All right.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the meeting.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If we could please have our Spanish interpretation services statement.

Good afternoon.

Buenos días a todos.

Si alguien necesita escuchar esta junta in espanhol, por favor, pasen a la cabina para receber su equipo.

All right, thank you so much.

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.

The time is 1 o'clock, and I hereby call this regularly noticed meeting of the City of San Antonio Zoning Commission into session.

I like to do roll call by allowing.

I have some latent anger here, apparently.

Um 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.

I represent District 7.

My name is John Kelly.

I represent District 8.

Danny Cullum, District 1.

I've never been accused of being far left, but I'm John Wits at District 10.

Moses Duvel, District 9.

Mia Lissa, District 2.

Kim Houit, District 6.

George Inoza, District 3.

Eddie Peter is District 4.

Moshgan Pana, Mayor's Representative.

All right, thank you.

Uh staff, is a quorum present?

Yes, the quorum is present.

All right, very good.

Uh 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.

Before we begin our hearing, I would like staff to review our 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.

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

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

You will be informed that the three minutes are up.

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

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

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

We have two postponed items today.

Item one and item two.

All right.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are here for the property on Wild Eagle Road in District 8, or the property on 2058 Lamar Street in District 2, those items are postponed.

What that means is they will not be heard today.

If the applicant chooses, they can bring them back and you will receive another notice in the mail as to when that hearing will occur if it is to occur.

So if you are here for either of those two items on Wild Eagle Road, item number one or Lamar Street, item number two, you can go about your way and have a great day.

All right.

At this time, uh staff, if we could have the items on our combined hearing one agenda, the consent agenda.

Item number five, seven, eight, nine, ten, twelve, fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen.

All right.

Uh Commissioners.

Does anyone want to pull any of the items just listed?

Looking left, seeing none.

Looking right, seeing none.

All right.

If we could read the items in the combined hearing number one into the agenda, please.

Or sorry, into the record there in the agenda.

Item number five, a request for a change of zoning from C2 to IDZ2 with uses permitted in C2 located at 7701 Broadway Street.

All other overleas remain the same.

219 notices mailed, one in favor, 13 opposed.

Oak Park Northwood is in favor, and San Antonio, Texas District 1 residents association gave no response.

Item number seven, a request for a change of zoning from BP to I1S with specific use authorization for storage outside.

Screening from public roads and adjacent properties required.

Located at 3610 speedway run.

All other release remain the same.

16 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

Starbright overlooks South Neighborhood Association gave no response.

The applicant is agreeing to add the following condition.

No outside storage of sand.

Item number eight, a request for a change of zoning from R5 to C2 C D with a conditional use for construction contractor facility with a fence height of up to eight feet in the northern portion of the southwest southwest one half.

Located at 5210 Sherry Ann Road.

All other least remain the same.

15 notices mailed, one in favor, zero post, and there is no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

The request for a change of zoning from C2NA, C2 and C3 to C3, located at 7271 Worspoke Road.

All other releases remain the same.

75 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero posts, no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item number 10, a request for a change of zoning from FR to C2, located at 10781 South South Samora Street.

All other reliefs remain the same.

42 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero posed.

With the specific use authorization for wireless communication system located at 2747 South WW White Road.

All other overleets remain the same.

24 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

There is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

And the applicant is amending their property to 0.2837 acres out of NCB 1077 9.

And the site plan should be shown with y'all.

Item 14, a request for a change of zoning from C3NA to R4 C D with a conditional use for two dwelling units located at 1001 Capitol Avenue.

All other overleas remain the same.

Twenty notices mailed, one in favor, zero post, Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Item 15, a request for a change of zoning from NP eight to NP8 C D with the conditional use for two dwelling units located at 731 East Nottingham Drive.

All other overlays remain the same.

35 notices mailed, four in favor, zero opposed, Oak Park Neighborhood Northwood, sorry, Oak Park Northwood Neighborhood Association is in favor.

And item 16, a request for a change of zoning from C1 to C2, located at 311 Howard Street, all other overleas to remain.

33 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association and San Antonio, Texas District 1 Residence Association gave no response.

All right, very good.

Do we have any public comment?

We do have public comment on these items.

Okay.

If we could do we have any speakers or just voicemails?

We have voicemails and we also no.

We have a speaker, yeah.

We do.

If it was for item number five, I believe Mr.

Wagner is no longer here.

Okay.

Then I think we just have voicemails for these items.

Very good.

If we could start with the voicemails, please.

Hi, this is the Brooke Jones.

I reside at 7711, Broadway 5B.

And I'm calling regarding case Z 2026 107 00015.

Um I am calling in my capacity as the president of the Chateau Dijon Home Owners Association Board.

Um I wanted to call and lend my support to the zoning change.

Um I had the opportunity to speak with the developer as well as Samantha the case uh manager and have looked through everything and uh the zoning change does not impact our easement.

Uh we have an easement uh whereby we you know enter and egress uh from our property um and it doesn't impact the height um of the current building um chateau Dijon has no problem um this development complex is well managed uh the clientele that it attracts um have never been a problem um we know the restaurants are all lovely a lot of them are real community establishments and um you know we have not had any issues with um customers um at that plaza um trying to park on our property or causing problems or obstructing our property or like like I said our easement our ability to come in and out so um so yeah so we we support uh what they want to accomplish um by making the zoning change so that they can accommodate uh some different uh residents uh in their uh space there and uh again just um that is on behalf of the Chateau Dijot and board and the owners that we represent um when the notice went out previously there are probably going to be voicemails from concerned residents uh but again the concerns are really centered around losing our easement lots of construction having a multiple story you know behemoth uh towering over us um as well as you know a bunch more people if it was going to be residential like that's where our concerns were um we do not have concerns uh now that we have the information on what they are actually looking to do so that being said thank thank you so much for your time and attention the most jovial voicemail ever next please hello my name is Cynthia Walker I live at 1038 West Summit Avenue my phone number is area code 818 4892599 I'm calling in reference to zoning case number Z 2026 107016 in regards to the property at 1001 capital uh I am calling for the Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association dear zoning commission members Bada is in support of the zoning request to change from C3NA to R 4 C D for two units Bahamas zoning and urban design committee voted on March 16 2026 to support the applicant's request for zoning change at 1001 excuse me 101 capital from C3NA to R4 C D for two units this is a down zoning that will bring the zoning in line with our midtown neighborhoods plan which indicates low density residential for this property thank you Cynthia Walker Chair of the zoning and said um excuse me chair of the zoning and urban design committee for Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association thank you that is it for voicemails on these items all right very good uh mr christensen if I could have you come up for item number seven please um mr Christensen you heard staff read that uh there's an additional condition being placed on this item correct yes sir we agree to the condition very good thank you so much all right okay and if I could have the applicant or applicants representative for item number 12 please chairman Greg Ferris uh representative this case great thank you Mr.

