Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If we could please have our Spanish interpretation services statement.

Good afternoon.

When start this.

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.

The time is 101, 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 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.

Um John Kelly, I represent District 8.

Danny Killum, District 1.

John Whitsett, District 10.

Moses Duval, District 9.

Mia Losef, District 2.

Ken Huly, District 6.

George Inohosa, District 3.

Eddie Pete Rodriguez, District 4.

Morse Ganpana, Mayor's appointee.

Staff, is a quorum present.

Yes, the quorum is present.

All right, very good.

If everyone would 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.

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.

And 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 and 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 and against a proposed rezoning, you will be called in the order that you have signed up to speak.

Those in support and 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 who are giving up their time must be present and signed in to speak, and you must please announce that when that speaker is going up to the podium that you are yielding your time.

Do we have any withdrawn or postponed items today?

We do not.

Item number six, a request for a change of zoning from C2 and R4 to C2, located at 5334 San Pedro Avenue.

All other overlays to remain the same.

27 notices mailed, three in favor, zero post.

Oldmost Park Terrace, North Central Neighborhood Associations and San Antonio, Texas District 1 Residence Association gave no response.

Item number eight, a request for a change of zoning from I 1 to C2, located at 1265 South WW White Road, all other overlays to remain the same.

24 notices mailed, one in favor, zero post, and Del Crest Area Neighborhood Association is opposed.

Hine Orchard Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item number nine, a request for a change of zoning from MF33S with a specific use authorization for adult day care and R5 to R5S with a specific use authorization for child care facility, 7 to 12 children, located at 111 Dunough Street.

All other overleas to remain the same.

36 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

Eastwood Village Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item 11.

A request for a change of zoning from C2S with a specific use authorization for hotel to C2S with a specific use authority authorization for medical hospital taller than 35 feet when unable to achieve additional height pursuant to 35-517D setbacks for height increases.

Generally located in the 6,300 block of South West Loop 410, all other releases remain the same.

43 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Heather's Cove HOA and Springville NA gave no response.

The applicant will be amending their site plan.

Item number 12.

A request for a change of zoning from O2 to C1, located at 230 Bereita Drive.

All other overlays to remain the same.

41 notices mailed, three in favor, zero opposed.

King William Neighborhood Association and San Antonio, Texas, District 1 Residence Association gave no response.

Outside of 200 feet, one in favor.

Item 14, a request for a change of zoning from MXD with uses permitted in C2, 40 live work lofty units, alcohol bar and tavern with cover charge three or more days per week, and commercial parking lot two, MXD with uses permitted in C2, 40 live work unit lofts, live entertainment with cover charge three or more days per week, not including food service establishment, alcohol bar and or tavern with cover charge three or more days per week.

Entertainment venue indoor tattoo parlor studio and parking lot, commercial with major site plan amendment, located at 215 Coca-Cola Place, all other remain the same.

13 notices mailed, two in favor, zero post.

Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item 16, a request for a change of zoning from R4 to R4 C D with a conditional use for two dwelling units located at 664 Thompson Place.

All other overlays to remain.

26 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

Palm Heights Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Item 17, a request for a change of zoning from R6 to MF18, located at 4118 and 422 Altitude Drive.

All other overlays to remain the same.

15 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

Lackland Terrace Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item 18, a request for a change of zoning from R4 to RM5, located at 116 Pablo Blanco Street.

All other overlays to remain the same.

37 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

Roseville Park Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Item 25, a request for a change of zoning from I-1 and C3NA to C3NA, located at 1080 3 Parambital Road.

All other overlays to remain.

14 notices mailed, one in favor, zero post.

There is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

A request for a change of zoning from R6 to M F 33, located on the 4400 block of Warsbach Road, all other overlays to remain.

48 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

There is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item 28, a request for a change of zoning from MF 40, C2, C2S with a specific use of authorization for hotel and C3 to MF 18, located at 6435 West Military Drive, all other overlays to remain the same.

11 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero post.

There is no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

And we do have speakers for item number 12.

Very good.

I was gonna ask for public comment this week.

You stole my thunder.

If we could have any public comment, please.

Rollerful Garcia.

Sir.

Come on up.

And he's here for item number 12.

Very good.

If you would introduce yourself, give us your address and tell us your thoughts on item number twelve.

Item number twelve Rodolfo Garcia and I am at George Hero Jason Property.

Yeah, come a little closer.

Make sure the microphone is on.

And I'm sorry, sir.

I'm gonna ask you to repeat that.

Rodolfo Garcia and uh 13 Cedar adjacent to uh that property.

Uh I see it's listed as an in as a commercial property.

Any idea as to what type of business they're looking at?

Uh sir, I do not offhand.

Uh I'm gonna recommend that you speak to Alexa Ratana, sorry, Ms.

Rathana's back there, and she can answer those questions.

You will have the chance to address city council if you have concerns.

Um before that hearing occurs and during that hearing.

Yeah, that that location, of course, is Beethoven Hall, you know.

I mean Fiesta, that's uh would look like a very busy this time of year at the very least.

Exactly.

So we're trying to find out what entity, hopefully it's not gonna be like a uh rescue animal shelter.

Well, it wouldn't it wouldn't be that, sir.

I can tell you that, uh, given the C1 designation.

Okay, but Ms.

Ratana will help you out right over there.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And that's it for public comment.

All right, very good.

Do we have the applicant for item number 11, please?

Or applicant's representative.

No.

Nope.

Come on up.

Sorry, sir.

Um I should have given you a warning.

Uh you have a you have submitted an amended site plan for this item?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh and that is what you want uh the site plan to be for this application?

Correct.

With the hammerhead from Heather's place, uh, but not entering or not at providing access to the party.

No access.

All right, very good.

Thank you so much.

All right.

At this time, uh I will entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes, Commissioner Huey.

Move to approve the following items.

Items number six, eight, nine, eleven as amended, twelve, fourteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, twenty-five, twenty-seven, and twenty-eight.

All right, is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Hina Hospital.

Uh discussion.

Looking left, seeing none.

Looking right, seeing none.

Uh the motion is for approval of items 689, 11 is amended 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25, 27, and 28.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Callum?

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Wetsa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you were here for any of those items we just talked about, and you have no interest in spending the next four hours with us, um, you are free to go.

So you are moving on to city council.

You have six months to do so.

And have a great day.

Enjoy the lovely weather.

All right.

Uh once these folks clear out, we will move on to our continuance docket.

Um, staff, if we could talk about our continuance docket for the hearing on April 21st, 2026, please.

Items request on continuing to the April 21st meeting, are one, two, five, seven, ten, and twenty-six.

All right.

The floor is open for a motion.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Hui.

Move to continue the following items.

Items number one, two, five, seven, ten, and twenty-six.

All right, and there's a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

All right.

Um items to be removed from that.

Looking left.

Seeing none.

Looking right, seeing none.

The motion is for a continuance of items one, two, five, seven, ten, and twenty-six to the April 21st, 2026 zoning commission meeting.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner I know?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Wetsa.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

If you uh were listed in that in that list of cases, uh, we will see you in two weeks.

And good luck.

Have a great day.

All right.

We are now moving on to our continuance hearing for the May 5th, 2026.

Items requesting a continuous before weeks are is item number four.

All right.

Is there a motion?

Commissioner Losa.

We'll go to you.

Uh motion to continue item four to the May 5th hearing.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Duval.

Uh motion is.

I'm sorry.

Any discussion looking left, seeing none.

Looking right, seeing none.

Motion is for a continuance to the May 5th, 2026 meeting for item number four.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Lothaff?

Yes.

Commissioner Dubal?

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Inoza?

Yes.

Commissioner P Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodsett.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

If you're here for that item.

See you on May 5th.

All right.

We are now moving on to our individual uh consideration docket.

We will begin with item number three.

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

Item number three is located at 2520 McCullough Avenue, going from C2 commercial district to IDZ1, limited intensity, infilled development zone with uses permitted in C1 like Commercial District, and a wine boutique with all overlays staying the same.

There were 84 notices sent out, two in favor, ten opposed within 200 feet.

Tobin Hill Community Neighborhood Association is neutral.

Monte Vista His Corical Historical Neighborhood Association is opposed in San Antonio, Texas, District 1 resident association gave no response.

Outside the 200 feet, there are five opposed.

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

The proposed IDZ1, limited intensity infill development zone with uses permitted in C1 like commercial district and a wine boutique is also appropriate.

The proposed zoning is request is requested to relieve parking requirements for the existing business.

Although there is on-site parking and recorded parking agreements, further reduction is necessary to meet UDC requirements.

The zoning change would be considered a down zoning, allowing for lighter commercial uses intended to serve the adjacent neighborhood.

The request will be held to a submitted site plan, which indicates no proposed expansion beyond the existing building footprint.

Staff recommends approval and the applicant is here to answer any questions and amend their proposal to IDZ1 with uses permitted in C1 like commercial district, removing the wine boutique use from the request.

All right, if we could have the applicant, please.

And if you would say your name and your address and then tell us about your project.

And basically on the site plan, uh the electrical box that we first used to build out the kitchen in unit 102 isn't enough electricity to push the ovens we need to make granola now.

Basically, we just started making our granola this year.

And to get an electrical box put in to unit 101.

We basically had to you know replat and then get all the addressing changed.

And then now you know that after we don't you know need to pull a permit, we need to get it you know passed with traffic, and we already have a parking lot agreement in place that we can't break that's tied in you know with an SBA loan anyways.

And I think some people were concerned about you know there not being enough parking if we broke that, but uh you know, Monday through Friday, we have 19 parking spaces available, you know, which meets the minimum standard on weekends.

I think we have uh I think it's like 36 because we can use the you know the whole parking lot like next door, and basically we just need that electrical box there so they can you know sign off on traffic and pull an electric uh permit to get a whole new breaker box put in for the ovens.

Thank you, Mr.

Fornell.

Um why don't you go ahead and take a seat in the front row?

I think we're gonna have some public comment and you can rebut to that.

Rebut that is what I meant to say.

All right.

Any public comment?

Yes, we do.

We have speakers.

All right.

We only have speakers.

We only have speakers.

Bianca Maldonello.

All right.

Is there anyone else that is going to be yielding their time today?

All right.

Ms.

Maldonella, who did you yield your time to?

Drea Gardasov.

Mr.

Garça, if you'd like to come up.

Ms.

Garson.

And Ms.

Garza, you'll have six minutes, your name and your address, please.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Drea Garza, and my address is 430 for drive.

But I also own apartment number 319 at the Mayfair condominiums located at 2420 McCullough Avenue.

I serve on the board of the Mayfair Condo Homeowners Association.

However, the role of the board is limited to fiduciary responsibilities and does not comment on cases.

So these comments are my own.

I am here to express my opposition to the change in zoning.

I very much appreciate efforts to down zone properties adjacent to single family and multifamily properties, but in this instance, a change in zoning disrupts the delicate balance we have with respect to traffic patterns, pedestrians, parking, and introduces zoning inconsistent with that of nearby properties.

I am sure you are familiar with this area of McCullough Avenue.

The Mayfair is on the edge of the Tobin Hill Community Association and a few blocks from the Monte Vista Historical Association boundaries.

Mayfair is at the literally the T of Woodlawn Avenue and McCullough, with Woodlawn and Mistletoe forming our borders.

We are at a unique crossroads, and this stretch of McCullough has it all: a post office, a school, single family homes, multifamily housing, offices, and restaurants.

And that is just along two blocks.

What it does not have is plentiful parking, deep setbacks, and adequate crosswalks.

Many of the email and written comments you received focus on parking.

That is the most tangible concern, but you know this is not just about parking.

IDZ zoning with less restrictions will convey.

Looking to the future, we have the green line and the Todd overlays to also consider as we fall within the one mile walk shed.

We have no way to guess how that will impact through traffic or parking, and traffic calming studies and initiatives by the Transportation Department did not extend to our blocks.

In short, we are pressured on all sides.

But a zoning change isn't in the best interest of our neighborhood.

Right now, parking agreements exist to meet the C2 requirements, and the applicant will continue the agreements for the foreseeable future as they are tied to financing requirements.

But what about after?

There is no way to guarantee the parking agreements remain in perpetuity, and such agreements would not convey with the sale of any property.

Beyond the loss of parking conveniences, what is the potential cost to the residents?

Mayfair has parking capacity for residents.

However, we do rely on public on-street parking for guests, service vehicles, deliveries, and much more often for home health care providers, as the majority of residents and owners are seniors and aging in place.

We have to consider the life safety concerns.

In the event of an emergency, police, EMS, and FIRE need easy access, especially for a multifamily property.

How would this be affected if there were no parking availability and more cars along the stretch of mistletoe and woodlawn?

Maybe it would be different if there were traffic analyses or an actual plan to address the glut of cars and lack of accessible property uh accessible parking in the urban core, or if we achieved safe walkable streets, maybe we finally got moving on that long delayed near North Community Plan.

But the reality is that right now we don't have any of that.

So I ask that you please consider opposing the change to the zoning and allow the current zoning with the accompanying parking agreements to remain in place.

Keeping the current zoning would still enable the needed kitchen renovations, even if it were to mean expanding the parking lot parking agreements that are in place, but it would cause the least disruption to the surrounding community and help us maintain the imperfect but functioning balance that we have today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Garsa.

Any further public comment?

Yes.

Janice Clayton.

Good afternoon, everybody.

I'm Janice Clayton.

I live at 2420 McCullough, the May Fair, apartment 202.

And my husband and I have owned this condo for five years.

And I'm here today to speak on behalf of everybody who lives up and down McCullough Avenue and particularly the Mayfair to say that I am in opposition to the change in zoning for our neighborhood.

Let's keep it at C2.

One of the joys and pleasures of inner city life is a balance between automobiles, bicycles, and people.

In fact, fewer cars zipping up and down Mistletoe, McCullough.

So thank you everybody for your interest and your commitment to San Antonio as a humane and beautiful city.

So thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Clayton.

