 We'll start with Pastor Patrick Jones, Pastor Jones still here, Elder Raymond Bryant, Raymond Bryant, Cynthia Spielman. Hello. I'm Cynthia Spielman. I'm a member of the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association Board. I want to introduce Mark Spielman, who is the Chair of our Zoning and Urban Design Committee who will make our statement. We'd like to urge you to approve the issue before you. We think it's really an important one. There's been an awful lot of work on this, has been thoughtfully proposed. It's not a perfect solution to our problems, but right now, because it's so open what can happen with the IDZ, we think it's going to be easier for developmental services to come up with recommendations. It will allow for a lot more guidelines that will make the situation going forward a lot more viable. Right now, two of the issues that are coming up before committees all the time are the setbacks particularly and using the IDZ as a workaround for situations where a developer has gone in and worked without permits to get himself into a situation where his property really doesn't conform anymore. It seems inappropriate in some of the ways that IDZ can be applied. These guidelines, I think, will make a huge difference and again urge you to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Cynthia and Mark Spielman. Sean Price, followed by Ricky Kushner. Good morning, Sean Price. I'm 1747 West Laurel Street. I have the honor of serving District 1 specifically West End in various capacities and I'm here today as a co-chair of the West End Hope and Action Neighborhood Association and we want to express that we are in favor of the proposed changes that have come out to the zoning code based upon the efforts of the IDZ Task Force. Specifically the development of the R1 and R2 zoning codes. These codes are very imperative to the West End and other communities like it to where constituents are there who literally work paycheck for paycheck in order to make ends meet. Right now, historically speaking, communities like the West End which are low income and also in the inner city have been economically segregated and I don't believe that it's been done intentionally but based upon the process that's required it is very implicit. For example, today, if one of the property owners who have a home that sits on a lot that is being substandard, that's a lot that's under 3,000 square feet, if they want to go down the DSD to poor permits to make anything which is more than a minor repair to their homes, they will have to go to do what's called Resonance IDZ which require a number of morning meetings, a site plan being submitted and fees of at least $800. For these constituents, it becomes impossible and with that it seems to be that there is almost discrimination written into the zoning code. Another example of this would be if you have a house that's been burnt down that's been knocked down for various reasons, instead of being built as a single family home, it will remain as a vacant lot. In these said communities, we have scenarios to whether they become ice sourced in the community and also become very palatable for crime and for drugs and things of this nature and then it continues the narrative of not being able to provide in the community because economically speaking these constituents do not have a seat at the table. I pray and hope that today you have not come here today with your minds already made up based upon the fear of developers looking for a loophole to make money, but rather that we use empathy to constituent to have historically been suppressed and being voiceless. Thank you very so much for this opportunity to speak today. Thank you, Mr. Price. Ricky Kushner, followed by John Cooley. I'm Frederica Kushner and I live in Tobin Hill and before I make any sort of a read anything I just want to say that for years and years we in Tobin Hill have been trying to deal with infill development zone zoning and it is very, very, very difficult. Our neighborhood plan does not allow for something like that in the residential area and yet our city has encouraged it and so you will see little pock marks all over the neighborhood map that are IDZ infill development zone. We would prefer not. We would prefer something that works better with the neighborhood. Infill development zone when you first think about the words, I always think of about inner city, a large building on one side, a large building on another and a vacant lot in between. Okay, fill it in. It's underutilized, fill it in. But when we're talking about a neighborhood, that's something else. So I think that this plan to revise infill development zoning and also to add R1 and R2 and MXD is going to help our neighborhoods quite a bit. The amendments to unified development code pertaining to IDZ, R1 and R2 and MXD zoning districts have been a long time in coming. They are necessary in order to control development in the inner and mid-city neighborhoods, much of it brought on by the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan. They will help both the neighborhoods and the developers. Although they are not perfect, they are much better and less unpredictable than what we have now. I urge you to approve these amendments. We need them. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kushner. John Cooley, followed by Cheris Roar-Agrini. Alla Grini. John Cooley. Ms. Roar-Ala Grini. Dr. Christine Drennan. Hi, I'm Cheris Roar-Ala Grini with the Lavaca Neighborhood Association. I actually wasn't going to speak, but I will since I'm here. And we are in support of these changes. The Lavaca Neighborhood Association is an historic district, so we haven't had some of the pressure that some of the other neighborhoods have had. However, we do fill the problem with housing and properties that are incorrectly zoned. And so we feel that these changes would address some of those issues for both our neighborhood as well as the whole inner city, which is where most of these issues are occurring. So we strongly support this ordinance. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Alegreni. Dr. Christine Drennan, followed by Anne Anglert. Slides. Let's see if they remember. There we go. No, that's me. I'm looking for slides. Who knows? It's fine, it's fine. Thank you. My name is Christine Drennan. I'm the director of the Urban Studies Program at Trinity University. And I'm here to speak in favor of the creation of the two new zoning codes, there they are, R1 and R2. Currently, I've counted and hopefully I'm fairly correct, about 2,075 lots in San Antonio that are under 4,000 square feet. 58 are vacant, 1,986 have a single house on them. And these maps of the various districts, the little, tiny, teeny pink dots are these lots that are right now considered substandard and unable to build on or have or a significant number of them have single family houses on them. They exist in every single city council district, but in different forms and with different potential. These small lots that are currently vacant are not eligible for development given the zoning restrictions. Those that have a house are largely vulnerable due to inappropriate current zoning. Yet we're in the early stages of a severe housing shortage. Many