 At the end of the discussion, I believe I'm on the front end. Number 41 is ARC case number 2017 BZ05. The property is located in A.D.A. bringing towards Cherry Street. The applicant requires a certificate of appropriateness to build a new multi-family retail and exclusive development with approximately 109 residential units and two retail spaces. The proposed development is forced for rates, as far as being parking, leasing, office, and retail, so it is not included in this request and will be submitted separately with the development name that's been chosen. This case was originally heard by the HDRC on September 6th, 2017. The applicant has since amended the original proposal. Amendments include the original vehicle egress, so Cherry Street is due to be moved, and your egress is now limited to one location on the Long Street. Removal of the Cherry Street driveway allowed for a small increase in the number of on-site parking spaces. A retail component located on the northeast corner of the property has been shifted to increased furniture along Cherry Street. An outdoor seating area has been added to the retail component, located at the southwest corner of the property, and awnings have been added along Cherry Street. I have provided you with revised exhibits that were revised since the agenda has been posted. I will also go through them on the screen. Staff are going to approval, final approval of the proposal, as shown in the revised exhibit packet that has been provided to you. All right, I know that we have a great number of assistance to be heard. There's been a request from a commissioner. I do try to focus on what's to remain to the issues before this commission. In addition, I want to remind you that all comments are limited to three minutes, and any yield to time will be limited to nine minutes total. Thank you. So before we wrap again, when you reach the podium, please state your name and address into the record. Make sure that you see clearly into the microphone so that what you're saying doesn't go on record, as we are recording. Okay, our first speaker is Virginia S. Nichols. After Virginia, we'll have two really feathers. Vice Chair, Bruce DeMonte. Thank you. I'm sorry. Now we have a question. Vice Chair, Bruce DeMonte, and commissioners, I am Virginia S. Nichols, and I've come to speak to you at this meeting about the history of the history, the privilege, and the designation of the issue. I've been participating in the history of San Antonio, Veracruz in Texas, the Alamo San Antonio Conservation Society, Veracruz Historical Commission, World Heritage Designation, and I know that you too are interested in all this history. This area has some of the most historic sites in Texas, and Veracruz is just one of those sites. The 1881-1910 bridge is a viaduct consisting of two wrought-arms fans, one Phoenix Whipple 225 foot span and one Pratt 130 foot span, and approximately 1,000 linear feet of concrete approaches. The city of San Antonio require the Yellowstone-Parisburg Railroad Company to construct a viaduct over the railroad tracks in Hay Street. Records show that the Whipple Trest dates from 1881 and was reconstructed from a viaduct over the Nueces River, west of San Antonio. Other records of the 1910 repair shop show drawings replacing joint loft, bearing seats, and lateral bracing struts. The Whipple span is a rare-feet design with road-iron columns and cast-iron joint blocks. The Pratt span has these components, including floor beams. Both spans widen to 25 feet. The bridge was planned for rehabilitation as a bicycle and pedestrian facility using a transportation enhancement rack of $2.9 million from the Texas Department of Transportation. Plans were completed and construction was ongoing for several years as funds were available. The city of San Antonio and the Texas Historical Commission have declared this bridge a historic landmark. After being closed for several years, the bridge was given to the city of San Antonio in 2008. It reopened in 2010. Private funds were also raised. All of their counties and cities' historic sites are imported. This is the most historic county in Texas, as to the direction of the surrounding land that has been undecided at this point. But the hope is that the view shift will be honored as it has been around the missions. My name is Kimberly Feathers, and I live at 1524 Men and Drive, just 20 minutes from the H2 group. Not to go into the history of what Mrs. Nichols just said, but I wanted to address the fact that last week, on November 29th, one of the developers said that in this particular area, when he was younger, that it was scary for him to come down to the H2 group. My concern is if it's so scary for you to come down to the H2 group and you're gone, so why are you investing in a community that you're so scared of? Why are you putting up studio apartments that are $1,200 in a low-income area and a minority group area that they wouldn't be able to afford because it's going to raise up property taxes which is going to have them move out? And that's the whole gentrification issue that San Antonio is trying to not acknowledge but it's happening. If you look at Government Hill, this same gentrification is happening