Tony Garcia.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Tony Garcia.

I live at 243 East Weesech here in San Antonio, Texas.

I chair the zoning committee for the Monte Vista Historical Association.

The Monte Vista Historical Association supports economic development in the neighborhood, as can be seen by the multitude of businesses in the southern part of Malta Vista.

That being said, we support the efforts of the applicant in developing the property to include a kitchen expansion to make granola bars for their future business.

But we also support a sensitive and rational approach to zoning when a business coexist in residential area.

For this application, we do not support the request for IDC one, which is the eliminates the parking requirements for this operation.

We believe residents in the immediate area have expressed their concerns regarding parking.

We feel that the applicants should continue with their current cooperative parking agreement with a legal firm across the alley and believe it will address their parking needs for their expanding services.

So there is no need for IDZ1.

As we know the zoning stays for the property when it's sold.

Therefore, we oppose the zoning application as currently submitted.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr.

Garcia.

Luis Scardanis.

Over to my name is Lewis Cardinus.

I'm located at 2500 McCullough, so we're right next door.

We share a property line.

We've been there for 16 plus years.

And I'm opposed to this rezoning.

Because you know, we've been there.

Um we've had a few different neighbors throughout the years, um, but never had issues with safety like we are running today, and traffic issues and parking.

Um I'm all about small businesses.

I'm a small business, I've had a small business for 25 years, a nonprofit next door as well for 10 years.

Um I'm about growth in our city, but it's also about being responsible and and taking care of your neighbors.

And what we're experiencing at 2500 is not taking care of the neighborhood.

Uh since Rise Up has moved in, we've had parking issues, um issues and issues with parking over and over, and it's about safety for us.

We could put signs up, didn't work.

We have to put cones up, doesn't work.

Uh we had to hire a tone company for the traffic and parking.

Kind of worked, but you know, it is what it is.

Um we you finally had to put a fence on the in the back of our uh parking lot to um cut through all the traffic and use of our our property.

Um that has slowed it down.

Um but with with properties or the parking zone limited, uh, as the applicant has mentioned, uh the attorneys that they rent spaces from has also put up signs uh limiting where their customers can park.

They're getting a headache.

Across the street extra fine has also put up signs limiting parking because they cross the street.

And when I say cross the street, it's safety.

There it's an accident waiting to be happened.

You know, they park up and down McCullough, and you guys know how busy McCullough is.

Um with new businesses they are proposing, it will only increase the need for more parking plus traffic in you know in this area.

Um so what can you guys do to help us, you know, in helping these neighbors to protect our property, the safety of our our visitors, our kids that come to our property that almost have been hit multiple times.

Um signs on McCullough, I don't know.

Speed bunts down the alley that you know people you know, you know, drive pretty quick down.

I don't know, um, have rise up in the new venture address these issues with the customers, uh train customers where to park not to park, you know, which really doesn't seem feasible.

Um so what I'm asking is you guys um you know, where are we now with with the safety of of this you know this area, and again I oppose.

Thank you, Mr.

Cardinus.

That is it for public comment on this item.

All right, very good.

Mr.

Farnell, uh a brief rebuttal.

Come on up.

Sorry, like basically, as far as like people that buy smoothies being dangerous, like that's straightforward not the case.

Like people just go in and buy smoothies and there hasn't been any problems, there hasn't any been uh violent altercations or fights or anything like that there the entire time we've been there.

And then uh basically back about the you know parking lot agreement being broken.

I I don't know how to explain it like really clear, like that parking lot agreement is beneficial to me, and like even if you gave me five million dollars, I'm not gonna pay off that loan and get rid of that parking lot agreement.

Like it's gonna be there for at least 30 years.

All right, thank you so much.

All right.

This is a district one case.

Commissioner Kellum, to you for questions.

Um to staff.

Alexa.

So what could they do, or could they could they get the the expansion that they need and have the business that he's intending with a different zoning?

Um when they put in the commercial project application for that kitchen, uh because this property is addressed separately as unit 101 and unit 102.

Um that's why the review got stopped was because they need adequate parking for both units, even though they're technically only utilizing one unit for the retail establishment.

So as it currently exists.

No, they they would need the IDZ to alleviate that um unless there was other parking agreements that could be made, but I'm not sure if that that would be up to the applicant.

Mr.

Farnell.

I'm gonna have you come up.

Mr.

Farnell, you might just want to sit in the front row.

Okay, so like basically if you see the parking lot the way it is now, it wasn't always like that.

It was basically when we bought it a one way through there, until a fence was put in.

And you know, it I have a picture of it here, but like basically there used to be a tree and storage room, like in the in the parking lot, and after the fence went in, like basically people couldn't like drive in and then back out, like you know, 80 feet, you know, to get off our parking lot.

So we uh remove the tree.

Yeah, there it is.

Yeah, that one tree, like right there on the right hand side, we got rid of that.

And then the yeah, and you can see that little white square.

Oh, okay.

Oh, cool.

Yeah, so basically that fence went right there, and we took out that tree with all the uh steps right there.

We took out that storage unit, and we basically, you know, while you know we were still open, we basically had to like rip out our entire parking lot after that fence went up, and we redid it to where you know we had more parking spaces after that.

And that was like the other kind of thing that was after that.

Is like, you know, if you take into consideration after the parking lot remodel, we technically already have enough parking to use this for you know two employees to make granola, like if you wanted to like look at it that way.

But yeah, but we zap that if you go back and you know, because that's off of Google Maps right now, like it was we recently made all those changes.

I mean, like we've redone all the parking spaces, and we have our dumpster right there.

So, like technically, I mean, I could do something and move the dumpster to where we could wheel it out and empty it and get an extra parking space or something like that, but it's just better, you know, for the you know, the the uh trash guy to be able to just come in, he grabs the trash, empties it, and then leaves.

Like then that's what they're doing right now.

But we could technically move to like a smaller trash can that they empty like three or four times a week and get another parking space if we had to.

But yeah, that's about it.

The answer my question, sure.

All right, thank you so much, Commissioner Kellan.

All right, any further questions to my left?

Yes, uh Commissioner Duval and then Commissioner Subs.

Um first question, forgive me for not understanding as uh the details might be a simple answer, but uh why couldn't we just rezone the parcel that has the uh addition IDZ and leave the existing zoning with the parking requirements on the other parcel?

I'm sorry, so you're saying leave the parking well I'm sorry, they're they're two separate parcels, correct?

It's what it's one building with two parcels.

So couldn't we have separate zoning?

It could be a possibility to do one unit as a separate zoning, but he would need to get field notes um which could take some time and effort, money so but I suppose that could just try to brainstorm that could be a compromise to keep the parking requirements on the old structure and just have IDZ on the uh the the second parcel and not have parking requirements on the second parcel.

This is just a hypothetical, I'm just brainstorming.

Mr.

Farnell, um I'm gonna ask you to come up.

I think this is relevant to this.

Did you mention that you re-platted this property?

Yeah, so like when we came in, like when we came in to initially get our first rounds of permits, we had to reply so that entire building's one parcel.

Yeah, because like we went in by all.

Yeah, and the traffic the first time made us replat, and that's another I mean, because it's been going on three years.

Like, like that's basically why we had to like that it's kind of turned into what it is now.

We had to reply to get it.

Yes, Steph, that's sorry, it wasn't relevant.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yeah, sorry.

Um thank thank you, Chair.

That was important.

Uh general question about IDZ.

Um, I think it's such an interesting zoning mechanism.

Uh so does IDZ always waive the parking requirement?

Certain IZ IDZs do IDZ one does waive it 100%, but IDZ two and three, they waive it 50%.

And I mean it seems like this would be a a reoccurring problem on a lot of IDZ projects, right?

If you waive the parking requirement, neighbors are concerned about parking, it creates you know creates a conflict that we have to overcome.

So what were the policy considerations that led the council originally to adopt those reduced parking requirements?

So IDZ was created in the early 2000s, kind of with the express goal of making redevelopment of inner city parcels easier.

Uh there were a lot of obstacles to the development of those lots.

So the city, when it first adopted IDZ.

Is that better?

When it when we first adopted IDZ zoning, it waived um all parking for all districts.

Um back in 2017 or 2018, there was a request from council to kind of rein in what IDZ is allowed to do, and it was at that time that we broke IDZ zoning into three tiers, uh, IDZ one, two, and three.

The thought process at the time that the task force was considering it is that on parcels that would qualify for IDZ two and three, you're almost certainly looking at parcels that are a little bit larger.

You're almost certainly looking at parcels that are a little bit larger.

So the rules were changed to only reduce parking by half what rather than waive it entirely.

But for IDZ 1, the full um waiver, the 100% reduction in required parking was retained because council felt that there were still parcels out there that might need that flexibility.

So that was kind of the original and then the update.

And in addition to flexibility, was there any consideration about multimodal transportation?

Public like was it envisioning using this tool in areas where we're trying to encourage other modes of transportation other than cars, or was that not was that outside the scope?

I mean I I would say there was certainly consideration, but I would not frame IDZ as a precursor to TOD.

I wouldn't go that far.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Duval, no further questions.

Commissioner Sipes?

Question for staff, and that's regarding the um the site plan.

Um so IDZ requires a site plan.

The parking that's shown on the site plan would be required as well, correct?

That is correct.

Would the and then there's the note about the parking agreement.

That would become part of the of it.

It's in that little box.

You might have to zoom in.

Um on the right hand side.

Right there.

There you go.

Eight additional per provided through parking agreement.

Is that my overall question is does that ensure the the comment was made about the parking agreements conveying with the sale of the property?

Would the note plus the parking lot that's currently shown, would that be sufficient to the reason why I'm kind of hesitant, just because we have for site plan amendments, if it if that comment was to go away, would this be considered a minor site plan amendment or a major site plan amendment?

And would that need with a major site plan amendment, you would need to go to to go through this whole process again.

Basically, with the site plan, we would regulate what is on site.

And that kind of goes that comment honestly kind of goes out of purview of this zoning site plan, to be honest.

Are you asking for a future potential tenants?

Yes.

Yes, because the concern was made that that you know that right now there's a there's a parking agreement, but with the change in zoning, you know, if this conveys, you know, if the if it's sold in the future, then then that parking agreement doesn't apply.

And I was wondering if it applies to the other.

Or accept some sort of reduced parking.

But we're going to IDZ.

With IDZ, it waves it, and no, it would not be enforceable that note.

But what is on the site plan, those parking spaces, what are they like 10 of them or more would be enforceable.

Okay, got it.

Not quite what I want about.

All right.

Okay.

Um I think that's no, I'm I think I'm done.

All right.

You can you can jump on it.

We got another go-round, so you can you can ponder.

Uh to my right questions?

Yes, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Uh question for staff real quick.

Uh is there a new did I hear there is a neighborhood association, but there was no response.

Uh so this property is within 200 feet of Tobin Hill and Montevista and then San Antonio, Texas District 1 resident association.

Uh Tobin Hill's neutral on it, so they're neither supporting or opposing the rezoning, and then Monte Vista was in opposition.

Gotcha.

And then a question for the applicant.

If you want to come on up.

Have you made attempts to uh reach out and communicate with the neighborhood associations that are around you, sort of, and neighbors?

Yeah, well uh I think Mona Vista, I messed up and sent it to the wrong email addresses, but other than that, I sent emails out to everybody.

It's in on the site plans and stuff like that and tried to explain that it was it's more like for me it's just an electrical issue.

You know, like we just need the box there so we can put in ovens and that's about it.

But uh yeah, that I was like communicating with uh Monta Vista on the way here trying to explain, you know, like the details of the site plan.

And yeah, here I am.

Okay.

Um I guess I guess the only issue that I have that I see is it and some people don't see this is that zoning goes with the property.

So if you would sell this in 10 years, 15 years tomorrow.

Right.

It's it's it's that zoning is IDZ, right?

Uh so that's where I'm at right now.

Thank you.

All right.

All right.

Um any further questions to the right.

Okay.

Uh not there yet.

It's my turn.

Um, let's talk about what the existing zoning is right now.

The existing zoning is C2, correct?

Right.

Uh sorry.

Okay I'm gonna ask the stuff.

But you can stay there.

Correct.

Probably have some stuff with you.

All right.

Examples of C2 uses include a liquor store.

That's correct.

Um let's see.

Pet cemetery, my favorite.

Yes.

Uh auto and light truck, oil, lube, and tune-up.

Correct.

Uh auto gas tinting, tire repair, appliance sales and repair, correct?

Correct.

And those are allowed as of right.

That is correct.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Fornell, I have a question for you.

Uh I believe staff indicated that you are going to be amending your request, correct?

Well, we just took the wine bar thing off of there.

It was just like an option, like a checkbox from what I figured, and I put it on there, and a lot of people had an issue with it, so I just officially you're removing wine bar from your request.

Right.

Yeah.

Awesome.

Uh, what are your hours of operation typically?

Uh it's every day it's 8 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

Okay.

Um at your busiest time period?

We'll get like a brunch pop, you know, and that'll be you know, the parking lot usually fills up around there, but then uh the busiest is the weekends, and you know, if we have when we do have all use of that parking lot next door, like I mean like it fills up like on the weekends, but they you know, again, like stay like on that parking lot or inside the parking lot.

Okay.

And so to be clear, when you're talking about the parking agreement, you're talking about the law office across that paved alleyway.

Right, right.

And we just repainted the side of the building where it says like really big like parking in back, like you know, right there at that little alleyway, and it's it's helped a whole lot like in the last few weeks.

Okay.

So with your parking agreement, people aren't crossing McCullough.

Every like I saw one lady like the last last month do it, like maybe like once like but from where from where they're supposed to park your parking agreement.

They're not crossing.

No, there's there's there's like a little alleyway right there, and that's about it.

And and there's usually people, you know, like on Saturdays, they'll go back and forth because they'll eat bulls and at extra fine or or whatever.

They just kind of everybody eats whatever they want pretty much.

