San Antonio Planning Commission Hearing on Camp Bullis ETJ Land Use Amendment - August 27, 2025

The San Antonio Planning Commission met on August 27, 2025 at 2:00 PM to consider a consent agenda and a public hearing on a petition to amend the land use plan for the protected extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of Camp Bullis. The meeting concluded at 2:58 PM with a unanimous vote to postpone the item to September 24, 2025.

Consent Calendar

• The consent agenda was approved unanimously by a voice vote of all commissioners present (Profit, Sigo, Sánchez, García, De Susi, López, Maylon, Cherpec). The consent agenda included routine approvals for which staff recommended approval.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Sheila Gómez (22626 East Range) spoke against the amendment, citing loss of rural character, nighttime light pollution, increased traffic, and the potential for commercial uses like liquor stores. She noted that the community moved there for low-density residential living.
• George Richmond (22830 Central Prairie), a 77-year resident, strongly opposed, stating the area is quiet and low-density. He raised concerns about traffic safety on Cross Mountain Trail, including a recent multi-vehicle accident, and noted that the area is under drought and cannot support high-volume water use.
• Edward Butler (8830 Cross Mountain Trails) described the area as remote with 2-acre minimum lots and homes valued $500k-$2M. He argued that a C2 commercial designation could allow gas stations, liquor stores, and other incompatible uses. He noted the narrow roads cannot accommodate large delivery trucks.
• Robin Butler (same address) opposed, stating that the existing event venue already generates noise from music that disrupts outdoor enjoyment. She also raised traffic and accident concerns.
• Mary Massie (address 23742) opposed citing traffic safety (including drunk drivers from the venue), inadequate infrastructure, reduced county tax revenue (venue pays ~$5,000/year vs. her home at $11,000/year), decreased property values, and aesthetic impacts.
• Richard Camargo (address 237) opposed due to traffic safety on winding roads and insufficient road capacity for commercial traffic.
• Natalie Nathan (address 23225) opposed emotionally, stating she moved there for the natural beauty and wildlife. She expressed confusion about why a commercial venue should be allowed in a residential area and noted that the venue is marketed for camping and parties, which would disrupt the community.
• Riley (Cross Mountain Trail, 44-year resident) opposed due to traffic, a recent truck rollover incident, environmental hazards (oil spills), and risks to wildlife (deer, rabbits, hogs, etc.). He stated that changing to C2 would allow any commercial use in the future.
• A total of 46 written oppositions were noted by the commission, in addition to the oral testimony.

Discussion Items

• Applicant Presentation: Emily Wise (representing the owners) and owners Genevi Sáez and Lon Sáez presented the request. They own an 8.5-acre property at 8860 Cross Mountain Trail with an existing event venue (micro-wedding venue) that has been operating for about a year. The property is in the Camp Bullis ETJ, requiring a land use compatibility certificate. The owners seek to amend the land use plan to commercial to allow continued operation. They argued the venue is small (one wedding per month, 6,600 sq ft improvements), very controlled, and has caused no noise complaints. They are willing to enter restrictive covenants to limit future uses (e.g., no liquor stores, gas stations). They stated they have had conversations with neighbors.
• Commissioner Questions:
  • Commissioner Mizuki asked about the operational history and why they are seeking an amendment now. The owner explained that a recent change in military zone regulations required a compatibility certificate, prompting the application. They have been operating without permit but are now seeking compliance.
  • Commissioner Bustamante asked about HOA restrictions. The property may not be subject to the Cross Mountain HOA because it is a separate lot (Volume 9223, Page 42) created outside Unit 1. However, Commissioner Orien noted that the property might have been part of Unit 1 and subject to restrictive covenants that prohibit commercial use. Staff clarified the planning department created this use category in 2019.
  • Commissioner García asked about the Air Force response; staff stated that the military must provide a letter of non-objection before proceeding.
  • Commissioner Orien requested clarification on whether the property is bound by existing HOA restrictions and suggested the applicant go through the HOA process.
  • The commission also noted that changing to C2 would allow a wide range of commercial uses not limited to events, even if the current owner intends to keep it as a venue.
• Postponement Motion: Commissioner Bustamante moved to postpone the item to September 24, 2025 to allow the applicant to discuss with neighbors, clarify HOA restrictions, and explore restrictive covenants. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mizuki and passed unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• Vote: All commissioners present voted yes on the motion to postpone (Bustamante, Mizuki, Sánchez, García, López, Maylon, Orien, Profit, and Chair Peck).
• Next Steps: The public hearing on item 13 is continued to the September 24, 2025 meeting of the San Antonio Planning Commission. The applicant is expected to provide additional documentation on HOA status and restrictive covenants, and to continue engaging with the community.
• The consent agenda was approved unanimously earlier in the meeting.