say that the solution to our housing crisis lies with the state, but we know that if we wait for the state to take action on this private property issue, it'll be too late and our crisis will deepen. So we must look for and create local tools that are flexible enough to allow economic and community development while preserving the neighborhoods. This is why I'm here to advocate in favor of the creation of R1 and R2. Thus recognizing that these small lots are a valuable piece of our housing inventory. These tools are sophisticated ones because they serve different functions in different places and if deployed properly are capable of different outcomes in different places. In some areas, they're tools of preservation. And as we move more and more deeply into property-led economic development, our vulnerable populations and neighborhoods bear the cost because they reside on property that is quite possibly not being used at its highest and best used, if defined economically. Many settled in these settled and built neighborhoods on once unattractive and less valuable land around the inner city, near the creeks, near the old slaughterhouses, near the railroad tracks. And we've lost a lot of those neighborhoods in time that properties increased in value and now is desired by others, often due to public investment. Yet we as a community have pledged to save these neighborhoods and to preserve them. So this tool is critical in order to do that. These small lots are currently zoned inappropriately, most frequently MF33 and making them vulnerable. In these areas, the tools are tools of preservation. And this will also enable us to create some of the density that without challenging the integrity of our existing neighborhoods. In other areas, these same tools are tools of economic development because there are places where we have vacant small lots that currently are not generating the income that we would desire. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Drennan. Anne Englert, followed by Kosa McColvin. I am Anne Englert and I live in Delview. And I'm also supporting with the Bowen Center for Neighborhood Advocacy. So I'm sorry, I don't know enough to know everything about zoning and planning. So bear with me, but I feel we need to do what we need to do to preserve the character and the culture of our neighborhoods. And one of the situations that we have is if we don't, like in Delview, the sub-area planning process is getting ready to come up in 2020. But if we don't have our land use and zoning maps taken care of, what's gonna happen is we're gonna have incorrect data to look at. For example, here is our zoning plan of 2002 for Delview. In this map, this was done in about 2010 maybe. And you can see those two yellow markings on that document run from essentially Savannah to Freeling. And that's how the current look of the neighborhood is right now. However, in looking at the new GSI, thank you very much, sir. The GSI map, that same area has those dark yellow spots. And that entire zoning area is now going in for a complete block, sometimes eight to 10 houses deep right off the corridor of Vance Jackson versus on the other side, we have commercial neighborhood already zoned for only what would essentially be one to two houses in. Instead now, somewhere along the line, this data just happens to show up, changes have occurred, and the neighborhood has not been involved. And I find that to be somewhat problematic. So when I think about that, we have turnover in our neighborhood leadership, but more importantly, we don't know how this happened. And I think with the zoning that's presented before you, I believe supporting that would give us this even playing field that we need to have. And that's one of the things I talked to you about last month. So I wanted to share that with you. So I am very appreciative of working with the city councilman district one's office showing me some of these things and how to use the GSI map. But more importantly, I'm concerned that there's many other neighborhoods in the same predicament as this one. And so I'm looking at what can we do to protect our neighborhoods so that that doesn't happen again and we can stop it before it happens. And I think that's why we need the IDZ. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Ms. Eggler. Mr. Cosimo Colvin, followed by Tony Garcia. Or Mr. Garcia, it says here you're yielding time to Ms. Colvin. Mr. Garcia, are you gonna come up and use your time after? Yeah, I think I can do mine in the three minutes. Although before I start, I would like to thank council women, Gonzales Villagran and Sandoval for their work and the entire council for supporting the women this morning and for those women that are in the room that I get to work with and that I respect and that I admire for the work they do every day in the city, so appreciate that. Good morning, Mayor and City Council members. The Tier One Neighborhood Coalition is a group of San Antonio inner city neighborhoods organized to promote broad-based citizen participation in public policy issues through education and advocacy. Tier One Neighborhood Coalition advocates for a sensible balance between protecting and enhancing the built environment of San Antonio's older neighborhoods through sustainable public policies while preserving community resilience and culture. The Tier One Neighborhood Coalition steering committee supports the proposed ordinances for infill development zoning, single-family residential zoning R1 and R2, as well as mixed-use development that have been developed and vetted by the IDZ Task Force and the City of San Antonio. We believe the proposed IDZ ordinance which separates IDZ into three categories based on intensity of use, size of lots and corresponding levels of site requirements addresses neighborhood concerns that prompted Councilman Trevino's and Medina's CCR in April of 2017. This ordinance is a first step in addressing neighborhood concerns and provides an increased level of transparency for neighborhoods and developers alike. The Tier One Neighborhood Coalition steering committee also supports the proposed single-family residential zoning categories R1 and R2. This type of zoning would address and properly zone smaller residential lots found in San Antonio's older neighborhoods. The ordinance would allow an accurate development of residential homes on these smaller lots. This new residential zoning, which relies on setbacks and height standards, will be augmented by current city codes. This addresses the need for expanding the affordable housing market in our inner-city neighborhoods while respecting the neighborhood's character. Furthermore, the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition steering committee supports the proposed MXD ordinance because it offers flexibility in developing neighborhood corridors making for a more walkable and sustainable mixed-use environment. A site plan requirement with lot specifications and building stipulations offers a level of protection for abutting single-family districts while strengthening corridors. The Tier One Neighborhood Coalition steering committee views these proposed ordinances as a first in a series of compromising steps ensuring our legacy neighborhoods