Um for staff, you know, uh the availability of crosswalks and other pedestrian safety devices is beyond the purview of this commission, correct?

Yeah, I I applied for that too, and they didn't.

I I never heard pack on the crosswalk.

Well uh for the neighbors, that's probably a good suggestion to follow up on.

Uh, but not here, not today.

All right.

I think those are all of my questions right now.

Uh to the left, we're gonna go do and SIPES again, I think.

How about SIPES go first?

Because I was I was I was gonna uh fall follow on something he said.

So maybe he's gonna answer it himself.

No, I'm gonna follow, I'm gonna do something different.

Um from what I uh the current zoning, this is not in the historic district itself.

So it does not go before HDRC or any other thing like that.

Correct.

Correct?

Yes.

So if the zoning remained at C2, technically the building could be demolished and you could have like parking in the front.

Maybe not.

Well, with any demolition, uh it is reviewed by OHP to see if there is of some historic significance, but again, it's not designated a historic overlay or landmark right now.

But uh with the IDZ.

The site plan, which includes the floor plan, which includes the building would would go along.

Correct.

Any anything on the site plan with the uh um dimensions, the building square footage, they could not increase parking, basically they would have to have that parking, it is 10 spaces.

Okay.

Got it.

All right, that's all my questions.

All right.

Commissioner Duval, to you?

Yes.

So I'm sorry, the 10 parking spaces what where does that come from?

There's 10 parking spaces on the site plan.

Oh, oh, got it.

Okay.

Um thank you.

So the uh site plan would be would limit subsequent owners under the IDZ, correct?

Um, sorry, the the element, the parking sp uh spots.

Um, sorry, the the element, the parking sp uh spots.

Correct.

A subsequent owner wouldn't be able to get rid of those parking spots with the IDZ.

Correct.

So it would require 10.

Yes.

Basic, effectively, probably.

And what if this was not IDZ, if this was just C1, uh, what would be the parking requirement roughly for this unit?

Um it varies, honestly.

It goes typically by the square footage of whatever exact use it is.

So this one's one 100 square foot of the gross floor area.

For a food service establishment.

Yeah.

One space per 100 square feet.

I'm sorry, so it's approximately 20 spaces.

20 spaces.

Goodness gracious.

That's a lot.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any further questions to my right?

Seeing none.

All right.

Um now I want to go into some other complications, which is uh I'm maybe following up on what Commissioner Duval has mentioned.

Uh one of the considerations with IDZ during its implementation and incorporation into our code was there are old buildings that do not follow current building standards, do not follow certain uh regulations that we have in zoning, such as setbacks, correct?

That is correct.

And this building, at least from my view, appears to be one of those.

It is.

Well, all right.

So I think that's all of my questions.

And public comment is now closed.

Mr.

Farnell, you can sit down.

Um this is a district one case, so Commissioner Kellum, to you for discussion and potential motion.

So I think this is difficult case for sure.

Um I think uh you know, I worry about the sense uh sensitivity of the area for sure.

Um I think there is a delicate balance that's there.

I do believe though, in economic growth in the area, and I think that this is one way maintaining the site plan with this IDZ zoning to create some substability in the future.

Um so I make a motion for approval.

Um before we get to a second friendly amendment to the motion as amended.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Now, is there a second?

I'll second it.

Oh, I was staring at Commissioner Woodsett.

I'm going with I couldn't get the Commissioner.

Uh but we're going with Commissioner Woodsett as the second.

Uh discussion to my left.

Commissioner Duval.

Yeah, so the the uh IDZ, wow, from 20 spaces down effectively with the site plan to 10.

Whoa, that's a that's a big cut, right?

Um, but that's that's what IDZ is.

That's what we have to deal with, and the solution might be going to council and saying, hey, this as a general policy in the city, IDZ uh needs to be reassessed for the parking requirements.

Um but as it is, you know, uh it is as it is.

Um I am comforted knowing though that the site plan requirement with IDZ would not allow a subsequent owner uh to just get rid of the parking.

Um that makes me comfortable to to support the motion, uh knowing that uh even if you might argue they don't have enough parking as they they they should as a best practice, at least uh it this wouldn't change anything.

It wouldn't make it any worse.

They currently have 10 parking lot uh spots and they'd be uh required to have 10 parking spots in the future without a uh coming back to us.

So I'll be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Duval.

Any further discussion left?

Seeing none.

Discussion right?

Seeing none.

Okay.

Uh in that case I get the last word.

Uh I also will be supporting this motion.

I understand the concerns of those in Mayfair.

Um I've I lived in Mayfair for some time, so I'm familiar with the neighborhood.

Um that being said, this is kind of the perfect case for IDZ.

Uh it makes it even more appealing to me because it is a C2 to C1 downzoning, which is a much less intense usage.

Uh further the idea that this case was born from the need to replace an electrical box.

Um says to me that you know this might require some creativity, some flexibility, which is what IDZ is meant to deal with.

Says to me that you know this might require some creativity, some flexibility, which is what IDZ is meant to deal with.

I hope that we are going towards a more car unfriendly future.

I hope that the TOD and the green line down the street will be helpful.

Not down the street, but San Pedro.

And you know, I think we also have a problem to Commissioner Duval's point about public policy decisions, which we will have the chance to weigh in on next year with our UDC amendments.

Um San Antonio, like many other cities, tends to be overparked.

We tend to have too much parking for the uses that we have in place, resulting in a great deal of asphalt and uh heat islands.

So I always bear that in mind when we do talk about parking.

So that being said, the motion is for approval as amended of item number three by Commissioner Kellum with a second by Commissioner Woodson.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Yes.

Commissioner Losa?

Yes.

Commissioner Inojosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipzig.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I.

Motion carries as amended.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Good luck, Mr.

Farnell.

You have six months to go to council.

And of course, those who are in opposition can speak against this at council as well.

Thank you.

All right, we are now going to move on to item number 13.

Yes.

Good afternoon, Alexa Ratana Zoning Planner with Development Services.

Item number 13 is located at 1210 Caton Avenue, going from R4 residential single family district to R4, C D residential single family district with the conditional use for four dwelling you for three dwelling units with all overlays staying the same.

There were 29 notices sent out, four in favor, five opposed within 200 feet.

Highland Park Neighborhood Association is opposed and outside the 200 feet, six in favor.

The existing R4 is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed R4 C D with the conditional use for three dwelling units is also appropriate.

The subject property in much of the surrounding area current currently benefit from the beta-R4 conversion, which permits a two-family duplex residence despite the single family zoning.

The site is appropriately sized and has an improved alley to the rear, which can accommodate the additional density and provide further buffering from the properties to the south.

The CD conditional use would be bound to a site plan and deviation from the submitted document would potentially warrant additional public review and city council consideration.

The site plan indicates no future expansion beyond the existing building footprint and the presence of sufficient on-site parking for the additional density.

Staff recommends approval and the applicant is here to answer any questions.

If we could have the applicant, please.

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

All right, hereby the address of the property where I live.

Where you live.

Okay.

Or where you work.

Okay.

My name is Diego Rodriguez, and I live at 135 Sunglow Avenue, which is on the south side.

I grew up actually on this side of town, though.

Where where this home is at.

So where do I continue?

Do I continue with what I'm saying?

Tell us tell us what you want to do and why you think we ought to follow your advice.

Okay.

So I went and met with the Highland Park Neighborhood Association on February 24th.

They wanted me to change my deed.

I was totally in opposition of changing the deed because a deed restriction will continue on for any future owner.

I don't like to restrict stuff like that or contemplate anything like that because I'm freedom guy.

So yesterday I got a email from Ms.

Ratana saying that every there was no opposition at 1121.

At 409, I received another one that there was six.

So in my opinion, that's there the neighborhood association is working together, and I don't want to use I'm not a uh an attorney, but it's almost seems like conspiring to say we want to not do this, right?

So I almost think in my opinion, it's almost a little a little bit of misfeases and small fees going on because why would they want to oppose this thing?

I I really don't know.

But I'll get to other of the some of those other things.

One of those things was I asked questions to the uh neighborhood association and I asked them where can I find a public web uh the point of contact, website, social media, newsletters, etc.

I got no answer.

And I sent that out on March 25th.

I also asked them what are the neighborhood goals of the same of the association, what is their charter?

What is their agenda?

I got no response.

I asked the neighborhood association or or what are the goals?

Is it neighborhood watch, safety, disaster awareness, educational work workshops, advocacies for the neighborhood?

I got no response.

I asked them, hey, are homeowners, is the homeowner association open to homeowners and renters, and again, no response.

So out of all the opposition that I received that I saw from the neighborhood association, all I saw was basically they don't want it because of the parking situation.

The parking situation, I walk the neighborhood and I have an attachment there with 10 people who were in agreement with okay with me putting in this third unit.

Okay, so I walked the neighborhood and I found out a lot of people are opposed to one particular gentleman who parks like four cars in the street.

That particular gentleman, which is that picture right there.

Well, I'm not not the gentleman, but the picture, he uses the street as his personal driveway.

Like I mentioned to Mr.

A lot of these homes were built in the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s.

At those times, it was usually one car per family or less.

So a lot of those homes are older, they don't accommodate for all the driving.

The kid has a car, the kid has to go to college.

We all know the haphazard growth of San Antonio.

It's kind of like the thing going on before me.

So we have to make all these crazy accommodations because there's a lot of there's a lot of dynamics in our city, a lot of growth.

So there's tons of people coming in.

So you can't expect everything to be hunky-dory when you had 10 people, and now you have a hundred people walking through these you know, streets or what have you, anywhere in the city.

So things that this the city dynamics are changing drastically.

So we we have to know this.

So I know that the board members are extremely how to say opposed to renters, right?

So me myself, I look at it like this.

The economic times and the people who are in the neighborhood association, they're more elderly.

I'm an elderly guy, I'm 61 years old.

These guys are 60, 70 years old.

Okay, I get it.

When we were growing up, times were a little bit, the economic times were a little bit different.

You can get two tacos for a buck fifty, two bucks, two tacos a day costs you almost 10 bucks.

So the people who are growing up today, the opportunity for them to buy a home is limited because I myself have children.

They're productive, but they're not productive enough to buy a home.

So we have to have renters.

So we're what we're really doing is alienating our own children from the neighborhoods that they grew up in if there's no neighborhoods, no rentals for them.

So that's one thing.

It's like you're you're alienating the people who grew up in the neighborhood because now you want no renters.

So, according to the San Census Bureau, that neighborhood already has 40 40.3% renters in the area already.

So we can't, we can't, we already, it's almost 50-50 as it is already.

Now they're telling me that the renters are creating disturbances, nuisances, additional crime.

But there's there's also statistics that guess what?

Homeowners commit these same crimes, these same disturbances and everything else.

So what they're doing is is putting all the negativity on the renters.

But the reality is I consider myself uh uh a responsible individual.

I'm not gonna rent or I don't want to rent to someone who I believe is not gonna pay the rent because that's not responsible, not only for me, but for the neighborhood.

So I'm very cognizant of the fact that if I have, for example, I have one place where I have a family, they have children.

I'm not gonna rent to some people that I think may be a hindrance or or a hazard or a safety issue to that family.

So it's not gonna work.

So I'm I I'm very selective because I have to be.

I uh because it's people it's it involves people's safety.

So I just got a lot of things going through my mind.

So bear with me on that.

So I did send a lot of emails, got very little response.

Any neighbor, any association whose worth their salt will respond to you in a coordinated manner, like a business manner, something professional.

You don't send things into the ether and receive nothing.

That tells me they're not doing what they need to do.

I don't know if this neighborhood association helps and does any of these advocacy things, or do they just come up every time there's a zoning case?

I really don't know, but that's in the back of my mind, that's what's that's what I think.

Now, another thing, my mouth is really dry, sorry.

The city of San Antonio has the San Antonio Comprehensive Plan that's coming up into the future.

So they do encourage with the San Antonio's comprehensive plan, transit corridors and regional centers, and they actually encourage middle housing, which are three plexes.

This particular property lands in that area.

One last thing I did, or not one last thing, but another thing I did want to mention is two of the units are in the rear of the home.

If you go back to the site plan, it the zoning commission for four units requires four thousand square foot.

This is three thousand square foot, and the area of square footage is seven thousand five hundred square foot.

So there's adequate parking space.

I got five in the back, one in the front.

I mean, one uh adjacent to the fence on this side.

So there's more than enough parking.

The neighbors are concerned with people parking in the front on the street.

I get that.

The other gentleman said they keep calling the police on him.

Well, parking on the street, believe it or not, is a legal activity.

The police have told him as long as your car is registered, licensed, and up to date, there's nothing they can do because that's a legal thing to do.

We may not like it, but it's legal.

So the people, the entrances are to the rear of the home.

So I do not know anyone who's going to park in the front of the home to go walk to the rear of their home to go in.

That's not.

We go to HEB, we'll wait a minute or two minutes just to get there to the parking spot closer to the door.

So it's our natural human instinct to want to be close to our entrance.

So I cannot see anyone realistically parking in the front in the street, with the exception of only wanting to stop, and then maybe they're gonna go out to the store or convenience store quickly and then come back, then they'll go park in the back.

I have amended, I have amended my neighborhood, my uh lease to include immediate eviction.

I already had if they do any illegal activity, crime activity, anything that's uh I don't like I don't do drugs, I don't smoke drugs, I don't do none of that stuff.

So anyone who does anything of this and they partakes in any of this, and I find out about it that's that's I can see and know about it, I'm gonna evict them.

I don't want people like that in my places.

So I even uh uh uh amended my lease to include a neighborhood association nuisance violation, same as the above.

So I'll read them over quick if I have time.

I'm not sure.

I think he wanted the time thing, so we don't know how much time I got because I'm trying to go fast.

So my immediate eviction, tenant will be evicted immediately from home for any illegal activity, crime activity, i.e., selling drugs, producing illegal drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, domestic violence, causing a nuisance to neighbors or neighborhood or any other unlawful activity deemed inappropriate by common law by by law or the landlord.