Ferris Mr.

Ferris you heard uh staff say that there's an amended site plan as well as an amended legal description yes sir submitted those as well okay and so that's what you're asking for today yes sir all right thank you so much thank you all righty at this time the floor is open for a motion mr chair yes commissioner whoy I move to approve the following items item number five number six seven with the added condition number eight number nine number ten number twelve as amended number fourteen number fifteen and number sixteen is there a second a second all right uh there is a motion for approval of items number five seven with the additional condition eight nine ten twelve as amended 1415 and 16 by commissioner whoy uh with a second by commissioner discussion looking left seeing none discussion looking right seeing none uh roll call vote please commissioner whoy aye commissioner knowsay commissioner kellum yes commissioner losa yes commissioner pete rodrigues yes commissioner sipes yes commissioner kelly yes commissioner duval aye commissioner would say yes commissioner panna yes chair bustamante i motion carries all right very good if you were here or are here I guess uh for any of those items you are heading to city council with a recommendation for approval good luck to you you have six months to go to city council you can go about the rest of your day and enjoy it all right at this time we are gonna move on to our

approval of items number five seven with the additional condition eight nine ten twelve as amended fourteen fifteen and sixteen by commissioner huey uh with the second by commissioner heenahosa discussion looking left seeing none discussion looking right seeing none uh roll call vote please commissioner whoy aye commissioner knowsay commissioner cullum yes commissioner losa yes commissioner pete rodrigues yes commissioner sipes yes commissioner kelly yes commissioner duval aye commissioner would yes commissioner panna yes chair bustamante aye motion carries all right very good if you were here or are here I guess uh for any of those items you are heading to city council with a recommendation for approval good luck to you you have six months to go to city council you can go about the rest of your day and enjoy it all right at this time we are going to move on to our continuance hearing docket for April 7th 2026 if we could have those two items please it's it's four items so it's I can count it is four items item 11 13 17 and 18 are requesting a continuance of the April 7th meeting okay uh do we have any public comment on those we do have public comment okay do we have any speakers yes and voicemail okay if we could have the speakers please gwendolen van derpool and which item is this for this is for item 13 miss van derpool miss van der pool she might have taken off going twice all right next speaker please drew garza oh drea okay sorry and which item is this is for item 11 okay thank you miss garza if you would say your name not Drew is this on and your address please for the record hi good afternoon my name is Drea Garza 430 for drive I own unit 319 at the Mayfair condominiums at 2420 McCullough and serve on the Mayfair board the following is my personal opinion and that of the many residents of the mistletoe side of the building the board is focused on financial responsibilities and does not comment on cases the Mayfair is a collection of 60 units and we work hard to minimize our footprint on the surrounding community we are surrounded by external pressures from everyday living I thank the applicant for the current parking agreements to ensure street parking remains optimally available that said I oppose the change in zoning to IDZ1 no parking complicates access and has a direct negative impact on those who rely on on street parking I also question the carryover uh C2 use of a wine boutique given the change is for kitchen renovations thank you for the applicant for requesting a continuance and willingness for more dialogue with the surrounding community I also ask that you please continue this case so we have an opportunity to engage with the applicant and collaborate on a solution that works for the benefit of all thank you thank you miss goddess that is it for speakers all right let's go to voicemails hello Renata this is Janice Clayton I'm speaking on behalf of my husband and me and we are calling to oppose the chain and city ordinance one zero seven zero zero three three four and this zoning change would appear to eliminate any parking requirements here in our neighborhood on Macala we oppose any change in zoning due to the lack of insufficient parking alternative on uh surrounding street there is no more parking around here for people in the restaurant to park in and it will have a very negative effect on residential neighbors pedestrians and drivers so thank you for your consideration for listening to what I have to say and again I hope that this change in zoning will not come about thank you again bye bye my telephone number is 21 865917 the address of my husband Reverend Bert Klein and me is 2420 mcallah apartment to zero two down in Tonyo Texas 78212 thank you so much bye bye you're watching now this is agenda item this is for agenda item number 11 1070 at 2520 mcala good afternoon commissioners this is Tony Garcia at 243 East Edge Avenue here in the Monta Vista Historic District on behalf of the Monte Vista Historical Association we are requesting the building commission to approve the continuance for this case in order for the applicant to address questions

This is for agenda item number 11, K 1070334 at 2520 McCullough Avenue.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

This is Tony Garcia at 243 East Wiesach Avenue here in the Monta Vista Historic District.

On behalf of the Monte Vista Historical Association, we are requesting the zoning commission to approve the continuance for this case in order for the applicant to address questions and concerns about the zoning application.

We thank you for your help on this particular case.

That is it for voicemails.

All right.

Very good.

Um for those uh Miss Scottissa, uh, Mr.

Gotesa and the Claytons.

I hope the applicant or applicant's representative will reach out to them in the next couple of weeks to work uh together to hopefully find a common solution.

Uh that being said, the floor is now open for a motion.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Huey.

I move to to continue the following items to April 7th, 2026.

Items number 11, 13, 17, and 18.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Kellum is the second.

Sorry, Commissioner Hinohosa.

Um all right.

The motion is for continuance of items 11, 13, 17, and 18 by Commissioner Huey with the second by Commissioner Kellum.