participation in San Antonio's future. As a laterally aligned coalition of neighborhoods, we encourage our individual members to speak up for themselves, but we feel confident that we have represented the majority of them fairly. We request your support. Thank you, Ms. Colvin. Mr. Tony Garcia. Good morning, council members. My name is Tony Garcia. I live in the Montevista Historic District. I'm a board member of the Montevista Historical Association and a steering committee member of the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition. I am also a member of the city's IDZ task force. The association supports the proposed ordinance of infill development zoning IDZ, single-family residential zoning R1 and R2, as well as the amended mixed-use development zoning MXD. We believe the proposed IDZ ordinance is the first step in addressing the neighborhood concerns that brought out the CCR by Councilman Trevino and former Councilman Medina back in April of 2017. The proposed ordinance creates a set of standards which increases the level of protection for neighborhoods and level of clarity that allows for better collaboration between neighborhoods, developers, and the city. We believe the ordinance is good for both the neighborhood and the developer. Residential zoning of R1 and R2 addresses a zoning need in many of our inner-city neighborhoods. Since no zoning exists in the UDC for these smaller lots, many of these lots currently exists with inappropriate zoning. We believe R1 and R2, with their build standards, will be a guide for appropriate development and a stimulus for affordable residential growth in our inner-city. Finally, we support the amended MXD ordinance, which allows flexibility for sustainable mixed-use development along our corridors and other areas of the city. The ordinance also affords a level of protection for adjacent single-family districts. In summary, the association is in favor of these proposals as it addresses the concerns of the neighborhoods, increases the level of transparency and engagement between neighborhoods and developers, while simultaneously supporting sensitive and sensible infill development in the city. We ask the support of city council. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Grace Rose Gonzalez. Good morning. My name is Grace Rose Gonzalez, and I'm a business owner of the incoming President of Keystone Neighborhood Association and the past Zoning Commissioner for District 7. And during my tenure on zoning, I saw serious negative impacts to this IDZ on inner-city neighborhoods like Beacon Hill, Alta Vista, Din Witte, and Tobin Hill. The zoning meetings would be filled with community and homeowners devastated by the construction of structures that did not fit in the fabric of their neighborhoods, and they felt overwhelmed. Because of this experience, I approached council members Trevino Medina and a CCR was generated for the work on IDZ. I want to thank councilman, councilwoman Anna Sandoval for continuing on this effort, and councilman Trevino for their leadership to protect rich but fragile inner-city neighborhoods. I also want to commend tier one, a consortium of over 40 inner-city neighborhoods for their work to make legacy neighborhoods respected, protected, and made better. And I just sort of have a small story. As we were walking through, I guess a few weeks ago, the neighborhood, I conveyed to councilman Trevino that as a student in architecture, I sat in front of houses at Fulton Street and drew them. Because it was an assignment, you had to go and find some really interesting architecture. And so about a week ago, I saw this young man photographing in front of my house, and I was like, what is he doing? So I walked outside and I said, excuse me. And he goes, oh, I'm an architecture student, and I'm photographing some really wonderful homes, and I love your home. And I was like, oh, that's what's called legacy. So anyway, thank you for your support. I hope all of you support this amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez. Rosemary, Anguanos, Zuniga. Good morning. I'm a member of the Mission San Jose Association, and I'm here to speak on behalf of our association, to support the IDZ ordinance. We strongly support the R1 and R2 additions, since both would allow for homes to be built on smaller lots that the city currently does not allow. Many members in our community would like to build smaller homes on their smaller lots. Our organization also supports the proposed mixed use development ordinance, because it would assist neighborhoods and developers to work together to develop mixed use construction that fits in with the neighborhood's character. The policies that the IDZ Committee worked on for the last year are positive for the neighborhoods, developers, and for the city of San Antonio. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Zuniga. Yeneth Flores, followed by Rose Hill. Buenos dias. My name is Yeneth Flores. I'm with the Esperanza Center and our Buena Gente. Today we are here in agreement with Councilman Trevino and Councilwoman Sandoval. We believe that implementing R1 and R2 zoning codes is returning power to the countless families who find themselves in lots sized between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet. Many of these historic houses are a part of San Antonio's unique history. This is a small step towards creating a more compassionate and community-centered city. Previous zoning code has many of these lots incorrectly sewn, leaving infill development zoning as the only option to use and allowing for private developers to easily prey on our community and essentially write the code that best profits them. We have seen these developers take advantage of our community time and time again. They are destroying the very neighborhoods that make San Antonio, San Antonio. Currently, there are many barriers that continue to make any update to these homes inaccessible. And today we ask that you support implementing R1 and R2 coding and do so in favor of San Antonio's historic website. Gracias. Thank you, Ms. Flores. Rose Hill. Good afternoon, City Council. Good afternoon, Councilman Cruz. My name is Rose Hill and I'm President of the Government Hill Neighborhood Association. First of all, I'd just like to advise you that Government Hill Alliance has worked very hard the last three years to preserve the character of our neighborhood. I feel like we've taken the hardest hit when development came into our historic neighborhood. But one of the things that we were looking at was the community input from the community. And one of the things that confuses us is how do you stop growth? How do you stop it? Because if somebody can tell me, please do. The time, it's like a time clock, it doesn't stand. We do want to preserve our neighborhoods, but what do you have, what's happened to us at the Pearl Burry just took off and we didn't even know it was running that fast. And here we are trying to catch up with it. I do, I am in favor of the R1 and R2, but I also would like to ask Councilman to review also to take consideration that on the smaller lots that we're talking about, what about the bigger lots? When you have these bigger lots that we're also looking for these families to