because the same thing has happened in that area. Nobody wants to step in that area because now, since it's getting developed because of the pearl, everybody's deciding, oh, we might as well move. Looking at the drawings of what the developers have, most of those drawings are looking at it are particular to a certain base type of people and those certain base type of people don't live in that area as well. Also, Austin is not San Antonio. San Antonio is different with the unique culture and unique perspective on who we are and to bring a development that people barely can afford to live there, then why is it there? There's no need for it to be there. There's no need to be investing in a community that you don't even think twice of. So... Colin, did you yield your time? No. You did not? No, ma'am. Colin Jones, living and doing what he yielded. Very quickly, all today, I've been waiting for this and my speech was set up to tell you as the Commission how much I have sympathy for you for this decision. But just in the past 20 minutes I want to change that and I want to let you know how much I envy you for being in a position to do something wonderful and great for the city of San Antonio. Having said that, I'll post a project on two very simple points. One is the garage, the way it's designed, and secondly, the walkability of Cherry Street. Thank you very much and again, it is a wonderful opportunity for you. Thank you. Our next session is Monica Savino for a few six minutes and then after Monica, we'll have Garrett morning. My name is Monica Savino and I'm from the East Prophet Street, Dignity Hill Architecture Review Committee. We currently do not support staff's recommendations for approval on the project. This project immediately adjacent to the Dignity Hill Historic District and the Historic Bay Street Bridge presents design challenges that we believe still have not been met. Within the final design package, it doesn't appear that changes were made based on any feedback provided during the November 29th community presentation or any other community communications. ARC has used the downtown guide as a point of reference on this project and has taken the position that the guide prevails. But if the guide isn't applied, reasonable urban architectural design standards and community concerns still must be considered. We requested that the parking garage structure be relocated or obscured with the active uses per the guide. Even the DRC and the notes noted that the garage structure is a problem. No other reason for the family or mixed use project downtown has been allowed to build parking garage frontage on the primary street. Look at the examples that have come through this commission in the past two to five years. They're all inside the complex on a secondary or even a tertiary street. However, planning contents that it's okay as long as it's screened. This is chapter three and four. Take enough context and ignore the impact that over 150 feet of 220 foot high garage screening creates on a neighborhood street. A visible parking garage structure even covered in a thin layer of lines that will have to grow 16 feet high in shade merely highlights that there's a garage and parking behind it. It's not pedestrian friendly on Cherry Street but instead shows the backside of the project to what is a small scale distorted neighborhood street. This is not acceptable in dignity health. We have an issue with the passing of the street law as it appears simply too tall long Cherry Street. Tallest portion of the building is 58 feet high. Cherry Street is only 55 feet, 6 inches wide. Medially across the street we have predominantly single story houses, one two story house. That proximity makes these massing relationships even more critical. In our final item, chapter three of the guide encourages active uses along the street facade to enhance the building's relationship to the public realm. There's a small retail front on Cherry LMR. It's about 16, 75 feet in length of storefront. But remember there's still more than 150 feet of garage frontage adjacent to that. However, the retail space, there's another retail space on the southwest corner and that retail space is a courtyard, landscape, a sand, it connects to the apartment lobby and the future restaurant development is depicted in the package as high active use place. Very different from the retail front on Cherry LMR. This is the side of the project, the southwest corner is the side of the project that faces the bridge that is accessed from below the bridge and connects to the brewery. This retail space is not integral or easily accessed by way of Cherry, especially if the other acts on his claim to control the absence. It's impact on the building's relationship to the public realm on Cherry LMR is absent and once again relegates those public ways as back of house. This is again not acceptable and didn't have any help. Nor is it in the true intention and purpose and spirit of the downtown line. As we've made clear on many occasions, the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association and those whose comments we've included are very supportive of redevelopment in our neighborhood. But we also know that we want the