Discussion looking to my left.

Saying none.

To my right, seeing none.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Losef.

Yes.

Commissioner Inohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sypes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Wetzett.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Uh, for those who were on this agenda, we will see you in approximately three weeks on April 7th.

Hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

All right.

We're moving on now to our continuance hearing to April 21st, 2026.

Items requesting a continuance to the April 21st meeting is item 4.

All right.

Is there any public comment?

No public comment.

All right.

Very good.

The floor is now open for a motion.

Uh this is a district 2K, so Commissioner Lossett to you.

Uh motion to continue item four till April 21st, 2026.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Duval.

Um is there any discussion looking left, seeing none?

Looking right, seeing none.

And there's no public comment.

And there's no public comment.

Good news.

Um thank you.

Uh the motion is for continuance of item number four to April 21st, 2026 by Commissioner Losef, with a second by Commissioner Duval.

Uh roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Losef?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Wetzett?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Uh, at this time we are going to move on to our individual hearing docket, and we will begin with item number three.

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

Said either Gomez Zoning Senior Planner with Development Services.

Item number three is located at 1346.

Requesting a change from C3NAS ERZD, General Commercial Neighborhood, I'm sorry, non-alcoholic sales Edwards Recharge Zone District with a specific use authorization for electrical contractor facility to C3NAS ERZD with a specific use authorization for construction contractors facilities, screener required for outdoor storage from public roads and adjacent properties except for I-2.

There were 32 notices sent out, zero in favor zero post.

The Bavarian Forest HOA neighborhood association did not provide a response, but I understand they submitted something to the applicant.

SAF has found indication of likely adverse effects on the public health or safety or welfare based on this request.

The current C3NAS ERZD with a specific use authorization for electrical contract facility.

It's not an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area in the proposed C3NAS with a specific youth authorization for construction contracts facility, screening required for outdoor storage for public roads and adjacent property.

Except for I2 is also not appropriate.

While the subject property is currently supporting uses similar to those requested, its immediate proximity to an established residential neighborhood should require a more sensitive approach.

Retaining or granting the revised C3 NAS designation with us specific conditions poses a potential detriment to the quality of life for the adjacent residents.

A C2NACD commercial district transition is recommended as it provides a more appropriate transition and buffer while still accommodating the applicant's primary operational needs.

The requested specific use authorization is being requested to satisfy the requirements of the Edwards Recharge Zone District Olay.

Ensuring all environmental and impervious coverage standards are met.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Very good.

If we could have the applicant, please.

And sir, if you will.

Well, should we have SAS first?

Nope, we should have SALS first.

Yes.

Sorry.

I apologize.

Sauce report.

All right.

Mike Escalante was all his Aquifer protection and evaluation.

We reviewed the zoning application located at 13406 uh Western Oak Drive, allowing for a construction contractor facility.

The site is 1.82 acres with an existing 4,000 square foot office warehouse with a paved parking area and a fenced outdoor uh area of compact gravel.

The office warehouse was built in 2001, located uh within the Northwest Business Park.

It was classified as a category one.

The proposed zoning change will allow a fence contractor to to occupy the office warehouse and allow outdoor storage of fencing material.

Therefore, no increase to the existing impervious cover.

Uh no portion of the site is in a floodplain and no sensitive geologic features were documented uh nor observed on site.

We recommend approval with all environment uh mental recommendations within the SALS report to include no increase to the existing 82 percent impervious cover on site.

Uh outside storage of fencing materials to be stored above ground, no hazardous materials to be stored on site, no vehicles or heavy equipment to be parked or stored in the outdoor area, uh, and no heavy equipment maintenance allowed on site.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Escalante.

I am going to blame the fact that I got back from vacation last night.

So I'm still catching up.

Uh at this point, if we could have the applicant, please.

And if you would tell us your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon.

John Cooley, 711 Parkside Place.

And if you would tell us a little bit about the request.

Certainly.

So the uh current building, as you can see, kind of in the first slide, uh, it's been in this essentially existing condition since it was built.

So the next slide down is from 2001.

This was when it was used as a um plumbing contractor facility.

Uh and then uh so pretty much using most of the entire outdoor area for storage of goods.

All this is screened all the way around at that point, as you can kind of see on the right side, the existing neighborhood is there.

Um, and then if you go to the next slide down, that is from I believe 2001, kind of when it was originally established before the neighborhood was there, a 4,000 square foot building with outdoor parking.

So our request is um essentially the same as the current zoning, um, which is the C three.

If you'll go down to uh you can go one more down, let's look at this one.

So kind of everything in that corridor there, with the exception of one is uh C three NA with the same uh restrictions.

So uh all we're trying to do is because this is not an electrical contractor, this is a fencing contractor.

We're trying to change that to a I guess a definition that is current with the the way the code is written.

Thank you, Mr.

Cooley.

Do we have any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, very good.

In that case, you do not get a rebuttal.

Uh but this is a district eight case, so Commissioner Kelly, to you for questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um Mr.

Cooley, I guess I have a couple of questions.

Uh the neighborhood apparently did not respond or give any concerns, but I wonder if you've interacted with any folks in the neighborhood.

Have you had conversation with them?

Yes, sir.

I spoke today with Larry Garza, who is the president of the Bavarian Hills Neighborhood Association, which is the adjacent neighborhood association, walked him through our application.

He indicated he would be either in support or not in opposition.

Um, but I agreed he's on spring break.

So I told him I would uh he's got my cell phone.

I told him to give it to anybody in the neighborhood who would like to have the conversation further, but um he seemed to be uh not opposed to the to the change.

Um and as far as you know he's speaking on and for the neighbors that do abut your property then.

I believe so.

He reached out to uh chief of staff who passed him my information, so I believe he was uh reaching out and kind of uh on behalf of the neighborhood association.

But again, I indicated that before we went to City Council if there was anything that uh bubbled up that became an issue that we would have the opportunity to sit down.

Um about the fencing, there are the existing homes there, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I believe they have provided uh wood fences along the property line.