come into our neighborhoods, where are we gonna put them at? We just don't know those answers. And people are asking us every day, we wanna live in Government Hill. We wanna move in and we wanna bring our children, we wanna bring our families in, but what do we tell them? That's just a question that as a president, I would like to know it's hard for us as presidents to come in and be able to ask those questions and be able to be faithful and honest with both sides, the ones that are for it and the ones that are against it. And it puts us in a situation where we're in the middle and we're going like, okay, what's the right way and what's the wrong way? So if anybody has any questions or any answers to that, please by all means let us know, because it would make our job a lot easier. As IDZ, in our neighborhood, we've been very fortunate to work with the developers because they've come in and I wanna thank the zoning department because they're adamantly about telling these developers, come to the neighborhood associations first before you do anything. And they have been doing that process with us. We, the board, don't make the decisions. We take it to the community and to our members and they're the ones that make the decisions. So ultimately, I'd like to thank them for actually having that dialogue with us so that we can have a collaboration with the developers because you have those developers that are good and you have those ones that are bad that have abused the IDZ. And we're fortunate we have not had that, but if one does come our way, then maybe this will be able to emphasize on that. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hill. Don Hanson, Don Hanson. Okay, that concludes the list of speakers signed up for item 14. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. That's okay, thank you. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Don Hanson and I live in district one. And I'm also co-founder of San Antonio neighborhoods for everyone. And I'm here to talk about the parking requirement for IDZ2 and IDZ3. Currently in IDZ, there's no parking requirement. And I just wanna say that I'm opposed to now requiring parking with IDZ. The two biggest threats to an effective and efficient modern transportation or transit system are a city failing to up zone in a city with too much parking. San Antonio has the opportunity to catch up with other modern cities with bus rapid transit or trackless trains. But if it does, we will quickly learn that the policies that are created today will stunt the growth of transit tomorrow. There are no other examples of urban development policy that are so counterproductive and hostile to the stated goals of the city and neighborhoods than requiring off-street parking. Research shows that the requirement of off-street parking generates additional traffic, increased vehicles miles traveled, reduces effectiveness of transit, creates unsafe walking and bike, biking environments, increases automobile emissions, reduces the housing affordability, and impacts our ecological system. Many cities, including but not limited to Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Houston are changing zoning and parking requirements to reduce and or eliminate parking minimums for new development that are adequate and are adequately pricing parking to reduce the number of drivers in the urban core. Some cities like Mexico City are even taking it a step further in getting rid of the minimum parking requirements and only allowing a maximum number of parking spots to be built. So consider this, a developer could instead of building parking, build more homes and apartments that are more affordable to more people, place large canopy street trees and landscaping next to the development, invest in wider sidewalks and bike lanes. So by the time she's 16, there will be no need for driver's licenses or parking. The future is shared autonomous vehicles, mass transit, walking and biking. If San Antonio continues to build useless parking, it will again see itself decades behind other modern cities with its policies. It takes political will to do what is right for the greater good and for the future generation rather than doing what a few loud constituents desire. Sane asked that you remove the parking requirements in the reformed IDZ. And I'd just like to also state with the neighborhood preservation and preserving character, I'd like to remind you what the legacy is preserving. If you go back to the history of zoning back to the 40s and 50s, a large lot single family zoning was created to exclude people, to exclude people of color, to exclude people of a lower class. So that's the legacy that we're preserving with preserving these neighborhood character. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hansen. That concludes the number of speakers signed up for item number 14. Go ahead and recognize Councilman Trevino. Thank you, Mayor Brutem. At this moment, I think Mike Shannon has a presentation to go through and then we'll take comments, thanks. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Brutem and Council members. So I'm here to talk a little bit about the proposed IDZ updates along with a couple of other sections, including MXD and R1 and R2, which you heard a little bit about. So as you heard, this all started over a year ago with Councilman Trevino, former Councilman Medina and also supported by Councilman Sandoval, which was a CCR that asked the city staff to look at the current IDZ zoning district, which had been around for quite a while. But some of what you just heard is the continued use of the IDZ and the way we have it in our codes now has put a lot of pressure on some existing neighborhoods. So what can we do to look at protecting the character integrity of our neighborhoods? So we took that on and if we talk about our current IDZ, just a refresher, the infill development zone, part of the unified development code has been there since 2001. It's only allowed inside Loop 410 and it has a lot of flexibility, reduction in setbacks, elimination of parking requirements, buffers, those type of things. So that has led to some of the concerns that led to the CCR. So what did we do, very similar to what we always do when we try to tackle one of these large problems that could touch a lot of different elements, neighborhoods, developers and really a lot of others. So we convened the task force that you heard of, some of the members here get up and spoke. A lot of them were not here, but we had a very balanced task force of neighborhood leadership, especially those that were seeing a lot of this infill pressure, this infill development pressure, as well as the developers that are wanting to develop infill development that wanna come to the table, wanna work with the neighborhoods and find those rules that can meet both of those goals. So we had that task force. It was going on from October through July and they really did a lot of great work over, I think it was over 15 meetings. We even went out to the general community and gave periodic updates. So the biggest issue, we'll start with the IDZ. So instead of having just one IDZ zone, which is in the code today, what they quickly realized is that one size does not fit all, right? So based