Speaker 1: On the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele do follow Speaker 2: San Antonio is a fast growing fast moving community with something new happening every day.

And that's why each week we go on the record with the Newsmakers who are driving this change.

Then we gather at the reporters round table to talk about the latest news stories with the journalists behind those stories.

Join us now as we go on.

Speaker 1: Hi everybody.

And thank you for joining us for this edition of on the record.

This week, we are talking a human performance campus by the San Antonio spurs that is now officially a go after the county and none in the city is okay.

It's some tax incentives.

Last week we had a Councilman Manny Polis district eight, talking about Al how everybody, most everybody was going to be before it.

This week we have Councilman district two gentlemen McKubre Rodriguez.

Thanks for coming in.

You were the lone vote in a nine to one vote for it.

You were the lone vote against it.

Why?

Speaker 2: Um, well, for me, it had to do with our water protections.

People had for years have been fighting for fighting to protect the aquifer.

And so this was, uh, an opportunity to incentivize development over the aquifer, which I don't think we should be doing as a, Speaker 1: And I guess we should back up it's at 14 or 1604 and a I 10.

And it is one of the most congested areas already.

And one of the last pieces of land there, right by the rim and a lock on Tara, six flags and the spurs want to build what they're calling a human performance campus.

And it would include a park with a land actually going to the county, but a research and some businesses and some other development.

And are you concerned about the incentives because it was $17 million in tax incentives over there, something like the next 20 years, but I guess that's not really your main Speaker 2: Issue.

I think realistically, the, the facility it's going to be beautiful.

It's I think it's going to do great things.

I think it's going to be state-of-the-art.

Um, but I, and I think this dispersion would have done that without the incentives and I think they could have done it in another location.

Speaker 1: And some people have said that they wish they'd have known more about this, that it kind of came up at the last minute.

When did you know about it and what were you told about how much input the city had?

Speaker 2: So I think I found out about it a little bit after a little bit after being sworn in, I was briefed, um, a lot of the conversation by incentives and the negotiations between the city and, uh, the spurs organization, those happen in executive session.

So it's really just talking about what kind of incentives are going to exist, but along the way, I guess there was this hope and I had this hope well that the conversation would be much more public.

Once those incentives have been decided and the public could weigh in, but there wasn't really much opportunity.

Speaker 1: It's a little different from the incentives that have happened.

Say with some of the development of the downtown area that was controversial after it happened, saying the developers didn't need it.

How was this incentive going to work with the spurs and the city tax money it's really taxes back.

Yes.

Speaker 2: So the spurs are still going to be paying taxes on the property.

Um, over the course of 25 years, I believe it is.

They'll get up to seven, they'll get up to $17 million, um, back.

I'm not entirely sure the entire structure.

I'm not an expert on tech structures like that.

Uh, but I know it's not a blame.

It's not a $17 million check right now.

And it will be over the course of 25 years if they hold up there.

And, Speaker 1: And there is a, there are some strings, the county actually gets a 22, something like that acre park out of this that the spurs are going to manage.

And then the spurs also promised that they will invest so much in that and that there will be at least, I think they said at least 15, technically on the requirement, but they promised something like 1700 full-time jobs.

Speaker 2: Yes.

And I'm not, I'm not sure if that 1700 jobs was, um, existing jobs.

I don't know if that's, if that's inclusive of the construction and maintenance type jobs, but I don't think 15 jobs at less than a hundred percent AMI is nearly enough.

And I wish we had a follow-up.

Speaker 1: What do you think this will bring to the city?

Speaker 2: I think one it's, uh, people will be happy.

I think this is sort of a, almost a guarantee that the spurs are here for the long haul.

That's nice, of course, that brings with the economic development and continued investment.

They're a great community partner.

They've done a host of wonderful things on the east side and throughout the city.

Um, public, the investment of public art is going to be great.

I think they're going to have to be, um, a little bit stronger as stewards of the environment.

And I think this little bit of controversy might help produce greater results later.

Speaker 1: There are some strings attached as well about they're going to do a little bit more in terms of making sure that there's not X amount of impervious cover and that the tree ordinance is followed to the letter and that kind of thing.

Yes.

Speaker 2: That's why I don't necessarily think there was any wrong vote on this because I think at the end, um, USA had the property before and they were grand for grandfathered in at a hundred percent impervious cover, meaning they could pave over everything with concrete, um, and development was going to happen.

So what we got out of the deal was 65% impervious cover, which is great for what it could have been, I guess.

Um, but of course, nobody wants to see concrete poured over the aquifer.

They also have to, um, follow the tree ordinance, which would have been grandfathered out originally.

So they're doing a lot of things I think they would have done anyway.

I don't think they needed the incentives.