redevelopment that is respectful and responsive to the adjacent historic district, the historic Hay Street Bridge and the neighborhood. Remember the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association boundaries go all the way to I-35. We're not just going to cut off this part of the neighborhood and say it's not ours, it is our neighborhood still. For all these reasons, we were opposed to request for certificate of appropriateness. Again, we appreciate your consideration and the opportunity to comment. Thank you. The next person to speak is Garrett Marni and the following Garrett will hear from Nightingale. Hi, my name is Garrett Marni. I'm here as the secretary of the very candidate Democratic Party. As such, we support the decision of the Eastside community to protect and preserve the lives of our space and we're asking ATRC to please protect and act to protect the Eastside community. Thank you. Next person to speak is Nettie Hinton and following that, Evelyn Brown. Nettie will receive tonight's votes. Thank you to the commissioners and you have had a very long evening. Hi, my name is Nettie Patricia Hinton. I live at 599 Burleson Street, the Emil Elmendorf House in Historic Dignity Hill. I am a historic preservationist and I'm a member of the San Antonio Conservation Society. I want to reiterate the reasons that I am opposed to this project but I will not repeat or reiterate the things that I have said to you in the past which deal with the historic legacy of the project in my neighborhood, in my 58 years of being involved with it. But I don't still understand how it is that land, the $50,000 worth of it that was donated to the city of San Antonio to be the last certain park is an item that is before you now. Especially since that land is still under litigation at the Texas Supreme Court level. I don't know how anybody could be considering to be building on it or designing things consensually to be placed there. The development project on the park land is totally inappropriate and it denies the immediate community and all of San Antonio citizens and tourists the ability to enjoy and appreciate the beauty and understand the legacy of this historic bridge. You know we're getting ready for the tricentennial on the Yerzeev. The very best place in San Antonio to watch those fireworks is on the Hays Street Bridge. If you don't believe it, go pick up last year's copy of one of our magazines, the current, because they sit right there as being just as slow as sitting in the square park somewhere. I would hate for my community and people who want to enjoy the fireworks and start off the tricentennial in a wonderful way to not be able to have access to the bridge because there's no parking, I believe, for current folk park fencing it off. The proposed project with its teeny weeny architecturally ugly apartments that are going to sell for a thousand dollars a month will be priced out of the ability of people in my community to be able to continue to live up even if they were birthed in Big Levy Hill and are aging out of their parents and their grandparents' homes. They will have to leave the community because they will not be able to afford even if they want to live in those little shoeboxes. The project with its expensive privately owned garages marks my community because that's the face of this project that you will see if you are in my community. That is ridiculous. And I ask you a question. Who is it that sits on the board of directors of Seymour, LLC? Who are these political bullies and these thieves who want to rob my community of the view of the bridge itself? There was the HB Bridge Restoration who got it declared historic. Who robbed us of the view of the bridge and access to the bridge and the view of the city's view shared beyond? Who is it that wants to rob our community of the ability to celebrate our neighborhood, its legacy, and our real-world history? Please, save our community. This whole architectural cleanliness we built. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Evelyn Brown. I live at 527 Burnett Street, which is only one block from this development. And just to start from the beginning, I've been there all my life. My family moved here as a child when I was a child. And we bought the same house that I live in today. And no one, even the city, nobody wanted to be bothered with the HB Bridge. It was a block out built to go from one area of town to the other. That was the original intent of it. And I remember driving across it as a child. It was really, very big. And no one wanted to come down here to look at the HB Bridge. It was all set in 2017. Well, you just cannot control it. Everybody wants a piece of the bridge action. So the thing that I'm very, very objective to is the garage. The garage is centered to the point where it cuts off the neighborhood that is adjacent to it. And that should not be. And the neighbors at the small houses across the street from this apartment complex, they're looking almost at a white wall. So you're cutting off the neighborhoods from looking at a view. I think it's the northeast corner. The apartment structure is going to be so tall that it's going to block the view shed that so many residents