San Antonio Planning Commission Meeting Summary – September 24, 2025

The San Antonio Planning Commission convened on September 24, 2025, at 2:03 p.m. with a quorum present. The meeting addressed a combined hearing agenda (consent calendar) and two individual agenda items (items 9 and 10). Staff announced that item 10 would lose quorum and therefore could not be considered; it would automatically continue to October 8, 2025. Item 8 had been previously postponed. The consent calendar, including item 12 (minutes), was approved unanimously.

Consent Calendar

• All cases on the combined hearing agenda except items 8, 9, and 10 were read into the record for one unified motion.
• Commissioner Bustamante recused herself (2:06 p.m.) for an unspecified reason, then rejoined (2:07 p.m.).
• Motion to approve the consent agenda passed 6‑0 (Commissioner Bustamante recused).

Public Comments & Testimony

• George Richmond (22830 Central Prairie, 37‑year resident) opposed the plan amendment for 8860 Cross Mound Trail. He cited concerns about water well depletion in a drought, a dangerous curve on Cross Mountain Trail (recent two wrecks), and the city/county designating the road as a no‑through traffic zone. He questioned whether the venue was operating illegally and whether services (water/septic) were being shared from a home in the HOA. Staff noted the legal description of the property and offered to follow up outside the meeting.
• Rafael Goico (9219 Pact Train Pass, ~25‑year resident) opposed the rezoning. He described the neighborhood as a "gem" on the edge of the Texas Hill Country with wildlife and minimal traffic. He expressed concern that rezoning could allow higher‑impact uses (e.g., lube shop, liquor store, gas station) and that a rezoning sign had not been posted. He noted the county recently added radar speed signs, stop signs, and a no‑through traffic restriction.
• Natalie Nathan (23225 Eagle Gap) opposed, highlighting safety issues: two school crossing signs on Cross Mountain Trail, no street lighting, deer and hog crossings, and the high cost ($75,000) of replacing a dried‑up well. She worried about property devaluation and the precedent for other commercial uses, noting that the venue currently advertises nationally for weddings, corporate events, and glamping.
• Joaquin Mira (22630 Range, new home resident) opposed, stating the neighborhood's appeal is its large lots, quiet, and natural darkness. He argued that the business would destroy property values and that there are other areas for such a venue.
• The applicant declined to present in full and instead requested a continuance to continue community outreach, noting that the Cross Mountain Ranch HOA board had recently engaged with them. Commissioners recognized the public's passion and thanked them for attending.

Discussion Items

• Item 9: Request to amend the Camp Bullis Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Military Protection Area Land Use Plan from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial at 8860 Cross Mound Trail. The property is along a local road, surrounded by residential uses. Staff recommended denial, stating community commercial is intended for major intersections and existing commercial corridors, and that the allowable uses (e.g., auto repair, retail) would be detrimental to the neighborhood with no zoning limitation. 15 notices were mailed: within 200 feet, 7 in favor, 3 opposed; outside 200 feet, 73 opposed, 1 in support. JBSA had no objection.
• Applicant Emily Weisler (Keller Griffin & Ferramend) requested a two‑week continuance to October 8 to finalize conversations with the HOA and community.
• Commissioner Bustamante clarified that because the property is in the ETJ, the city cannot limit uses through zoning; any use allowed by community commercial would be permitted by right. Private restrictive covenants could address concerns but the city would not enforce them.
• Commissioner Ulit asked about a 1988 deed restriction referencing Cross Mountain UNit One restrictive covenants and its 2013 removal. The applicant explained that Lot 8 was never platted as part of Cross Mountain Ranch, and the original reference was a mistake later corrected.
• The commission discussed the difficulty of balancing neighborhood preservation with property rights. The applicant reaffirmed willingness to work with the HOA and the Kaufman Group.
• A motion to continue to October 8, 2025 was made by Commissioner Bustamante, seconded by Commissioner Mylam, and passed unanimously (6‑0).

Key Outcomes

• Consent Agenda: Approved (6‑0).
• Item 8: Previously postponed; no action.
• Item 9: Continued to the October 8, 2025 meeting (unanimous vote).
• Item 10: Not considered due to loss of quorum after Commissioner Siegel recused (2:33 p.m.). The item was automatically continued to the October 8, 2025 meeting.
• The meeting was adjourned at 2:33 p.m. after Commissioner Siegel left, resulting in a loss of quorum.