on the level of intensity of a development, the task force quickly identified three different levels or three different proposed IDZs and we're just gonna call them IDZ one, two and three. I'll go over them here in a few seconds. The other issue was requiring some more information through the proposed zoning process. So as you all know, when someone comes to want to rezone their property, the current IDZ requires a site plan, but it's very basic, actually almost too basic. There's not a lot of information. So how can we get a more detailed site information of the proposed development as well as what's happening around it through the process so that city staff, neighborhoods and eventually the zoning commission and you all who have to make that final decision. So we also created some requirements for maximum building height, depending on your intensity. The setback issues were adjusted a little bit and there have been and two of them, there'll be some minimum parking requirements. Still some flexibility from basic, but we'll go to the 50% number. So here's the comparison slide. I hate this slide because it's too small, too detailed. It's a great one to put in your office to use. It's a good summary, but I hate giving a presentation with it, but I'll use it. So what you can see is that the limited intensity IDZ-1, mid intensity IDZ-2, and then the high IDZ-3, high intensity. And really what it looks as is permitted uses. So your residential and commercial uses get more intense as you go up the ladder. The detailed site plan requirements, we're gonna talk about something called the ground plan comparison form was developed as a requirement. And then also the maximum building height. But if the big issue there is there'll be more options for developers and neighborhoods and city staff and zoning commissions and you all to find the right IDZ if that's appropriate for that particular site. So we talked about the site plan and we look at the before and what's being proposed. So the before site plan was just here's my lot or lots and this left we call out some uses and commercial and mixed residential uses. That's what we have today. And what really that doesn't give a lot of information there's a lot of questions throughout the process. What we're proposing is a more detailed site plan. Show us where the buildings are gonna be, show us where the parkings are gonna be, show us where the buffers are gonna be and those type. It can still be a schematic site plan but you have to give us a little bit more information so that the neighborhood, the city staff, zoning commissioners and you all know what's coming. Now when we presented to the comprehensive plan subcommittee one of the questions was, is this gonna burden small business owners by creating a very engineered or architected expensive site plan? The answer of course is no. You're still allowed to do kind of a hand drawn and we have staff that help them with a hand drawn site plan using some graphing paper. We do that now with some of our site plan requirements so we'll be able to do that. So it's important to help small businesses and again that site plan will be required for all IDZ one and then smaller IDZ two and three. Another important component of the process was this site plan is waived for single family homeowners so we talked a lot about single family homeowners that wanna develop their property. They don't have to do this. We all know what a single family home looks like. There's some rules and setbacks so I think it was appropriate to waive that and there will be a major and minor amendment process associated. There's just another example of a hand drawn, appropriate site plan that has all the extra information as well. So the other issue that came out, this is a lot of the discussion that you all hear and just about everything we do now at Development Services especially inner city neighborhoods is compatible development. So one of the requirements will be to an IDZ one or the smaller IDZ two and three is to fill out this form. It's very simple to fill out. It's not onerous. But what it says is not only what you're proposing but what are those properties around you? What do they look like? Are they single family, single story homes that are across the street from you next to you so that we have more information going through the process? What is compatible? It doesn't mean you have to approve or deny a process but it brings more information to the table. So here's some site plans on the larger projects because those are still in very schematic. Think of the Pearl Brewery for example, when that started we didn't have all the details but we do have a requirement for the IDZ two, three that they have to show proposed uses and buildable area. So that's an important requirement as well. So again, IDZ one, two and three not a one size fits all but it helps us get more information and more options to both the applicant, the neighborhoods and you all eventually when you're deciding on these. We talked a little bit about or you heard a little bit about the next part of the discussion was well, what about our mixed use development zoning district that's already out there? No one's using it and why? And what we found out, the task force found out was hey, it's been in the books for 15 years or so but no one's really using it because it's really restrictive meaning they're pushing towards the IDZ because it's giving them a lot more flexibility. So what we're proposing is a couple of tweaks to the mixed use district. We're streamlining the site plan requirements. We're gonna allow some amendment flexibility like we do with others, whether it be a conditional use or the MPCD zoning district. We added some setback and height restrictions to this to protect single family neighborhoods that might be next door to a proposed development that wants to use this. So you have to be very height restricted if you're within 50 feet of that and there'll be some location requirements on that site plan. So then the last item you've heard a lot of testimony already or comments from citizens was the creation of R1 and R2. As you know right now our smallest, our single family residential zoning district is R3. We're proposing an R1 and R2 district and this would allow just a basic single family residential R1 or R2 for much smaller lots than what's already in the code for 3,000, a minimum of 3,000 square feet. The R1 would be a minimum of 1250 and the R2 would be 2,000. Again, more options so that people wouldn't have to jump to the IDZ zone and ask for that to develop their property. This would be an option that would tell people what's gonna be a single family home with basic rules, setbacks, heights and those type of things. What originally came out of the task force I will tell you was a limitation of 10 acres for that to try to limit the amount of potential homes that could be built on that. When we went to the comprehensive plan committee there was some discussion that that might be a little too much to get started with. There was a recommendation to limit that to one acre which is what I'm proposing today. One acre developments for R1 and R2 and there's some pros and cons as you can see that. Alternative to IDZ I've mentioned that maximum