have seen all their lives. So now here comes the development. There's not that we don't want development in this area. We do. But we want good quality designs that would reflect not only the downtown, but the neighborhood that is adjacent to. So I ask you that you not approve this and that the people go back to the drawing board and try to figure out something a little bit better. Thank you. So if you heard of key A coming over these six minutes, following that, we'll hear from H. Douglas Settling. Thank you. Commissioners, good evening. My name is Keith Tony. I'm a former city councilman in district two. So this is near and dear to my heart. I resided 110 Fargo Avenue in the Coliseum, Opus neighborhood. I am not anti-development. I am pro-development, especially in district two. I'm pro-development for the city of San Antonio, but my heart lies with the east side. I'm very broken as we all are, not the persons I supposed to be. This is not what we need. We do need development. I supported Eugene Seymour when he built his brewery when I was in office. At no time did he say anything about wanting to build hideous apartments on that green space. It's an area that families enjoy. I don't need to tell you that like other parts of the city, the east side suffers from a crime problem. But there on that property that you have the power to either allow this to happen or not, people and families enjoy. I enjoy. I go there. My friends live there. I visit them. This is not what we need. It really truly isn't. It's ugly, it's hideous, and will not be allowed in King William or anywhere else. And yes, we on the east side also enjoy, as Miss Hinton said, beautiful view shades. It may not be what many people want to think about us, but we too love beautiful views. And we have a nice view from that bridge. And it's a beautiful place to be. This should not be allowed. I implore you. Make them go back to the drawing board. Please. We're not saying we're against development. There's a proposed development, right? Close to my neighborhood right now. I'm all for it. Because it's what we want. This is ugly. It's ugly. It's not what we need. It's not what we want. Help the east side. Help ourselves. Yes, we have problems. We have some real things that we need to deal with. And you know it. You read the papers. You see. We need people to live better. We want to enhance their lives. Whether I'm in office or not, I still love my neighborhood. There's still my constituents in my heart. I can't stand idly by. That's why I've been here for hours tonight. To implore you. Please do the right thing. This will not enhance the community at all. It won't. From whatever aspect you want to look at it, it won't enhance the community at all. Not against development. Let me stress that. Again, I back you, Gene, when he built his brewery. Not just because I'm a beer drinker, but I thought it was a great thing to do. And it turned out it was pretty positive. And say I had some passive positive, cats had a pretty positive effect actually. But this is trickery. So we cannot let trickery triumph over truth. Don't let it happen. You can stop. I hope you will. I trust you will. Because we really don't want this. We don't need this. We don't. And just because someone, don't let someone do something because they can. Please. That's the definition of being a bully. You do it because you can, because you are more powerful. Because you're more powerful. Sometimes doing the right thing has to trump doing the wrong thing. We've seen enough wrong trumping lately. Let's not let this be one of those things. I implore you, please, please, I thank you for your time. Thank you for your consideration. And I really, I really trust that you'll do the right thing. And stop this. Thank you. Thank you so much. You received six minutes. And then following that will be, I believe that's Jareen said. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Here's another layer of translation. Look here we go. to give you a little more detail, wrote the first textbook on bridge design. Phoenix was the bridge, Phoenix Bridge Company in Pennsylvania that fabricated that truss out of your arm, a welding of course, they fabricated it with pin-in connections for the main members. That however, helped in its move. A little bit later, the railroad wanted to cross all of the east side streets. The senator reported a passage. They reported a passage and they were responding. Here is the print. I'm sorry. This is the print of the 1910 move of the bridges because they're pin-in connection. They could be moved each piece to the bridge connection. But it's not just a bridge. It's a part of a much more cold here, here. It says, how many five now? We're close to the main street bridge, but it's rather the main street five now. That means that all of this bridge, all of the approaches and I would have a lot of approaches. Goals were built in 1910 to raise the bridges up over and build the railroad clearance. It was about 22 feet. 1910, it's all historic. I appreciate so much. Jill's interest in keeping San Antonio the number one historic city in the country. It wasn't long after that, after it was built, that it was used quite successfully. Right at