Speaker 1: Is it going to bring, there's a sports that is advancing all across the country?

Uh, we have, uh, the bamse people here in the center for the Intrepid doing some of the same things.

Is this going to make us a center, a destination for this kind of thing?

Is that the, Speaker 2: I hope I, I believe so.

I think they want to get athletes.

They want to get state of the art medic medical practices they want to do.

Um, they want to do a lot of really great things.

And I think this is a necessary facility to accomplish those goals, but was that location, the right choice Speaker 1: And that location, this is the first time we've heard in a while about development over the aquifer recharge zone.

You're putting it on the radar again, are you looking to have more stringent requirements if possible in San Antonio is part of the recharge zone?

Speaker 2: Absolutely.

And I wish long ago when development over this property was considered, I wish the city, um, looked at more innovative ways to PR to protect the aquifer.

And I wish maybe the city bought the property or if, um, there's other areas.

I hope that I hope we're more proactive rather than reactive.

And the proactive is protection and the reactive is incentivizing the less least of all evils Speaker 1: And in the past, the city has helped buy property and protect it and save it and easements and things like that.

Do you see that program expanding?

Speaker 2: Yeah, so actually just last week as well, we voted to, uh, purchase land a bit.

I forget which direction it was like Northwest.

Um, and so we bought that some millions of dollars, um, so that nothing can be developed over it.

Some of my council colleagues felt nothing was going to be developed anyway, but just in case, I think that's, that's something we should be doing.

Speaker 1: And last quick question, coming up, something that people out there can get involved in, if they would like to is the redrawing of city council, district boundaries.

That's done every 10 years after the census.

And you wanted to get more people on a committee instead of having consultants do it.

Where are you in that?

Speaker 2: Yes.

So, um, what the plan is right now, what it was originally was one person per council district, and then the mayor appoints three people.

Um, I think what we're going to end up seeing is two people per council district.

Um, I know on the, on, in district two, we have the east and Northeast who have very different interests.

Um, and so I think it's important to include a wider array of perspectives, especially as it relates to voting.

Speaker 1: And do you know whether your district, uh, the population is smaller or bigger, like a district data on the Northwest side, it's going to have to be shrunk in terms of population, but people because there's so much growth there.

How about district two?

Speaker 2: So district two is actually just, we're missing maybe a few thousand people.

And so we'll probably be we'll probably.

Speaker 1: So you haven't had that many people leave or come into that district relatively Speaker 2: Relative to others?

Speaker 1: Yes.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilman district two and a guy who says he's shy and I can't believe that Jalen McKee Rodriguez, we appreciate you coming in.

Thanks.

Thank you.

New development planned in the mission.

San Jose area is drawing some controversy and opposition from neighbors.

In fact, a petition drive and a protest this last weekend to explain what the concern is, is Terry Ibanez, president of the San Jose, uh, mission neighborhood.

We, um, saw a little bit of a change in what you're opposed to as well.

In the past week, James lift shoots a developer and had planned apartments.

And since then you've talked to them and they're going to make some changes.

What, where is this and what are you opposed to?

Okay, so where is this?

Uh, they pull their plans from zoning and planning commission.

Um, they're going to keep the C two, a zoning that it is commercial commercial.

Um, and we're going to have, I'm hoping a couple of community conversations about what should be on there.

Uh, we're posing it because it, it doesn't fit in with our plan for the neighborhood and the world heritage plant.

And it doesn't fit to the promise that the city made, uh, to UNESCO when they signed the designation Directly south of the mission.

But it's in the next block, south of the mission off Weezer.

It's not on the same block.

It's across the street.

It's approximately 500 feet from mission San Jose.

And you're okay with some kind of commercial development, just not multi-family.

You don't want apartments in that area might surprise them.

Uh, and the apartments we just feel is inappropriate because of the density and massing.

Um, I know in the newspaper, he said, well, I'm putting low density, 46 apartments, but, uh, we don't feel that's appropriate.

We oppose the apartments at mission Concepcion.

We oppose apartments in 2015, which were going to be high density, uh, same properties, um, in 2015, Uh, shelved that project is They dropped it actually console woman, Rebecca Viagra.

And, uh, finally at the final hour would not approve it because we got 3006 And now her sister, Phyllis, via grinds on the council now, and she is wanting to work with you and the developer and kind of get you together on what's right.

What's going to happen.

What do you think is going to happen now?

Uh, I'm hoping that we see a plan, you know, and see a design and, and, um, and we're hoping that it is a type of development that would benefit our neighborhood and, uh, benefit the term vision of protecting.

And you say you want to work with the developer, basically the architect to make sure that it fits in there, but a warehouse of some type would be okay.

We're thinking that the warehouse would be fine.

