Um good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If we could please have our Spanish interpretation services statement.

Buenas tardes.

Good afternoon.

See Alguna persona necessita interpretacional espanol, favor to passar a la cabina para hablar con nosotros sobre la technica.

Gracias.

Thank you.

All right.

My name is John Bustamante, and I am the chair of the zoning commission of the City of San Antonio, as well as the District 5 zoning commissioner.

I hereby call this regularly noticed meeting of the City of San Antonio Zoning Commission in the session.

I like to do up and sorry, the time is 101.

I like to do roll call by allowing the zoning commissioners to introduce themselves, starting with the commissioner on my far left.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Rob Sipes, representing District 7.

Danny Kellum, District 1.

John Witsett, District 10.

Moses Juvell, District 9.

Kinhui, District 6.

George Inohosa, District 3.

ADP Rodriguez, District 4.

Janelle Chase, Mayor's Office.

And Commissioner Kelly.

John Kelly, District A.

All right.

Staff is a quorum present.

Yes, the quorum is present.

All right.

Thank you.

Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

All right.

Prior to commencing our hearing, I would like staff to review the meeting format for the benefit of those in the audience.

Staff, if you would.

Before I begin, please turn your phones on vibrate or turn them off.

The zoning commission is an 11-member body appointed by the city council to make recommendations on zoning cases.

Upon receiving a recommendation from the commission, you will have six months from the date of the commission's recommendation to forward your case to City Council.

If you have any questions regarding this procedure, please contact your case manager.

Staffling will begin each case with a short presentation of the request.

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for rezoning and property within 200 feet of the subject property.

Check marks will indicate those property owners in favor of the request, and an X will indicate those property owners in opposition.

Following this presentation and any questions by the commission, the applicant will present their request.

For those that have signed up to speak for or against the proposed rezoning, you will be called in the order that you signed up to speak.

Those in support and opposition will be allowed a maximum of two minutes per speaker, and you are not obligated to utilize the maximum time limitation.

You will be informed that the two minutes are up.

For those that would like to give their time to a speaker, that speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people giving their time for a total of six minutes.

Those giving up their time must be present and signed in to speak.

And please, please announce that when the speaker is going up to the podium that you are yielding your time.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you so much.

As you can guess from Kelly's statement, uh it is important that if you are going to give your time to someone else that you announce that before that person starts to speak.

It allows our meetings to go along a lot more smoothly.

So please bear that in mind.

Um at this time, do we have any withdrawn or postponed or pulled items?

No, we do not.

Okay.

Then we're going to move on to our combined hearing number one, which is our consent agenda.

If we could please read those items that are currently on the combined hearing number one.

And I believe 20 is back on consent we can add them back on.

Yes.

Thank you so much.

And item 20.

All right.

Um given though that list, commissioners, does anyone want to pull any of those items from the consent agenda?

Looking left, seeing none, looking right, seeing none, looking remotely, seeing thank you so much.

Um if we could please read those items into the record.

Item number four, a request for a change of zoning from R4 to IDZ1 with uses permitted in C1 and bar and tavern without cover charge for three or more days per week, located at 302 and 306 East Civillos, 71 notices mailed, four in favor, four opposed, Lone Star Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Outside of 200 feet, two in favor, all other overlays to remain the same.

Item number five, a request for a change of zoning from NC IDZ to IDZ1 with uses permitted in NC Neighborhood Commercial District and Wine Boutique.

Located at 302 East Fest Street, all other overlays to remain the same.

42 notices mailed, one in favor, two opposed, Lone Star Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Outside 200 feet, three in favor, two opposed.

Item number seven, a request for a change of zoning from IDZ1 to R4 C D with a conditional use for four dwelling units located at 201 would be court.

All other overlays to remain the same.

41 notices mailed, one in support, one opposed, five points, neighborhood association, and San Antonio, Texas District 1, Neighborhood Residence Association did not provide a response.

Item number 11.

A request for a change of zoning from R6 to IDZ two with uses permitted in C2P commercial pedestrian district, located at 2121 South Flores Street, all other overlays remain the same.

30 notices mailed, four in favor, one opposed.

The Callin Gardens and Lone Star Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

Item number twelve.

IDZ3 with uses permitted in C2, C3, O1.5, O2, and 390 dwelling units, all other overlays to remain the same.

Located at 326 West Jones Avenue.

31 notices mailed, four in favor, zero posts, downtown and Tobin Hill Community Neighborhood Associations gave no response.

They're also adding a DN overlay to the property.

Item number 13, a request for a change of zoning from R4 to R4S with a specific use authorization for urban farm located at 410 East Cheryl Drive.

All other overlays to remain the same.

37 notices mailed, three in favor, one opposed.

There is no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item 14, a request for a change of zoning from C2 to R4, located at 240 Castro Hill Road, all other overlays to remain the same.

42 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post, El Charro, Neighborhood Association, and Prospect Hill, Neighborhood Associations did not provide a response.

Item 15, a request for a change of zoning from C1 and O2 to C1 C Dational use for laboratory research or testing located at 440 South Piedras Drive.

All other overlays to remain the same.

There were 27 notices mailed, one in favor, zero opposed, Hillcrest Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item number 19.

The request for a change of zoning from I2 to L located at 4415 Dividend Drive.

All other overlays to remain the same.

Eight notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

There is no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item number 20.

A request for a change of zoning from R4 to MF18, located at 1023 East Ashley Road, all other beliefs remain the same.

There were 21 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

The Harlanddale neighborhood, McCullough Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item number 23.

A request for a change of zoning from R6 to C2.

Generally located at the 200 200 block of Hunt Lane, all other lists remained the same.

62 notices mailed, one in favor, one opposed.

Rainbow Hills Area Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item number 25.

A request for a change of zoning from I1 to IDZ3 with uses permitted in RM4, C3, 100 units per acre, bar and tavern with cover charge three or more days per week.

Microbrewery, hotel taller than 35 feet, when unable to achieve additional height pursuant to 35-517D setbacks for height increase, beverage manufacturing or processing.

Entertainment venue, outdoor, live entertainment with and without cover charge, three or more days per week, not including food service establishment, food service establishment with cover three cover charge three or more days per week, with or without accessory live entertainment, and IDZ3.

Located at 1523 North Alamwood Street, all other overlays to remain the same.

All the overlays remain the same.

37 notices mailed, four in favor, zero opposed.

Government Hill Neighborhood Association and Downtown Neighborhood Association gave no response outside of 200 feet, nine in favor.

Item number 28.

A request for a change of zoning from C2NAS with a conditional use, sorry, with the specific use authorization for commercial athletics field with a five-year time limitation and C3NA to C2S with a specific user authorization for a car wash located on the 9,000 block of South Sarthamor Street.

All other release remain the same.

Joe anyone notices mailed zero in favor, zero opposed.

No registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item number 29, a request for a change of zoning from R4 to C1 CD with a conditional use for outside storage screening from public rows and adjacent properties required.

There is no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Is there any public comment?

Yes, we do have public comment.

Let's begin.

Uh are there speakers as well as voicemails?

Yes, we have a mix.

And I think item 20 wanna confirm that there is going with the amendment, so he needs to read the amendment in.

Okay.

If you would read the amendment in for item 20.

I apologize.

I should have made that clear.

The applicant would like to amend the request to R4C, the residential single family district with the condition of use for four dwelling units.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Um let's begin with the voicemails.

Just sorry.

Sorry, before we do that.

Ms.

Rose Hill, you signed up, but you also left a voicemail.

Would you like the voicemail to be heard or would you like to speak?

Rose Hill.

Rose?

I don't see her.

You see outside, perhaps.

Uh but oh.

No.

Rose Hill.

No.

Um but that also goes for anyone else.

If anyone who has signed up to speak left a voicemail, now is your opportunity to choose one.

Uh we will either hear your voicemail or uh hear your speech, but you gotta pick one.

I think I think that was the only one.

That was the only one.

All right.

Voicemail.

Voicemail, very good.

Uh and if you're absent, you get the voicemail.

So all right.

Uh let's go ahead and begin public comment with the voicemails, please.

Hello, my name is Luis Morales, and I live at 323 East Fest.

Um Antonio.

And my phone number is 21087-1897.

And the case number I'm calling about is uh the last three digits are at 227.

Z2025 1070227.

I'm calling to um I strongly oppose the uh zoning change for 302 Fest.

Um we uh at present uh have an issue with uh an existing uh business uh bamboo restaurant that has caused increased um uh car traffic, uh crime and noise on mostly on the weekends, and another um restaurant or bar.

What only make matters worse?

Um therefore uh once again I strongly oppose the zoning change.

Thank you so much.

Bye.

This is Emily Neff.

I'm the Calso Director at the San Antonio Museum of Art, 200 West Jones, phone number 210-978-811, and my personal address, should you need it, is 402 East Hathaway Drive.

I am calling on behalf of the board and staff of the San Antonio Museum of Art, or SAMA, to voice support for the zoning change requested at 326 West Jones, directly next door to the San Antonio Museum of Art.

This is item number 12 on the commission's agenda.

Since the 1970s, visionary founders of FAMA committed themselves to resurrecting the campus of the historic Lone Star Brewery in one of the earliest examples of an adaptive reuse project for an art museum in U.S.

history, owning over 13 acres along the San Antonio River in the museum reach.

FAMA is proud of its role in historic preservation and as a cultural anchor for the neighborhood city and region.

This area was dramatically improved again in 2009 with the opening of the river improvements of the museum reach and the development of Pearl beginning in the early 2000s and continuing today.

This area is poised for further smart growth in terms of urban walkability and vibrant cultural amenities, which will be more fully realized over time and SAMA's recent board-approved campus plan.

We have many questions about the development node proposed for this property at 326, especially concerning the height of the proposed tower and its materiality.

These questions have been directly shared with our McCombs neighbors already.

We continue to work together collaboratively, McCombs and Sama, for the improvement of the neighborhood and look forward to learning more about the proposed height and material.

And there's also S for Sierra.

But my concern as far as uh the rezoning for the property in question is one property taxes.

You know, how would that affect the property taxes in our area?

Would that change anything?

Would that increase it?

Um that is my first concern.

Um my second concern is going to be pest control.

Um because with this agriculture, um, I believe that there's probably going to be a pest issue and us living, you know, two houses down.

I want to know what's going to be the plan for the mitigation of possible pest um increase in the area and see how the property is going to manage that, or also help the properties neighboring that property manage it because I'm sure that's going to become a problem for us uh in the future.

Um but those are two of my biggest concerns as far as um the rezoning for that property.

Thank you.

This is Rose Hill, president of Government Hill Lines Association.

My property address 2107 North Interstate 35.

My phone number is 210-420-4320.

I'm calling regarding zoning case day Z 2025, 1070318.

We are requesting on behalf of the Government Hill Association uh that the commissioners today uh not approve the zoning request.

Um we have uh notified the representative to come to our January 27th, 2026 meeting uh to present this zoning request.

Uh this is the first time that we have seen this, and we have a lot of questions.

So therefore at this time uh it would be greatly be appreciated that uh they the the representatives postpone this case today, come to our meeting, and then at that time we will present either a denial or uh or we will uh or we will present a uh approval on the zoning request.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to see.

Hi, uh my name is Steve Rostigue, 105 Reno Street.

I'm calling about case 25, 1523 Alamo.

Um this case is positioned by the applicant as just the same zoning as the abutting property rezoned two years ago.

However, in that case, there are only 18 notices sent, and there are 17 property owners alone in the condos of the adjacent property across the street.

Uh only the addresses for the land owner was noticed noticed, it seems, which does not align with state law, which requires all real property owners to be noticed.

Uh as I've not heard back from staff on this, I suspect this case may have also not noticed the uh individual real property owners in the condos.

Uh uh, I ask you to uh continue this case today.

Um this should not go to council because uh the that previous case two years ago, uh that ordinance could be invalidated uh if it wasn't properly noticed.

Uh, because it has not been three years, so I urge uh everyone to make sure we've filed the correct noticing here.

Thank you.

That is it for voicemails.

We do have speakers then.

Very good.

If we could have our first speaker, please.

Robert Aragon for item number four.

Uh good afternoon.

Thank you for taking the time to hear me out.

Um in opposition for this uh to happen.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Atagorn.

If you would tell us your address, please.

Oh, it's 343 Clay Street.

Okay.

I am having ongoing issues with the business behind me.

Um commercial code enforcement is involved in this.

Uh the reason I'm also opposing this is that um sometimes I have trash blowing into my yard on windy days with an overfilled uh dumpster.

The other problem I have too is an employee urinating behind the dumpster.

I also have uh problems with uh also customers as well going back there and urinating.

So that's pretty much about it.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Adagon.

Philip Galeno for item number seven.

Good afternoon.

My name is Philip Canado.

Uh I live at 15410 way in San Antonio, but I'm here to speak in support of the change to uh would be way.

Um my wife we own two rent houses on Hitching Street, which is half a block away from the uh lot that we're speaking about here this morning.

Uh we have we are in support uh we are in support of the zoning change.

My wife grew up in the neighborhood uh at that time when it was a community of families living in modest, well kept homes and good neighbors who looked after each other.

Now it is a neighborhood full of many overgrown, trash-filled, vacant lots, and abandoned homes.

These conditions promote crime, drug dealing, vagrancy, burglaries, and unsafe conditions for all those there.

We feel that development of a new housing would not only improve the neighborhood conditions, but would deter crime and create a safer environment, encouraging other families to move in.

We currently have suspicious activity happening all over the neighborhood and questionable people hanging around houses and lots.

Another reason for encouraging new home ownership in the area is that a fire that consumed four houses on Poplar Street, which is about half a block away from this particular lot, are being and threatened that the other homes around it.