So I am made my lease to include neighborhood association nuisance violations, same as the above to include no excessive loud music, no excessive drinking outside as to cause a disturbance, no excessive clutter or trash, no storage of dangerous chemicals, no commercial business activities, no unattended dangerous animals, occasional family gatherings for child parties, birthdays, graduations, etc.

Understandable.

Everyone has a gathering now and then.

So we're not gonna say, Oh, you can't do this.

I mean, like come on, we're human, right?

We got to do human things.

So I already said the tomorrow, the San Antonio's uh tomorrow comprehensive plan is encouraging middle housing for just this area because we know San Antonio is growing like a weed.

They're expecting like another million people by 2040.

Where are they gonna live?

Right?

They gotta live somewhere.

It's already half-hazard in the military, they called it a cluster something, but you know what I'm saying.

Yeah, you know, because that's just the way it's growing.

You know, San Antonio is really grown like that, and you and you see a lot of these things because San Antonio is an older town, and and there is not enough parking, so we have to make these little accommodations and stuff.

We can't accommodate everyone and say, Oh, you can't park on the street.

I just came to work, I showed Miss Alexa a picture.

I live close to the B barbecue, my whole neighborhood on the street.

There's cars there because there's not adequate parking at the B and B place, right?

I don't go out there with the sign, don't park here, don't park here.

They even block my driveway sometimes.

I have to go to the restaurant and say, hey, can y'all please move y'all's car?

But I'm not gonna talk call a tow guy or anything.

I'm just gonna, hey, handle it, we go, we move on.

That's it.

So one of the last things I wanted to say also, um, the Federal Housing Act, the Federal Housing Act, and the Texas Fair Housing Act laws prohibit refusal of rent, a refusal to rent, or the imposition of different terms based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability.

But you want to discriminate based on social economic level to people who can't afford a home.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Thank you, Mr.

Rodriguez.

Thank you, sir.

That's what I said.

I got public comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We do have public comment.

All right.

Pisano.

All right, sir.

If you would introduce yourself, tell us your address and tell us your thoughts.

Hi, my name is Alfredo Pisano.

I live at 1615 East Highland Boulevard.

That's right around the block from Caton.

That's 1012 Caton.

I'm here to oppose this proposal of rezoning.

We have lived in this house.

I've raised a family there for 30 years.

My issue is not only the crime that that encourages, and this gentleman eloquently expressed his intent.

And I understand that too.

But the property values will go down.

I don't need that.

I need my property to stabilize.

That will it'll cause unstability in the neighborhood.

A single family dwelling is the way it should be.

That's what I thought.

That's what I was hoping to retire in.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Passan.

Thank you.

Denise Mo sorry if I mispronounced your name.

Moltine Denise Martin?

Yes.

Someone with terrible handwriting and a difficult name.

I'm I'm sorry, but you know, sometimes it happens.

Hello.

I'm Denise Martin.

I live at 1211 Caden across the street from this house, and I'm opposed to the zoning change.

I bought my house 19 years ago with a commitment to stay in that neighborhood, keep a single family dwelling.

I can't uh rent it, I can't make it into a duplex.

And um that's how I thought our neighborhood was going to be.

I'm sorry, I feel real emotional about this.

Uh it was rented.

I got robbed twice.

Um it took forever to get those people out.

And um already with his guys working on that house over there, they have parked in front of my house and blocked my recycle from being picked up.

And um I had to agree not to turn my house into a business.

I would not turn my house into a business.

And now things are being flipped in the neighborhood, and there's multifamily apartments and dwellings being encouraged.

And um when we met with Mr.

Rodriguez, he would not give us his phone number, he would not give us any of his uh addresses of his property so we could check them out.

He's totally unwilling to work with us.

And uh we proposed a covenant, which we did to another um uh man in the neighborhood that's uh two houses down from me, and they worked with us on that, and it was to get the the people to park in the back where they'd made a housing where they'd made a parking lot and um different things like that.

They agreed to work with us, but he's not agreeing to do anything.

I mean, he wanted to give us his phone number.

So and there's no such thing as immediate convict eviction.

It takes forever to evict somebody.

And um one of our arguments is it's full of old people.

We're a bunch of old people in the neighborhood.

That's how I got my house, a lady died, so I got a good deal on it.

And um, it is hard for people with ambulances to come in and get to our neighbors if all the parking is full on the streets and in the driveways.

It does make it a hazard.

And he did build a parking place in the back, he put Calichi in the back.

It's a nice parking area, but his one tenant over there didn't want to get dust in their car, so they're parking on the street.

So I really don't want this.

I really hate to see this because we just got somebody renting across the street that has a kid.

They're just renting the whole house.

We have another house a couple of blocks a couple of houses down from me.

They have a family.

There's not any kids in our neighborhood, you know.

And who wants to move into a neighborhood full of crime and trashy renters?

And all renters are not that way, you know.

But um the other property they worked with us, they had a nice looking piece of property, but he wouldn't he wouldn't concede to anything.

And I think not giving us a phone number to reach him is a really bad sign.

So I'm really am opposed to this as a whole lot of neighbors are, and thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Martin.

Can I request on that?

Rachel Roer.

Mr.

Rodrigus, you'll have a chance to rebut at the end.

Thank you.

Ms.

Sorry.

Roar.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Um, like you my name is Rachel Rohr, and I reside at 1143 Caton, and I've been there for 30 years.

The residents of Caden Avenue have several concerns regarding the request to convert 1210 Caden into a triplex.

Our block already has three duplexes and one triplex, which has significantly increased the density on our street.

As a result, parking has become limited, making it difficult for emergency vehicles to pass through.

And we all know every minute is crucial when an emergency vehicle needs to get through.

Uh neighbor directly across from me.

That happened to him.

They had to back up, go to Clark, come around Highlands and get to his house.

Of course it wasn't five minutes, but those seconds are crucial.

In addition, there have been repeated incidents requiring police response involving tenants at some of these multifamily properties.

This has raised ongoing safety concerns among the residents.

My family and other families have been impacted by issues involving tenants in nearby multifamily units.

We are also disappointed in the lack of follow-through from the property owners.

Several com well in one prior rezoning, several commitments were made to Highland Park Association to the neighbors, but these promises went up were not upheld.

Mr.

Dominguez involvement is important in ensuring that his rental property does not negatively impact the surrounding community.

Oh, sorry, Rodriguez.

It is in it is my impression from our conversation.

His primary focus is on financial gain with little consideration giving to the impact on the long-term residents and the neighborhood as a whole.

When we met with him back in February, he made a comment that stuck with me.

He said that he cherishes his home and his neighborhood, and he looks uh forward to going, I believe, is to his workshop and the quiet.

The same holds true for our residents.

I understand the need for affordable housing and multi-housing, including programs such as SHIP.

However, our area is already experiencing effects of the increased density and feels overwhelming.

As more properties are converted into triplexes or higher density housing, it seems that the needs and protection of the existing residents are always overlooked.

We need property owners to be mindful and receptive to the needs of our neighborhood, of our neighbors, to maintain the quality of our community.

I respectfully ask the board to take into take into serious consideration the growing density and its negative impact on our neighborhood.

Yes, Mr.

Rodriguez did change his lease.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Aaron Reed.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm Aaron Reed.

I am the neighborhood president of Highland Park Neighborhood Association, and we are a volunteer group.

I just want to point that out.

And so life gets in the way.

I'm sure you've heard my toddler.

So we have met with Mr.

Rodriguez and our board voted to deny his request for increase to a triplex.

The neighbors have very, very staunchly expressed their concerns for public safety and access, as you just heard the story specifically as Mr.

Garza, who's unable to be mobile and come to this meeting.

As the neighborhood president, I felt it really important for me to come and beseech upon you to please either vote in favor of the neighbors or provide us with extra time and a continuance for us to possibly meet with every neighbor in that area in the 200 block, give us time to go and talk with them, finding out what their specific concerns are and if we can meet with Mr.

Rodriguez again to come up with a more amenable solution.

But in the meantime, the public safety issue has to be addressed.

This is not the only multiplex in that block.

It is several.

It's probably the fourth one.

And if you're looking at this street, it is very narrow.

If you go down Caton, it starts pretty wide in the 1100 block and it narrows up really quick at the 1200 because of all the on-street parking.

I cannot express to you if you have not called 911 personally or for any of your loved ones, as I unfortunately have had to, every second counts.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Greg Ripes.

That's Greg Rips.

I live at 211 Astor Street in Highland Park.

Don't worry, I'm not going to read this, but I brought it to point out that on a number of occasions, the City of San Antonio has prompted residents to express their vision for their neighborhood.

And Highland Park has made it clear as we did in the SA Tomorrow that we wanted to remain primarily a single family residential neighborhood.

Why?

Briefly.

Because a single family residential neighborhood encourages long-term residents that have a stake in their community and in their neighborhood.

It encourages having yards where children can play.

It encourages driveways where cars can park rather than in the street.

Multifamily buildings encourage exactly the opposite.

Now we have many exceptions in Highland Park.

There are businesses, there are small places that are zoned for businesses in the middle of residential areas.

We have a number of houses that are already zoned for two or three families.

What we are asking for today is simply to maintain the zoning that currently exists.

The officers of this organization spend hours every week facing issues such as crime, loose dogs, closing schools, as well as zoning cases.

That is not our only concern.

We are, after all, a neighborhood association, not a homeowners association.

It is entirely voluntary.

We are not unreasonable people.

Mr.

Rodriguez made it very clear that he would not even consider discussing a covenant.

And that is when we decided we could not support his efforts.

We appreciate his change to the lease, but that is his lease, and we have no control over that.

And so I say Highland Park is not in Phil.

Please do not support this change in zoning.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Nora Leah Ripps.

Thank you for allowing me to meet to speak today.

I've been married to Greg Rips for 33 years.

Would you introduce yourself and tell us your address, please?

Well, I am going to get to that if you hold a second.

But he has I would like you to say your name and your address.

Okay, I'm Norland Ripps.

Okay.

And I am a member of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association.

I've been married to Greg for 33 years, and I can tell you he's been married to Highland Park much longer.

Okay.

So the thing that Greg is always said is that we want people and their families to be invested in Highland Park.

Not just to move in because you can find a rent house or you can find a parking space.

And it is a very old neighborhood.

Many of those homes were built in the early 1900s and even before World War One.

So the thing of it is is that there's not enough parking on the streets, and we certainly don't want people parking in the alleys.

The gas, natural gas lines are there and everything.

And sewage and everything.

So it makes it even hard for saws to get in there.

So we don't want stuff put in an alley, just like code compliance doesn't.

So but what I'm trying to get at is that the people who live in Holland Park that have been there for quite a while.

And I guess you can say I'm old too.

I've got the gray hair, but I'm not an octogenarian yet, okay.

But we take care of our elderly neighbors.

We look after them, and that's something that needs to keep going in this city.

We want the elderly to live at home, where that's where they're they've always been for many years.

So they need to be protected as well as um the houses around them.

But the big problem we had, and I don't think y'all are aware.

Uh we had many investors that moved into Holland Park.

They moved into Denver Heights, and I'm sure probably uh Highland Hills as well.

But those people did not procure the permits that they needed.

Because they didn't care.

They just wanted to build redo a home and sell it for $300,000 or more.

That's called gentrification.

And we really don't want that happening in our neighborhood.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

That is it for public comment on this item.

Very good, Ms.

Rodriguez.

You will have a short rebuttal.

So I would like to ask, if I may, Miss Ms.

Aaron.

No, sir, you may not.

Okay.

You can address the commission.

Okay.

So I would uh I would like to have known how many people are actually on the neighborhood association.

There's 3,581 units according to the Census Bureau.

If 35 members are in there, that represents one percent.

I have asked Ms.

Aaron through an email, how many people represent the neighborhood association.

I'm willing to bet that's the great majority of them.

So that's less than half less than point five of one percent that representation for the neighborhood association.

Okay.

So they're saying this the streets are small.

I get it.

That's why I mentioned that that's a 1920s community.

It was built, like she said, 1800.

So the streets are narrow.

We already know this.

The parking, like I said, parking is legal in the street as long as your car is legally licensed, registration, and what have you.

That's a city issue.

That's not a resident issue.

They're addressing the parking issue to me.

I'm just a guy who bought a home trying to live my life.

I didn't put my money in the 40141 case.

I put it in in property in properties.

That's my retirement plan, not the 401k.

So the other lady, uh Miss Aaron said we wouldn't we want to come to a solution.

I don't even see a problem.

So this is one thing I think they're overlooking.

The way it's currently zoned, it's already zoned and it's allowed a duplex.

It that's allowable.

I'm only asking for one more unit.

Not it's not going from a single to three.

It's really gonna be going from a duplex to three.

So there's already it's already allowed to do two under the current zoning, according to Mr.

Travinio from the zoning area on the other side of this building.

So that's one thing.

The other thing is they're addressing the children.

They've closed three elementaries in that area.

So I don't know where the children are going, but hopefully they'll come back.

So that we know it's an elderly neighborhood.

I'm not trying to disrupt the neighborhood.

I've already told also the alley.

They're talking about an alley.

My alleyway, my backyard has a fence.

There is no entrance from the alleyway.

So my tenants will not be going through the alley.

There's plenty of parking if you look at that site plan.

I will instruct and I already have.

The lady said, oh, the parking, the guy parked in the front.

He had just moved in.

He would he was he's the only guy there.

He didn't even know what's going on.

As soon as people start moving in, I've already told them I think he's parking in the driveway now.

So everyone would be instructed to park in the back.

I know they're gonna want to park close to their doors.

They're not gonna want to park in the front, like I said, unless you're gonna go to the convenience store or something real real quick and come back and then they'll park in the back.

And there's one last thing I want to say, I got a couple of seconds.

Uh, Bear County is not included in the Texas Property Code Chapter 204 that allows voluntary neighborhood associations to change deed restrictions through a simplified petition process.