the 25 feet wide from its original bridge, from its original railroad 16 feet to 25 feet. Of course, in 1910, once you're going to get most of your wagons, and it was very successful until 82, then it was closed because traffic got too big before it closed and stayed closed until we in 1999 started the restoration movement to restore this bridge. It ended up due to the original condition. We went to Austin and text up and ministered some federal funds. Those federal funds, we were forced to get them because if what were Senator spoke for us, there were only five out of 100 firms that were awarded federal money. The city of San Antonio was given federal funds of 80%, that's 100%. Now during this time, the railroad and the city were, the railroad still owned it. The city wanted it so they could restore it. They were busy back and forth for five years on legal matters. Finally, the railroad transferred it to the city of San Antonio with specifications as to its use, the use of this vibe of its use, and the clearances that were involved. It wasn't long after that that we saw the need, as Betty mentioned, the need for the adjacent parking. So we went to Buckville, and got Buckville's letter to the restoration group, giving them the 1.6 acres north of the bridge, giving it to the restoration group. That's time. You're going to have my time, you're done for us. Okay, you'll have to stay safe. So you just have one more time so someone is offering their time to you, so you will have three more minutes. Thank you. All right, back to the 80%. That required then 20% from the city. The city had received from the railroad the depreciated $5, or part of it's 20%, but it doesn't like the 20%. Where did they come from? For the rest of the money. Like Danny mentioned, they came to our restoration group. We had accumulated some $200,000 by the conservation society, the coal oil, the daisy, tools, east side organizations, engineering firms, we had accumulated, and the Zachary Foundation. And so to give the city their 20%, the mighty their 20%, we contributed my reflection as $193,000. Hey, city, where's your appreciation? And later, of course, left coal wanted to get their tax right off. And so we looked forward to some people that could take it. We went to Matthew's and said parts of recreation. And they said, no, I can take it. Talk to me. They take it. My budget doesn't allow it. I'll tell you what, he told me personally, you need to get to the city and the city will hold it until you can prepare it for parking in a little park playground. And so above, we went to the city, the city wouldn't take it until it was clean environmentally. $25,000 again, administered by our restoration group, $25,000 to run the test and approve that it was environmentally clean. Then the city accepted it. The preface to the city's acceptance said that it was an adjunct to the Asian Bridge and that it was for public use. Public use? That's right. That city counts it heard and passed. So let's go from them to what you heard in the trials and tribulations that we know undergone. Thank you, Mr. Stetman. So, this is Ms. Stetman, followed by Brian Horton, who will receive six minutes. And Ms. Stetman is indicating that she intended to have given her time to her husband. He has reached his house. Yes, I was just going to make it. The next person is Brian Horton, who will receive six minutes. Okay, so Brian Horton is going to receive nine minutes. Thank you, HCRC, for staying here so late. This is typical, but it's unusual to be. Thanks, all of you all, for waiting this long and participating. This isn't easy and it takes a lot out of us. I know you guys are volunteers who are not going to be able to do this, so I really appreciate the opportunity guys are sitting here. Mr. Allen, would you stick your name in your absence, please? Sure. My name is Brian Horton, 1410 Delaware Street, District 2. The downtown building guide is missing some chapters. It doesn't explain or define what happens when downtown designated areas are pushed right to the edge of the historical residential neighborhood. There is no phase-up of the design to blend it into the smooth and into the smaller one-story housing buildings across the street. When basing the decision just on it, it qualifies with a guide, then we are ignoring the very vital relationship that has to the areas where these construction projects are placed. If we look at the proposed project in context to the surrounding neighborhood, not other downtown buildings, we can see that the structure is quite out of place. There are about 148 units, two retail spaces in this project, but there are only 125 parking spaces. It's quite obvious that this is insufficient for the capacity of that project. Even in some units, even if some of the units are only residents with bikes, other units will be filled with residents with multi-residential units with multiple vehicles and any additional vehicles in attendance to the two retail units will far outweigh the space of parking provided, which concludes that there will be an increase of people parking in the neighborhood, just like the problems at the Alamo Dome, the South Town residents in the surrounding community will have to sacrifice