We know there are possible drugs being sold around there.

We never found out what was the cause of the fire, but it left four vacant lots and three and two vacant homes.

Neighbors there live in fear.

We hope that you will grant this zoning change.

All of the five five points neighborhood residents deserve it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that name?

It appears to read wheels and handyman.

Uh anybody signed up to speak for item number 11 on South Flores 2121.

Oh.

And if you would give us your name and your address, please.

Good afternoon, Sam Matty.

2123 South Florida Street.

I'm sorry.

Are you with the applicant?

No.

Okay.

So a neighbor of 2121.

Very good.

If you want to tell us your uh thoughts on that project.

I don't have any problem.

Okay, so you're in favor?

Yeah.

Excellent.

Very good.

Thank you so much for your time.

Next.

For item number 25.

Priscilla.

Item number 25.

Priscilla.

Anyone else for 25?

Anyone here to speak on item 25?

All right.

Moving on.

That is it for public comment on these items.

All right.

Very good.

I'm going to pull item four, Mr.

Aragorn, if you would stick around for a little bit.

Commissioners, to my left.

Any other items to be pulled for individual?

Seeing none.

Looking to my right.

Seeing none.

Looking remotely.

No.

Thank you.

All right.

Hearing none.

Uh with the exception of item four.

Is there a motion?

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Huey.

Like to make the motion to approve the following items.

Items number five, seven, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, nineteen, twenty.

As amended.

As amended.

Twenty-three, twenty-five, twenty-eight, and twenty-nine.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Is there a second?

Thank you, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

And actually I forgot something.

Ms.

Aguilad, would you come up?

And we skipped a step.

I apologize.

You are the representative for item 20?

Yes.

And you are formally requesting that we amend your request to R4 C D for four units?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

There is a motion and a second uh discussion.

Commissioners to my left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

In regards to uh item seven on the agenda.

I uh was wondering about the I think it's it's called a court.

Looks a lot like an alley.

I just thought it was peculiar.

I was wondering if there was any restrictions or design principles around density with the size of the street, because this is a pretty narrow street.

So wondering about suitability for that level of density and whether staff had considered that.

Staff is not concerned with the requested density on that street network.

Great.

Thank you.

Any further uh discussion?

Commissioners to my left.

Seeing none.

Commissioners to my right.

Seeing none.

Remotely.

Oh, thank you.

Seeing none.

All right.

The motion is for approval of 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20 as amended 23, 25, 28, and 29 by Commissioner Huey with the second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Woodsett?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

For those people here for those items that we just mentioned, they are moving on to city council.

The applicants have six months to get there.

And I wish you the best of luck.

You can move on and enjoy the slightly chilly day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we're going to let them head out in a little bit and then we're going to move on to our first continuance hearing to February 3rd, 2026.

Item.

So we have item number eight, located at 4131 Kaliber Road, requesting a two-week continuance to the February 3rd, 2026 meeting.

Very good.

This is a district seven case.

Commissioner Sipes to you for a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to continue.

Item number eight to the uh February 3rd meeting.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Duval.

All right.

Um I skipped public comment, but I don't believe there is any.

That's correct.

Very good.

All right.

There is a motion and a second for continuance to February 3rd.

Is this the applicant here in the first row?

Okay.

Correct.

Normally we don't let you speak at this time because we're going to hear you in two weeks.

Alright, good.

Do you want to amend your request?

Okay.

May I come on?

Please.

And if you would introduce yourself and tell me your address.

What clarification, sir?

Would you like to say?

So we were here last week for the land use.

And I think there's been a little confusion, and I just don't want this confusion to continue because I think nothing was clarified from last week to this week.

And I keep seeing this C3 request and C3 requests.

I believe last week there was an agreement to exclude.

And so the re the only request we are asking for is simply not to change a zone into the property to keep it as a C2 on the CD language just to be changed from I'm gonna cut you off.

I apologize.

Uh because now I recall this case uh having been at planning.

So right now um it seems like I don't know if it was you or the commissioner wanted uh another two weeks.

So we'll see you February third.

Uh in the meantime, what I would recommend is reach out to Commissioner Sipes.

You can get his number from uh your case manager and your case manager is Bronte.

And and chat with Bronte and reach out to Commissioner Sipes, uh and make sure that everyone's on the same page that way, because we're not we're not gonna certainly do that today.

And you can and you can chat with him about that uh when we're done with this meeting.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, there is a motion for continuance by Commissioner Sipes with a second by Commissioner Duval.

Discussion to my left.

Seeing none.

Discussion to my right, seeing none remotely.

No seeing none.

All right.

Again, motion for continuance to February third.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Cullum.

Yes.

Commissioner I know some Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Witset.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

Uh we're now m moving on, so we'll see you in two weeks.

Have a good one.

Uh we're now moving on to our second continuance docket, which are continuances for hearings.

I'm sorry, continuances to our hearing on February 17th, 2026.

So we have the following items.

Items number nine, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-two, and twenty-seven requesting a four-week continuance to February seventeenth, and we do have a speaker signed up for item number twenty-seven.

Very good.

If we could have them come up.

And sixteen, I'm sorry.

All right.

Let's see.

Who who are we starting with?

Start off with item number sixteen.

Dennis Anoyo.

Dennis Anoyo.

We'll see you in a month.

Very good.

All right.

Moving on to 27.

Lucia Oyverdes.

All right.

If we could have Spanish interpretation services, please.

Come on.

You come on up.

She's asking that uh the sonication not be changed.

Then she started to say that she lives.

Okay.

And that's what she's here for.

Very good.

She lives at the corner.

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Continue por favor.

I only putin 200 feet of this place where they went the so changes proposed.

She was here to go.

So that to but get the name of the street.

It was there's it was like um a creek.

On the street, it was full of water.

It was a creek.

The street was a creek, she said.

And right now 25 years later, there's still no sidewalk, very little visibility.

But lot is very small for those viviendas for two uh uh units living residential units.

No hay lugar de stationamiento.

There's no parking.

That's the problem that I have now with the parking.

They start they park right along her fence.

Yes, it's a daily problem.

It impacts my quality of life.

I have just um retired.

It's an impact uh directly on my property.

Affect much on my vivienda.

It affects my living conditions.

It's fear.

Because these people they build they sell with section eight.

And then then it becomes a bad uh it's not an area for this kind of construction.

All right, thank you.

All right, and this case right now uh we are setting it potentially for continuance in four weeks, so you can come back in four weeks.

Uh February seventeenth.

No one has to set up.

All right.

Any further public comment?

That is it for public comment.

She'll be glad to come back.

Very good.

All right.

Uh items nine, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-two, and twenty-seven.

Are uh asking for continuance to February seventeenth, twenty twenty-six.

Is there a motion?

Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Huey.

I move to continue the following items to February seventeenth, twenty twenty-six.

Item number nine, number sixteen, number seventeen, number twenty-two, and number twenty-seven.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Uh there's a motion and a second.

Discussion to my left.

Seeing none.

Discussion to my right.

Seeing none.

Discussion remotely.

Thank you.

Seeing and hearing none.

All right.

The motion is for continuance to February 17th for items nine, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-two, and twenty-seven.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner I know some?

Yes.

Commissioner Cullum?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Wetzett.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

If you are here for any of those items, nine, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-two, and twenty-seven, we will see you on February seventeenth.

I hope you all enjoy the rest of your day.

We are now gonna move on to our individual items, and we will begin with item number one.

Good afternoon, zoning commission.

Uh my name is Forrest Wilson, principal planner with development services.

Item number one, located at 607 South Kamal Street, is going from I2, Heavy Industrial District, to IDZ3, high intensity in field development zone with uses permitted for a lumber yard and building materials, with all overlays remaining the same.

There were 26 notices sent out, zero received in favor, one opposed, and the historic West Side Residence Neighborhood Association gave no response.

The uh the existing I2 heavy industrial uh is appropriate for the subject property and the surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ3, high intensity in field development with uses permitted for lumber yard and building materials is also appropriate.

Uh the properties adjacent to other industrial operations involving similar activities, such as loading storage and truck traffic, while single family residential structures abut portions of the site, these residences are non-conforming and predate the surrounding industrial development pattern and therefore do not reflect the prevailing land use character of the area.

The IDZ3 district enables site specific development standards to address compatibility and support the in-field development.

Um staff recommends approval and the applicant is present.

All right.

If we could have the applicant, please.

Okay, sure, yeah.

Uh my name is Jacob Cryfels, and you want the address that we're changing the zoning for 607 Comal.

That's fine.

Okay.

Tell us tell us why you're seeking this request.

Uh well, really, to do much of anything on this property, we have to address the nonconforming residential use next door.

Um this property is a vacant land.

So in order to develop it, um, we have to uh change the zoning because heavy industrial zoning requires a 50-foot setback from the uh non-conforming resident, and it's only a 75-foot lot.

So it doesn't offer much opportunity for development.

So what we've done is is to call out the lumber yard, which is a non-toxic that it's not heavy uh industrial use really necessarily to make it more appropriate to be uh up to the normal setbacks for the area.

So just so we can use that.

Does that make sense?

It does, thank you.

Uh all right, thank you, sir.

Okay.

Uh do we have any public comment?

We do have a speaker signed up.

And where did he go?

Daniel Hernandez?

Mr.

Hernandez?

I'm not a HP question.

Uh me on the hallway.

Uh yeah, come on up, Mr.

Uh Cryfels.

Uh I'm not sure if if he may have left, but he addressed me in the hallway, and I think that he feels, I guess, fine with what we're trying to do.

I think he was I don't know.

Did he s is he the one that said opposed for it?

He was he was the opposition.

Yeah, I guess I guess maybe he's no longer opposite.

I'm not sure.

Stay there, please.

Yeah.

If you want to I did facilitate a conversation in the hallway, and it did sound like the gentleman who was opposed to changed his position.

All right.

Any other for any further public comment?

That is it for public comment.

All right.

Mr.

Creifels, while I have here, and since we're here anyway.

Yeah.

Sorry, Ms.

Sanders.

Um.

So when we're looking, do you know which side Mr.

Hernandez would be on if we're looking at this site plan here?

Yeah, if you were looking directly at the site plan, he is across uh Alto Street on the left side.

All right, very good.

All right.

Uh any further questions, Commissioners, to my left?

Yes.

The uh 605 South Camal Street.

Looks like it's it's occupied.

Somebody lives there.

Right.

That is the non-conforming house, correct.

Right.

Okay.

And uh have we heard anything from the owner of that house?

No.

No response.

Yeah, I I suppose what like what what were the efforts to try to reach out to this because it's just one property owner.

Um they didn't respond, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have an opinion.

Um did you did you all reach out or go to their door or try to get in touch with them?

Because it it's obvious from Google Street View that they're there's somebody that lives there, it's it's maintained it.

Yeah.

Um so I I I've tried to talk with them before.

They don't seem like super interested in talking about I mean I I owned the property previously.

Uh I own or finance it.

It used to have two other nonconforming residential homes on it that I sold.

The uh the owner who bought them.

Um he just mismanaged it, so they came back to me.

So I own them now, and there's no houses on it.

So it's just empty lands.

We're just trying to do something with it.

Um in the years past I talked to him, they seem uh, you know, unconcerned about all of the industrial around the entire area.

The whole area is mostly industrial.

So uh this would just be uh it's actually I think it's probably an improvement.

Um behind them is another non-conform residual home that's abandoned and it's been uh it's been like burglarized, it's burned, burned down.

So anyone that I think is taking any uh efforts to like make this place safer is probably probably better, you know, for them.

So to confirm you have met the owners before.

You've spoken with them before.

The people who occupied our renters, so no, I've not met the owners.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

All right.

Thank you.

Further questions on my left.

Yes, sorry.

Mr.

Gomez.

We do have one more speaker, actually.

Oh okay.

Awesome.

Mr.

Patricia Chadwell.

If you would uh sit down right there on the front row, might make it easier.

And ma'am, if you would state your name and your address for the record, please.

Hi, I'm Patricia Chadwick.

I'm the general manager for federal recycling.

We're across the street at 701 San Fernando.

And we definitely don't oppose having a lumber yard across the way.

I think what we are looking at is just the we're opposed to changing it from I2.

Okay.

Thank you, Ms.

Uh Chadwick.

That is it for public comment.

All right.

Uh and Ms.

Chadwick, I think you might want to sit in the front row too.

I think I might have new questions.

All right.

Any further questions on my left?

All right.

On my right, questions?

Remotely questions.

Thank you.

All right.

All right.

Um, Ms.

Chadwick, I I do want to explore this a little bit, if you would come up.

All right.

Um do you have a reason as to why you're opposed to uh in this case down zoning to a still fairly intense, you know, either light industrial use or something of that nature.

Well what they're thinking is that even if it's stated as a lumber yard and building materials, a shift in zoning could open the door to future non-industrial operations that are less compatible with the existing heavy industrial.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Chadwick.

All right.

Let's go around the horn one more time.

Mr.

Cryfolds do you want to say anything about that?

My my only thought like so if there's another way that I could keep the zoning to I2 because lumber yards already permitted if there's a way that I could develop the property under I2 but there's not right.

So I have no choice.

Yeah.

But other than that yeah I don't I don't oppose the I2 zoning either with in the fact that we can't do anything otherwise.

Yeah.

All right.

Thanks.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Uh further questions to my left.

Yes Commissioner Double Just for I think I know why, but could staff explain why it couldn't be developed why there wouldn't be a way to have an exception with the uh the I2 to allow for development?

Just with the buildable area because it's such a small lot the ID Z three reduces the setbacks on the side and rear so that makes it a little bit more usable.