Voluntary neighborhood associations lack the statutory power to create modified deed deeds unless the original deed is already explicit in the law for it.

That's Texas Constitutional Statutes.gov.

Thank you.

And that's why I do not want to change the deed.

Thank you, Ms.

Rodriguez.

Thank you, sir.

The good news is any deed restriction and changes are beyond our purview.

So you can go ahead and have a seat.

This is a district three case.

Um, Commissioner Hina Hosa, to you for questions.

Yes.

Uh couple of questions.

Uh I guess uh President uh Miss U Aaron Reed, can you come up and have a question for you?

While she's coming up, a question for staff.

Uh you guys were not seeking denial.

Can you tell me uh basically uh Miss Ms.

Rontana what why the uh seeking approval for this?

Um so there is a property at the corner across the street that has the same zoning, it's an R4 C D for three dwelling units.

Uh the primary reason beyond that was that much of the neighborhood is a B to R4 conversion, including this property.

So many of these properties are already permitted to dwelling units by rate.

Also, excuse me.

Uh also since this is a conditional request, can we include a condition to restrict tenant parking to on premises?

Do you know that?

I don't believe that is something we could enforce.

Okay.

Just bringing it out there.

Um what other conditions can be included with this ordinance, like fencing?

Uh fencing, lighting, ingress, egress, um, if you wanted to limit there's an alley in the rear if you wanted to limit access to that.

Um then for uh President uh reed um uh are you guys willing to work with the applicant to come to some sort of solution in between?

Because what I'm hearing is y'all don't want this, he doesn't want this.

I mean I was in education for 20 years, so this fits up right right up my alley.

I'm I'm joking.

But uh are you is a neighborhood willing to work with the applicant?

Yes, that's what we had.

That's why we were I was originally asking for the continuance so that we can try to get this back on track.

And if I could make one comment, the um home that she just addressed about on the corner that had been increased to a fourplex, that's pretty much where all of this started going downhill really quickly for the 1200 block of Caton.

So neighbors in that immediate, I would even say less than 200 feet are very, very opposed because of what has happened with 1203 Caton.

And so that's why we went into our meeting with Mr.

Rodriguez with those neighbors present asking for a covenant because that's what helped them at the end of the case with 1203.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

Uh and the applicant, Mr.

Rodriguez, can you come up here?

And while he's coming up, staff or uh Ms.

Atana uh Ratana, can you answer me?

Um are any deed restrictions or covenants under our preview preview as a zoning commission?

Do you want to get that on public record?

No.

Thank you.

Uh and Mr.

Rodriguez, uh again, uh it seems to be you know one side against the other side.

Are you willing to work with the Highland Park Neighborhood Association to come to some sort of mediation or some sort of you know, not everyone's gonna get what they're gonna get, but to work with them?

I am, but I want to know what is the actual problem.

What is the actual problem?

That's what I would really want to do.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Rick.

I don't even know what the problem is.

We're gonna be coming at solution without what the project is.

Thank you, Mr.

Rodriguez.

Um question for uh staff, do any previous zoning designations allow for more units at this property in the past?

So basically has anything for 1210 cadence been requested in the past the previous zoning applications?

Correct.

Not to my knowledge.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all my questions I have now for now.

Uh commit uh Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Hayneson.

Um questions to my right?

To my left?

All right.

Uh do well and slides.

Uh to staff, code and permitting history here.

Sorry, I make that a question.

Is there any um permitting history on the case?

Any code enforcement issues?

Um previously there were some plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and building investigations.

But do you know the context of those?

How those arose, what they were amounting?

They're still pending resolution and they arose through a complaint called in through 311.

Yeah, do we have any other background about those?

Was that a tenant, a neighbor?

What what is it what's the condition of the property with the if if you're asking about the nature of the complaint, that is protected information, so we're not gonna release who it was or what relationship they may have had to the property owner?

I suppose it just uh I always appreciate having the the code and permitting history on applications because it gives us some insight into the condition of the property, problems the property might have.

Um I understand the issue about confidentiality and and the you know, but um did we do we have any information for code enforcement on the investigation of what they found?

There was a citizen complaint about work without a permit that prompted an investigation.

I see.

Okay.

So what does the current zoning allow?

Under the B to R4 they can do a duplex, or with the R4 they can also do a single family home.

And that that's interesting.

The the B to R4, can you explain the background, C draw background on that?

So that's a conversion under the 2001 conversion.

So B was a 19 a code under the 1938 code, which did allow that extra density.

So when that conversion happened, we honored that given that they meet certain requirements.

So an applicant would be entitled by right to have a duplex on this area?

Correct.

Okay.

But they would still have to obtain a building permit to proceed with building the duplex.

Correct.

Do we have any insights from code enforcement on the pending investigations about what was attempting to be constructed?

Like were they was the applicant trying to build a duplex?

Were they trying to go forward with the proposed uh so we I don't know that off the top of my head, but I will say that generally if a uh work without permit investigation is conducted and a violation is found, it is typically practiced that the code enforcement division will allow the property owner to proceed with the change of zoning and will stay our enforcement action pending the outcome of the change of zoning request.

So to the applicant, could you please come up, give some context?

Yes, tell explain what's going on.

Okay.

So this is what's going on.

The little uh square there on the bottom was a restroom.

The wall, the restroom, the ceiling to that restroom was probably uh five foot high, maybe a little bit lower.

So I had some construction guys elevate that roof by three feet.

Because it came in at an angle like this.

Right?

And right where it comes down is right where the toilet is.

So a grown man technically could not really use the toilet or woman comfortably.

So I raised that little section.

I think it's uh five by ten, something like that.

I can't really see it.

If you zoom in, it's oh seven by ten.

So it just raised it three feet.

And that was what spurred the complaint from one of my neighbors.

I believe one of my neighbors anyway.

So you haven't begun work on anything, any new structures.

This was just the existing structure.

Yes, everything is there is existing.

So it's that one unit is still closed off, pending whatever happens here.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you.

That's it for me.

All right, Commissioner Sibes.

Question for staff.

Um it was uh 1203 clayton was mentioned as one of the examples that was used for um as a multifamily.

Um is that lot being a corner lot?

Is that a larger lot than this 1210 Catan?

Are they the same size?

From visual, it looks like it's a bigger lot.

That lot is 9,750 square feet, and then the Caton lot is about 7500.

7500.

Okay, so it's a significantly larger lot.

Okay.

Um I think that's all the the I don't think y'all y'all would have information on on on road size and width.

I mean, I've I I'm looking and I can see the size, you know, compared to other roads, but I don't think y'all would have an actual okay.

I didn't think so.

All right, that's all the questions I've got.

Uh all right, second go round.

To the right questions?

Seeing none?

To the left questions?

Seeing none?

All right.

Commissioner Hina Hosa to you for discussion and potential motion.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I I think we need to come together uh the neighborhood association, the application the applicant, Mr.

Rodriguez and myself just to kind of have a meeting to to uh maybe break some bread and and come together with a uh a solution for the neighborhood.

Highland Park is a beautiful old neighborhood, but I'll I'll be honest and frank, you know.

They live right next to what SAPD calls the worst apartment complex in San Antonio.

Matter of fact, I think there's a stationary SAPD officer there 24-7 now.

A couple weeks ago they burned somebody off of Rigsby on an empty lot.

There are no schools, SCI is D or Jubilee in Highland Park.

So our our neighbors, my neighbors, our residents are are afraid.

I truly believe that Mr.

Rodriguez is probably a good landlord.

He I I we see a lot of them here, and a lot of them live out of state or they use a property manager.

He went to Wheatley, which is Brack High School.

He lives in the South Side.

This is his living.

I I think we can find a solution.

Uh uh we just need to communicate.

Uh so I would like to make a motion to continue this for four weeks so that we can have time to meet with the uh uh neighborhood association and Mr.

Rodriguez.

There is a motion for continuance for four weeks to the May 5th meeting.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Uh discussion to my right.

Saying none.

Discussion to my left.

Yes, Commissioner Sipes.

Commissioner Duval, next.

No, I'm glad that you uh motion for a continuance.

Um because at this point I could not support the the current motion.

Uh or sorry, not the current motion, the current proposal.

Um hopefully something in the next four weeks will happen.

All right, very good.

Commissioner Duval.

Sounds like there's going to be votes for continuance, uh, but I did just want to express um I it it weighs on me very heavily to have the neighborhood association coming out so opposed to the project.

Um it's even though we're a growing city, it's important that we maintain the character of neighborhoods when people move into it when where we not change.

Sir sorry, thank you.

The public hearing is closed.

So it it's important that we're able to maintain, especially neighborhoods that are established, single family in areas that aren't in transition.

Um part of the issue with cluster uh cluster development patterns is by not having a gradient, right?

The closer you are to downtown, the higher density you have as you move out, density decreases.

Um by just having haphazard density across the city, uh, I think that's where you actually run into a cluster situation.

Um but with that, let's let's see what the uh the applicant and the neighborhood association and and uh uh Commissioner are able to resolve and see if we can come to an agreement.

All right, thank you so much.

Um I am so sorry.

It's okay.

Commissioner Lussell.

I know I'm right here, it's hard to see.

Um I I just wanted to um respond to some things.

I will be supporting the continuance.

I think it's always good to discuss with neighbors.

I just want to make some notes.

There are a lot of comments made from neighborhood association members or just neighbors about property value, and I work in housing and just want to set the record straight.

Single family homes being next to multifamily homes does not decrease property value, it actually increases it or it does not affect at all.

Um I heard a lot of comments around like renters bringing crime or taking uh children away from schools or maybe being public safety issues, and there's no actual evidence around that.

So as long as the conversations aren't centered around that, I hope you guys have very productive conversations around what um a duplex can bring or triplex can bring to your neighborhood, but I just want to get on record against the negative property value because that's not um backed by anything.

But I am going to be supporting a continuance.

I think talking is great.

All right.

Uh yeah, okay.

Yes, Commissioner Huey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um my feelings were similar to Commissioner's Commissioner Sipes.

So I'm glad that um there is a motion for continuance because I would not have been able to support the um application as it was.

Very good.

Uh as a renter, I support the continuance.

Uh my criminal days are behind me.

Uh anyway.

They didn't really exist.

All right.

The motion is for a continuance to uh May 5th by Commissioner Hina Hosa with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Uh roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Inohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Losef?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Wetsa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

We'll see you in four weeks.

We are moving on to item number 15, please.

Uh.

Actually, I'm sorry.

Uh we will take a quick seven-minute break at this point.

We will return at approximately 2 51, and we will begin with item number 15.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Sorry.

All right.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time is 2 54, and this meeting of the zoning commission of the City of San Antonio is back in session.

Item 15, please.

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

Item number 15 is located at 127, 19 Spectrum Drive, going from C3R, General Commercial Restrictive Alcoholic Sales District in I1, General Industrial District, to C3, General Commercial District with all overlays staying the same.

There were 24 notices sent out, zero in favor, five opposed within 200 feet, and no registered neighborhood association within the 200 feet.

The existing C3R, General Commercial Restrictive Alcoholic Sales District and I1, General Industrial District are appropriate zonings for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C3, General Commercial District proposes general compatible commercial uses apart from those related to the on-premises consumption of alcohol.

While the request would be an overall downzoning of the property, the change to C3 would introduce potential nuisance uses such as a bar slash tavern.

The property is situated at the edge of a business industrial park and abuts and established residential neighborhood.

Staff recommends denial with an alternate recommendation for C3R, general commercial restrictive alcoholic sales district.

The applicant is here to answer any questions and as I know it, amend the request.

All right, very good.

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

Sir, if you would introduce yourself and state your address and then tell us about your request.

Commercial property.

Um zone C3R in the back, I one up in the front.

Some tenants that were looking at the property, um didn't qualify for that type of zoning.

So we went with the C3.

And since then that tenant's gone away.

It was an adult daycare center.

Um so now we're just gonna be happy with the C3R if we can make it from front to back, all C3R.

Okay.

We have no intentions of alcohol sales or consumption or anything like that.

Very good.

Uh Mr.

Geyser, just so I can get it on the record before my questions or sorry, even before Commissioner Kelly's questions.

Uh, you are amending to C3R.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh is there any public comment?

Yes, we have public comment.

Hi, Met Beddis.

All right.

Mr.

Pettis.

Afternoon.

Yeah, my name is Jamie Petters.

I live at 5906 Elk Ridge.

It's right behind the property in question.

And did I hear that the gentleman said they're dropping the alcohol?

Yes, sir.

So they're going to keep the the R3.

C three R.

C three R, so a restriction is there and not going to be removed.

Correct.

That is another thing I needed to know.

So I do appreciate if they are dropping that, it's just going to remain the way it has been.

Okay.

Then I am perfectly happy with the withdrawal of the possibility of having alcohol on the other side of my fence.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Pettis.

Susan Staninke.

I'm Susan Snykey and I live at 5910 Elk Ridge.

Um, and that's what I'm wanting to.

Well, thank you so much, Ms.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming down.

Any further public comment?

That is it for public comment.

Any rebuttal, Mr.

Geiser.

Doesn't seem like it's necessary.

Uh all right.

This is a district eight case.

Commissioner Kelly, to you for questions.

I think we've talked through the issues, and Mr.

Geyser has been very cooperative in this discussion.

And at this point, I don't have any further questions.

All right.

Any questions to my left?

Commissioner Duval.

Just uh if if the uh applicants amending the application to keep the R, what what's the request?

What's the change?

What's the need for the applicant was originally requesting C3 and the amendments to C3R, which is that alcohol restriction.

Right, but isn't that the current zoning?

It's I one and C three R currently.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay.

That's it.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Any questions to my right?

All right.

Very good.

Commissioner Kelly, to you for discussion and potential motion.

All right.

I uh I think at this point we'll just make it quick and easy and say that uh move that we accept the C3R zoning for the entire property.

So motion is for approval as amended, correct, sir?

Correct.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, second by Commissioner Kellum.