Uh do you have or plan to provide any fencing on your property?

The existing fencing is not planning to change.

Um so there's a fence around the entire property which is screened from all the right-aways.

Uh I think that's not our building, yeah.

Um that's kind of all kind of looking out from our site, but yeah, the so that yes, sir, the fencing along Western Oak on the left side of the site map.

Mr.

Zwilly, I'm sorry.

There's a pointer.

Laser pointer right there.

Yeah, thank you.

So this would be the the neighborhood right here, and there is an existing wood fence along this property line.

Okay.

I I just want to clarify was that their fences or is that your fence, the wood fence?

I am not sure uh which side of the property line it's on.

It's been uh actually could you go back to the aerial?

Maybe we can see from the yeah, either that or yeah.

This look it looks like well.

I don't want to I don't want to uh it looks like there's maybe two fences.

You can see there's a fence, it looks like that.

There you go, yeah.

Can you zoom?

Uh look at that.

Holy smokes.

Okay.

So we have a fence, and then they have this looks like it's uh an existing wall and then a fence.

So there's um that's their fencing, and then it does look like there's a uh probably for that electrical easement, there's a gap there, and then our fence.

Okay.

Uh I think that answers my question.

I was just concerned if you know sometimes if the resident doesn't keep up their fence, then you know, it could be exposed to some of the activities on your property.

So as long as there's a fence that y'all are maintaining, I'm comfortable with that.

Uh I know that 1560 is currently under reconstruction, I believe.

Uh, fortunately I didn't have a chance to drive out, look at the site.

But um do y'all plan to maintain the access driveway on to 1560?

Yes, so 1516, I believe it's Houseman Road, right?

The same same.

Yes, sir.

So this uh there's two approaches off of uh Houseman, which have been recently redone, I think with that improvement that's already complete along all of there.

So those are new concrete approaches, new concrete sidewalks all the way through this side of the property, and then this is uh the existing uh existing sidewalk along Western Oak.

Okay.

Um I guess the other question I would have the other properties along Western Oak as you go further into that uh development, they're pretty comparable, would you say, to what your property use is?

Absolutely.

And what you're proposing, it's kind of commercial industrial type activities.

Yes, sir.

If you'll go up one slide, ma'am.

So you can see our our property right here.

Um you've got this is a plumbing contractor.

This is uh currently open.

This is a auto uh auto, they do truck lifts and wheels and things, uh bus repair, uh this is a uh longhorn, I think an irrigation pipe company, so similar uses all throughout there.

It's kind of a uh handful of contractors.

Yeah, I just I thought that was the case.

I just wanted to confirm that.

But uh I guess since the neighborhood seems to not have any objections, they've been used to seeing your property um used in summer fashion and the other uh properties down the road there.

Uh I would assume if they were having big heartburn, that would be a problem.

I have one final question, I guess.

The lighting on the site is it uh downward facing, and I'm assuming you do have some lighting on the property.

Yes, sir.

So there is lighting on the building that is uh the existing lighting.

Uh that can uh I believe it's currently downward facing, but that's certainly something if it's uh if it's it would be helpful we could we could implement that.

Um there are uh two existing light bollards.

Um you'll see, yeah, right here.

They're not uh it's okay.

Gotta re-log in.

You can you can see them here.

Um but they're they're light standards, they're not in use.

Um uh they're they're older, so uh those could easily be we could mandate that those be converted to downward facing if that would be beneficial.

Uh yeah, so I think that would be appropriate.

It would uh you know avoid any intrusion into the neighborhoods in the backyards.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

That's all my questions.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any further questions, Commissioners to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Kellum?

Mr.

Clearly, real quick.

Um the separation between your fence, the your screen fence and the wood fence.

Is that your property that there's a a separation between the two?

That's hype plan.

I guess really my question is uh would would y'all be responsible or at least likely to make sure that that doesn't become a dumping zone.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, but I'm not exactly sure the width of it.

I it looks like it's maybe like oh let's see right there.

That's that's a 10 feet.

Yeah, it's a it's a drainage easement, it appears.

Um but yes, uh we can um I don't think it's been a problem, but we can certainly look into it if there's any issues, yes, sir.

Thank you.

That's all the questions I have, there.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Kellum.

Commissioner Duval, then Commissioner Sibes.

To um uh staff, if if that's all right, uh uh how many properties roughly currently on Western Oak have commercial uses?

How many how many lots are there?

Roughly.

So along Western Oak just a second.

Pretty much a majority of the properties there all observe commercial uses, like Mr.

Cooley uh pointed out.

So the comprehensive plan, the north sector plan, um are all of those properties designated as suburban tier Yes.

So the majority of them all is gonna be suburban tier.

But the corner left properties designated regional commercial.

Right across from this property.

Okay.

That's yeah, that's interesting.

So the uh staff report refers to the requested C3 base zoning district as not being consistent with that north sector plan.

So that would be the case for all of the properties on Western Oak Drive, correct?

All those that are suburban tier, yes.

And looking at it, that property across the street that's regional commercial that was uh rezoned in 2016, and that's most likely when the plan amendment was potentially done.

I think you're said it was adopted in August 2010, the north sector.

The sector plan, yes.

I'm talking about the single property that is there.

Typically regional commercial, and this is going into planning department or I'm sorry, planning commission items.

Typically, when you have a regional commercial, you want the lots to be about 20 acres or more because it is meant to service.

Um that's not really y'all's purview, but again, that's just kind of the whole uh ideal of why we would prefer something staff would prefer something of uh keeping it the suburban tier.

Um so it the uh staff report refers to the current requested base zoning is not consistent.

I I think we've confirmed right all the lots that applies to all the lots on the street are not consistent with that 2010 plan.

Right, but we're I mean really going over this property alone, and they did request the plan amendment to make sure it was in um agreement with the regional commercial.

And what was the status of the planning commission hearing?

What did they decide?

That's going to be held on March 25th.

And then um oh man, uh we were on a roll.

Uh um I mean a roll of hearings where we didn't go on the situation, but um so we have to find consistency based on section 35421.