Could it just and I this isn't uh I I don't know the answer to this question.

Could a variance be used to obtain relief from that setback requirement and allow for the uh I2 zoning that is an option yes the I I will add I guess that there's the parking element as well so it does reduce the parking by 50% when you do the IDZ three.

So that combination I suppose made it more attractive to request it this way.

I I guess only was would the um is the reduction of the parking to the applicant is the reduction of the parking requirement the deal breaker or was it the setbacks I think both are advantageous.

It's a it's a tiny space it's 55 by 75 feet.

So even for what the use that we're doing is it's pretty minimal.

You know what I mean?

It's it's a small space.

So both are appealing and we felt like while we're taking a loss on on this on the actual calling out the lumber yard because it's like less marketable in the future we gain in the ways that you're describing and with the setbacks and with the parking so and it's appropriate for what we're doing.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right further questions left seeing none further questions right seeing none remotely no thank you.

All right very good public comment is closed this is a district five case so it is to me for a discussion and potential motion.

All right I appreciate uh federal recycling's concern about I2 but the good news is your zoning runs with the land and absent a zoning change it will remain there.

This area of town has been neglected since at least 1921 and the flood that ripped through these creeks we can have debates as to what the appropriate uses are given its proximity to downtown we do have as Ms.

Chadwick pointed out on behalf of her company a great number of industrial uses.

That being said I wouldn't mind seeing some diversity in this area.

It is immediately adjacent to downtown 78207 is one of the poorest zip codes in the city if not the country so given that given the space restrictions that Mr Cryfels mentioned given the sp the parking issues that Mr Cryfels mentioned and because it does limit the industrial uses I'm going to support this I am going to move for approval of item number one and so move.

Is there a second second by Commissioner Dr.

Kellum all right discussion to my left yes commissioner Duval.

In getting in touch with the property owner um because the the setback requirement here specifically directly impacts this adjoining property normally notice requirements are meant to give a fair shake for property owners to be heard but because here it's it's really a uh development restriction that's meant to protect the rights of that specific property owner I really wish that you know um contact could have been made with that property owner but there's still time until this would go to council uh to get in touch with the property owner um you know we can't require more efforts to be made but I would it would be my recommendation not that that matters um as for the concern about um the uh IDZ as opposed to you know keeping the uh you know having a higher more intense zoning the surrounding area seems very compatible with the higher zoning if there ever was you know a change in use on that remaining residential lot when there was a lot merger I know I'd be open to zoning it up for you know a future use um but at this time I think it makes sense with the parking um limitations to have the IDC instead all right thank you further discussion left seeing none further discussion right yes Commissioner Chase I am going to support your decision for all the reasons you stated and it's also in the flood zone so that's another reason why it can't just be dealt with with a variance and it should come to zoning.

Um but at this time I think it makes sense with the parking uh limitations to have the IDC instead.

All right, thank you.

Further discussion left.

Seeing none.

Further discussion right?

Yes, Commissioner Chase.

I am going to support your decision for all the reasons you stated, and it's also in a flood zone, so that's another reason why it can't just be dealt with with a variance, and it should come to zoning.

So um that's my reason for supporting.

Thank you, Commissioner Chase.

Uh Commissioner Kelly, discussion.

Oh, thank you.

All right.

And we will take any future cases as they come to us.

So we'll deal with those on that that day.

All right.

The motion is for approval of item number one by me with the second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote, please.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner No Hosem.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Science?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Witsup.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Y'all, y'all are heading to City Council.

All right.

We are now moving on.

Two item number two.

I wanted to ask really quick.

We have folks signed up for both two and three.

Um, they're very close to one another.

Do you want us to do the speakers individually for two and then the individual the same speakers for item three, or do you want to kind of do both two and three at the same time and then have the speakers speak for those items?

I am going to defer to Commissioner Huey, as these are his cases.

I think we can uh let the speakers combine, but as long as they get their allocated time, I believe it's three minutes per case, right?

What two minutes per case?

I I would advise because they're two separate cases that they be handled separately.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So that is.

We'll do them separately.

Everyone gets two minutes per case.

What I would ask then, ladies and gentlemen, if you are signed up for two and three, uh, is to the extent possible.

Limit your comments to the specific case, whether it's two or three.

Uh there will obviously be a great deal of overlap.

Uh but uh you know, to the extent that uh you're gonna say the same information between the two cases, you know, try to keep them separate.

All right.

All right.

Uh then let's begin with item number two, please.

I think those instructions made no sense, so I apologize.

But here we are.

I got you.

Okay, one at a time.

Good afternoon.

Forrest Wilson, principal planner with development services.

Item number two is located at 5650 and 5682 Eastern League Drive.

Uh is going from R6, residential single family district, to C2NA, commercial non-alcoholic non-alcoholic sales district, with all overlays remaining the same.

There were 26 notices sent, one received in favor, one opposed, the Mountain View Acres Neighborhood Association is opposed.

The existing R6 residential single family is not an appropriate zoning for the property in the surrounding area.

Uh the proposed C2 and A commercial non-alcohol non-alcoholic sales district is appropriate.

The subject property is abutting and located with within proximity to high-intense commercial-based zoning districts, and the subject properties located near a primary arterial road, which can accommodate the proposed commercial uses.

Uh the proposed zoning is suitable transition between heavy commercial and residential properties.

Uh staff recommends approval and I think the applicant is not present actually.

Is the applicant present for item number two?

Yes, the applicant is present.

The applicant is present out.

Sir, we'll get to all the comments.

We'll hear from the applicant first.

I'm sorry.

Uh sorry, my microphone wasn't on.

Is the applicant present?

Yes.

So come on up.

Uh if you would say your name and your address and tell us why you're requesting this zoning change, please.

Yes.

My name's Elizabeth Lopez.

Address is 7709 Link Side Street, and I am going to transfer my minutes to Mr.

Greg Brockhaus.

Okay.

So Mr.

Brockhouse is your representative?

Yes, yes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Lopez.

Applicant or applicants representative.

That's fine.

So it's on a time restriction.

What am I looking at?

Still two minutes or you have 10 minutes.

Okay.

Yeah, because I'll be speaking as we talked about mentioned earlier, so be very careful.

This is the same information for two and three.

So your name and your address.

Greg Brockhouse 22926 Steeple Bluff.

I wanted to be down here today to give you some historical perspective on this case on the River City Ready Mix and this piece of land has been obviously to address our the zoning commission for District 6 directly, but uh to hopefully shine some light on how sometimes we get into these conversations about zoning and applications and what we're trying to do as a business, and then over years, neighborhoods get involved with council members get involved in legal battles and zoning and fines and fees and things just kind of get out of control.

So this I will tell you as the former district six councilman, I'm very familiar with this case.

Um it's been around for a lot of years.

And I'm here uh to say, look, this is what we're trying to accomplish for for Mrs.

Lopez for River City Ready Mix and for the neighborhood.

Uh and people have been trying for years, frankly, and uh be blunt to get this business the heck out of District Six.

Uh the River City ready mix plant has been there for decades, and over time the neighborhoods and everybody kind of enveloped it, and that creates a lot of tension.

Uh a concrete ready mix business is not what you would consider a business you want next door to your home.

Um so over time, just the noise, the dust and dirt has really built a lot of concerns.

So uh there's been a vast legal case that's been sitting on this.

It is currently under a court order uh for cleanup uh and remediation by January 31st, and for the applicant to be moved out of the facility by that date as well.

Um I'm here to tell you that's been the cleanup is actively going on.

Um and it has been a lot of work.

Uh three months of just trying to get, I mean, you can name the type of trash and dumping that's creeks and people leave there, the business debris, everything is getting moved out to Hilotas.

Uh so we are actually about to move the entire business for the um for the Lopez's out to Helotus and the ETJ.

So they will no longer be in the city of San Antonio.

They've got full rights to do everything out there.

I've already coordinated with the mayor of Helotus and their city team as well, so that they can accept this property and then they'll begin conducting business out of there.

So the purpose of the zoning is to obviously be able to do something useful and meaningful with this land and property after they move out, it enhances value, it allows them to bring in multiple businesses.

This I will tell you the applicant has been over the top with offering any concessions necessary uh with deed restrictions.

So nothing is off the table uh and has been off the table when it comes to what can the applicant put in this location that still helps the neighborhood but also allows them to sell the property, market it appropriately, and bring in different uses, and and then just get out of there and recoup their costs and money and start a new life somewhere else.

So the goal of both of these applications, but specifically on number two, is just that get the zoning, uh, of which the staff has approved.

Let's be frank here.

Staff is in approval.

Um it wasn't always that way though, on these items.

When you get in these kind of contentious things, boy, it can I I tell you, nothing's more exciting than uh as a city councilman than a zoning case that can literally blow up in your face from one meeting to the next, right?

But this has come so long over ten years that this particular case, the ability of this zoning for us is to help them get out of there so that the two-win pieces Lopez is succeed in getting out of the space, meeting the court order that's due January 31st, cleaning up the lot and moving on.

The neighborhood wins, right?

Because they're gone.

But there will always be friction on what comes after that.

It's not the Lopez's responsibility at that point to see who's going to apply and try to buy.

We got we have to work and find the best possible uh applicant, the best possible purchase, and this zoning is critical and important to helping them get the heck out of the community.

And and yes, their friends, yeah, I've worked with them over the years.

I'm trying to help them now simply because and represent them here today because it's time for them to go.

It's time for them to move and leave the facility and turn this neighborhood piece of land back over to a developable opportunity uh for the community.

I've spoken at length with Councilman Galvan about it, and that's the goal of everybody involved is the removal of the business, the changing of the zoning.

Item number two allows this parcel, which has really not been a huge part of the discussion.

Um the item number three will be the larger discussion we have on opposition.

This one has generally always been just okay and ready to move.

The the massive dumping and and and dirt and and backfill and all this other stuff's on case number three.

So for case number two, though, the community and and the councilman and and previous council members have kind of always been in agreement that this is okay.

We're not happy with it, but they're gone.

Uh and so I would like to leave that point with you.

Like this serves both purposes.

I number two helps the community, and it helps the Lopez as it ends a year's, actually a decades long battle uh that has lent nothing to nobody other than just heartache and heartbreak and people losing money.

So we're applying to to make the property more reasonable for the next purchaser, and we'll apply any deed restrictions necessary to ensure that we have met with the neighborhood.

We have a list of deed restrictions that we are prepared to apply and to make sure that this is ready to go.

And I'll leave you with this thought.

We're just at zoning.

So the council members number one tool is zoning, right?

As a as a leader of his or her community.

So what we're asking is just pass this on to city council.

Let Councilman Galvan, the true representative, all district six, let him make the final decision based on the Lopez's work to clean and remediate the property, and to and their their actual hard work to get the heck out of there.

So that's the purpose now why I stand here.

So let's push this through and let the councilman exercise it.

This isn't the end of the day, right?

But the councilman does have an opportunity on this case.

The second one, we'll talk about that one.

It's a completely different item.

But this one, I think we are all on board to say, let's get after this, let's change the zoning and and let's allow them the opportunity to move on.

So thank you, Mr.

Brookhaus.

And I will remind everyone in the audience that we are a recommending body.

We make recommendations to the city council, and they can do with our recommendations what they will.

All right, but at this point, uh it is time for public comment on item number two.

Do we have voicemails?

We do not have voicemails, but we do have speakers.

All right.

Well, then let's begin with the speakers.

Carl Roger for item number two.

I did not catch that.

Can we say it again?

Carl Roger.

Carl Roger.

Carl and Miss Lopez are signed up to speak.

All right, Mr.

Roger, if you want to if you want to spend your time and tell us why transfer time to me.

Oh, okay.

Well, you're you're now the applicant's representative, so you don't need that time necessarily.

But Mr.

Roger, you're welcome to come up and give us your opinion.

If you would say your name and your address.

Good afternoon, sir.

My name is Carl Wolper.

My address is 1906 L for the Street San Antonio, Texas.

All right.

Are you in favor or opposed?

In favor or opposed.

I'm in favor.

Very good.

You want to tell us why?

You don't have to.

I'm working for the ground anyway.

All right.

What do we need to do?

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Roper.

I appreciate it.

And I apologize for getting your name wrong.

All right, next.

Rebecca Flores Betis.

Miss Flotus Pettis.

Okay.

Are you giving your time, ma'am?

You you can just tell me.

You can you don't have to get up here.

You can just tell us.

He's getting his time to do that.

Oh, your name is the same.

Sorry, so you're giving what's your name, sir?

William McDonald.

Mr.

McDonald is giving his time to Miss.

Now I've gotten the names wrong.

Flotas Petas or Petis Flotas.

Flotas Pedas.

Pardon me.

All right.

And Miss Flotas Petis, if you would introduce yourself, give us your address, and you have four minutes.

I get four minutes.

Four minutes.

Wow, okay.

Let me get this straight here.

My name is Rebecca Flores Bettis.

I own and live at 10230 Mount Crosby in San Antonio, Texas.

In 2019, I represent started representing a group of HOAs, which include the Great Northwest Community Improvement Association.

That's a long title.

Westover Valley HOA, Hidden Meadows Neighborhoods Association, the Reserve at Kulebba Creek, and of course Mountain View Acres Coalition.

Our concern were code violations and zoning requests made by River City.

In addition, I have a couple of petitions here with an additional 22 signatures that are in not in favor.

We of course oppose this case, and I hope that you have had the opportunity to review the settlement memorandum between the city and river city ready mix.

It was emailed to you by me.

Okay.

Since 2004, I have monitored River City Ready Mix.