use of lands for those that are small parcels. Some of the cons or the negatives we heard was well this might create a very dense small home subdivision. Maybe we don't need it so much if we have the IDZ change as we will but we think it's an appropriate way to go for R1 and R2 to be added to the code. So the overview of the updates, they're listed as A, B and C in the item today but the IDZ one, two and three categories that's a revision to the IDZ. Some updates to the MXD portion of our code and then of course the creation of the R1 and R2. With that I think we're getting to the end if I can hit the right button. Thank you. All right and that was the timeline so it's been about a year so we've been working on it for a while. We certainly recommend those three items as I just described and then of course many of those that were here to speak already we really want to thank them. They put a lot of hard work into this. The task force, our city staff, Cat, Hernandez, Melissa, Ramirez led that effort for us. They do a great job but really there was a lot of work put into this to bring it for you today so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Councilman Trevino. Thank you Mayor. Thanks Mike. Thank you. As you mentioned I want to thank Rod, Cat, Melissa for your hard work. This has been a methodical process. Really appreciate all your hard work on it. I specifically want to thank the task force that has worked very, very hard on this. All the individuals that have served on this IDC task force created in the middle of 2017 as you pointed out. Certainly appreciate the thoughtfulness and the approach to this. Grace Rose, thank you again from way back. This is why it's so important to point people to your commissions that can give you some insight and while she was not my appointee, she worked a lot with my appointee and I certainly appreciate being able to talk about these kind of issues and what is being seen by the entire zoning commission and how we can try to address fundamental issues that are really addressing or happening in legacy areas and the fact that we have zoning mistranslations. So let's talk a little bit about what you just mentioned, Mike, I want to submit for the record, site plans for example, we simply just, as you pointed out, we want to know what's up and so I had Chrissy and my staff just compile, this is just district one approved site plans and this is an example of just a hand drawn site plan. So just for the record, you want to point out that you do not have to hire an architect to get you there. This is just a good example of how we want to make it work. At the heart of this is just the fact that people want to know what's going on, right? IDZ and here it is for the record. IDZ, I call it a wild card because it just sort of defaulted to that. It's just the, we don't have an answer so let's go to IDZ and I think what we're simply saying is we are breaking this out into different parts so that we can get a better understanding so that people can have more clarity about what is being discussed. Is that correct, Mike? Absolutely, I think there'll be a lot more information that we can work with a proponent through the zoning application process, working with neighborhoods, but that's a key element is what they're proposing. At the heart of this too, I think it's also critical to point out that this is also a good development tool, right? So to know what's happening is also something that has been supported by developers, thoughtful developers for that matter that certainly support the fact that this is not restrictive in any way. Yeah, I would definitely say so. So the task force which was comprised of both developers, neighborhoods, they were really all working together for the same goal, we want development, want compatible development to happen so they wanted to be able to create that process and rules to ensure that kind of mutual goal. Yeah, again, as we know, one of the key components that drives a lot of what we're seeing today with regards to zoning is how neighborhoods feel they're being impacted, right? And at the heart of this is neighborhoods, some neighborhoods that have those plans and how we want to protect neighborhood plans, those that are developing their plans and how we want to help support that. How does this actually help shape some of these issues that we're seeing quite often, specifically in the inner city? Well, I think the proposed changes today, having that discussion of more of what you're doing and having different options to best fit not only the developer's needs, but the neighborhood's need to protect that neighborhood. I mean, I think having more options like that that will just improve the communication between the neighbors and developers and also city staff, because there was a lot of defaults going to IDZ with the current code. It's been very successful for a lot of projects, but I think what we're seeing right now in today's time that we need these proposed changes to really find that right IDZ or the right R1 or R2, because again, I think I mentioned, the one size does not fit all and I think that's the key that we're finding right now and this will certainly help with that. Yeah, in fact, I mean, I think it helps to drive the fact that we have more choices, we have more options and therefore we have more opportunity to build compatible development and that's at the heart of this. So we certainly appreciate again the way we're sort of trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together. One component of that is R1 and R2 and yesterday we were talking about affordability. This is affordability. This is how you do affordable housing. There's at least one component of it and the fact that we have areas in my district and as we show in every district that really have this barrier for development or improvement for that matter and I really, truly believe that R1, R2 can help add to our affordable strategy for the city. We have a lot of examples on the West side as was mentioned by Pastor Sean Price that just need that opportunity and R1, R2 can help provide some of that. You know, I want to talk a little bit about that in terms of why that's important. Well, it's important because as you pointed out, this isn't just about an option but also corrective zoning measures. Is that correct? Yeah, we would see that, definitely. So, you know, and so we're one of the things we've tried to do in our office is layer on all these pieces of this very complex puzzle to help align the stars, help to align a path forward. I want to take a moment to just simply recognize somebody in my staff because, you know, I gave this person a big sword and said go and conquer and get it done. Chrissy, you've been swinging a big sword. You deserve a lot of credit. I appreciate your work. And, you know, the heart of this is we want, we absolutely want development. We absolutely want growth in our city. We want to accommodate, you know, the new growth that's happening but we also want to be compatible in that development and, you know, Chrissy, you've taken that charge seriously and, you know, you really have done a tremendous job for us. Thank you. Simply want to point out that the urban core and the heritage neighborhoods of San