Discussion to my left.

Saying none.

Discussion to my right, saying none.

All right.

The motion is for approval of item number 15 as amended with C3R for the entire property by Commissioner Kelly, second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Loosef?

Yes.

Commissioner Nohassam?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Wetzab.

Yes.

Commissioner Panna?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I motion carries.

All right.

Thank you all so much.

You have six months to go to council.

All right.

Next item, please.

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

Say other Glomesonian senior planet with development services.

Item number 19 is located at 1115 East Euclid Avenue requesting sorry, going from R6 residential single family district to IDZ one with uses permitted in neighborhood commercial and two dwelling units.

Those 54 notices sent out, two in favor, three opposed.

The Tobin Hill Community Neighborhood Association, Sojo Crossing Homeowners Association, San Antonio, Texas District 1 Resident Association gave no response.

Seth has found likely adverse effects on the public health safety or welfare for this request.

The existing R6 residential single family zoning district is an appropriate designation for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ1 limited intensity infill development zone with uses permitted in neighborhood commercial district is not appropriate.

Maintain the current residential designation ensures the long-term suitability, stability of housing stock on this block.

A transition to NC neighborhood commercial would permit infill development that contributes to the continued erosion of the scindering residential pocket.

Although the intent of the neighborhood commercial district is to provide localized services, granting this request would further enforce commercial encroachment into this area.

The NC neighborhood commercial disproportion of this request could conflict with conflict with the strategic housing implementation plan to stabilize households by preserving our existing affordable housing stock and creating new affordable options.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

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

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Patrick Christensen, 315 East Commerce Suite 304.

And I apologize.

So both of these homes are very small.

The one on Euclid is just over 1,000 square feet, the one on Myrtle is just over 800 square feet.

And the owner who's owned these for a long time, has lived in them, at least in one of them.

Just because of everything that's going on with the Pearl, right almost caddy corner, and I'll show you that here in a minute.

Even with a renter, he's having to supplement the mortgage payment because of the taxes.

Okay.

So these are the two properties.

This is Euclid, this is Myrtle.

This property right here is a block that's owned by the Pearl.

They're currently using as a staging area for some of the construction they're doing.

This right here is a condominium development.

Can we have a next slide, please?

That well, back, I'm sorry.

Back to the left.

Sorry.

A condominium development.

And you know, I spoke to their president, he's a friend, former client.

Their issues that there's there's uh there's no street parking.

Well, there's no street parking because they're taking all the street parking.

So it's kind of one of those we're here first, we don't want anyone else taking up any of the parking.

You just approved this case right here at the corner a few weeks ago for IDZ1.

Now what we're asking for is IDZ1 with uh neighborhood commercial uses and two dwelling units.

Now I'll explain why we're doing that, and I'll kind of tie back into your previous IDZ conversation.

Um it's a little difficult to figure out what to ask for in these kind of situations.

You know, you think, well, it's R6, maybe I asked for R6 C D for a conditional district, then maybe staff will recommend support.

I'm not commercial encroaching too much.

But the problem with the conditional district is you can only pull down one.

So this property, uh, we were approached by gentlemen that would like to do a vintage record store and then maybe sell some coffee.

Now I would consider that a retail use, but what if somebody wants to come in and do an office?

Then he's got to go through this whole rezoning process again.

And he would still like to do uh have the ability to do residential development just in case the market changes, he can charge more rent, then it's cheaper for him to try to just keep it residential than trying to convert it to a retail or office type of use.

So we asked for the IDZ.

Then with the IDZ, you're like, well, okay, I wish you could ask for ID Z two because at least then you'd have to have a 50 percent parking requirement.

But our uses aren't intense enough, our property is not big enough to to qualify us for IDZ two.

So we asked for IDZ one.

And then the issue is well, you're just trying to get out of the parking.

You know, but really what we're trying to do here is just allow them a little flexibility due to the circumstances around him, you know, the pearl basically, and and condominium developments across the street that have changed his circumstances where it's really just not feasible to have a single family home there anymore.

Um next slide.

So actually, you know, we have two parking spaces out front.

We think we can do a third, and I'll probably amend the site plan to show that before we get to council.

Um so we can definitely park.

If we do retail, it's one space per 300.

It's an 800 square foot structure.

We'll have to have three parking spaces.

We think we can meet that.

We could even meet the code, but again, we're asking for the IDZ once we could have the flexibility to switch back and forth between a a light commercial use and and single family.

And next slide, please.

So uh the owner did block walk the neighborhood.

He knows all of his neighbors.

Um we did get support from from the immediate neighbors.

I did reach out to Tobin Hill.

I don't know why they have not responded.

Um, and I of course spoke to the condominium association, Sojo Commons across the street.

And I guess they didn't send in an opposition that I know of.

So that's really it.

That's the request.

I would respectfully request your support.

It would really help out the homeowner, and I think it will help out the neighborhood to have a little bit more flexibility in uses.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those.

Thank you so much.

Is there any public comment?

There is no public comment.

You get no rebuttal.

All right.

Uh Commissioner Kellum, to you for questions.

I don't have any questions.

All right.

Any questions to my left?

To my right.

All right.

Commissioner Kellum, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Uh I think it's a a good plan.

I think it's a good um use of the uh property.

I I like the flexibility to maintain the uh housing stock.

And so my motion is for approval.

All right.

There is a motion for approval of item number 19.

With a second by?

Second.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Uh sorry.

Should have said, is there a second, but close enough.

All right.

Uh discussion to my left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

And then Commissioner Losef.

Uh we had mentioned before places in transition.

This is definitely a place in transition.

I find it really interesting to learn uh that these existing housing stock are not rentable at market with the property taxes.

That to me is a screaming sign of uh an area in transition.

I I do not this is not affordable housing.

It cannot be affordable housing because the market will not bear it.

Um with that, I'll be supporting the motion um to uh allow the IDZ.

Commissioner Lose?

Yeah, thanks for the presentation.

Um pretty familiar with the area.

I know we just rezoned that other parcel right up there.

Um I just wanted to say I'm a little conflicted on this.

I will be supporting it.

I'm conflicted just because I don't love the idea of taking units of housing offline when we don't need to, but I do agree with Commissioner Duval, which it's a very transitioning area.

It's definitely not affordable.

It will not be affordable.

Um I just have a little bit of pause because it's against ship and kind of has that um that contradiction, but I do think it's a good use to transition it, especially if you can't get rent for the for the UNA as is.

So I'll be supporting the motion.

All right.

Any further um discussion to my left?

Seeing none.

Discussion to my right?

Seeing none.

All right.

Um I think I would want to point out that there is still a use for two dwelling units available.

Correct.

So that is um something that does allay some of the fears I have regarding taking housing stock offline.

Um, but the flexibility is exactly what IDZ was for.

So I will be supporting the motion as well.

All right.

The motion is for approval of item number 19 by Commissioner Kellum with a second by Commissioner Woodsett.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner I know Hossa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chairman?

I.

Motion carries.

All right, very good.

All right.

Next item, please.

Item number 20 is located at 760 East Myrtle requesting.

It's going to be the same request, but I'm going to go through the motions for the record.

Going from R6 residential single family district to ID Z one with uses permitted neighborhood commercial and two dwelling units.

There were 55 notices sent out, seven in favor, three opposed, outside 200 feet, one in favor, zero opposed.

The Tobin Hill Community Neighborhood Association, Sojo Crossing Homeowners Association in San Antonio, Texas District 1 residence association gave no response.

Staff has found likely adverse effects on the public health safety or royal welfare based on this request.

The existing R6 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

Maintaining the current residential designation ensures the long-term suitability of this block.

A transition to the neighborhood commercial would permit info development that contributes to the continued erosion of this dwingling residential pocket.

Although the intended intent of neighborhood commercial district is to provide localized services, granting this request would further enforce the commercial encroachment into the area.

The neighborhood commercial district portion of the request with conflict with the strategic housing implementation plan to stabilize housing by preserving our existing housing stock.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

All right.

Thank you so much.

The applicant's representative, please.

Go afternoon, Commissioners.

Patrick Christensen 315 East Commerce Suite 304.

I'll start out by saying before you think I'm crazy.

The reason why we did these as two cases is that they actually were two different requests, but in working with staff, we found out that one of those would have required a plan amendment, and we didn't feel that this case warranted that type of process.

So we amended the request, and now they're basically the same.

But I would just reiterate what I said before.

Um this property was approached by a small architecture firm with three people that would like to locate there, so that's why we're asking for the neighborhood commercials that will allow professional office.

This property has um you know a pretty large backyard.

He could definitely park some cars back there and in the driveway.

We think we won't be affecting street parking, but you know, as I said, in talking with the neighbors, they're supportive.

They're kind of in the same boat.

Um again, request your support and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Christensen.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, very good.

Commissioner Kellum, this is a district one case to you for questions.

No questions, Chair.

All right.

Any questions to my left?

Seeing none.

Any questions to my right?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Kellum to you for discussion and potential motion.

Um for all the same reasons we talked about before.

Uh I make a motion for approval.

There is a motion for approval.

Is there a second?

Let's do it.

Here we go.

All right.

Um the motion is for approval of item 20 by Commissioner Kellum with a second by Commissioner Woodsett.

Uh discussion to my left.

Seeing none.

Discussion to my right.

Seeing none.

All right.

Again, the motion is for approval of item 20 by Commissioner Kellum with a second by Commissioner Woodsett.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Yes.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner Nohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Huey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustavantham?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

We're now going to move on to item number 21, please.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Joel Polimus, zoning planner with development services.

Item number 21 is located at 1315 Bassi Road, going from C2 Commercial District to C three general commercial district with all overlays remaining the same.

There were 39 notices sent out, one in favor, zero posed within 200 feet.

North Central Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Sherro Hills Ridgeview Neighborhood Association and San Antonio, Texas District 1 resident association gave no response.

Staff does find evidence of likely adverse impacts on neighborhood lands in relation to the zoning change request.

Though the proposed use is consistent with the established development pattern of the surrounding area, it is not aligned with the uses permitted in the feature land use plan, which supports neighborhood commercial and light commercial.

The existing C2 commercial district is not an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area, as it allows for a range of commercial uses that may be incompatible with the adjacent residential zone and district.

The proposed C3 general commercial district is also not appropriate as it would introduce an even broader range of more intensive commercial uses.

The transition of C2 to C3 represents an increase in commercial intensity that would expand what is suitable for this area.

Staff's alternative recommendation of C1 CD like commercial district with the conditional use for automotive vehicle sales is a more appropriate zoning designation as it limits the range and intensity of permitted commercial uses while allowing the use requested.

This ref rec this recommendation represents a down zone from the existing C2 designation.

Similar like commercial zoning exists in the surrounding area, including a neighboring property granted a com a conditional use for motor vehicle sales in November 2025.

Staff recommends denial for this request, and the applicant is here to answer any questions.

Okay, if we could have the applicant, please.

And ma'am, if you would name an address, and then tell us about your request.

Okay.

Mariana Gauna.

Um, my home address or the business address.

Whichever one you want to give us.

1203 Bassey Road.

Um so my name is Mariana Gauna.

My husband and I own K-1 Motors, a used car lot at 1203 and 1211 Bassi Road.

And those are both C3s.

We have been at this location since 2013.

Bassee Road has seen us grow from a very small operation of $35,000 the first year to nearly five million dollars in sales in 2025.

We acquired 1315 Bassie Road a year ago and initially simply planned to use the backyards to store vehicles.

But the growth of our business that has been allowed by Bassie Road is allowing us to actually open that as a car lot and make it into an annex.

So we request the change from C2 to C3, but because of the opposition, I would even say C2, just keep the C2 and give us the conditional use.

So I did do a little PowerPoint, but I guess I spoke faster than the slides were going.

Um but we do, you know, it would be property taxes increasing, inventory tax for the city, sales tax, um, licensing fees for the state of you know, through the DMV.

So I think that we would be a very good contribution, the beautification of the area because you know our car lot really stands out for those are neighboring car lots.

So would you repeat your current lots address, please?

Yes, it's 1203 and 1211 Bassi Road.

And even though the addresses are kind of far, they're actually right next to each other, and we just made the big bar in the front, and you know, we added lighting through the city, so you know we we want Bassi Road to continue to grow, and it is a very hot spot off of San Pedro, and I know that that's an area that's also expanding.

All right, thank you so much.

Any public comment there is no public comment.

All right, very good.

Uh once again, Commissioner Kellum, this is to you for questions.

Ms.

Gowner, can I ask you a question?

So this lot you're looking to change is contiguous to the lots you have right now?

It's not.

So it's about a block and a half away.

So um we have the two that are together, and then that would be like a little annex.

So we would need to get licensing and and all that from the state.

Okay.

And just as staff, what do we need to do to consider the CD with conditional use?

Would she have to So the existing is C2?

Um, she could amend to C2 C D, but we would require a site plan to be presented.

So we would need that um submitted before we proceed with review.

And I do not believe we have a site plan at this time.

So I would rec request that you guys continue this until we can get a site plan from the applicant, and then we could proceed that way.

Okay.

Okay.

Any further questions to my left?

Yes.

Commissioner Double.

Um help me out, but where what was the opposition that what was the opposition to the C3?

What was the nature of the opposition who opposed with the current land use plan, C3 isn't permitted, it's only neighborhood commercial and like commercial uses.

So she's going outside of her land use, so she is required to plan amendment as well.

And just the introduction of more intense uses because there is um a residential subdivision in the rear, we we saw that this would not align with what I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

I thought uh it was staff not recommending it wasn't a public opposition to the staff.

No, you did not receive any public.

And then uh to the applicant, um before we consider amending to C2 C D.

Uh have you already prepared the the plan amendment application?

How far along in the process are you?

So tomorrow is the the next part of it.

So if just brainstorming, if we were to consider moving forward with approving the requested zoning change, the applicant would be able to go to planning tomorrow and then to council thereafter.

For the May, yeah.