And more recently, their property has accumulated more than 200 unresolved violations and citations.

Their environmental practices have raised significant concerns.

But this effort did not last last long.

The move was done, of course, without zoning approval or uh city approval.

In 2023, a memorandum of understanding with the Lopuses was reached for several lots on the west side of Easterling to clean up the lots and to restrict Class C trucks.

In turn, we agreed to support a C2NA zoning.

This is on the west side of Easterline, which is what you're seeing.

But nothing has changed.

The property remains cluttered with inoperable vehicles and assorted junk.

This morning we did a drive-by, and there's still a lot of work to be done.

Any trust that may have existed between our community and River City has completely eroded.

As a result, we stand firmly opposed to this zoning request.

While we do recognize that development is the future of our rapid growing city, it is crucial to ensure that such developments are in the best interest of our neighborhoods.

Granting this zoning request would be unjust to our community.

The pattern of disregard seriously concerns about fairness and respect of their ideas to this process that the city has established.

We urge you to consider whether the lack of accountability and respect warrants a positive recommendation.

We would like to work with the new prospective buyers.

We are not against zoning.

We would like to be able to improve our neighborhood by dealing with them directly.

And we ask that you protect our city and our neighborhoods by not recommending this zoning request.

I'm not going to repeat all of that again for the next case.

Well, that's excellent.

But Miss Flotus, you are out of time for this case.

Okay.

My four minutes are up.

That's fine.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

That is it for item number two.

All right.

Very good.

Um did Miss.

She signed up for number three.

She signed up for both.

Both okay.

We're gonna call number three.

Ms.

Lopez, we can we can have her up here for two minutes.

Didn't she give her time to representative?

Technically, but I think that was a misunderstanding.

So I'm going to allow two minutes for Miss Lopez at this point.

Ms.

Lopez.

Take her two minutes.

That was a complete misunderstanding because you're gonna have three minutes of rebuttal right now.

So how about that?

Right now.

Thank you, Mr.

Broncos.

So I I get community difficulties.

Um what you heard Ms.

Pedez say is very clear.

It's a lot of anger, it's disappointment.

It's difficult.

But let's stick with some facts, right?

We're trying to remove the emotion out of it.

The fact is they have to the 31st to clean it up.

It is under court order.

The city attorney is here.

If they do not meet that, there are repercussions that Miss Petez or nobody can be.

We can't hold him accountable for a deadline that he has not met yet when the deadline is not here yet.

So we have to be reasonable.

We could be angry at ten years of difficulty.

I do not dispute any of the issues of neighborhood difficulties, communication with leaders, previous council members.

I had to deal with it.

There was it was one of the ones I wanted gone.

Um when I see this opportunity, I see an opportunity to move on.

And this is hard because sometimes we have to the neighborhood has this the interest in of their neighborhood and heart.

They absolutely do.

And I I always pride myself on being about neighborhoods, neighborhoods first.

But at some point we do have to recognize that she clearly said, I'm sorry, she clearly said, I am supportive of the zoning, just not for her.

That's not how we do zoning.

So my recommendation and my ask is pass it on to the council, right?

I get you're gonna make your recommendation.

Chairman's absolutely right.

But this is truly such a community issue now that ultimately the elected representative should make this call.

It's that difficult.

I'm just here to tell you staff approves it.

Miss Petez approves it for anybody but her.

That's not how we leave.

That's not the tool's purpose, right?

It's to make sure that the plan is met, the zoning case is met, and that we could ultimately get to a real outcome.

So, Commissioner Wheat, we've got to put this back to the lap of the councilman and let there be a little bit more community work.

This was actually this case.

I am a little surprised.

We've spoken on and off, and I the I was text texting the councilman's district six zoning rep.

They were expecting number two to be okay.

So the fact that I have to address this on number two will probably be the same thing on number three.

But number two was we were expecting uh we were expecting this one to be okay.

So something changed, and that's okay.

I have monitored the cleanup.

Unfortunately, that it was incorrect feedback, all those junk cars and things.

It's it's it's been removed.

It's just so much that you've got to bring 30, 40 people out there to make it happen.

The progress is tangible.

He has a legal deadline.

Don't hold him accountable yet.

Stick to him, and he's got to do it.

If not, Civita and the city attorneys and everybody else are gonna be breathing down their neck, reinstituting a district court fine, and then it's lights out.

But the bottom line is right now, staff approves.

The council office was okay with it.

We believed she was.

In fact, she is okay with the zoning, just not for this particular applicant, and I think we have to look at the bigger picture, which is how we build a community, right?

And how we come in and do what's right here.

And I think this allows that opportunity.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Brown.

Thank you.

All right.

Um at this time, the speakers on this item have all raised or almost all raised issues uh regarding an agreed order.

We are going to, as a commission, go into executive session for the purposes of seeking attorney client guidance.

Um, and we will return.

So we will stand in recess at this time, 212 to go into executive session for the purposes of seeking uh attorney advice.

Thank you.

If I may, Commissioner Kelly, I recommend you leave the WebEx meeting in this room.

We will call you in the other room so that you can participate in that session.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Kelly.

I had forgotten about that.

All right, we are in recess.

The time is 212.

We are going into executive session.

All right.

Ladies and gentlemen, uh, if I might have your attention, please.

Thank you so much for your patience with us.

Um we entered executive session at approximately 215-216.

We left executive session at approximately 246.

Um that is over.

We are now going to begin our uh questions for item number two.

This is a district six case, so Commissioner Huey, to you for questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And again, I really appreciate your wisdom in uh calling us into executive session on this case.

Uh for the uh for Ms.

uh Petis.

Would you come up for a minute, please?

Thank you.

Thank you for coming down here.

Uh so in your presentation, you had shown us some uh pictures.

Uh what is some other um media that you had that you had planned to present that uh was not that you could not uh do?

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes, there were three videos that I also sent, and um the aide told me that he could not upload them.

I asked him if he had downloaded the item first, because that's how I was able to open it.

You know, I'm sorry to interrupt you.

I know we couldn't get the video, but can you describe what this was?

What these videos are sure, sure.

Um actually I have them in my phone.

Uh one of them was actually um a cement truck dumping cement onto the ground.

Okay, and the others, and it was a pan, panning of the area with uh all the junk, garbage vehicles that were there.

Big tall mounds of gravel that have been stacked, and all of this was on the back part of the property, which I know we're not talking about, but that's what those videos were videos were.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I just want to make sure that uh I understood what you were trying to present.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Uh question for the applicant.

Uh Bret Senders, please.

Can I offer a rebuttal?

Chairman?

I'm giving you the opportunity to do that.

All right, because I want to make sure something's addressed right there.

Oh, uh let's be clear.

She's offering feedback on an item that's number three.

So let's not bring in items that are not applicable to item number two.

Due respect to the community in the neighborhood.

It does not apply to this item.

This item is to change an R6 to C2NA with any deed restrictions, which we've already negotiated, by the way.

Two meetings negotiated a list of deed restrictions.

We anticipated, as did the council office, that this would be not an approval, but just no opposition.

That's the best you can hope for with this kind of difficult case.

And it turns out now that of course there is opposition.

But Commissioner, we can't take the feedback on item three on item two.

The videos do not apply.

The photographs do not apply to item two.

What was shown on the photographs or item two do not apply.

That is its own case that stands alone, and we have to remember that.

The back case we'll discuss for number three.

Is there anything else I can do?

Great.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to open this up for my uh fellow commissioners for the questions.

I thought I thought I had a couple more seconds to finish my bike.

All right.

Um we're going to open it up to questions for commissioners on my right.

Questions?

Seeing none.

Uh Commissioner Kelly uh has joined the meeting.

I don't know when.

Yes, I'm here.

Uh I'm I was by camera about two minutes ago.

Okay.

256 will mark it for Commissioner Kelly rejoining the meeting.

All right.

Uh question, sir.

On item number two.

All right.

Uh Commissioners to my left.

Questions?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

We'll go down the line.

Question for staff.

Uh just in the factors that the Commission can consider related to the approval of item two.

Can the Commission consider of the applicant, even if it's related to the applicant's operation on other parcels?

I I recall there was a project we had a month or a couple of months ago where the commission was considering applicant as an operator on other properties in other parts of the city when we were thinking about the uh another project in a different part of the city.

So I'm just wondering is that is that the case so we're we're able to do that.

And I I apologize, Commissioner, um if I miss the beginning part of your question.

So if I don't answer this correctly, please say it again and I'll answer it.

But we always recommend that you look at individual properties based on a case-by-case basis.

Now, obviously, you have to take into account your knowledge of the property and your history of the city, etc.

But we always try and recommend that you look at what's in front of you, what's on the record in front of you, what's been said stated at the meeting to use that to make your decision-based only in use principles.

So we shouldn't be considering the project applicant at all?

Like if they had a hypothetically.

So I understand the principle.

If there was a project applicant, hypothetically that came before us, and they had a terrible history with the city.

Code compliance issues, you know, violations.

We wouldn't we shouldn't consider any of that history related to the applicant.

We should only consider the specific project on the specific parcel.

So I would I would advise that the that what is in front of you is not a person, it is a land use case.

And so make your decisions based on land use principles.

That would be my advice.

Excellent.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

All right, thank you.

Further questions, Commissioners on my left.

Commissioner What's up?

Maybe not a question, but uh there's been all this background noise.

Make it a question.

And it says in here it says in here that there is no active code or permitting violations for the subject property.

Is that the case?

Yeah, there that's correct.

There's no active there's no active code violations.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner.

On this property.

I'm specifically talking about number two here.

Very good.

Commissioner Kellum, questions?

Commissioner Sipes, questions?

All right.

We'll go around the horn once more on item number two, Commissioner Huey.

Questions?

Uh no.

All right.

Right?

Questions?

Yes, Commissioner Chase.

Could staff inform everybody what would be allowed in the C2NA?

As examples.

Examples.

Yeah.

C2 generally supports medium intensity commercial and office uses, restaurants, uh, retail shops.

The NA designation would prohibit the sale of alcohol for both on and off-premise consumption.

So I have a question for Miss Florida Spedez.

You could come up, please.

I think if you speak, why do you just take a seat in the front row?

That way we don't have to have you walk too far all the time.

Good exercise.

Okay, your stepson.

Hello, ma'am.

Are any of those permitted uses that you just heard a few examples of would you be in opposition to those coming in close to your neighborhood?

I can't speak for the group without consulting them.

At this point, they are in opposition.

Okay.

When we met with the attorney and we went over options.

And I'm speaking in regards to C2 options versus C1.

We did not agree to anything.

We just went over what would you think you would like to see?

So there was no agreement.

Because I was told that we had agreed to do this.

No, we just said that we would want to work with the new property owners.

So we would have more input as to what is going to be go there.

This piece of property is fifty feet from an apartment complex.

And next to the apartment complex is a school.

On the west side, there's a church.

So yes, there is stuff that's there that's been grandfathered.

And you we can't do too much about that, and that's okay.

But in good faith, we said, okay, C2 for this particular property on the west side, because we wanted to see something good based on what they told us in the uh memorandum of agreement, or and it never happened.

So even if we agreed to say yes, we're in favor of C2.

I can't I, and I say I not we can't comfortably say that that's going to happen because it hasn't happened with the properties on the west side.

And all of this is in reference to River City ready mix.

I don't think I've mentioned the Lopez's name except maybe once.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

With the fact that I can't speak for the group without going back to talk to them, but yes.

Understood.

Sorry for the confusion.

All right.

Commissioner Chase, anything further?

All right.

Commissioner Kelly.

No.

All right.

Questions?

Yes, Commissioner, what's that?

For staff.

It looks like behind this property is a strip that's zone C3R, and then all the stuff in front of it is zone through C3R.

Remind me again what the R means and why is that strip running between this and the apartments?

The R designation is restrictive alcohol sales, so it allows sales of alcohol for off-premise consumption.

So a gas station, but not a restaurant or a bar.

Why there is a strip?

It's just a different owner ownership of land, and that was the zoning that was assigned at the time.

Thank you.

All right.

Further questions left.

All right.

I don't have any further questions either.

So at this point, public comment is closed for item number two.

We will go to discussion and potential motion to Commissioner Hui.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So again, I want to thank you to Ms.

Petis and her team for working on this and for the applicant to come down to have this discussion and their presentation.

So this properties, this particular property has been under discussions for quite a while.

And prior to that, this zoning commission had voted to approve C2 on the property that's across the street from them on Easterling.

So and I know that we have lots of history and for good or bad, right?

And but for our zoning commission, for this body to do its work, we have to have some degree of amnesia and focus only on land use.

So only based on that focus and that focus alone and nothing else.

I'm going to move to approve.

I'll second.

All right.

There is a motion for approval of item number two.

Uh as submitted by Commissioner Huey with a second by Commissioner Hinohosa.

Uh discussion.

Commissioners to my right.

Commissioner Kelly.

Okay.

Commissioner on my left.

Uh you know, we're going to start with SIPES system.

Commissioner Slaps.

Mountain?

All right.

Commissioner Kellen.

Commissioner Witsett.

I'm gonna support this also.

Uh I see it.

It's a logical extension of what's there surrounding it.

Uh outside of all the noise and all the mess that's been going on.

I think it makes sense to do this.

Very good.

Commissioner Duval?

Yeah.

Uh so I think this case is really uh educative for the Commission in in thinking through what our responsibilities are.

There's a lot of noise in the case, so to you know, be reminded about what what we're here to do, right?

We're reviewing what uses should be allowed on the land under the zoning law is uh I think it's really helpful to have that reminder.

Um that being uh said, I I was a little uh concerned with some of the tone from the project applicant about um moving, you know, rushing it forward and and making it the responsibility of the council and not trying to get in the way of the council.