Antonio deserve our protection as we embrace change, rediscovery and growth in the very areas, in these very areas by responsibly crafting policies that protect the people and places of our inner city. We welcome those who are excited to be part of moving these neighborhoods into the future. Last, you know, the last speaker spoke about sidewalks. Absolutely, which is why we have a pedestrian mobility officer position, which is why I demand a sidewalk master plan, which is why I won't give up on sidewalks. You're absolutely right. It's one piece of the puzzle and I'm not going to stop talking about it, but this is a big puzzle and I'm just glad we're getting this piece done today. I enthusiastically moved to approve item 14. Thank you, Councilman Trevino, Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mike, for your presentation and all your work on this. Thank you, Rod, and the whole team and Councilman Trevino and Chrissy for all of your work on this. I also want to thank Ms. Grace Rose Gonzales for her advocacy in getting the CCR to Council in the first place and for seeing all this through being here with us today. Thank you very much, Grace Rose. I want to thank Jorge de la Garza from the Jefferson Neighborhood Association in District 7 who served on the task force and led one of the subcommittees. And as you stated, this is the result of over pretty much a year of work which began back in September. And for all those people who came out from the neighborhoods, thank you for being here today and thanks to your neighborhoods as well. Mike, I do have a couple of questions. On slide six, the big slide. Yeah, that one's great. That's my favorite slide. Good work, I appreciate it. I was looking at the parking requirements and the reduced by 50% under IDZ2 and IDZ3, does that apply to both residential and commercial? Yes. Okay, one of the speakers brought up a good point about parking requirements and even though we're not eliminating them all together right now, I think we do, in the future, want to look forward at a comprehensive parking policy that will encourage transit use. I also had a question about, I think it was Sean who came up and talked about the hours of service at DSD. Are those just basically eight to five or? Our typical service hours are 7.45 to 4.30 Monday through Friday, although actually we're generally open to about 5.30 serving customers that have walked in prior to the 4.30 hour. Okay. We don't turn anybody away if they came in before. Right. Have you ever had any requests to have evening hours available? Sporadically, I think we have and even on some weekends, but we've accommodated those on a unique request to help them, but we don't get a lot of requests for that. Okay, all right, I just, something to consider, but thank you very much. Okay, so thanks for your work and I'll, oh, go ahead, Rod. I was just gonna say real quickly, we did experiment with having the center open on weekends and in the evenings and we tracked the foot count that was coming in and it just didn't justify opening up on Saturdays and evenings that we discontinued a couple years back. Okay. Just wanted to share that. Thank you, Rod. Thanks. Okay, I'll be supporting the proposal today. Thank you very much, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval, Councilman Perry. Great, thank you, sir. Great job and great way to put this together that is very logical and gives options and I think that's the thing that everybody was looking for. I did have one question though on these small R1 and R2 areas here as far as a lot size and the setback requirements on those and I know where these are small lots that we're trying to make it possible to build something in their small house but on the setback, I think the front setback was 10 feet. I'll just put that slide back. So there's the current proposed items today for R1 and R2 so the maximum, there's no maximum lot size proposed right now here but there's a minimum lot size of 1250 and 2000 respectively and the front setbacks 10 feet for both and the side sets back to five and the idea was that you would create just very defined side and front setbacks like we do in the R3s, R4s, R5s so that was what they came up with. Yeah and the thing that, and I have several communities out there that have the single car garage and they're not very big and normally they turn into storage units. They don't function as a garage and there's a short, very short driveway that they can't park in the driveway because it sticks out over the sidewalk so it's forcing those people to park in the streets and when you have those houses facing each other you have two cars out in the street and it actually makes it tough for emergency vehicles to respond with the street system that passes code. How will that be handled in these two instances here? Well the proposal is the minimum front setback of 10 feet certainly based on the actual lot if you're dealing with something a little bit bigger than 1250 or bigger than 2000 if you choose you can certainly, as you develop it you can develop a 12 or 15 or more but as you can imagine it's a very small lot compared to the typical R4, R5, 4, or 5,000 square feet so those issues would be here but certainly people they could park in their driveway whether it's 10 feet or more they can't extend over public right of way which is sidewalks that's a code violation my other team members would be out talking to them about that and then certainly it is allowed today to park on streets that's allowed in every subdivision that we have unless you have a special no parking zone. But I mean is that something we can take into account on the street width between those where you're gonna have on street parking on both sides? Yeah I think the proposed R1 and R2 right now it doesn't address any changes to the normal street widths that we have in the code today certainly as we move forward if this gets passed today and we start seeing these being used we could kind of track that and look at our 2020 UDC amendments so that if there are R1 and R2 tracks of land there that need wider streets that could possibly be something we look at I'm not sure that need will develop in the next year and a half but it's something we can certainly look at. Well that has developed up in District 10 and a couple of neighborhoods and again I'm concerned about the emergency vehicle access through there in fact you can't even get a fire truck through on some of these streets. Don't know what they'll do if there was an emergency up in there. So it's something that we just need to be aware of absolutely that if these developments do start happening we need to make sure that they can somehow get their cars off of the streets because like I said the small one car garages normally turn into storage units and then they can't park in the driveway because they're hanging over the sidewalk. So anyway just something that I'd be interested in looking at in the future if these types of developments do occur here and take a look at that's all I have. Thank you Mike. Thank you sir. Thank you Councilman Perry. Councilman Salvagna. Thank you mayor and Michael and Rod and the entire team who's been working on this as I look through the item and read the backup it reminds