Um it's not consistent, but like it seems like there's a pretty good case that it should be uh the plan designation should change.

Should we and I'll I'll just kind of restraint restate again.

The plan amendments, those are handled by planning commission.

You really should not have to worry about it.

I understand that you're trying to find consistency, but that's really where city council makes that final decision.

You guys are recommending body.

So yes, you can take this into account, but again, you are recommending, you're making a recommendation, and city council is the one who makes that decision to make sure that it is consistent.

Uh so again, this has come up, so I uh I think it's important for us to have the conversation.

Yes, you can.

Yes.

Your c recommendation is again when it goes to City Council, it will say pending plan amendment.

It is City Council who makes that final decision.

Y'all's recommendation can be what it is.

So if our recommendation is contingent, should we make our motion based on what's on the other?

Yeah, I I we need to step in and clarify.

Sorry, Mr.

Sparrow, not Commissioner Speaker.

Yeah.

So your recommendation can be pending a recommendation from Planning Commission, it cannot be conditioned on what Planning Commission ultimately does.

So this body cannot, for instance, make a motion to approve, but only if Planning Commission supports it as well.

We cannot entertain that motion.

All right.

Also for me to jump in.

Okay.

And maybe this will help.

There is a state statute that says that we can only zone in accordance with our comprehensive plan.

Part of the comprehensive plan are all of these plans that go through the planning commission.

So the only way that the zoning would go through is if City Council approves the plan at the same time.

You cannot have a zoning case go through and have the planning part of it, the planning ass that went to the planning commission not go through.

And that's that's by law.

So the only way that if you made a recommendation for approval that it would actually be able to pass is if City Council did approve and agree with the Planning Commission recommendation to change it.

Right.

So the the actual zoning happens at commission.

This is we make a recommendation to council.

We make a recommendation to council.

Great.

I suppose the the challenge for me in making that recommendation is do I make that, you know, do we make that recommendation based on the you know expectation that the planning commission is going to so three I see three options.

We make the recommendation based on the uh uh you know the the possibility of the planning commission adopting the the recommended plan amendment.

We make you know that's option one.

Option two is we we make our recommendation based on the uh planning commission not recommending the change plan amendment.

And option three is we pick whatever we think is best.

Based on our impression of the plan of the general plan and our impression of land use principles.

And in the city of San Antonio, option three is what you should be operating under the assumption of.

Okay.

So while it's not within our purview to recommend plan changes, we should still be thinking through what we think, what plan changes we think would be best.

And then it's up to the, you know, correct.

Yeah.

Planning commissioner.

Every member of this commission should vote according to whether or not they think the proposal before you today is appropriate or inappropriate.

Planning commission will do the same.

They will vote whether they think it's appropriate or inappropriate.

And then at the end of the day, it is up to City Council to ensure that what ultimately passes or does not pass is consistent.

The zoning has to be consistent with the plan.

That is the charge of City Council.

Okay, fantastic, right?

It's not our responsibility, but we still have to consider the appropriateness of the whole proposal, including the proposed plan amendment.

Wow, thank you.

That that's really helpful.

So thank you.

All right.

Thank you so much, Commissioner Duval.

Commissioner Sipes.

Question for staff.

Um in the presentation there was mentioning there was mention of perhaps possible conditions.

And I noticed that all the properties that surround it all are C D.

I was wondering.

I tried looking up on the zoning map.

I can't figure out what the C D is.

Can you all briefly maybe explain what those for the neighboring properties are?

It looks like one of them is at least for the construction trade contractor facility.

The one on the corner.

I was going to say many of this would take time to do a zoning history on all those properties, which was not completed since it was not the subject property.

No, I understand.

I was just I was just uh curious if it was like, oh well, they all just added downward lighting and hours of operation or something simple like that.

Or but I understand.

That's fine.

Um by the way, because this is a specific use authorization request, it is available to add conditions if y'all feel fit.

Yes.

Okay.

Does the and the final question?

Um it doesn't appear, but is this in the umilitary MLO, is it it's not in an M H is it?

Okay.

All right, got it.

All right, thank you.

That's all my questions.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Sipes.

Questions to my right.

Seeing none.

All right.

Uh briefly, staff.

Uh the rec the requested zoning says specific use authorization for construction contractor facility, screening required for outdoor storage from public right-of-ways, and adjacent property except an I-2.

So that last phrase, except an I2, that's not applicable here, correct?

It is not.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just wanted to confirm that.

All right.

Uh any further questions to my left?

Seeing yes, Commissioner Duble.

Uh, on a different point.

Um, the fence, we we've referred to it as a screening fence, but could we go on Google Street View just to see what the what it looks like?

Because I when I when I go, I I see a uh chain link fence.

I and I think what I see is a chain leak fence without any uh barrier.

If I if I may.

Yeah.

During site visits, that portion appeared to be screened.

Are you referring to the section they are pointing out right now or the one that's abutting the residential property?

Oh, I'm referring to the section abutting the residential property.

So if you look on the Google street view, it makes it a little easier to see as opposed to explore.

So going off of Google Street View, I meant this is done in 2019.

So it looks like there is solid fencing along the front, but it does look like chain link with a barbed wire on the top along the um eastern side of the property, and then they do have their existing um the houses that back up to them have that solid six-foot fence.

So the the con conditions as they're currently written, would that require a change to the chain link fence or with a solid?

It would require because they would need to have screening from all adjacent properties and right-of-ways.

So yes, it would require them to put in a six-foot solid fence.

Thank you.

Or sc or as screened fence, right?

Correct.

To the properties um I mean you've got screening here and then you've got but it would have to be screened on your property.

You could not rely on other people's properties.

Got it.

So we could put screen slats into this existing foot fence and meet the requirement.

Yeah, it it would have to be screened with an approved material.

But yes, you could retrofit the existing fence to have the screening.

Okay.

Any further questions left?

Yes.

Nope.

Yes, Commissioner What's up?

I don't know if I have a question but comment, but the houses came in after those industrial properties and warehouse properties have been there.