I think that's a grave misunderstanding of the role of the zoning commission as a uh statutory commission.

It's our job to air everything, to discuss everything, bring up all the issues so that the council is in the best position possible for them to make a decision.

It's never our responsibility if the commission votes no or votes yes, in both cases, those are just recommendations for consideration by the council.

Um so that you know that that really, at least for me, really caught me off guard, uh, that tone to start with, because I said what, you know, that's that's our entire job.

Why would you why would you shave that?

Um that being said, helpful I think to remind us that our job is not to focus on the background, on the history of all the noise, to focus on what uses are uh proper for for this area.

I think it is helpful.

Um with that, however, I I am going to respectfully um disagree uh with the the uh motion to recommend uh by Commissioner Huey.

I think on the basis of general land use principles, um commercial uses are generally great along thoroughfares where you have circulation, dead end streets in the middle of areas that have large residential blocks, I think are inherently more problematic.

I believe that's the basis of the existing zoning of R4.

Uh the vision was that you shouldn't have commercial uses in you know the middle of those residential units.

It kind of turns into like a uh a residential donut uh where the center is commercial.

I think the uses closer uh to Calabra um makes sense on the principle that they're you know feeding off of Calibra, but the further down you go down um what's the name of the street?

Easterland.

The further you go down Easterland, I think the less it makes sense.

Um I I will be uh opposing the motion on those grounds, just that land use principles would uh support it being residential and not commercial.

All right, thank you very much.

Um I will be supporting the motion again.

Uh I I think I agree with Commissioner Huey and Commissioner Woodsett as speakers that this is an appropriate land use, and that is what we look at.

I understand that that you know many of our cases uh can excite great emotion.

Um in this case, however, I I I think there is a C3 C D use just north of this property, and so residential use is inappropriate there.

Um and that's a much more intensive use than would be normally allowed.

And so I think C2 is appropriate here, and as a result, I will be um supporting the motion.

I want to stress to everyone we did our job just like any other time we do it.

You might hate it, you might love it, you might not care.

Uh but but that's what we do, and and we did it today on this item.

So that being said, the motion is for approval of item number two as submitted by Commissioner Huey with the second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Cullum.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Nay.

Commissioner Wetz.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustham and Tim?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Very good.

Buckle up.

Item number three.

Good afternoon again, Commission uh Forrest Wilson.

Principal Planner with Development Services.

Item number three is located in the 5,000 block of Easter Ling Road, going from R 6 residential single family district to C1, like commercial district, with all overlays remaining the same.

There were 22 notices sent, one received in favor, one opposed.

The Mountain View Acres Neighborhood Association is opposed.

The existing R6 residential single family is appropriate for the subject property in the surrounding area as a property directly, but it's an established single family residential residential neighborhood to the west.

The proposed C1, like commercial district, is also appropriate because it is it is consistent with the property's future land use designation and provides a low-intensity commercial transition between residential uses and more intensive commercial zoning in the area.

Commercial zoning of C2 exists to the south, and C1 serves as a compatible buffer that allows neighborhood serving uses while limiting potential impacts such as traffic noise and scale on adjacent residential properties.

Staff recommends approval and the applicant is present.

All right.

If we could have the applicant or applicant's representative, as the case may be ten minutes of the exact same thing.

No, I'm just going to shorten this up.

And then if there's some time for rebuttal, I would probably defer to saving you the horror of having to live through that discussion all over again.

What I will tell you, and just kind of reiterate here, the court order stands as it is.

We cannot hold the Lopez's or River City Ready Mix accountable to something that they have not had an opportunity to hit or miss.

So whatever we may feel about their ability to meet the cleanup date, that's on him.

If he does not meet it, the consequences would be grave.

Contempt, and I am sure the city attorney talked to you about not hitting this date can will cause a lot of problems.

So what we're attempting to do here is when you look at this property, uh, if it remains R6, it's pretty much not much is going to happen back in this corner.

There's a creek, so what you have already approved is that entryway into it.

There's a creekway that runs across it.

And then on the other side of this creekway was where the massive amount of cleanup has been occurring, and it has been a significant level of cleanup.

Um I would say it's probably about 75 percent to 80 percent done.

He's got a he's got some heavy lifting to do back there, but all the mounds and dirts and piles, he's got 15 plus employees out there, heavy loaders, he is doing all he can to clean that out as quickly as possible.

But the the the cleanliness part of it, the remediation has been significant.

He has a deadline to meet.

Uh and our hope is, of course, that uh the resources will get him there.

So the purpose of the zoning change is again to make the prop the property more marketable.

Um deed restrictions can apply.

We have discussed those with the neighborhood.

Um, and we felt like there was agreement on it.

We highlighted literally all the uses and went down line by line and said this way we can this we can do.

So we're open to that discussion as well, and we'll always be open to it.

But when you look at the land use that is permitted, when you review what the staff has already approved and recommended, this is compliant with where we are trying to be.

Uh unfortunately, it is just a decade of of anger and disappointment and and missed deadlines, and we understand that.

So I'm going to ask you again what was already discussed.

We have to put the personal aside.

Um it is a highly controversial subject, but the applicant has the opportunity and time.

The reason it's not a rushing this through.

It's just so I want to be very clear on this.

And you bring up a great point, Commissioner.

And I want to make sure I clarify.

It's not rushing it through.

What it is is I don't want to penalize him.

I wouldn't want to see him penalized if he is able to meet the deadline.

If he is not going to meet the deadline, the council member still has the ability to make the final denial.

So I'm not trying to take it respect, I take your feedback a hundred percent.

Thank you for, you know, I appreciate that.

But what I'm saying from a council member's perspective is ultimately he does have that final authority.

So there is a major backstop here.

I just wouldn't want to see the business and the family penalized on the off chance they may not make it, or on the extreme chance they won't make it.

Either way, he has a deadline.

So by not rushing it through, but by saying, okay, staff approves, it meets the plan.

They're working hard.

That's not in dispute.

There's been progress, not in dispute.

The court order says we're going to expedite zoning, and they can need to be off that property and out of there on the 31st.

If they don't meet it, then the council member and the this the city attorney's team will take the next steps after that.

So I don't want to rush it and put and demean your input or what you are doing.

What I am saying is let's not hold them against that deadline.

They have a unfortunately it's a timing thing right now.

We're here, he has to the 31st.

I'm asking that we give us the opportunity to meet the deadline.

Let the court system take place and hold them accountable should he not make it.

And that case will be the councilman.

So I'm asking, obviously, we are asking to move forward with it so that we can be held accountable to the deadlines already negotiated, the deadlines that are already in the district court case, and we got to meet them or else there's it there will be serious consequences.

So I thank you for the time, and I'll go ahead and wrap up now and just hit rebuttal when the time comes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Brockhouse.

All right, is there any public comment?

We do have public comment.

All right.

Any voicemails?

No voicemails.

All right.

First speaker, please.

Rebecca Flores Pettis.

All right, Miss Flotus Petas, are you getting time this time as well?

No.

Nope.

All right.

You guys, sorry.

Well, I do have to do so.

We are more than happy to hear you again, but thank you.

Okay.

Well, I'd like to kind of go back a little bit and remind you guys, if you haven't had the opportunity to review the settlement, that staff was directed to approve the settlement.

I mean the the uh the zoning, or to recommend and say approve, uh recommend.

That was part of the settlement.

You guys were not a part of the settlement.

You guys can do what you want to do, what you feel is right, and I appreciate that.

Um I guess it's important to know that.

Yes, it's not personal, but it's what's right based on, let's say our neighborhood, which is adjacent to this piece of property.

It's there's no lot that's less than half acre.

Some of them are two, three acres.

So putting something like a C1 in there would be a big difference.

In conversations with the attorney, Earl, um, we went over a list of items that were C1.

We did not agree to the list.

We said we wanted to meet with the new owners.

Uh zoning is only important to River City Ready Mix because it increases the sale price.

It has nothing to do with what we're doing to the land, what would might be done to the land later.

What if the property doesn't sell and River City comes back?

Not as River City, of course, because they probably wouldn't be allowed, but as another company, we would still have those bad neighbors.

And okay, it's not nice to say bad people, but it it's the reality.

We're having to deal with them, and we've dealt with them for a long, long time with no improvements.

How much time to have?

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Flotus Pettis.

All right.

Any other speakers?

William McDonald.

All right, Mr.

McDonald.

And Mr.

McDonald, if you would, your name and address, and you have two minutes.

William Bill McDonough, 8542 Timber Place, San Antonio 78250.

I'll address this some specifics for you.

The crossing on Calabra Creek, you know it floods.

They poured concrete across it to get the heavy equipment across it.

When you go up to the property in elevate, it's dirt, it's rudded.

It's a safety hazard.

Only one vehicle at a time can cross that.

So we're talking C1.

Who is going to make the repairs and risk a business that you cannot sometimes access?

Secondly, all the acres, the 42 acres adjoining, are zoned for residential.

But probably should have been not that for sure in that area.

But it was a waste site.

And that waste site decision was if it was ever developed, gas monitors would have to be put on all the properties to deal with the legal ramifications of a prior waste site.

I don't know of a C1 company that can afford that challenge, that expense, and that hazard in the future.

I don't know a C2 that could do that, nor afford that.

So we already talked about all the other stuff.

I will point out to Mr.

Brockass, however, it is not 75% cleaned up.

You saw some of that.

I took video that you can't see.

I will concede about eight broken down cement trucks mixers are removed.

One is still there, badly damaged.

All the major equipment on that property still.

This is not the time to try to change this property and create the whisk that a new owner would have.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Carl Roper.

Mr.

Roper.

Come on up.

And if you would introduce yourself and give us your address, and tell us what you think.

Call Opera addresses 1906 over the streets, San Antonio, Texas.

And I would like to transfer the minutes over to Mr.

Brockhouse.

It's too late for that, and he's already the applicant.

So are you in favor or opposed?

Yes.

All right.

He's in favor.

We're going to go with that.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Next.

That is it for public comment on design.

Very good.

Mr.

Brockhouse, you get three minutes.

The pictures that were shown.

The pictures that were shown are Creekway.

So some of them at the beginning, we're going to be very clear here.

That is not the property in question.

That's Creekway illegal dumping, of which there's been multiple cases.

So several of those photos initially.

Looks like there was mattresses and trash and all that.

That's not the applicant's property.

So we have to be, you know, yes, the pictures of the heavy equipment, all the piles and mounds of dirt.

That that is those are accurate photos.

But I was I have been monitoring this myself, been helping them for 60 days.

This the cleanup has been significant.

And by the way, again, we have to be careful not to hold them to well, what if, or if they don't do this, or if they don't meet the deadline, the court and the city attorneys and negotiated media setup, it's already set.

If they don't get there, that's on them, right?

So we can't number one, do this what if scenario, and then well, who who's gonna come buy it?

And and well, they want to make well clearly the zoning helps the profitability.

I mean, that's what you want.

You want more people able to come and purchase.

You want more leads, right?

So that you can do this.

The staff recommends that as well because they see it meets the community plan.

See, there's we all know these steps are built over time, community plans, zoning, right?

Residential use, all these things are built.

So when it meets the plan, the city staff's natural natural reaction is this is what we want here.

Now, clearly, we got a lot of personal issues.

I would tell you that that, and I wish we could get those photos up because I don't want anybody clouding judgment of what this looks like or doesn't look like because it's not applicant property.

Let's just recap a couple of final key points here.

Number one is the court order is in place for January 31st.

That that that is that has to happen.

And if he doesn't meet it, the accountability factors are meaningful, and the amount, the fines and fees, everything's gonna come back on on this applicant.

We cannot hold him accountable for failure when he has not failed.

We can't, and we look at this as a piece of property as a case, as it's not a person, then we have to say, court order in place, it's requiring expedited zoning, meets the plan.

This is how we want to zone.

This is what we wanted in the neighborhood.

We built the original plan.

All these pieces line up.

What falls out of this is they're bad actor.

Well, what if somebody else comes in?

Well, what if the those are all fair concerns that can be dealt with if he meets or does not meet the 31st deadline, and then the council member will take it from there with the city staff, and then it could be significant.

So we're just gonna ask, you know, can we look?

Number one is we don't necessarily want to take a denial.

I mean, we're willing to continue to work if necessary, but I don't see I I think that conversation really is now is we got to take it to the councilman and see where he's at.

So we're always open to land use restrictions and anything we can do, but it's time now we help these this family, this community get past this, as difficult as it is.

Sometimes the neighborhood just isn't right.

It's time to move on.

And I think that's where we're at.

Thank you, Mr.

Brockhouse.

All right.

Public comment is now closed.

Uh once again, this is a district six case, so Commissioner Huey, to you for questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So uh the questions I have for is really for staff uh for C1 is uh are data centers allowed to be built on C1 property?

I'm sorry, what again?

Are data centers allowed?

We're double checking, but I believe the answer is no.

Then just help refresh my memory.

What is allowed on C1?

Just examples, please.

Thank you.

So just to relate, um the closest use that we are using right now for data center is an office data processing and management, which is not permitted by right in a C1.

Um it doesn't even it doesn't even allow an S.

So again, it would need a rezoning to add like a C D or go up to a C2 if it was going to be permitted.

Now as for C1 uses, again, it allows a lot of those retail or light commercial uses, but it basically puts a limit on the size of the buildings that can be on the property.

I think a maximum square footage of 5,000 square feet for a building.

Okay, great.

Yeah, as I'm looking at as I was looking at this case here, um I am uncomfortable putting a C1 that abuts those residential properties.