It's just, it's just, we need to see more, you know, we didn't, they didn't have any plans when they just said, we want to build a warehouse and we're like reading it.

The immediate reaction was like, oh, you didn't want the apartment.

So I'm going to give you a new ugly warehouse because immediately that's What you would accept or reject.

Well, we want to see his plans, you know, he wants, we told him what we wanted to see there.

And, and, and he said, and the next Step is you're going to meet With him.

Yes.

In hopefully in the next week or two, we're going to meet with them.

And, and we're hoping that we can also get some of the city's promises to protect it and, and code UDC code.

And also just some other criteria for the developer to meet with neighborhood.

I wish we had more time.

I'd like to talk with all of you on this and see where we are down the road.

Thank you very much for coming in Terry Ibanez of the mission San Jose neighborhood association.

Thanks.

Thank You.

Finally, on reporters round table this week, Brian Chasnoff, who is an investigative reporter for the express news, you have had just some incredible stories recently, and you spent months on them, literally about the Coreys across bear county, across the hill country.

Also an issue across the state and whether or not enough is being done to regulate them, to keep an eye on dust sediment, all kinds of things.

Tell us about how long you've been working on this and where are you guys doing?

Speaker 2: Sure.

So I worked on it for four months.

Uh, really looked at stone quarries.

These are sites that excavate, they blast and dig up and stockpile and crush rocks for construction.

And with so many people moving to Texas, they say there's a thousand people moving to Texas every day.

You need this raw material to build roads and homes.

And so they're really expanding all over the state.

Uh, in the past seven years, they've been number of rock quarries has increased by 65%.

There's more than a thousand now across the state and in the hill country.

There's a 142 and Speaker 1: 27 here in bear county.

That's right.

Speaker 2: That's the bear county has the most of any county in the hill country.

Speaker 1: And now w you started out with a problem, a bed and breakfast has up on flat Creek.

Tell us about that.

Speaker 2: Well, flat Creek feeds into the pertinent Alice river for anyone who's been up there.

It's just a gorgeous part of Texas.

Uh, rolling Hills limestone, uh, translucent, clear water everywhere, but, uh, this particular quarry opened in 2016, uh, just a few miles upstream from a bed and breakfast.

And, uh, I talked to the proprietor of this Ben breakfast, and she talked about how the, since the quarry opened, uh, the, the re the water has changed, it's become murky, uh, and, uh, and so forth.

And it turns out that this particular quarry was, was one that has committed violations repeatedly.

Uh, the TCEQ, the Texas commission on environmental quality, which is the environmental agency that's responsible for regulating these quarries.

Uh, th they, they responding to complaints.

They came out investigated three times and found they'd done.

They had spilled sediment.

The Cory had spilled sediment into the Creek three times each time the Cory said they would fix the problem.

Never did keeps happening.

The Creek is, has been, uh, compromised, Speaker 1: And then nothing is done really right for they're kind of slapped on the Speaker 2: Right.

I mean, so, so my story really looked at, at the, it took a look at the enforcement process that the TCEQ has, and that's in place that's meant to ensure compliance with these rules to stop pollution.

Uh, but in, in a fair number of cases, certain quarries in the whole country, no matter what the TCQ, uh, does it, it just doesn't stop.

There was another quarry, uh, uh, along the Colorado river, that over nearly a decade, uh, the mining pits, uh, alongside the river repeatedly spilled sediment into the river, and that can have a dramatic impact on the river.

It can alter its course when you, when you change the sediment budget of a river, um, and you know, it affects what not only water quality, but it can worsen erosion and flooding Speaker 1: The case that you document up there.

There's a man whose house is now literally at the edge of a cliff where it wasn't before because of the river changes routes.

And you show that pretty dramatically on the website as well.

Speaker 2: He said he lost 90 feet, uh, of his own backyard in any year.

And when we go back and look at Google earth, uh, historical imagery, you can actually see the, his backyard disappear and you can see the river change course.

And, uh, he, he built a, had to build a new house further back from the bank Speaker 1: Because, but he said, he's not suing because their lawyers Speaker 2: Are better.

It's the golden rule.

They have the gold.

Yeah.

So he's just acknowledging that he can't compete financially with Speaker 1: Awesome people, uh, including some hardcore Republican conservatives, you point out here who are wanting to put some teeth in the TCEQ and make sure that the conservative, as I see it is about conserving the environment.

Speaker 2: That's right.

It's, it's really a bipartisan effort.

So not only Democrats who you would traditionally think would, would go for this kind of thing, but also very, very conservative Republicans.

One in particular, Terry Wilson, up in marble falls, a lot of rock quarries up there in the hill country.

He is a deeply conservative Republican.