me of what it was like to campaign for office when I was knocking on doors I'll tell people about expanding their green spaces and filling potholes and amending UDC chapter 35 and how I was gonna be there to go through all the minutia said no one ever. This is complicated. This is something that you'd never really think about worrying about too much until neighborhoods start realizing that there's some things that are going on that we can block that we can support that we can expand tools for to help protect their neighborhoods. And this is one that is under the category of gosh I really actually have to start digging into this and understand it because while it doesn't necessarily apply to well it does apply to all districts but it's specifically tailored to some districts who see this a little more and to that extent as council members we need to be able to apply an open mind to the work that it took to get to this point. So I applaud councilman Trevino and his staff Chrissy and the tier one neighborhood association who really have become just a powerful force here at City Hall because in many cases they know the UDC code and your job Michael better than some of us do sometimes. So I'm grateful for it. So I've learned a little bit on this one and I've become open minded. I've shifted in my opinion to support the R1 and the R2 because I was just a little concerned in having a larger districts and developers come in and say take down a 10 acre lot and go in and start using this new tool R1 R2 when really it's designed to help support as Dr. Drennan pointed out some of these smaller empty properties and subdivisions or smaller lots to help provide tools to folks who wanna invest and build in them. So I completely understand it now and it took a little while for me to dig into it and get to the point that okay, this is really what it means. So in sort of providing a little bit of a balancing act I've talked to a few of my colleagues and we were looking at what ways we can amend it if possible to not affect the work that D1 and their team have put together and tier one neighborhood associations and neighborhoods have come here to speak look like. So I'm gonna read an amendment that the councilman and I and his staff were looking at that wouldn't affect his work but would help us sort of guard against what might be a larger developer taking down 10 acres in district eight or district four, name your district and doing these smaller homes in open plots. So it's three amendments and so I wanna move to approve item well, I think we've already got a motion to approve with the following amendments to 14C. Number one, establish a maximum lot size of 1,999 square feet for R1 and a maximum lot size of 2,999 square feet for R2. Number two, remove the open space requirement for R1 and R2 and number three, establish a maximum size of 2,999 square feet for a zoning request for R1 and R2 which shall not apply to city initiated zoning cases and Michael I don't think I'm bringing this up as a surprise if you want to talk through anything we need to out loud about the amendments. No, I think that, but that still does it still allows the R1 and R2 to be utilized where it's most needed but it does add a little bit of understanding that it's really for single lots not for creating large subdivisions of 10 acres or more or one acre or anything like that. So that change is very clear and I think would still allow what was really requested. And so I somebody might say, hey, why 2,998 square feet and the idea that, yeah, I'd offer that those three options and that I hope that the city clerk would read or having the record as a friendly amendment. Okay, we have a friendly amendment accepted by Councilman Trevino and by his second. Is that correct? Great. Okay, just if somebody's asking why 2,999 because if somebody goes to apply for 3,000 that would be an application for an R3. Correct. Okay. And if I'm one of the neighborhood associations I didn't hear about these amendments should I be worried about this affecting all of the work they've done to this point? No, this absolutely I think keeps the spirit of what we attempted to do through the task force and even the last few meetings. So I think this keeps everything whole. Okay. Thank you so much, Michael. Thank you. Thank you again, Councilman Trevino. Great, thank you Councilman Saldana and Councilman Vigran. Thank you Mayor, thank you Councilmember Trevino and for that friendly amendment. I think this is important to have this review of the IDZ and that's one of the reasons why I signed it originally because it was too easy. I think it was mentioned in the comments. It was too easy before to be used as a workaround and offered uncertainty to the neighborhoods and the businesses in and around the area but now this is bringing clarity for all of us involved and it's also bringing clarity and more clarity for areas with these lots to know that people are going to be able to build single family homes on these smaller lots if needed to and I think this additional friendly amendment helps with clarity for the area, for the neighborhood. So I want to thank everyone who came out to speak. Specifically, I'd like to thank Rosemary Anguiano Zunica who came up and spoke for the Mission San Jose Neighborhood Association because it is her birthday and she decided to come here. So I hope she already left that we're going to move this but I am grateful for all of her work and the work of everyone in tier one and all of our neighborhood associations who also called and emailed to make sure that we moved this forward. So thank you. Thank you Councilman Vigran, Councilman Shaw. Thank you, Mayor. We've been talking about IDZ for quite some time especially when Grace and I were on zoning together and working with neighborhoods such as Government Hill. IDZ has been like often mentioned a way to get around the rules and we've had this conversation over and over again. So I commend the Councilman as well city staff for looking at this in detail and figuring out what we can do to put into our ordinance to ensure that our neighborhoods are protected. So great job. I will be supportive of both the agenda item as well as a friendly amendment. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Shaw, Councilman Perry. Yeah, thank you, sir. I just, you know, I really appreciate the friendly amendment there, Councilman Sadami. So thank you very much because that really takes away my concern about doing entire neighborhoods like this and the width of streets and things like that. So yeah, fully support that and that takes care of my issue with that. Thank you, check it off. Thank you, Councilman Perry. And Mike, to you and your team, Councilman Trevino, your staff, all of the colleagues within the city organization that chipped in for this and certainly our neighbors and the tier one associations who have kept this issue front and center until we found a way to complete it in a way that made sense for all neighborhoods. Thank you very much for your persistence in those efforts. So with that, we do have a motion and a second for approval of item number 14 as amended by Councilman Saldana. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Item number 21. Item number 21 is in order.