Um but again I also have to look at you know what uh what could go in there.

So your your examples are fantastic.

So I don't have questions for the applicant nor the uh neighbors.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Hilly.

Questions to my right, Commissioner Hino Hosa.

Yeah, just real quick for uh staff.

Uh currently it's it's zone R4.

R6.

Oh R6, okay.

And then um, thank you.

And real quick, can I uh bring up Ms.

Flotus uh You had mentioned why you're coming up?

We had mentioned before that I know you you can't speak on the behalf of your neighborhood uh and others, but what about what about you?

As this is your neighborhood, um as we call in the southeast side where I'm from, this is your hood.

So would you want okay?

Uh would would you want some of these neighbors on the list of C1?

Or what do you want?

What do I want?

Personally?

Yes.

Okay.

I don't want to deal with River City.

They have been despectable.

I guess what I meant to say that what would you like to see there?

Um I I really don't know.

I think that each case would have to be looked at individually.

If it were a tattoo parlor parlor, I'm making this up.

Okay, I'm gonna uh let's talk.

Got you.

I I understand.

I understand.

Okay.

So that's all we're asking for.

Okay.

Is the ability to deal with the new property owner?

Correct.

Thank you, Ms.

Flozen.

You actually uh go to my next point here.

I thank you.

Um I I really wish um to me it seems a little backwards, right?

I think I think whoever buys his property should come to us to state, hey, this is what we're gonna have.

Obviously uh when you have uh everything's land use, right?

So whatever zoning we change it to, it's gonna stay with the with with the property going forward.

And I understand that we want to get the most money for our um we want to sell this property when we want to get have you know rezon it so we can get the most of it, but I I really do feel it should be the other way around.

Uh but that being said, um thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Hinohosa.

Any further questions on my right?

All right.

Commissioner Kelly.

No, sir.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Uh on my left questions.

All right, we're gonna we're gonna go this way.

Nearest to farthest.

On the point.

Uh Commissioner Duble.

Uh to staff, could we pull up Google maps with the uh the satellite imagery?

The although the um I don't know what that is, GIS zoning map is is useful, it's it's kind of hard to make heads or tails of it.

And I think the satellite's useful because we can see the land as it appears in actuality.

While we're um while we're we're getting that set up, maybe I can ask the other staff.

Um Easterling Way uh is the only means of uh ingress and egress from Easterling Way on Calabra Road.

Are there other ways to access Easterling Road?

It looks like Easterling is the only um right of way that the this property would have access to.

So I'm sorry, Calabra is the only way to get on to Easterling?

Correct.

Yeah, I saw that off of uh Impala um street that there's like a a gate uh with I think it said West over Westover Hills, some kind of improvement project.

It looks like there's a road, but it's gated, it's a city project.

I was wondering what what that is on the south side of the uh property question.

Westover Valley Relief Channel.

There's a gate with a fence.

So there are paper streets between Impala and Culebra.

Um correct staff.

I'm trying to pull this up.

Hold on.

So while we're yeah, while we're looking it up, it's I mean it's it's useful to go over the geography and have a good sense of exactly what we're dealing with.

I see we have the Google maps up, so while staff is looking for the uh status of the Easterling Impala gate.

Um if we could zoom in on uh or maybe some staff could help us with identifying what is the prop the property um that we're looking at on item three.

I don't know if we have a laser pointer or something like that, but I guess we could use the mouse cube.

Oh, the laser pointer is great.

Great, thank you.

So this area, this area here is for item three.

Um kind of right here.

So if you go further down, I think this is that impalo road.

And could we zoom zoom in a little bit more just to I think this is what you're referring to?

Is that you could uh looks like you can access it here as well.

No, but is that a public road?

No.

Again, this is not in research, it's just I'm seeing what you're seeing really.

Right, right, right.

So could could you show us the uh you know, approximately, I know there's no boundary lines here, but just approximately on Google Maps here.

Maybe we pull up a little bit to go north.

Where's generally the property we're looking at?

Right here.

No, it's just the top half of about here, I guess then, yeah.

So it basically goes you have uh Mount Hood, which so you have the first cul-de-sac.

I'm looking at the cul-de-sacks to the um west here.

The first one is Crosby Mount Crosby Drive, and then the next one is Mount Hood.

Basically, where that Mount Hood cuts along the yellow portion is the property in question.

So it looks like to get access to the property to the south there, they would be encroaching on somebody else's property.

And and where was the uh one of the members of the public, I think, referred to a a prior waste dump.

Where's that waste up?

We would have to ask the uh the property owner.

Um if you could come up.

Oh, wait, we're still in questions.

Awesome.

All right.

And and sir, if you would introduce yourself and give us your address.

Uh my name's Brent Wilkes.

I represent uh uh Texas Project 28, which is the owner of the contiguous 37 acres, as well as the 1.6 acre piece that used to be a road.

Awesome.

Do you remember the question?

Because I don't.

I don't.

All right, let's get the code.

So it that's where the former I'm sorry, former waste dump is what I heard, but there is no waste dump.

This property was quarried starting in the late 70s through the 90s.

It was operated as a quarry.

They took Calichi and Rock and stuff out of there.

Uh there was a man named Potter who had done 40 or 50 of these all over Texas, and he did them.

Um, and he then started filling it with clean construction debris and a lot of the waste from the construction of highway 151 was put in there, which largely filled it up.

But what happened in the middle of that process was Love Canal and then the federal legislation for Superfund, which is known as Circla.

Uh Texas then basically replicated as most states did that law.

And so what it did was it uh required a permit to do any kind of fill in a construction area like that, or in this case a quarry.

And Potter, this being his 45th, did it the way he had always done it and didn't get permits.

So even though it was never a waste dump or a landfill, um, it's it's deemed a closed landfill under the action of the law.

And so sub chapter T applies to it, which puts some special uh considerations on it when it's when it's developed.

Great, thank you so much.

And as far as that uh 1.6 acre piece at the part that does connect to Easterling, it was going to be a road that would continue through and go all the way and connect to Rogers Road, but that was changed many, many years ago, and now it's just an acre of lot.

Um an affiliated organization of mine acquired it uh a number of years ago for Marty Winder, and that was originally part of his land that was part of that HOA.

Thank you so much.

Okay, and I I think staff very helpfully uh marked off the property on Google maps here.

So if we could zoom in on that parcel to to look at it.

So that's that's the subject area that we're looking at now.

I guess on the other side of the creek, right?

There's a creek on Easterly.

Um so we item two, which we had previously discussed is the area north of north of that, and then this is the parcel that we're talking about now.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

All right, thank you.

That's very helpful.

All right, thank you so much.

Questions to my left, Commissioner Woodset, I believe you had questions.

Some of them.

Some of my question was answered by a little bit about who the owner was and questions to whether or not they had access off of Easterly legally.

Uh but on the GIS map, and maybe it's on y'all's zoning map also, it appears that the property below it uh swath across the residential area there is zone C2.

Correct.

That is C2.

Correct.

I'll call it the south there.

Yes, that is correct.

The property to the south is C2.

And that appears to be owned by the group that man who just came up here and spoke, and now I think they also own the other land next to it to the east.

Correct, the Texas Project 28.

All right.

Commission uh Commissioner Kellum?

No?

Commissioner Sipes, you know.

Couple questions for staff.

Um what what neighborhood plan is this parcel under?

This is part of the Highway 151 and loop 1604 area regional center plan, which is one of the newer SA Tomorrow plans.

Okay, that's it was adopted in 2022.

That's probably why I didn't find it.

I was looking at the old parts.

Okay.

Um what is this under that plan?

I could look it up, I know, but it'll be faster.

It is it is neighborhood mixed use, which does support the C1 based zoning.

Okay, okay.

So for C1 zoning, um is uh I know a convenience store is allowed in C1 zoning.

Would the sort of alcohol at that convenience store be allowed?

Yes, it would.

And we do not have NARR regulations for C1 zoning.

Okay, and so what about uh a smoke shop would be allowed?

As long as it met the uh distance requirements as per breath policy.

Okay, so a hook and lounge stuff like that.

Correct.

Got it.

Okay.

Um actually that's all the questions I have.

I have stuff for discussion, but that will wait.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

No, we're not doing that.

We're doing things by process.

All right.

Commissioner Huey, uh once more we'll go around the horn.

Any questions?

Uh no, thank you.

Questions right?

Yes, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

It's a question for staff.

Um you're against the C2 zoning, is that correct?

That is correct.

We were against that C2 since again this is part of a newer plan and they wanted to have something of a neighborhood mixed use, something that would potentially permit both residential and commercial zoning, but would better um complement the uh residential abutting the property.

The only reason I'm asking is because a property right underneath it, it's a C2.

Why wouldn't this one be approved for a C2?

Or why wouldn't staff be uh opposed to a C2?

Or in favor of a C2, I'm sorry.

Again, the the area was designated through a um land use plan in 2022 where they get um information or I'm sorry, um the neighborhoods involved and they wanted something of a neighborhood mixed use there, which would only permit up to a C1.

Okay, next question would be for uh I forgot your name, sir, I'm sorry.

Uh Mr.

Wilkes, Mr.

Wilkes, would you be opposed or in favor of uh C1 or a C2 since you're immediately right next door to it?

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, I'm sorry, I'm gonna jump in here for a second.

Staff, do you want to talk about the plan?

So is there a plan amendment with this?

No, there is no plan amendment necessarily.

They would need a plan amendment if it was staying the C2NA that they originally proposed, but they amended to C1, no longer needing the plan amendment.

And if Mr.

Wilkes is to respond, I would request that he comes up to the podium.

All right, sorry.

So C2 a C2 request at this point would most likely start the process over again.

That is correct.

Yes.

All right, Mr.

Wilkes, I'm sorry.

First of all, I understand that the reason that the timing of this is what it is is because of a legal agreement.

The uh River City Ready Mix and the Lopez didn't have a choice as to when to time this.

They were required by that agreement to file within two weeks.

And I understand that, so you gotta do what you gotta do.

I'm opposed to a C1 because I hope to buy the property and I want it to be a C2.

But beyond that selfish reason, uh Well, we might see you again.

All right.

Uh Mr.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Uh, thank you.

No further questions.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Chase.

Commissioner Kelly.

No, thank you.

Commissioners to my left.

Oh, one last quick one.

Again.

Commissioner Witson.

It says no active code or permitting violations on the property.

That is still correct.

Sorry.

That is correct.

There are no uh active cases.

All right, very good.

Okay.

Oh, and I do have a question.

All right.

Someone did mention the bridges uh or a bridge or other kind of structure crossing the creek.

Um should someone want to develop this property.

Uh they would be responsible for access, correct?

For maintaining safe access.

Yes, they would be.

But that's not necessarily something that would occur prior to or during zoning.

Correct.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

At this point, the public comment is closed.

We will now move on to discussion.

Commissioner Huey, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So uh again, uh my previous comments uh withstanding with this case also is that uh again we have to look at it only as land use and nothing else.

So with that, I'm gonna open up the comments of some of the other commissioners before I make my motion.

All right.

We will go to our right discussion, Commissioners, to my right.

No questions.

Discussion.

Go.

Uh yes, I think that's correct.

I mean uh land use.

I know we're we're talking about a lot of other things unless I'm missing something because my wife says I miss a lot of things.

Um I'm just gonna base this on land use going forward.

I think there's two things.

You got neighbors, you got people that who live there, and you got a it seems to be a company who's gonna be leaving.

Um who cares ever bad or good, but um that's what you have, and the neighbors are the ones who are gonna be there going forward.

Thank you.

Very good.

Commissioners to my right discussion.

No, Commissioner Kelly, discussion.

No, thank you.

All right, Commissioners to my left, yes.

Uh we're gonna go, we're gonna end up with Commissioner Sipes.

So now we're gonna go duval, Woodsett, and Sipes.

Previous comments on item two, the concern about uh uh residential donut are even more applicable here.

Um so oh again, I don't like this map.

Do we st is Google map still up?

If not, don't worry about it.

But oh sweet.

Okay, so uh the oh excellent.

So it shows the blue is the the uh uh project number uh item two and the red is item three.

So uh the item two, for the same reason I I'm you know concerned about item three.

The only way of access is on Calabra Road.

The further down you go down Easterling, I think the less suitable um higher intensity uses are.

However, learning about the zoning of C2 at the very end of Easterling is kind of throws that all into uh it complicates everything because uh they could develop C2 there by right.

So if we were to have you know uh C2 keep the residential and then have C2 again, that would just be all messed up.

Um it would make no sense.

And you know, absent a you know, council uh consideration request to down zone somebody's property that they've invested in with the expectation of it being a C2.

Um there's no way really to resolve that.

Um so that that's really important for me in the analysis.

That C2 is entitled to C2.

Um C one would be a fine transition alongs those two courts.

Uh what is it?

Mount Hood and Well, the C the two courts that we can all see.

I still can't read that.

Mount Hood and Mount Crosby.

I think C one would be a nicer buffer uh against those properties that are a little bit closer to the the end of the courts.

Um I don't think residential would actually be suitable there with the anticipation of a C2 use at the end of Easterly.

So with that, I'll support the motion.

Yeah, no motion.

Sorry.

I would support a motion to uh recommend approval.

All right, very good.

Commissioner Woodsett.

I'm gonna run with staff's proposal.

Very good.

Commissioner Kellum.

All right, Commissioner Sipes.

All right, I'm gonna respectfully disagree.

Um and I will either support or oppose the motion, depending on what it is.

But uh I don't believe C1 is appropriate, primarily because it's it serves as an island that the Calabor Creek, in my opinion, serves as a significant edge.

Um that would require more investment in order to traverse.