their available on-street parking to the influx of the apartment project. This shows a disregard for the impact rate to the current residents of this long-standing community. There will be an additional impact of vehicles already on the street and the tenants to the Hay Street Bridge that will no longer have the space to park to visit if they travel from other parts of the town. The parking garage is also non-inclusive to the surface level of the neighborhood residents. The parking garage doesn't match any of the surrounding structures in the neighborhood or even near business neighbors. A green living wall is a band-aid fixed to this project and it's high end of this and it's attempt to hide this high soar. If there is any interest in a green wall then I would definitely argue that a park is a lot more interesting than a green wall. The only way around this feature is to submerge the parking garage so that it is not visible to the neighboring houses. That would be sinking in below ground level because there's so much dispute about the way that the garage interacts with this community. It doesn't serve the community. It's a private parking area and it doesn't match any of the other residential places that are in there. If we look at the context of the apartment units to the bridge there are many points of obstruction even just in this first phase. The building set almost equal to the top masking of the bridge would block the breeze that is key benefit to this space. If any of you have been up on the bridge you know that you can't get a breeze like that anywhere else in the town unless you were to climb a fire escape but really that's a unique situation that it's going to be blocked by a wall. The building set on a hot day this is one of the only high spots on the east side to catch the breeze as it shoots through the city blowing over the tops of all the other buildings. It's pretty obvious as well that the structure would also block a very important view of the full historical street bridge. The corner of Cherry and Lamar street is one of the only remaining points where the bridge can be viewed from start to end within its entire view. We also know that that vacant parking lot that is used for Alamo Brewery right now also has that view but the reason that the developers have not used this in their cases because we do know that their intent eventually will be to build on that property as well and blocking that view so this is the only view that we have the power to save. And just like the efforts of small groups of many people many years ago to protect the San Antonio River and maybe what it is today this too will be protected and preserved and it's full beauty for all generations to be observed. I would also take time to note that OHP and HRC does not have full infrastructure to receive complaints by phone or email response from the community members that have tried to reach out to OHP and HRC has been with difficulty. You might have some of the emails sent to you I'm not sure did you guys get an email back it. Could you give me an estimate of how many emails you received. You might have some of these emails sent to you and printed it out but there is no way for any of the phone calls to get to your desk. This was a comment complaint that I heard from some of the residents and myself whenever I made the phone call that there is not the infrastructure for this to be communicated to you properly. These ways of communication are vital for the community to respond to these projects and without proper intake there can be a loss of public responses. There is a claim about the lack of initial community involvement and concerns being presented presented earlier on this project timeline but a previous petition about that lot shows an estimated 3,000 people were voiced minions four or five years ago to the construction of this lot and still another 2,000 people in this round of the new development. Previous proposal by Mayor Ivy Taylor in 2011-2012 towards the protection of the viewshed of Hay Street Bridge was ignored by her department partly to her being in favor of the proposed building project. That proposal was never even considered so now we're here today still making the same claims that we did in 2011-2012. These attempts at hiding information and dismissing public response again creates these environments of corruption that are far too familiar with our city. In 1998 researchers have found a document that shows and acknowledges by the city of San Antonio over the historic value of the Hay Street Bridge. As a historic department it is your civic duty to protect these historic places. Please don't ignore this because of our new interest that has developed in the past couple of years. This community has been fighting over 50 years. Steadman has been working on this case for over 50 years. Manning Hinton has been working on this case for 20 years. This is nothing new and the fact that we're actually here still frustrating. If you look at page 21 of the design document if you want to pull that up shows the apartment building's last floor top out at about 54 feet. But yeah but there is an additional space up here that is not designated with any dimensions. So my