He's been leading the reform effort, trying to, uh, enact stricter monitoring of these sides, get them to put, uh, air monitors on their property right now.

There's no monitoring of the air.

And that's another issue at quarries is the date.

They emit a lot of dust microscopic particles that can, uh, cause diseases such as Stoll, silica, crystalline, silica, uh, when you, when you grind limestone, uh, it, it produces that limestone of course, is the resource that is primarily located in the hill country.

And it's a key ingredient in submits.

So these quarries really, really love to get in there and, and crush the limestone.

Um, but yeah, Terry Wilson, he is a Republican from marble falls and past two sessions.

He's tried to enact stricter reforms, but that the industry, the aggregates and concrete industry, particularly the lobby, uh, has, has really, uh, squelched that both times Speaker 1: Now, what do you expect to happen after this?

You've gotten a lot of response to these stories, Speaker 2: Right?

I mean, I do expect the advocates, uh, for more responsible mining to continue their fight.

They've told me as much, and, uh, they're not going to stop trying, um, and hopefully, you know, stories like this will bring a little bit more clarity to the situation.

So, so that, uh, um, you know, there's not, you know, if there is misinformation out there about, about what actually the, uh, the impacts are on the environment and on people's health, uh, hopefully stories like this can, can at least clear that up so that when they try again, they can start from a foundation of, of accuracy Speaker 1: More and more quarries.

There's more and more power there also.

I mean, you quote some of the corny executives as well in the pieces of saying this is going to happen because there is so much growth and we are trying to do with, Speaker 2: We can.

Yes.

And they, and they say that they're already a highly regulated that they many layers of oversight.

They have to follow so many rules, et cetera.

Um, but, uh, so that that's, Speaker 1: But you also had some adventures in this where you, I guess, took a kayak through part of a changing river because of a Speaker 2: Quarry while it was a canoe, but sorry, Speaker 1: Make it more colorful.

Right.

Speaker 2: When we're talking about the fellow, who's a homeless falling into the river.

Uh, I went out to, to that part of the river and got on a canoe and paddled into, uh, the quarry itself, because legally you're allowed to do that if you can, if you can navigate the waterway.

And so we went into these abandoned mining, mining pits through a breach and a berm that, that had crumbled.

And that was the essence of the violation.

There was that they they're supposed to build these water control structures to keep storm water in the mining pits, uh, before they release it to the waterway.

So it can be treated.

But, uh, in, in the case of this quarry there, the, the berms just were always collapsed.

And it was, uh, you know, when it floods, there's just a constant flow of sentence Speaker 1: At a state waterway that would be regulated by another state agency, aside from the TCEQ.

And do they keep an eye on changing?

Speaker 2: No, th the, in this particular case, the TCQ was the, is the body that regulates this.

Speaker 1: And now from here, what are you looking at doing next on this issue, or this whole set of issues, really with environmental impact of growth in this area, we're going to have, what 3 million more people from here to Austin in the next 20 years, Speaker 2: It's no secret that, that water is a, is a big issue, just the scarcity of water and, and, uh, you know, whether whether or not, uh, the water, the aquifers and so forth can accommodate this explosive growth.

So that's probably Speaker 1: When you pointed out in the story that one of these or some of these are here and built over recharged, right?

Speaker 2: Th that was another example that we looked at.

Um, there was a quarry over the Edwards aquifer recharge zone in onion Creek watershed.

And when they, when you operate as a quarry over these, uh, over the recharge zone, you're supposed to, to protect the aquifer to, to, to not to leave certain sensitive features alone, like caves and sinkholes that are there.

So the aquifer can recharge, uh, through rain rainfall, but, uh, this particular quarry had repeatedly sealed, uh, cavities in order to build roads through the quarry, uh, without getting approval.

First, they had, uh, conducted construction activities in buffer zones that they weren't supposed to.

So that was another illustration in the story of how much did Speaker 1: They get Speaker 2: Penalized for that less than $20,000.

Speaker 1: And then some of that was knocked down Speaker 2: On what about 4,000 was, was knocked off because they agreed to certain things, you know, to train their workers, not to do it again.

But then of course, a few years later, they did it again.

Um, so that's the, that's the crux of, of what I did, uh, as an investigative reporter was I showed that in certain cases, there are repeat violators who aren't, aren't cowed by this enforcement process at all, Speaker 1: Some great reporting and appreciate I was going to hold up a copy of the paper, because there is such a thing as a newspaper story that people read a good online version.

You have a great online version, but thank you very much.

Investigative reporter Brian Chasnoff at the San Antonio express news.

Check us out on the web and thank you for joining us for this edition of on the record.

You can see the show again, or previous shows as well as the podcast at dot org.

We'll see you next time.

On the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele do follow.