She can still go to planning commission tomorrow, but again, as I'm requesting, we don't have a site plan, so I would not proceed today with her repeating.

But we again yes we could proceed with the requested zoning with the if you want to vote on the C three, yes, you could proceed with that.

Got it.

But again, the C three would open up those additional uses that I would mention the neighbor next door is oh sorry.

He can he can ask you, but yeah, yeah, what were you doing?

Okay, the neighbor next door has a uh salon and she is a C three, and then the one to the other side is a C2, and then if we walk down like half a block, most of them are C three or C2 with the conditional use, because there's two more car lots on that street, plus mine too, plus the ones further down to San Pedro.

On that point, could staff pull up the map from the packet?

Oh, it's already there.

Uh could we zoom in a little bit though, just to I was gonna say if you want to do the one stop map because there is a mix of C2 and C3 along there, and as you f head further east, you'd see C three, but they're abutting I1s.

Um again, this portion of the property, this block, they uh are adjacent to those residential established residential neighborhood.

Okay, thank you.

That's for me.

All right, any further questions left?

Questions right?

All right, quickly.

Um so the site plan would be required whether or not you know it's staff's alternate recommendation as C1 C D or the applicant's proposal potentially of C2 C D, correct?

Jewel Correct, and she still would um require the plan amendment for the C2.

Right.

Okay.

And that was gonna be my follow-up question.

So thank you.

All right, and you understand that?

Not really, but we'll work on it.

All right.

Um I've been doing business for a while.

All right, how about this?

I just learned.

Uh you've seen some of these kinds of presentations.

So this is a site plan.

Uh in order for a C D to be approved with zoning, you would need to provide us something like this for your use.

Do you understand that?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh you'd be willing to do that?

Yes.

Okay.

Those are my questions.

Any further questions to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Dougal.

I'm sorry, just because I don't understand.

What the to clarify Chair's previous question.

The proposed zoning or the the requested zoning by the applicant does not require a site plan.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

So it's the C D that would require a site plan.

That's right.

As being contemplated.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

I'm on the same page.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none.

Questions right?

Seeing none.

All right, Commissioner Kellum, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Ms.

Gaiana, you can sit down.

Thank you.

Public hearing is closed.

So I would like to, if we can make a motion for continuance for four weeks, give us an opportunity if we can to try to get closer to what you're looking for in terms of the zoning designation.

Okay.

There's a motion uh to continue for four weeks to May 5th, 2026.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Kelly is the second.

Um discussion left.

Commissioner Duval.

You know, I'll I'll support the motion.

Um, but only that um it's not you know, with the the CNA um this side of uh the street and with C three immediately opposite the street.

It's not entirely clear to me why um C three would be so improper.

Um but I'll be supporting the motion and we can you know see if it could be worked out by then.

All right, thank you.

Any further discussion left?

Discussion right?

Seeing none.

Motion is for approval of item number um misspoke entirely.

Motion is for continuance of item number 21 for four weeks to the May 5th, 2026 meeting by Commissioner Kellum with the second by Commissioner Kelly.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner Hosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

I.

Commissioner Sypes?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Witza?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chairbustamante.

Chair Wistamante.

I.

Motion carries.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Uh and you can work with uh Jewel to talk about the site plan and what's required.

Thank you.

See you in a month.

All right.

Our next item is item number 22.

Commissioners.

My name is Forrest Wilson, principal planner with development services.

Item number 22, located at 3109 North St.

Mary's Street is going from C3 General Commercial District to C1 C D S, like commercial district with the conditional and specific use authorization to permit a tobacco store, retail hookah lounge or smoking room within 1,000 feet of a public or private school, daycare, or institution of higher learning, with all overlays remaining the same.

There were 13 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero posed.

The Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association gave no response.

The existing C3 General Commercial District is an appropriate zoning for the property.

They proposed C1 with a C D and an S to permit the tobacco store within a thousand feet of a public or private school.

I lost my point.

Is not appropriate as it as it's within a thousand feet of a public private school daycare or institutional of higher learning in accordance with UDC 3539802 Prohibition of tobacco uh stores and vape shops from certain uses.

The proposed use is within a thousand feet of Mark Twain Dual Language Academy located at 518 East Magnolia Street.

Staff recommends denial and the applicant is present.

Very good.

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

And ma'am, if you would just say your name and your address for the record and then tell us about your request.

Just one person, please.

Hello.

My name is Madame Laloy.

I am here on behalf of the business owner regarding the zoning request for Purple Dragon, which is going to be on St.

Mary's.

So we understand the concern about being near a school, which we take seriously.

We do enforce a strict 21 and op policies.

Oh, I'm just okay.

Do you want me to restart?

Yeah, if you would.

Okay.

My name is Madeline Malloy.

I'm here on behalf of the business owner regarding the zoning request for St.

Mary's, also Bobcock and Callahan.

Um we understand the concern about being near a school, which we take seriously.

We strictly enforce a 21 and op policy with ID verification.

We do not allow minors, we maintain a low profile storefront with no marketing towards children.

We are committed to operating responsibly and in full compliance with all city regulations, and we are respectfully asking for consideration.

Okay, thank you so much.

Do we have any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, very good.

This is a district one case.

Commissioner Keller, do you for questions for staff?

So we need the conditional use with the uh specific use authorization for this to occur.

It could not occur in the C3 designation.

So the use could is there they're requesting the specific use, yeah.

That S because they're within a thousand feet of a school.

So that use is allowed in all of the commercial districts.

Um but when it's within a thousand feet of a school, it requires the yes.

And the C D in this case.

Okay.

And if if I can just quickly add to that, because I know this is a relatively new item.

Um you may recall from last year, the city council we had presented to this body a recommendation for what was called the breath ordinance building related codes.

I can track down what breath stands for.

But anyway, the idea was that um the city council was concerned with the rise of vape shops that were located near some of those institutions, public or private schools, universities.

So city council enacted an ordinance that would prohibit their opening unless city council grants by specific use authorization permission to open those uh businesses within a thousand feet of those uses.

And do we do we have any idea staff how many vape shops are around that area?

Uh give me a couple minutes, I can probably track that down.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh before we go a little bit further, Mr.

Wilson, I have a question for you.

Sorry.

Um you said Mark Twain, dual language academy.

Did you mean did you mean our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church?

No, there is a dual language academy if you look just north uh west, I believe, on the map there.

It it may, I think Google might show that it's closed.

Okay.

Oh okay.

So it's the Rafael Gonzalez Early Childhood Center, but Mark Twain is there now.

Correct.

Uh I gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

All right.

Now back over here.

Uh to my left questions.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

I guess it's for staff.

So the uses that they're proposing are established in the use matrix.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

So if they weren't in use matrix, then they couldn't do it or they'd have to go through a very difficult process.

Is that the case?

So whenever a whenever someone approaches staff with a use that is not in the use matrix, the code requires that the director of development services make a determination of what they are most materially similar to.

And oftentimes those items are submitted for UDC amendments in the next UDC amendment cycle.

If if I can answer Commissioner Kellum's question, I don't know within a certain distance of this location in particular, but I can tell you that at the time that the breath ordinance was approved, there were 225 vape shops in the city, 35 of which were in district one.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Losef.

Either the applicant or staff, but what's there currently?

What was the use of the building before?

Um I believe it was I think like a re a realtor place.

Yeah.

Yeah, we just had it was categorized as professional office.

Okay.

Commissioner Duval.

Uh so since the whole breath ordinance, the whole purpose is to protect churches and schools.

Um did uh Mark Twain Academy respond or no.

Um but they were were they noticed because it's outside of 200 feet?

Yes.

Well not so no Mark Twain wasn't noticed, but I think you mentioned Our Lady the SAR is with it is within 200 feet, so they were noticed.

So in this case, there was a couple of schools that was triggering the specific use need.

Or the other one with the school.

I see.

So yeah, the the it doesn't the breath ordinance didn't change the notice requirements, it just imposed that S requirement for the thousand foot proximity.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Questions right?

Saying none.

Commissioner Kellum, to you for discussion and potential motion.

Well, I appreciate the input from staff, although I'm a big proponent of business growth.

In this particular case, I have to I have a little bit of pause with the distance for from the school.

And so I'm gonna make a motion for denial.

Okay.

There's a motion for denial of item number 22 by Commissioner Kellum.

Is there a second?

Second.

And there's a second by Commissioner Duval.

All right.

Uh discussion left.

Commissioner Losef.

Okay.

I don't it's not an official answer, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer to your question because I've biked this a lot.

There's one smoke shop down the way, maybe half a block, and then they just open like a cannabis coffee shop or something down the right.

Um so not official, but from what I know.

Um it's this is interesting.

I go by this all the time.

My gym's right over there.

I feel like St.

Mary's is a class like a perfect place for a smoke shop.

Um, but St.

Mary's also goes right up against neighborhood and obviously schools and church and community centers.

So it's a little bit of an interesting situation.

To me, it feels like you know I've walked past this place a lot, I had no idea what was in it.

It seems like it's empty.

It probably isn't, but it seems unused.

And I'm usually a proponent proponent of moving lots into use.

So I'm gonna be supporting this motion.

I think there is reason to have pause with the school so close by, but I do think that St.

Mary's is kind of a perfect place for something like a smoke shop, and there's not a ton in the area right now.

Um and it's also a corridor covered in like bars and this kind of use.

So I'm in support of the sorry, I am against the proposed motion.

I friendly with respect.

All right.

I think we got there.

Yes, Commissioner Duble.

Uh recognizing that the the breath ordinance didn't impose a notice requirement.

Uh I think it probably should.

Um, if the whole purpose is to protect those kind of organizations like churches and schools from uses like vape shops, if the school doesn't, you know, know uh that seems to be a problem.

If in this case, hypothetically, if the school were to come back after you know being fully noticed and just didn't respond, um, or certainly if they gave a letter of support, you know, I'd be inclined to think differently about it.

Um but absent that you know I I can only imagine what the you know the PTA of the school uh would would say in response.

Um so I'll be uh uh supporting the motion.

All right, thank you.

Any further discussion left?

Discussion right?

All right.

Uh motion is for denial by Commissioner Kellum of item number 22 with a second by Commissioner Duble, thank you.

Just blanked out there.

Um roll call vote, please.

Okay.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Dubal?

Aye.

Commissioner Lose?

No.

Commissioner Inahosa?

Yes.

Commissioner P.

Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Witza.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

We're now going to move on to item number.

So let me actually give the explanation.

So we are recommending body, which means that we have recommended denial at this point.

You still have six months to go to city council.

City council can accept or reject our recommendation and go from there.

All right.

Uh next item, please.

Good afternoon.

Forrest Wilson with development services.

Item 23, located at 1739 Babcock Road is going from C2 commercial district to C2S commercial district with a specific use authorization to permit a tobacco store, retail hookah lounge or smoking room within a thousand feet of a public or private school, daycare, or institute of higher learning, with all overlays remaining the same.

There were nine notices mailed, zero received in favor, two opposed.

The Oak Hills Citizens Association gave no response, but the international school has provided a letter of opposition.

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

The proposed C2S to permit tobacco store is not appropriate as it is within a thousand feet of a public or private school.

In accordance with the uh UDC section 3539802.

Their proposed use is located within the thousand feet of the International School of San Antonio, located at 6739 Callahan Road.

Staff recommends denial and the applicant is present.

Did you say Callahan or Babcot?

Callahan.

This is the Babcock I understand.

The the international school, I believe, was addressed off of Callahan, so that's what I was saying that that's their location.

All right.

Same same deal.

Yes, hello again.

Um yeah, I am I'm aware that the school is um opposed to us.

I have gone and spoken with them, but um I'm fully aware that they don't want us right there.

So anything else to add about this location, Miss Muller?

Um just about the same thing.

We still are very um strict about our 21 and up policy.

Um we have staint trap, we have trained staff to make sure that you know nobody under 21 comes around or is allowed inside the shop.

But I know that we are next to that school and they have let us know that they don't usar.

All right.

All right, thank you, Miss Mulloy.

All right, any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right, this is a district seven case.

Uh Commissioner Sipes to you for questions?

I don't have any questions.

All right.

Any questions to my left?

Any questions to my right?

All right.

Commissioner Sipes to you for discussion and potential motion.

All right.

So um for me, the the the school is not just within a thousand feet, the school actually received notice because they were within the two hundred feet.

They're like baseball throwaway.

So um for me this is this is um kind of an easy uh denial in my opinion.

So I will be making a motion for denial okay.

There's a motion for denial by Commissioner Sipes.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Kellum.

Uh discussion to my left.

Discussion to my right.

Um yeah, I will be supporting the motion, but I think it's also funny that the most prominent business closest to the school is who's who cocktails.

So not necessarily great.

All right.

Uh the motion is for denial of item number 23 by Commissioner Sipes with a second by Commissioner Kellum.

Um roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Losef?

Yes.

Commissioner Inahoza?

Yes.

Commissioner P.

Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Wetzett?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Pustamante?

Motion carries.

All right.

Again, same thing.

We're a recommending body.

You'll have six months to go to council, and our body only makes recommendations.

Next item, please.

Good afternoon again, Commissioners.

Forrest Wilson.

So item 24 is located at 6430 Callahan Road.

It's going from C3 commercial district to C2S commercial district with a specific use to permit a tobacco store, retail lounge or smoking room within a thousand feet of a public or private school, daycare, or institution of higher learning.

The there were 11 notices mailed, zero in favor, one opposed, and there is no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

The existing C3 is an appropriate zoning.

The proposed C2S to permit a tobacco store is not appropriate as it's within a thousand feet of a uh in this case a institution of higher learning.

So the proposed use is located within a thousand feet of the College of Healthcare Professionals Vocational School, located at 4400 Northwest Loop 410.

Staff recommends denial and the applicant is present.

All right.

Thank you so much, Miss.

Not Miss Molloy.

No, it's all right.

Please, if you would introduce yourself and tell tell us your address.