Um and I think the better way of accomplishing that would be through a true mixed-use development that incorporated some sort of residential component.

Um I believe having this size of uh triangle with just C1 does does not make any sort of sense because you're relying on a future buyer either investing significant dollars in building a bridge to go to smaller shops, um, or you're relying on an investor to the south uh continuing a development to the north.

Um it it it for me C1 just does not make sense.

Uh I believe it's more suitable for some sort of future residential use.

Um that's it.

All right, very good.

Uh my quick two cents.

I was hoping to agree with Commissioner Sipes, but I don't.

I agree, I agree with Commissioner Duval.

Um I think C1 is appropriate.

All right, back to Commissioner Huey for any little bit more discussion, but ideally just a motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So again, uh I thank my commission fellow commissioners for their input on into this case.

And uh after reviewing all the information and hearing all the different opinions of uh of our residents and the applicant, I'm going to go with the uh recommendation from staff and move to approve uh this applicant for C1.

All right, there is a motion for approval of item number three for C1, second by Commissioner Kellum.

Uh discussion left?

Brief.

Commissioner Kelly.

Oh.

Discussion left.

Sorry.

That was my right.

Left?

All right.

Uh no further discussion.

Motion is for approval of C1 as requested by Commissioner Huey with the second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Nohosa.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

No.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Busamante.

I.

Motion carries.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Um we are going to go ahead and do item four next.

And then we are going to do item 18.

So those are that's the order of cases I want to do.

Uh we will work as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you.

Okay, good afternoon, Forrest Wilson again, principal planner with development services.

Item number four, like located at 302 and 306 East Savayo Street, is going from R4, residential single family district, to IDZ1, limit intensity infill development zone with uses permitted in C1, like commercial district, and a bar and or tavern without a cover charge, three or more days per week.

And all overlays remaining the same.

There were 71 notices sent, four received in favor, four opposed.

The Lone Star Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Two in favor outside of 200 feet.

The existing R4 residential single family district is appropriate for the subject property and the surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ1 limited intensity infill zone with permitted uses in C1 and for a bar and tavern is also appropriate.

The proposed use allows for a low-intense commercial use.

That is compatible with nearby commercial activity.

The IDZ1 zoning facilitates adaptive reuse of neighborhood serving commercial development, supports the established mix of residential and commercial along this corridor, and aligns with existing use patterns by permitting restaurant and bar uses in an area where similar establishments are already present.

Staff recommends approval and the applicant is present.

Alright.

Very good.

Is there anyone besides Mr.

Atagon here for public comment?

No.

Mr.

Atagon has left.

Mr.

Harper.

If you would briefly give us a summary of the project.

Sure.

Micah Harper, I live at 326 Clay Street.

Mr.

Artigone and I got together.

We saw the other neighbors not getting along.

We decided to get along.

So he uh he let you know he has withdrawn his objection, um, which is great because I see him every day walking my dog.

So I want to make sure we get along.

Um this is next to it's on the east of IOS.

It's an old house, uh, two old houses actually.

They're next to Leche de Tigre, Pasadernan, uh, Latuna, Dos Serenos.

Um, and so this street has a lot of large apartments and and a lot of infill commercial, and so we're just asking for the ability to go in.

This this will turn into a restaurant.

We have a restaurant operator that's been in San Antonio with their family over fifty years on operating restaurants.

Um I'm very excited for the things I've brought to the neighborhood.

I live one street over.

Um, and uh I have a vested interest in what happens here, and um happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Harper.

All right.

Uh this is a district five case, uh, so questions are to me.

Uh staff recommended approval.

I have no questions.

Uh to my left questions?

Yes, Commissioner Dool.

Uh only that staff had in the staff report said that the existing R4 residential single family zoning is appropriate for the subject property.

Um, Lecha de Tigre.

Area has had a lot of growth, a lot of new density.

Is really would new R4 even be suitable here, given how in you know how large uh all the developments are around it.

I wouldn't say a four would be.

I my recommendation or my comment about it being appropriate was based on the fact that it's there already.

But but it that's only to say all the more so the recommendation to uh uh rezo.

To be honest, there is R4, there's residential on this street.

It's a mix, so that's why we were stating that the R4 would also be appropriate.

So both commercial and residential uses would be permitted, should be allowed on this street.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

Questions left?

Seeing none.

Questions right?

Seeing none, Commissioner Kelly.

Questions?

All right.

Uh I am the District 5.

Representative, I think this is an appropriate use.

I think staff has recommended approval.

I go to Lechida del Tigre, I go to Rosas next door.

I am there constantly.

This is an appropriate use.

I move for approval of item number four as submitted.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Woodson.

Discussion right.

Seeing none.

Commissioner Kelly.

Left discussion.

All right.

Then there being none.

Motions for approval by me, second by Commissioner Woodset for approval of item number four, roll call vote.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Nohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Syps?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Good luck.

All right.

We are moving on to item number 18.

I apologize for those folks behind, but we're we have some other limitations that I want to address.

So thank you for your patience.

Good afternoon.

Alex Rutano zoning planner with development services.

Item number 18 is located at 13526 Nacodotchis Road, going from C2 commercial district to C2 C D commercial district with the conditional use for construction trades contractors with all overlays staying the same.

There were 43 notices sent out, zero in favor.

Is here opposed within 200 feet.

Valencia HOA and El Chaparral Fertile Valley Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Outside the 200 feet, there is also no response.

The existing C2 commercial district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C2 C D commercial district with the conditional use for construction trades contractor is also appropriate.

The intent of the rezoning is to allow for residential and commercial HVAC company to occupy the existing building.

There is no proposed expansion beyond the current building footprint, and the request would be held to the submitted site plan.

Although there is a single family residential neighborhood to the south, there is a significant setback between the building on the subject property and the single family lots.

A proposed landscape buffer would contribute to a further transition from commercial uses to a residential neighborhood.

Staff recommends approval with conditions.

If recommended for approval, staff recommends the installation of a 15-foot type B buffer along the rear property line.

That abut single family residential uses.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

If we could have the applicant or the applicant's representative, please good afternoon, Mr.

Chair, Commissioners.

My name is Rob Kill, I'm an attorney of the law firm of Killing Griffin and Paramount.

Our address is 10101, Reunion Place in San Antonio.

You all have had a day, so I will keep my care my comments uncharacteristically brief.

We appreciate staff's review of this issue and the recommendation.

We do disagree with their uh recommendation of a condition of the buffer.

I will explain uh why and in brief amount of words.

I'm here on behalf of Airco.

This property is located at the intersection of Naccados and El Charo in District 10.

It is an existing building.

It has been there for a while.

It's a zone C2 was built back in the 1980s.

Valencia, which is the neighborhood uh just behind it was built out in the 1970s.

Uh so it's been there a while.

Our client Airco would like to move into the site.

Uh it's currently occupied by uh call center right now.

The call center will transition out uh as Airco moves in uh upon the purchase.

And so they'll come in and uh they do air conditioning uh repair.

They have been in operation in San Antonio since the early 1980s.

Uh all of the reason they bought such a big building uh, because they the other site is a smaller building.

The other sites they do stuff outside.

Here they're gonna be able to contain everything inside except for their fleet, which will uh be parked outside, of course.

Uh C2, as I said, asking for the conditional use.

Um you've seen the site plan.

Let's go ahead.

Uh this is AirCode, this is what they do.

They operate all throughout the region.

Uh good folks with long operation.

What staff is proposing as the condition, I want to focus uh your attention on this, is a 15-foot wide uh landscape buffer.

If this were brand new development, if this were raw land, I have no objection.

That makes a whole lot of sense.

Unfortunately, we have existing conditions here.

And I zoomed in, and so the distance between you'll see I've got some uh pictures we'll pull up in just a few minutes.

You see this drainage right here.

The distance between the drainage and the wall is 28 feet.

And so if you put a 15-foot buffer, first thing you're gonna do is you're gonna wipe out 50 parking spaces, five zero, fifty parking spaces, in addition to which you would narrow that lane behind there to 13 feet in width, which is fine for a car, maybe, but not for an emergency vehicle.

Try getting a fire truck in uh 13 feet of width, which is why we have a 20-foot minimum width for fire lines.

Now, there is not a fire lane back there, but I can imagine scenario at some point where a fire truck might want to get back there.

This is a view from El Charo.

You can see the edge of the drainage.

You can see kind of the open space uh along El Charo.

On the left is a wall, so there's a wall that's been there for many, many years, uh separating the neighborhood from the existing use, which again has been there 40 years.

Uh a little bit of a view of the back of the property.

By the way, the only thing that's going to happen, the back of the property, airco is not going to have any operations.

They might park cars back there because they've got all those parking spaces.

But you can see here how narrow it is between the wall and then this uh bump out of the building that was built many years ago.

Uh again, another view just again of the narrowness.

A little bit closer on the left is is the edge of the building.

You can see that yellow pole.

You can see that drainage, you can see the start of the parking stall, and then the wall itself.

By the way, many of the folks in Valencia have trees in their backyard, so they've already got some uh sufficient green buffer in addition to the wall itself.

Uh yesterday, someone in my office went out there with a tape measure.

Uh best way to do it is actually go out and measure it, and you can see that it is uh 28 feet from the edge of the drain.

And of course, the building itself is a couple of feet past that uh to the wall.

And that's it.

Like I said, this building has been there for a while.

Here's an aerial from 1995 showing you conditions haven't changed.

And then uh the Google street view.

Google guys weren't driving around in 1995, but they were driving around uh 10 years ago, and you can see that the condition was the same 10 years ago.

So again, we would lose 50 parking spaces.

We would narrow that access to the back to 13 feet in width, and for the folks that live directly behind it, they've lived for this condition uh with this building here as a neighbor for over 40 years.

Uh so there's nothing that will change their quality of life uh with airco coming in.

With that, uh again, uh I wanted to keep my comments brief, and so I will conclude my remarks and be open to any questions the Commissioner may have.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Public comment?

There is no public comment.

You get no rebuttal.

All right.

This is a district 10 case.

Commissioner What's it to you for questions?

Well, that was a brief comment from the attorney.

Only time you're gonna see that.

That was brief.

Um I have no issue with what they're proposing.

Uh in fact, I'm gonna recommend ultimately that we remove that 15-foot buffer, and I would have moved to approve the zoning uh without that 15-foot buffer.

All right, we'll get there in a second, but just in case any questions left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Um CD is being requested.

Conditional use authorization.

That is correct.

So we could consider uh downward facing lighting.

I noticed some of the uh lighting of the parking spots along the residential area.

I saw in some of the Google street view.

Got some pretty big lights near people's yards.

That is one of the typical conditions, yes, that could be recommended.

To ask the applicant, what what would be the position on uh downward facing lighting?

Well, I think our position would be any new lighting would comply with any current code.

I'm not sure exactly which lights we're talking about.

I mean we would have to get in, open up the site plan again and term where those go.

Yeah, I possibly could we go back to the Google street view just to show you.

And let me clear my client is not here today, so I can't make a decision for them on downward lighting.

So i it would only be a recommendation to council.

Um if there was a significant issue that you know council could consider it at that point after you have the chance to speak with your client.

I appreciate it.

I just have I can't answer that today.

Um but on on Google Street uh, or maybe in the the applicant's presentation, it showed the the screenshots from Google Street View.

I could just refer to the uh the lights I was there was some yards that had trees in them and other yards that didn't have trees and yeah, there we go.

That that kind of shows.

So uh I mean uh actually also important question to staff are those downward facing lights?

Would it be even more?

We would need a technical review to determine that.

Yeah, and and Commissioner, if I could, uh those lights have been out there for the building for 40 years.

Uh we did reach out to Valencia and we work with the councilman's office to see if there was any feedback, any questions.

They all received notice.

That would have been an opportunity, of course, to have that dialogue.

So uh I I don't know that those lights have been shining their backyard for 40 years.

I guess my question my point is I don't believe there's a problem.

I believe if there was a problem, we would have known about it in the zoning process.

I'll leave it for the Commissioner deliberation.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

Any further questions left?

Seeing yes, Commissioner Sykes.

Oh, okay.

Commissioner's right, questions?

Missing none.

Commissioner Kelly, questions?

Mr.

Killin and uh interacted in the past.

He knows I'm kind of a compromise kind of guy.

Rob, I was wondering, I know you said the 15-foot buffer seemed excessive.

I kind of agree with you given the fact that the situation has existed for many years.

What sort of width of a buffer would you consider a compromise with the question?

And I appreciate uh Commissioner uh former engineer or current engineer, never never a former engineer, right?

Uh but uh certainly understand in response to the traffic concerns there's so there's two pieces to it, Commissioner.

One is the traffic and two is the number of parking stalls that would be lost, uh 50 in this case.

Any amount of uh buffer put in there, because you have to have an 18 undercoat 18-foot depth of stall uh would eliminate all those parking spaces.

So I would say even a five-foot buffer uh would have a negative impact because it would we would have to remove all of those stalls because if we extended the stalls past the five foot, it does the same thing and encroaching into uh that drive area.

But yes, yeah.

No, I I appreciate the question.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Kelly.

All right.

Uh there being no further questions.

Um Commissioner WhatsApp to you for discussion.

Motion.

I have no further discussion.

Uh my motion will be to uh approve the zoning without the 15-foot buffer and no other uh modifications.

Very good.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Kellum.

Uh discussion to my left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval and then Sipes.

Uh just to have the brief conversation.

Um like to move to uh amend to um include a uh condition to require downward facing lighting.

The project requires a conditional use authorization, right?

We've we've gone through the uh the exercise before with conditional use authorizations.

It's about making higher intensity uses uh more compatible with the surrounding properties.