question is how much taller is this actual building to the 59 feet of this bridge? And even if we're sitting here contemplating that this is one foot, two foot less than this to meet the standard requirements the fact that we have to sit here and measure out all that then. Is that the full amount? Correct, 59 minutes. Thank you so much. Qualified this Franklin. Statements today from the Conservation Society and I promise you this is my last. And I too am a volunteer so I do appreciate your constitution of standing firm in your commitment to our city serving on this commission. And that's my statement probably your target president but not from me. My name is Patty Zions. I am the Vice President of the Sanctuary Conservation Society 107 King William speaking on behalf of our President Student Veterans. The Sanctuary and Conservation Society represents our 1500 citizens who support the conservation of our natural built and cultural heritage. We invested $50,000 in the rehabilitation of the Hay Street Bridge which was completed in 2010 and has become an icon of the community. The bridge is a public space that must be kept accessible to all. The society has previously advocated for the preservation of sidelines to and from the bridge. The current proposal has a small setback from the bridge but has left half of the site vacant. A better plan would be to shift the project away from the bridge and orient it to Lamar Street in effect rotating the plan 90 degrees. This would provide more retail opportunities and more residential units with the views of the bridge. We sincerely hope that we take our statement into consideration during your double deliberations of this project. Thank you. Is this the news? It was quite good. I didn't know while I was researching that in 1877 at Hay Street, the first passenger train came in to San Antonio. It's really truly more than I want to know. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I love Mr. Steadman, I love Nettie Handing for all of the historical background but at the end of the day I didn't really, I don't know if I cared. But let me tell you what I do care about. All right, putting you guys in a difficult position because if you haven't talked to your council members with the exception of Ray Seldonia's office and the mayor's office, when I left here after I got rest and I went back, I would be pretty pissed off that I was a volunteer citizen and on the day of the hearing I'd have to find out about whether or not there were any GPA, any standards on environmental assessment do on this project. You're voting on final on something years to include to this very day that entire area was heavy industrial and that all of a sudden one day you wake up and it's downtown guidelines. And guess what? There's no system in place. Was there an environmental assessment done? At least one. Probably two. Because when the feds, when City of San Antonio took the money, this is more than I want to know people, I might need time. When the City of San Antonio took the money from the feds, they had to agree to an environmental assessment. Okay, it was very site-specific under the footing of the bridge and remediation was done with that. Nevertheless, it's not allowed to exceed five years. That was in 2007. Every single toxic, carcinogenic subject that EPA can even give an example of has been housed on that area. And now all of a sudden we're getting ready to put residential in and you guys are not being informed? You pissed off, really. I didn't speak to her. Can somebody give me time? I'll give her your time. All right. I'm sorry. I never asked for extra time, but I got to get this out. I reached out to Micah on Thursday. You know, I'm not the only person she has to take care of, so it took her a minute to get back with me. But in my class, I also reached out to James McGrath, the attorney, because it bothered me about this ground field exposure. It bothered me. What's the EPA test? What's the environmental assessment done at a time when the threshold wasn't there for residential? He wasn't going to put it to the community. And at the expense of you, because you're the ones that are not being given full credit to, is the site safe? What's the next step? So Micah explained to me, oh, it'll either come from planning, zoning, or permitting. No one wants to kick this can, download shots, down the street, write down the street from the Hays Street Bridge. Three weeks ago, we got nothing on that yet. So Liv just wants to get them solved for play. TCI, Texas Capital Improvement Project, well done, because they got environmental assessment team. Five years. That's it. What's the process when a project comes through? Oh, we usually... I don't know, Liz. Katalina, what was the zoning created? When did it go from heavy industrial to ensure that that transition maintained the health, welfare, and the safety of the citizens? Oh, we don't know, Liz, but we're going to get back to you. And I can guarantee you that just the way you see me now, when they talk to me, if they had a good answer, they'd have blown it up to share it with us. Now, let's keep it with me in context of where you guys can really make a difference. To me, a higher, stronger, deeper