They have been there since the 90s or even the late 80s.

And the houses were built like in 2006.

And so how do you all deal with that when now all of a sudden the warehouses have been there, the buyers knew they were there, and now you've got this conflict and saying it's no longer appropriate.

So our code does not differentiate whether or not they have to provide the screening based on who came first.

It requires the commercial property in every situation where screening is required to provide it.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none.

Questions right.

Uh question for staff, just a quick question, just for my um curiosity.

Where where is the border for between San Antonio and Holotas?

Is that like right by it?

Are you talking about the outside city limit area directly to the west?

Um so there's a oh I see it on the map.

Sorry about that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

There being no further questions.

This is a district eight case, so Commissioner Kelly, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Well, it's uh been an interesting discussion for sure.

Um and I think that uh this is not unusual.

There's so many issues where we have difficulty at the interface between commercial or retail properties and residential properties.

Unfortunately, we're often caught in the situation of trying to deal with a situation that's uh that's been foisted at a Ponispa decisions made many, many years ago.

So in view of the fact that uh there's so many other properties along Western uh what is that western, whatever.

Uh I think Western Oak.

I think that um, you know, it's obvious that like was mentioned, I think the residents came later, they knew what they were moving into.

Um I think Mr.

Cooley is not proposing anything dramatically different from what the property currently is used.

Uh it's a very similar use.

Since the residents have not expressed, you know, a lot of concern or any concern, actually.

Um, I am going to recommend that we uh approve the rezoning as requested.

Okay, there is a motion to recommend approval by Commissioner Kelly.

Is there a second?

Second by Commissioner Kellum.

Um at this point, yes, Commissioner Sipes.

Um I would like to just add a friendly amendment to uh required downward phasing lighting.

Is that accepted, Commissioner Kelly?

Quite acceptable, yes.

All right.

Is that accepted, Commissioner uh Kellum?

Yes, sir.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Uh discussion to my left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Um only that the um this problem of the uh North Sector plan not being consistent with the historic uses.

It's a problem for all these lots.

Um so we're gonna, you know, keep on the city's gonna keep on having this issue anytime it looks like any of these uh properties need to try to pivot in their business and and and change their operations.

Um but that's uh I don't think that's not a that's not a reason to not do the plan change.

Um so I think that the uh the city probably should consider changing it for everybody and not just for this property.

But I know that would be a different item, you know, with a different applicant.

All right, thank you so much.

Uh any further discussion left?

Seeing none.

Discussion right, seeing none.

Um I will be supporting the motion.

Uh I understand Commissioner Duval's concerns, but again, at the end of the day, as staff has pointed out, the job of reconciliation is not ours.

Um furthermore, given the sort of historic use and who came first, that is always something I consider.

Uh, because you know, if we are plopping down an industrial use or other heavy commercial use in a residential system, that is a far cry from residential sprouting up around existing commercial or industrial uses, um, which in this city the way we've been growing is quite common.

Uh so that being said, the motion is for approval with the additional condition of downward facing the lighting by Commissioner Kelly, second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Losef?

Yes.

Commissioner?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Witsett.

Yes.

Commissioner Padna?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Good luck to you.

City Council in six months.

All right.

Our next item is item number six, please.

And thank you to the mics for being here as always.

Good afternoon, Alexa Ratana, zoning planner with development services.

Item number six is located at 7D 95 Hurman Road, going from R20 residential single family district with the conditional use for an assisted living facility up to 16 residents to C2 and A commercial non-alcoholic sales district with the conditional use for construction contractor facility with all overlays staying the same.

There were 12 notices sent out, zero in favors, or opposed within 200 feet and right commons community organization gave no response.

The existing R20 residential single family district with the conditional use for an assisted living facility up to 16 residents is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C2 and ACD commercial district with the conditional use for construction contractor facility is not the subject property previously had a residential dwelling unit that was recently demolished.

Introducing the proposed zoning would not only further remove any residential character from the neighborhood, but also contribute to the gradual industrial encroachment.

Additionally, common land use principles recommend that intense uses are separated by lower intense uses to buffer and reduce the impact on residential areas.

Staff recommends denial, and the applicant is here to answer any questions and amend their site plan.

All right, very good.

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

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission.

My name is Gus Gonzalez, uh GGE engineering as the owner's representative.

This property was originally rezoned to the 16-bed assisted living, a R20 uh with a conditional use for 16-bed.

The property was sold at approximately that parse high, I believe it was approximately $850,000 to the new owner.

That was done approximately a year ago.

This new owner is a commercial contractor, vertical construction, not none, no pipeline, no road road construction, anything like that.

So at the cost as as a developer, as as at the cost of of uh developing a property, you got to consider the land value.

So what what we had proposed here, what he has proposed is simply an office space and some inside warehouse.

It would be a typical resident or a typical office, uh Waynesco brick exterior um simple uh flat roof.

And with uh no outside storage, uh parking, uh it's got a septic tank.

To the right of it is a C2, a conditional use for contractors facility that they're using as a contractor.

To the left is a R-20.

It's a small uh residential structure that's been there a while.

Uh to the behind is an elementary school uh or a school uh with a very tall uh 10-foot block fence to the to the so the idea was simply to have an office space for his use.

Normally in commercial construction, uh all the materials are drops uh drop shipped to the site for commercial building.

Uh they're not gonna store any material, they're warehouses simply for uh office supply, small minor tools and and any uh small pertinences.

As you can see by the site plan, uh interior, can you bring up the site the the site plan and the building plan?

I think I have one here as well.

Yeah.

So this is this is a site plan, 20 spaces, warehouse, I mean office in the back, warehouse in the front, uh typical retail, basically storefront with uh dumpster in the back.

Um and so uh uh it was just again, he bought the property not wanting to do any assisted living.

It just the numbers just didn't work, obviously, and he's a contractor and he wanted to use it for different if you're familiar with Howerman Road, it's off I-10 on the northwest side.

It's more uh it's it's more commercial industrial.

That that road is kind of uh sparsely populated to the to the to like I said, elementary school.

