED TIMES, NOT NECESSARILY ON YOUR, YOUR PEAK HOUR, UH, PEAK HOUR DEMAND AND, UM, TYPICALLY WILL RETURN, UH, AGAIN OFF OF YOUR PEAK HOURS.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, REGARDING THE, THE, THE WORKFORCE HOUSING ASPECT, UH, SOMEBODY MENTIONED THE TERM THAT WAS AT 80% TO A M I, CAN SOMEBODY ELABORATE ON WHAT THAT WAS, WHAT THAT MEANS? CAN I, YES.

CAN I STEP IN? UM, SO 80% A M I IN SAN ANTONIO TODAY IS 56,000 PER YEAR.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR, BUT I WOULD NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT.

THAT'S BASICALLY A TEACHER SALARY.

THE, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASPECT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WITHIN THAT INCOME RANGE? SO THEY QUALIFY? OKAY.

THE HOUSE THAT APPLIED TO THE,

[01:20:01]

THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH.

YOU, YOU CAN'T MAKE MORE THAN THAT TO BE ELIGIBLE IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE USING THAT AS THE, THE MARKER.

THAT WAS A, A CLARIFICATION I WANTED.

UH, QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UH, THERE WAS SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BEING ABLE TO HANDLE THE, THE INCREASED CAPACITY.

HOW DOES THAT GET COORDINATED WHEN YOU HAVE A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT? YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A POTENTIAL INCREASE FOR THE, THE LOCAL HIGH, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO HAVE MORE STUDENTS.

HOW DOES THAT GET COORDINATED? MADE IT, OH, AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE, IT IS FORWARDED TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, SO THAT HELPS WITH THEIR PLANNING, UM, FOR THEIR NUMBERS, DEPENDING UPON, UH, THE AGE GROUP.

SO, BUT WE DO FORWARD A COPY OF THAT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND WE, WE OFFICIALLY NOTIFY THEM AS PART OF THE NOTIFICATION.

AND THEN, UM, SO, SO WHAT THEY'RE APPLYING FOR REGARDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE TRADITIONAL SECTION.

IS IT DIFFERENT THAN THE TRADITIONAL SECTION EIGHT HOUSING? IS THERE SOMEBODY THAT CAN JUST ELABORATE THAT A LOT OF CONFIDENCE KEPT REFERRING BACK TO SECTION EIGHT HOUSING AND SECTION EIGHT HOUSING? I JUST WANT TO, IF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO VERSUS THE TRADITIONAL SECTION EIGHT.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.

IS THAT ? OKAY.

SO SECTION EIGHT HOUSING IS A VOUCHER PROGRAM.

UM, ANYONE CAN PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROGRAM OF ANY HOMEOWNER CAN PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROGRAM BY ACCEPTING THOSE VOUCHERS.

UH, SO SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER PROGRAM IS ALLOWED ANYWHERE THE T D H C A, UH, PROJECTS, THE WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECTS, THOSE ARE APPLICATIONS TO T D H C A.

TYPICALLY THERE ARE NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR, UM, RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, WHETHER IT'S MULTIFAMILY OR OF SOME TYPE OF SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THEY ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

AND THEN, UM, I BELIEVE THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS THAT I HAD.

UH, JUST A REMINDER, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LAND USAGE AND THEN REQUESTING HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND ONE OF THE OTHER COMMENTS WE SAW MANY TIMES WAS ABOUT, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT CRIME.

AND, UM, CRIME HAPPENS IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHETHER IT'S A LOW INCOME, MEDIUM INCOME, OR EVEN THE, UH, WEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS IN TOWN HAVE TO DEAL WITH VARIOUS ASPECTS OF CRIME.

UM, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER, ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.

YOU APPEAR TO BE NONE.

IF THERE ARE NONE, THEN CAN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? IS COMMISSIONER PECK? I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ON THIS ITEM.

SECOND MOTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR COMMISSIONER PECK.

AND WE HAVE THE SECOND, UM, WAS THAT, WHO MADE THE SECOND? WAS THAT MICHAEL GARCIA? YES.

MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER PECK.

AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA.

STAFF, CAN YOU GIVE THE ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER PROPHET? YES.

AND THAT IS A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SO COMMISSIONER JACKSON? YES.

COMMISSIONER ? NO.

SO COMMISSIONER ROHR ALLEG GREENY? YES.

COMMISSIONER GARCIA? YES, THAT'S POSSIBLE.

GARCIA? OKAY.

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ? NO.

UM, TO COMMISSIONER MCGEE? YES.

COMMISSIONER PECK? YES.

AND CHAIR GARCIA? YES.

MOTION PASSES.

SEVEN TO TWO.

MINUTES OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MEETING MINUTES? THERE BEING NONE.

DO WE HAVE, UH, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MEETING

[17. 20-3314 Consideration and Action on the Minutes from May 13, 2020.]

UH, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION AT A SECOND ON THE MEETING MINUTES? COMMISSIONER PROFIT? DID YOU APPROVE?

[01:25:04]

SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER PROFIT.

A SECOND.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT WAS COMMISSIONER CARILLO THAT THE ROLL CALL.

COMMISSIONER JACKSON? YES.

COMMISSIONER CARILLO? YES.

COMMISSIONER PROPHET? YES.

COMMISSIONER WARD EGRIN? YES.

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL GARCIA? I WASN'T AT THE MEETING, BUT I WATCHED IT ON, UH, ON MY VIDEO.

COMMISSIONER MCGEE? YES.

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ? YES.

COMMISSIONER PECK? YES.

AND ILLA? YES.

MOTION PASSES WITH NINE ZERO.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, STAFF COMMENTS OR DIRECTOR COMMENTS? NOPE, NOT TODAY, SIR.

UH, JUST A REMINDER THAT FOR THE MEETINGS IN JUNE, THEY WILL STILL BE VIRTUAL JUNE MEETINGS WILL BE VIRTUAL.

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ANY I'M SEEING? NO.

I'M SEEING NO.

UH, REAL QUICK, I THINK THE U D C AMENDMENT PROCESS HAD STOPPED BECAUSE OF THE WHOLE COVID SITUATION.

DID THAT RESUME OR IS THERE AN UPDATE ON THAT? NO, IT HAS NOT RESUMED YET.

UH, BUT, UH, AS A TO THE FEE, UH, THE FEEDBACK, UH, WE'LL ALSO PROVIDE AN EMAIL RELATED TO THE C AMENDMENT PROCESS DUE TO THIS , WE'LL SEND AN EMAIL.

I KNOW IT HAS NOT RESTARTED.

IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR FROM STAFF AND IT IS 3 27 AND THIS MEETING WILL BE ADJOURNED.