Um trades contractor, you're gonna have storage of vehicles overnight on the lot.

Um there might be cause in the future to even increase the amount of lighting in that area for security.

Um I think it certainly would improve it, you know, improve the situation, even if it's an existing situation, it'd improve it for the neighborers uh to um have less light pollution in their yards.

All right.

Friendly amendments offered?

Is it accepted?

Not accepted.

All right.

That is done.

All right.

Discussion left?

Any further up types?

Yes.

I would I I would have uh loved for the friendly amendment to be accepted.

Um that's not a 40-year-old light fixture.

Um that poll that that that light fixture that's there now probably has a significant higher lumen output than what was originally put there, and I think it's a simple small gesture to the neighborhood to do downward facing lighting.

Um, but um other than that, I do agree that um with the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Sipes.

Commissioners to my right.

Discussion?

Yes, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Going back on to the lighting, uh those lights that you see in the back looks like it's facing the building.

It's not going to be a bother.

I don't think it's gonna be an issue for the houses.

It hasn't been.

And if you go in front of the store, uh looks like the lights are already facing downward.

All right.

All right, thank you so much.

Uh any further discussion, right?

Commissioner Kelly.

No, sir.

All right.

Um I'm gonna support the motion.

Uh check it out with council if you want, check with your client.

Um, but I think uh the fact that this has been here for going on 40 years at least, maybe, um, is good enough for me.

So the motion is for approval without conditions for item number 18 by Commissioner Woodsett, second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Noasa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Dubal?

Aye.

Commissioner Chase?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, thank you so much.

Take care.

Uh we are now moving on to item number six.

Sorry.

Good afternoon, Bronte Frère, Zone New Planet Development Services.

Item number six is located at 201 East Courtland Avenue, going from RM4 to IDZ2 with uses permitted for five dwelling units.

All overlays remain the same.

There are 39 notices.

Zero in favor, zero opposed.

Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

Staff finds evidence of likely adverse impacts on neighboring lands in relation to the zoning change request.

The existing RM4 residential mixed district is an appropriate zoning for their property and surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ2 medium intensity infield development zone district with uses permitted for five dwelling units is not appropriate.

While the subject property is within an established residential block and within proximity to existing IDZ-based zoning districts, the surrounding multifamily residences are limited to four dwelling units.

Furthermore, the subject property is part of a recently adopted plan for the city.

Which staff is generally not supportive of requests that go against newly developed plans.

The proposed zoning is, however, consistent with the goals of the strategic housing implementation plan, which encourages development of alternate housing types to accommodate the city's growing population at all income levels.

Staff recommends an aisle and the applicant is here to answer any questions.

Alright, if we could have the applicant, please.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners.

Long day.

Presently the property is zoned RM4, and for its current use, I need to change it when talking to the staff.

They had suggested MF 33.

May I have thank you.

If you look, is there a pointer?

Sorry.

If you look at my property, sorry.

Almost everybody or in close proximity is MF33.

And when I went to the planning commission, that is in fact what I had recommended requested.

After the meeting, the chair had recommended that I change it to IDZ2 with the use of five units.

Okay.

And you can see there is IDZ over here as well.

But MF 33 is consistent.

Most of these are that's eight units, that's six units, no parking there, no parking there.

We have five, we have six slots for five units.

So I have been in contact with the Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association, Rick Shell, which is their planning guy, and uh he saw no problems and thought that IDZ2 was consistent with that.

So if I may have go on more, please.

There we go.

It's an old house.

We're proud of the House.

We want to we have no intention to change, build, add, demolish.

We try to be a consistent member of the Tobin Hill Associate, not the association, but the neighborhood to provide a safe and convenient uh place.

And I asked the Commission for their approval at my request.

I thank you, Jim.

All right, thank you.

Appreciate that, sir.

All right.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment.

Very good.

Uh Commissioner.

Commissioner Kellum, to you for questions.

Mr.

Weaver.

Yes, please.

Thank you for your patience today.

I appreciate that.

Can you just state how long you've owned the property?

How long you've owned the property?

Oh, sorry, around jet engines too long.

Summer of 2017.

So you've been through.

Okay, so it was after the last the last change in zoning to the RM4.

Is that right?

I'd have to defer.

Just so for the record, it's gone from R3 1995 to B3NA 96 to C2NA 2001 to RM4 in 2015.

And so I guess my point with all of this is that this has been a structure that's been in existence for quite some period of time.

Very good uh communication with the neighborhood.

So I appreciate that.

Seems like you're a very good a very good uh community member when it comes to taking care of this property.

It's a beautiful property.

Uh and I think that it would be the right thing to do to um approve this motion.

Uh but I will leave that to the right time chair.

Sorry about that.

I appreciate your kind words.

Sure.

Which again, we try to be good members.

Mrs.

Weaver said we will only own something if she could take her parents through it.

And I think that's a pretty good standard of how we should live our lives.

So she I was just going to say that that is all of my questions slash comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Kellum.

I I can't blame you at this point.

All right.

Any further questions on my left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh the staff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So uh to staff, what's the background of the application for nonconforming use at 2025 11200 104?

It was in the staff report side.

So as you can see, it was denied, and hence why he is requesting the rezoning.

It looks like we didn't have prior uh proof that a five plex was always permitted on this lot.

Could you give could you give a little bit more background on that?

What why was there no I know that the the asking for the the negative approval, but why would we pull it up, but generally it's there is not sufficient evidence to support the request.

So again, he requested a nonconforming for five units, and it wasn't previous there wasn't enough proof for staff to give the approval for the nonconforming, hence why he received a denial.

So when was the uh one were the one was the fifth unit?

Do we know when the fifth unit was put in?

So all of that was done.

This is a 1929 house.

Uh that there is a period where you are talking about some zoning code which I don't understand, but it at some point in its life it was a halfway house.

Okay.

And so as a result, that's why there's commercial grade fire extinguisher systems throughout this structure, is because it had been a halfway house, I believe for about a decade, then it went into disuse, and then um the previous owner rehabilitated it.

And you came in, sorry to ask the same question again, but you came into ownership of the property in the 2017, summer of 2017.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

You are did I answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none, questions right.

Seeing none, Commissioner Kelly.

Questions?

No, sir.

All right.

Uh discussion.

Actually, we can just go motion now, Commissioner Kellum.

Uh I make a motion for approval.

All right, there's a motion for approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Duval.

Uh sorry, Commissioner Chase, next time.

Uh all right.

Uh further discussion to my left.

To my right.

Commissioner Kelly.

All right.

Um briefly discussion.

Uh I forgot I made that recommendation in November in planning.

Uh, but this does ameliorate the need for a plan change, um, but gets to what I think is the appropriate thing here, which is using the five units as they were established.

But gets to what I think is the appropriate thing here, which is using the five units as they were established.

And with respect to the nonconforming use, that proof of continuity, that continuous use is boy, super hard.

So I think this is appropriate.

I will support it.

Motion is for approval by Dr.

Kellum with the second uh Commissioner Duval.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Nohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Witset.

Yes.

Commissioner Chase.

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Very good.

Good luck, Mr.

Weaver.

Thank you.

And I will point out that Mr.

Weaver has been uh very laudatory of our staff, which I think is always appropriate, but always nice to hear, and I'm glad he passed it along.

All right.

Uh moving on to item number 10, please.

Good afternoon.

Bronte for zoning planner development services.

Item number 10 is located at 722 Menifee Boulevard, going from R6 to R6 CD for two dwelling units, all overlays to remain the same.

There are 33 notices sent.

There's zero received in favor, two opposed.

Thompson neighborhood association did not provide a response.

Staff does not find evidence of like the adverse impacts on neighboring lands in relation to the zoning change request.

The existing R6 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed R6 CD for with the conditional use for two dwelling units is also appropriate.

The subject property is within an established residential block and within proximity to existing R6-based zoning districts.

The change of zoning requests would preserve the residential nature of the property, but allow one additional unit.

Furthermore, the CD conditional use request requires a submission of a site plan that cannot be changed without further public review.

The proposed zoning is also consistent with the goals of the strategic housing implementation plan, which encourages the development of alternate housing types to accommodate the city's growing population at all income levels.

Staff recommends approval and applicant's representative and applicant is here to answer any questions.

All right, very good.

If we could have the applicant's representative, please.

And if we could have just one of you talk, I'd appreciate it.

Buenas tardes.

My nombre Rosario Mirano Sorlis.

Okay.

One second.

Let's get uh Spanish language interpretation.

They're coming out.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rosa Elena Altamirano Solis.

Uh my direction is 722 Menefi.

And my address, seven to two menefeed.

Uh you no hablo English, but I do not speak English, but I have a representative with me that is going to direct everything to you in English.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Nicole Rix.

I am a local realtor and I represent the property at 722 Minifee for Rosa and her husband, Javier.

Um thank you so much for your both all of y'all's time today.

I know it's been a long day for everyone.

Um, but just to kind of give you a little background on this property.

Um we did not know it did not have conditional use at the time that all this was happening.

So the property is not planned to be changed in any sort of way.

It is the way it's supposed to be, and it was permitted for that.

Um unfortunately, they do not speak English.

So it's a little bit of a translation difficulty there, but they are following all of the recommendations from the city now.

And we also visited Thompson Neighborhood Association, which did leave a letter.

So I don't know if y'all want to uh so we visited with them uh last month.

It was about 40 people in attendance, and they were all uh in support of the neighborhood um conditional use change.

Also, I the photo that was taken um is is a little blurry, but if y'all want to pull it up on your cell phone, it's 722 Minifee and it shows all of the professional photos.

They put about a hundred thousand dollar renovation to the property when they purchased it, it was a complete shock, which obviously does not help our neighborhood by having homeless people and such in their homes next door.

So in the time that they've owned it, which is approximately five years, they have renovated the property completely, which you can see the updated photos on Zillow or Realtor.com, and that property is in excellent condition.

Um I've never had any showing where I show up where there's you know a party or trash or any of those types of things.

Um the back unit has is the additional unit.

So per the front, it still looks completely like a single family home.

There is a side door to the back unit, which is the quote second unit.

That person has been there and still is there for the last four and a half years.

She's a single parent to four kids and never given anyone problems.

Um no city complaints, noise complaints, anything like that.

Okay, thank you so much.

All right.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment.

Did we get the letter up on the projector?

I didn't see it.

All right.

Uh this is a district five case.

I have zero questions.

Questions to my right.

Commissioner, up, we lost Commissioner Kelly on that screen.

Is he still with Commissioner Kelly?

Are you still with us?

I'm still here.

All right, awesome.

Do you have any questions?

All right.

Commissioners to my left questions.

Commissioners to my left questions.

Yeah, sorry.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Just briefly, uh, can we get a little bit more context in um when the property was uh to the project applicant or representative?

Um just a little bit more context when the property was acquired.

You know, it it didn't.

I imagine it didn't come up because it wasn't asked.

Commissioner Duell, can you make sure you're speaking into the microphone?

Sorry.

Thank you.

Yeah, sorry, long day.

Um could you just get a little bit more context?

So when the property was acquired, they probably didn't ask.

Um so this gentleman and and his wife Rosa, they are clients of mine.

They're actually my direct contractors on properties that I use and and a very good relationship with them.

I've known them for about two years now.

Um when they purchased this property, I did not know that.

I did not know anything of the property.

However, if you look at the old pictures, the property looks to be very, very vacant and very not inhabitable.

Like you cannot live in that property.

Uh I do have the before pictures because we were going to utilize it for the appraisal.

Um, and so it does suit for improving the community, increasing housing, the density is appropriate for the community itself.

And I don't know them back then, but I can say that they followed all of my advice and recommendations based on that.

So if they would have known, they would have followed whatever advice recommendations.

The um the addition was permitted correctly.

So actually, could you could you explain what you mean by that?

Because I mean the zoning didn't allow it, so how did the permitting allow for two units?

Great question for the city of San Antonio.

Typically, if you are a single family residential, you are permitted an accessory dwelling unit.

Aha.

So the city permitted or or didn't see a problem with there being an ADU?

Correct.

It most likely was allowed when the ADU was submitted.

Uh the owner was living on the property, but in this case, the owners are not going to be living on the property, hence the need for a zoning for two dwelling units.

Okay.

All right.

This is important.

So presently.

Is does the owner uh live on the property?

No, she does not.

She lives a couple of streets over.

So presently there are two tenants on the property.

Yes, sir, there are uh back to city.

Was it that the city allowed the permit to go through, or was there actually like a full ADU permit issued?

I cannot confirm, but I'm under the suspicion that the ADU was approved and built.

Um hold on one second, actually.

Because I'm sure the ADU application and permit says that the conditions of the ADU.

Yeah, you know.

So it actually looks like it was built in 2019.

I'm not certain.

I'm assuming at that time, again, the owner was living on the property.

The uh ADU permit application.

I mean, I I can look up the uh the PDF now on the website.

I'm sure it has information about the conditions in ADU and whether ADUs are acceptable, right?

Like when it must include the requirement on the application and on the permit.

It does for the application and the permit, but I cannot say from one owner to the next.

That is between them during closing.

Briefly, if I might interrupt, I apologize.

Uh time is 427 and commit Commissioner Hinohosa has left the meeting briefly, hopefully.

Um sorry, just so I can make sure I understand the timeline.

If I could have you come back up again, help me understand, make sure I'm not missing something here.

Of course.

Um did your client come into possession of the property.

What year are you working for property?

Six years ago.

Uh and I'm sorry, the ADU application was 2019.

2019.

Okay, so did your was your client or were you the one who submitted the ADU application?

I did not know this client that long ago as as previously stated.