Uh there is some residential to the south, but um it it if it doesn't go C2 with the contractor's office, uh I don't you can't, I'm not sure you can go to I-1 and then uh and and the land value is just too absorbent to go put in a a residential structure there.

I mean to go in and put in a house.

So it just doesn't co that house would not conform to that neighborhood or that that street.

So uh we feel strongly that the this this will not be contracted to the public interest.

It supports the economic economic development by enabling a small business to operate in a manner consistent with the surrounding commercial uses.

Um again, it's office space and interior storage of materials.

Um it will not permanently injure or pro uh injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming properties.

Uh I think it's in harmony of the spirit of the purpose of conditional uses as outlined in 35422.

But again, I I just don't see if we can't get a uh a commercial contractor's office.

Uh I'm not sure what what would be the best use for that property, so you have a some sort of a return on on uh investment.

So that's that's kind of my presentation.

Uh can we bring up the aerial so that the commission can see uh that that piece of property?

Yes.

So to the right is is a is a small structure used to to to uh for contractors.

You can see to the right of them is a large uh contractor with outside storage.

In the back is an elementary school or large elementary school.

Uh and then over to the left at the intersection of Babcock and Howriman again is is more contractor services.

And so I'm available to answer any of your questions.

All right.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Gonzalez.

Is there any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, very good.

Uh in that case, again, this is a district eight case, so Commissioner Kelly, to you for questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I went by there, uh I live nearby and uh went by there a couple of weeks ago and realized that the property had already been basically set up for redevelopment as the uh applicant is proposing.

Um I guess he assumed that the zoning would be would be approved.

I don't uh you know it's kind of interesting that he went forward before he had the zoning results in.

But I do uh that that uh stretch of Howerman from the I 10 frontage road going west uh to its intersection with a street that goes in front of the Frederick Friedrich Park, Wilderness Park there.

It's about six tenths of a mile, and there's two large uh building supply places, one on the corner at the west end, and then one in about mid-block.

There's as you get closer to uh 10, there's uh actually at I 10, there's a Lincoln dealership there.

So there are some there are some apartments that are filtered in there too.

So I believe I'm correct uh if I didn't miss something driving through there this morning.

I think there's one residential property in that six-tenths of a mile stretch.

Um it's uh it's uh adjacent, but uh so I don't know.

I think again we're in a situation where we're having uh difficulty trying to uh properly address the interface between residential and and commercial.

Uh most uh as you said, I don't think any new resident would be built there, residence.

Uh there are a lot of apartment complexes surrounding that area.

Uh so that sort of you know, residential would be there, but not single family.

So uh it is kind of a difficult situation when you have a small par property like that trying to find uh reasonable use for it.

So I think that's my questions at this point.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions?

Uh to my left, yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh to staff, I see that there was a demolition permit uh issued April 2025.

Um was that the extent of the uh recent permitting history for the property?

Yes.

So that was the most recent permit was the demolition permit.

And there have there haven't been so I guess before that, um here on the aerial view, you can see this temporary office space.

So they did also get permits for a temporary meter as well.

Okay.

And that's for the power that's going on there.

But to confirm there wasn't any unpermitted work.

Um not to my knowledge.

Great.

Perfect.

Um the uh on Google Street View, the uh adjacent property to the left, the uh what is that, R20 property?

I saw their uh mailboxes, Flores on it.

So I'm gonna guess the Flores family.

Yeah.

Did you all get in touch with them?

No, we we we went with when we went through the process before they they didn't respond one way or the other.

Uh the original uh zoning change.

And so yeah, we have not heard from them at all, one way or the other.

Matter of fact, he he bought the property from the Flores family.

Or I should say the original, the owner previous to this one bought it from the Flores family.

Oh, so the current so the applicant purchased it from the Flores family?

No, the the previous owner purchased it from the floor family and then Yeah, Mr.

Pope sold it to uh DJ S resources.

So what what is the notice process entail in this case?

What did it entail to reach out?

Uh normally they uh the zoning zoning uh department goes 200 feet from every corner, sends a notice to them, sends an axe asks them to submit either an opposition or approval or endorsement of this project.

Uh there were none either way, favored or uh opposed.

So just to clarify that it's mailed, right?

Or is it dropped off?

Mailed notices.

So we can assume then the Flores family at least were sent to their address notice and had that opportunity.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Kellum.

Just qu question to staff, folks.

So when you issue a demolition permits.

Is the assumption, I guess we know that the the um the zoning goes with the land, right?

But is the assumption when we when the demolition department is issued that uh it's going to be it's gonna be the a similar use as it was before, or is it just a roll of the dice to see if zoning changes?

Not necessarily.

When they are submitting for a demolition permit, uh we do get a technical review, but of Office of Historic Preservation does a review.

We don't really stop people from demoing their own buildings if they like to as long as OHP approves it.

So we don't look at the use itself would not be considered.

Gotcha.

Yeah, I think uh I'll I'll just add I think sometimes an applicant may share more details about what they are planning to do, but not not always.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Kelly Commissioner Kellum.

Not even Mr.

even Dr.

Kellum.

Jeez.

Like I said, I'm still on vacation.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Questions right?

Yes, Commissioner Hinahosa.

Uh yes.

Question for Ms.

Ratana.

Um is there any code violations uh at the property?

There were no code violations.

And then for the applicant, uh did y'all uh start work ready or is it just a demo part that you guys are?

Tell me about that.

Yeah, uh Mr.

Bridgers, the owner of DJS.

We we were not involved in any form or fashion as an owner's rep on the zoning case to what he was doing on the property.

So we we were not in contact with him or advised him in any way to go ahead and demo or proceed with that.

That was on his own accord.

So he did that, you know, on his own thinking.

Understood.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um any further questions right?

Seeing none.

All right.

I guess my question is uh we do have an amended site plan for this.

What has changed in the site plan?

Uh uh, well, the original entrance road was on the left hand, uh on the left side of the building.

We flipped it over to the right side.

Uh there is a you can see there's a strip that R20 watch where she has her arrow.