wall, lots of ground ground. We're going to need it. The place is toxic. If we don't know that, we should know it. The entire surrounding blocks around there are still toxic and operational since 1901. Sand war maps. But of course, why would you look that up? Why would you take that extra shit? You don't live there. You're not here. You're not here. Thank you. Alex, maybe just for now? For now. For now. And following Alex, we'll hear from Dylan Verdin. Well, you're one second. I appreciate you all staying so late. As you can see, there's a lot of community anger about this project, and I think it's justified. So I'm the chair, you can say your name's the one I think first. Sure. I'll have to hear what you say. Sure. It's Alex Bramhill. I'm the interior resident of San Antonio. Also the chair of the Democratic Socialist of America chapter in the city. And I think the anger is justified because the group did blockwalking in those neighborhoods. We blockedwalked from the net to the street. To Sherman. And we talked to many residents about the project. And frankly, a lot of them didn't know what was even transpiring. With everything that you're hearing about environmental impacts, with everything you're hearing about racism as a result of gentrification, these residents deserve to know. And hearing like this is good. I'm glad to see everybody here. But if there are any residents that are bound to be affected by this project, they deserve to know. And so I think the review commission should not roll on this today until city council can look at it as well. Because those residents, again, they deserve to have input. When we talked to them, they said they hadn't been consulted by government in 10, 20 years. And these are residents sitting inside their homes. I'm sure that this is even transpired. Secondarily, it's important to remember, too, that sidewalk length, even though the design review commission shows a six foot length for the sidewalks, the federal highway administration recommends for areas like this, the sidewalk length to be at least eight feet for commercial centers. And it's pretty clear that this will generate commercial activity. So I think the federal highway administration's guidelines are a little bit better for a space like this, especially for somebody with disabilities who because of pedestrian traffic is frequently forced into the street because they can't walk alongside big crowds of people. People with disabilities forced onto the street is not a safe fit. Also, third, I'd like to highlight that if you review the tiny documents of the two developers in question on page 19, you'll find that the word bicycle is misspelled twice. This just calls into question the thoroughness of their planning documents. There's been a lot of money to change the entire economic composition of a neighborhood. I think thoroughness is a serious standard to expect from them. So this just calls into question the thoroughness of their documents. I echo the concerns that everybody who's here with the questions of environmental concerns and I also echo the concerns about gentrification and the issue of spill, right, that this isn't designed in such a way as to accommodate all the traffic that's going to be caused by it. And the first people to deal with the consequences of that traffic are going to be the community residents. So don't pass it today. Thank you. Hello. My name is Dylan Birdie. I'm a resident of District 1 and I'm also here with the San Antonio Chapter of the Democratic Socialist of America. And I have concerns residing the design plans for 803 North Korea in affordability. So only 10% of the total units, which is a measly 14 minutes, are dedicated to the fixed rent income price at $1,000 a month. And these units presumably are 500 square foot studio apartments, although we don't know for sure because there's a lack of explicit information that can't be referenced in the design document about what these fixed prices actually look like. However, presuming that they are all studio apartments, which can reasonably and comfortably own support for a single person, the per capita income of San Antonio is roughly $23,000 to $26,000 a year. And it's suggested that a person spends 30% of their income on rent, which means that the $1,000 a month, which is the lowest, lowest rent available at these apartments, is far above what the average person should be able to afford for rent, which is only $575 to $650 a month based on the per capita income of San Antonio residents. And it's a design flaw in the plans for these apartments because the fixed rent price, which is the developer's idea of an inexpensive piece of property, does not manage the actual affordability for the average San Antonio. And I don't think that the review commission should reach a final decision today, especially considering the level of conversation and opposition to the development. This is an issue that needs to be widened to include consideration from city council and more community input needs to be encouraged. I echo the concerns of others who have brought up their own issues with the project, especially the residents of district two, who will be most negatively impacted by the development. Thank you.