How do you work this thing?

There should be a button.

Yeah, there you go.

Yeah, this little strip, there was always a debate of who owned this little strip.

This one is Mr.

Floors, and the floors owns this one, but there is like a 20-foot strip.

So we moved this this roadway here to to the to the right of the property.

Uh this is the back side, and then of course there's there's an another, there's another strip here, a buffer, but this is a buffer, and then this is a road, and then this is the contract.

So we just basically flipped uh the entrance from one side to the other.

And added that 15-foot buffer, correct?

Uh.

Absolutely, yes.

All right, very good.

All right.

I don't have any further questions.

Uh last go around.

Questions to my left?

Saying none.

Oh, Commissioner Kelly.

Uh quick question.

Uh or is this a situation where we could uh impose conditions?

Yes.

Yes, it's a conditional use request, so you can add conditions.

Okay.

Uh have you all considered the lighting or maybe?

You're uh absolutely no, we haven't considered it at this point.

We're just in preliminary phase for architectural, but certainly we're always imminable to any kind of and I understand your concerns, but yeah, we we those can be uh uh directed any which way you you guarantee.

Okay.

I think that would be good.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Kelly.

Uh staff to you question MLOD1 already requires certain lighting requirements, correct?

Ninety-degree facing lighting.

Okay.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Questions right?

All right, seeing none.

Commissioner Kelly, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Well, once again, we're back uh in an issue of trying to uh find the right solution for an interface between residential or desired residential and commercial or industrial.

Um I think given that the this portion of Hirman a lot of these the commercial development occurred, I believe, before this area was was uh annexed into the city.

I believe that happened in 1998.

Um I don't know if you all have the record, but I live just down the road in the neighborhood that I live in was annexed in 1998, so I'm thinking that was when this area was annexed.

So prior to that, the properties were all out in the county, and unfortunately, in my opinion, the legislature doesn't give the county enough uh zoning power to control things peripheral to existing cities, which is unfortunate.

But so, you know, we're kinda in a situation where we've got two large uh building supply companies along there.

We've got other um you know commercial activities as well, and apartments as we go further down the street ending up with a dealership there.

So uh as difficult as the situation is, I think I'm going to uh uh support the idea of approving this request.

All right.

Uh is that a motion to recommend approval?

Sorry.

All right.

There's a motion to approve recommend approval of item number six.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

All right.

There is a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Discussion left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

So uh when I look at uh Google maps, if we say West Hoyerman, the four lots on the west end of Hoyerman, you've got building materials, this property, contractor, and then the one residential lot that's a pretty substantial size lot.

So you know we we talk about residential neighborhood, but it I mean it already is very much an area in transition.

Um and there's a relatively uh small number of stakeholders.

There's residential, you know, on the far side closer to the the freeway.

Um but at least here on this road, right?

You've got ranch land on one side and these uses on the other side.

Um so more so than it being a concern about an existing residential neighborhood.

I'm really just kind of concerned about the flores.

Um so I'd uh you know I uh we can't condition this, but uh you know I'd recommend before going to uh before it goes to council to to reach out to the Flores's and just get their feedback, because the one thing that I could see this going wrong is if the Flores is for whatever reason didn't want to be surrounded by uh building materials and and and contractors.

But if they don't care, well then you know, then that it's a kind of a mood issue because that's already the direction this side of the street seems to be going.

So but with that I'll be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

All right.

Discussion left, seeing none.

Discussion right, seeing none.

All right.

The motion is for approval of item number six by Commissioner Kelly with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Inojosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh the next item on our agenda is approval of minutes.

Consideration and approval of the March 3rd, 2026 zoning commission minutes.

Are there any changes?

Any addition edits?

Anything people want to add to the minutes?

Looking left, seeing none, looking right, seeing none.

All right.

The floor is now open for a motion.

Motion to approve as submitted.

I second it.

And that was Commissioner Sipes.

Okay.

There is a motion to approve the minutes as submitted by Commission Commissioner Sipes with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

This can be done by acclamation.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

All right.

Any abstentions?

Hearing none.

All right.

Uh the minutes are approved.

Is there a director's report?

Um just two items.

So as per City Council request, uh, we are going to be doing a briefing on UDC amendments related to the construction and operation of detention facilities within city limits.

It will be um added to our work session and our agenda for our next meeting on 4-7.

So you guys will be notified and given uh prior documentation.

Um that.

And then lastly, this is our last meeting with voicemails.

So it will go into effect starting April 1st.

So I just wanted to let you all know that last though, at least our last voicemail seemed pretty jovial this meeting around.

So going out with a bang.

All right.

Um, I would ask a clarifying question.

Yes, Commissioner Duble, you may.

Uh for the work session.

So is that we're going to be presented to during the work session, or does that involve us making a recommendation on the staff?

The recommendation will be during the public meeting, the meeting itself, not work session, but we could present.

We will be doing a briefing just to give you input.

But again, we will be sending you prior documentation.

And the hearing or the the hearing on the item will be at the same session as the work session.

It will be during the public meeting after the work session.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

So I did hear you say you're going to send us prior documentation.

Do you have any idea what you're going to send us at this point?

It'll most likely be the UDC amendments.

Yeah, at this point in time it's still being finalized, but we'll make sure that you have copies of whatever it is that will be presented in advance.

All right.

Any further questions regarding the director's report?

Commissioner Sipes.

Will we be starting at noon versus 1230?

I'm just saying it's been a long time since we've had like a presentation where we've in a lot of more you know newer commissioners.

Yeah.

Let's go ahead and do it.

Yes.

I mean, just keep keep in mind that the purpose of a work session is not to deliberate, it's certainly to ask questions.

So if you feel that that is an item that you're going to need additional time for, um I don't think that they're going to be extensive amendments.

Um but we can certainly play it safe and move it up to noon if you all feel that's appropriate.

That works.

All right.

Um any further questions of director's report looking right, seeing none.

All right.

In that case, the time is 2.16.

This meeting of the zoning commission of the City of San Antonio is adjourned.