Hi, my name's Andrea Issa Martinez.

And we're with the 6430 Callahan.

Um we like I said, we do know we're we're really close to a school, but we're trying to see maybe if being uh further away from the other school or the church that will like change anything.

So thank you, ma'am.

Uh okay.

This is again a district seven case.

Uh Commissioner Sipes, questions.

So the the location to the previous school we were talking about the the Presbyterian church, I can't remember what the school's name.

That was not the determining factor, it was the institution of higher learning that was the determining factor being within a thousand feet.

Correct.

It was the school, national school.

This one the health professionals.

Gotcha.

All right.

Um I don't have any questions.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you so much.

Any questions to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

So this one's not within two hundred feet, so they didn't get notice.

But to be fair, higher learning versus you know, primary school, that that is different.

The code doesn't make any distinction.

That's correct.

The code does not make a distinction.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

All right.

Questions to my right?

Yes, Commissioner Heinhosa.

Uh just can you clarify staff for me?

Is the school in question for this case?

What what is it again?

Uh, where's it located on 410 and Babcock?

It's 4400 northwest loop 410, so just south of 410.

It's the College of Health Care Professions.

All right, and it and between loop between Babcock and Callahan on loop 410.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Personally, that that changes my opinion.

Just because it's not a K-12 school or or church school, maybe that's something should be kind of maybe brought up at some point.

All right.

Uh it can always be revisited in the future.

Uh but it was the direction from city council in the form of the CCR.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions, right?

So can you read me exactly what the language is?

I'm sorry.

I just want to be sure I'm completely clear here.

From the CCR or for just the requested zoning.

Uh whatever the the UDC language is currently.

I don't I don't care about the CC.

I mean, I care about the CCR to the extent that it's reflected in the UDC.

So the UDC says that no tobacco store or vape shop shall be allowed to operate within 1,000 feet of a public or private school, daycare or institution of higher learning, unless granted a specific use authorization by the city council.

All right.

Um okay.

All right.

That is my questions.

Any uh further questions left?

Further questions, right?

Yes, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

I I think I found is there another vape shop uh a little further east of that location off of Babcock?

Yeah, this one this location is right around the corner from their Babcock location.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Okay.

Uh there being no further questions, Commissioner Sipes, uh to you for motion, discussion, and potential motion.

All right.

Um this one I view differently.

So this one I view differently in the United States.

This one is, I think it kind of meets the spirit of the UDC where it says unless, and and basically it's up to us to determine, okay.

Well, there are other factors.

Yes, it's within a thousand feet, but it's not completely prohibited.

It's prohibited if you know until we give the S designation.

Um in this case, because of its location, it's close to 410, it's close to the a major intersection.

On a on a major road, I know on planning commission they'd say, well, this is a type 5 archery, you know, but uh uh but in in this case I will be um it's also downzoning to a C2 from a C3.

Um and so in this case I will be making a motion for approval.

There is a motion for approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

There's a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Discussion left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Yeah, so uh the uh generally vape shops and and headshots, uh head shops.

Um I I've got a you know, I I'm got a bone to pick.

Um you know, the the area where I live, we have a lot of them.

Um and I walk um my kids every week past one of them that's immediately placed right next to my neighborhood.

This was of course before the Breath Act.

Um, I have to explain to my kids while I'm like walking, you know, through the parking lot.

Uh hey, don't do drugs.

You know, kids don't do drugs.

Uh and I do that every week.

It I think it's significant here the placement, um, that it's not just that it's you know a uh um institution of higher learning, but that it's set back, that it's not up on a residential area even.

So like the risk of like, for example, the pedestrian example.

This isn't at least when I look at Google Maps and at the um you know the map that the in the city staff report, this is not a high traffic, you know, pedestrian area.

Um looks like it's within a shopping center, um, which is I think a lot more appropriate.

I know that's not what the Breath Act says, but um it at least makes me comfortable to to support the motion um for those reasons.

All right.

Any further discussion left?

Seeing none.

Discussion right.

Seeing none.

Uh I'll support the motion for the same reasons as previously stated.

Uh the motion is for approval of item number 24 by Commissioner Sipes with a second.

Oh my gosh, what is wrong with me today?

By Hinoza.

Commissioner Hina Hosa.

That's right.

Thank you so much.

Uh roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Hinohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Lose?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Huey?

Aye.

Commissioner Kelly?

No.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Witza.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

I.

Motion carries.

All right.

Well, so this time I get to say, again, we're a recommending body, but you've been recommended for approval, and you have to go to city council in six months.

So good luck to you.

Good luck to you both.

Take care.

All right.

Our next item, please.

No.

Thank you.

All right.

This is going to be here.

It doesn't do presentation.

It doesn't.

That's all right.

Fair enough.

All right.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Logan Sparrow, Assistant Director for Development Services.

Uh brief presentation for you on the UDC amendments related to detention facilities.

I want to start off just with a little bit of background.

Um back on March 5th, uh the City Council directed city staff to propose UDC amendments and other city code amendments related to the regulation of the operation of detention facilities within city limits.

Um the proposed amendments that I will run through today are intended to safeguard public safety by uh number one requiring notice of an operator if they wish to build or convert or operate a detention facility.

They have to notify the city so that we're aware of it.

Um then we also propose some actual zoning standards as well.

Um it is the recommendation for amendments that to Chapter 35 that fall under the purview of the zoning commission.

It is the recommendation for amendments that to Chapter 35 that fall under the purview of the Zoning Commission.

So I will focus my presentation on those amendments.

If we can go to the next slide.

Yep.

The proposed again, the proposed amendments here are all about the preservation of public safety.

The proposed amendments themselves, number one, define what a detention facility is in appendix A of the UDC.

It differentiates that definition from the existing definition for correctional facilities which are more related to state level operations as defined currently.

Again, we are adding a mandatory notice provision to Chapter 35 that the city's building official, our director, needs to be notified if any entity wishes to build, convert, construct, or operate one of those facilities.

And then we are also adding, and this is more broadly for detention facilities moving forward, a zoning requirement that they may not operate or build within a thousand feet of a residential area, a primary or secondary school, but also public parks and then places of worship.

One important note, uh or one distinction I want to reiterate is that in accordance with federal and state law, uh detention facilities that are under the control, the administration or the jurisdiction of a state or federal agency will remain exempt.

The applicability amendments to the UDC simply state that we are going to assume that our Chapter 35 applies unless and until it is demonstrated that it does not by one of those State or Federal agencies.

So the amendments themselves are very brief.

We can certainly put them up on the screen.

We can go to the next slide.

Staff does recommend approval today.

The direction from City Council was to return to them within 45 days, which is why this is on a relatively expedited timeline.

But we are proposing or we are recommending that these UDC amendments be approved and forwarded to council for their final consideration.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Sparrow.

Is there any public comment?

There is no public comment.

If you can just put that on the screen as well.

It makes me want to ask if there are voicemails.

No, I'm kidding.

I'm kidding.

I'm kidding.

All right.

Because this is a citywide issue, uh, we are going to Oh, no.

We'll begin with you, Commissioner Pana.

Any questions?

No, again.

All right, very good.

All right.

Uh in that case, we'll come to uh Commissioners on my right.

Questions?

Yes.

Can you help me understand what you said just now?

The amendment will the applicant will come to the city.

And the city will decide if it is applicable.

So help me understand within this amendment who will make that determination and is there a time period that they have to make that determination?

There's not a time period codified in the code.

I I can tell you, I can give you similar examples.

We've had um UT Health Science Center come to us with a project and you know, we're asked, you know, do they have to obtain permits from us?

We'll typically coordinate with the city attorney's office.

UT Health Science Center is a state level agency.

They don't have to get permits from the City of San Antonio.

So it doesn't necessarily change the process that exists today.

It just helps to flesh out in the code that we will generally default to the assumption that our code applies unless and until the applicant can demonstrate to us that it does not.

So you didn't answer the first part.

Who within the City of San Antonio will make that determination?

Development Services Department and the City Attorney's Office.

Yeah, sorry, thank you.

Right.

Any further questions?

Yes, Commissioner Heenahausen.

So help me clarify a couple of things.

Number one, do we have any current facilities that would be affected by this change?

Number one?

I suppose which portion of the change are you talking about?

Like requiring a rezoning or notification procedures or I guess requiring a rezoning because my interpretation of this is basically if if it's a state or federal jurisdiction, the building they build, I mean it's we ask who are you, they show us their big badge, and we say, okay.

On your way.

So who it this would change?

This would be, I guess, a third party entity that would be a uh a contractor for maybe a federal or state agency who would purchase land or building a.

Yeah.

So I guess let me kind of walk you through two hypotheticals that I hope answer your question.

So if a private entity completely removed of the state or federal level government wish to open a private correctional facility, they would have to comply with the zoning regulations that are proposed today.

They could not be within a thousand feet of a residential area, schools, uh, places of worship or a park, unless City Council granted them that authority, similar to the breath ordinance.

In that example, again, we're going to assume that our Chapter 35 applies, they would not be able to demonstrate that they are exempt from 35 because there is no nexus to a state or federal uh uh entity.

That changes if there is a connection to a state or federal entity.

So I I think that I don't know if you want to chime in anything more on that.

No, I think that that's exactly correct.

Again, I guess uh uh example number two is they come to us and say we are under contract with some state or federal agency, they submit that for us and city attorney's office to review, and if that is if that is the case, then Chapter 35 would not apply.

And is there a uh maybe I just missed it, but i if Catholic charities or some organization like that opens up a facility?

Uh I know we define the word detention, but is is that the determining factor uh Yeah.

Can can we um if you flip the page, we have a definition.

Uh go to the next page, sorry.

Definition of detention facility?

Yeah.

So the detention facility definition uh is a temporary or permanent building or part thereof, set of buildings, structure or area, whether or not it is enclosed that was built or retrofitted for the purpose of detain, confining or processing individuals or families in custody.

So probably not for a charitable organization, this would apply to agencies with arrest power, people that are under contract to perform that sort of work with an agency that is.

Um those are the entities that it would potentially apply to.

And my last question kind of goes back to my first question.

Do we currently have any organizations like that or facilities like that that would be affected by this?

We do not have any in San Antonio right now that would require a change of zoning.

I thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

Any further questions?

Right.

Questioners left.

Uh let's go doval and then Losof.

So uh the uh resolution from the City Council.

Um do we have a copy of it or for us to meet?

I apologize.

I printed out a copy for and totally forgot to hand it out.

No, no, but but thank you.

I so it uh I I was able to find it eventually, you know.

But uh the So City Council directed uh staff and you know to then and then to bring it to the zoning commission prior to City Council for final action to uh look at policy changes to limit detention facilities to protect health safety and welfare.

Is that a correct reading of the uh I believe it is.

Okay.

So working from that, what about detention facilities requires protection of health, safety, and welfare?

What what are the characteristics of a detention facility that require that exercise of the police power?

Well, certainly the keeping of people in a facility in close confinement.

Um I think the example that has been in the news was the example of a warehouse that was not designed uh to accommodate people, it was designed to accommodate products and merchandise.

And we think that at least at an absolute minimum, notification to the fire department that X number of people may be housed in that facility if there is an emergency is important for the fire department to protect the public health safety and welfare.

So wouldn't that same consideration apply to uh jails, prisons, schools?

Sure.

So why treat detention facilities differently than the schools, prisons, and jails?

I think what this process is trying to do is not treat them differently, that we want an opportunity to understand who is going to be housed in a facility so that we can plan for emergency services.

Jails and prisons are reviewed, and they're, you know, we have fire protection systems that get installed in them that are reviewed by the fire department so they understand.

In other facilities that may or may not be retrofitted that don't need permits or reviews, that's where the concern on public safety is focused.

So maybe you could help me walk me through you know a hypothetical development of a uh state correctional facility.

So if the state wanted to build a correctional facility in San Antonio, um they need to apply for a permit with the city.

Is that the process?

So I will say that related to state correctional facilities, they are actually regulated heavily by the state, and there are very specific state statutes that DSD is not an expert in and would not be able to answer related to that question.

Okay, but this I think when we're talking about detention facilities, we're talking about federal deta I I can't imagine private organizations unaffiliated with the federal government opening detention facilities.

That sounds pretty dystopic to me.

We're talking about detention facilities related to the federal government, right?

Isn't that kind of what's the issue?

The notice provision would apply to both, but just to be clear, there are absolutely private detention facilities that operate.

Not in San Antonio, but there are absolutely private detention facilities out there.

Like private prisons?

Yes.

But aren't they regulated under the state rules?

Or are they just exempt?

They can just open up and hold people without habeas corpus?

So everything is very fact specific.

And so it is all contextual based on the actual contract and what authority has been ceded by a particular government, whether it is the feds or at the state level or at the local level to those private facilities that would determine what rules actually apply to them.

Okay, which brings me back, though, to the issue with the state institutions.

So if there was a state institution, it's fact specific, it's up to them, it's up to their regulations, we're not the ones in control.

Shouldn't we be treating them the same as the federal detention facilities?

I'm sorry to uh i I I know that I'm asking the same question, but I'm I'm not getting the distinction.

Sorry.

No, I apologize.

I just want to make sure I think we accidentally said five minutes for this questioning, it should be ten.

So when this clock turns over, if we could add five more minutes.

I I think the concern that we have is that while prisons that are built and constructed and operated at the state level are overseen by state level agencies and reviews, we don't have that same level of assurance for facilities that may be retrofitted by other agencies.

Again, we don't have in that situation the purview to apply our building permit requirements and conduct full reviews.

We're at least just trying to be put on notice of what the intent is, the number of people that may be housed in that facility so that we can respond for emergencies.

So I would also add that it the way that the changes read, we are to some extent treating federal and state the same in the sense of the provisions, you start out from the position of everything applies within city limits.

The way that they would become exempt is different.

So the states would be exempt because potentially of state regulations versus the feds would be exempt potentially because of federal regulations.

And so we are not necessarily treating them any differently because we're starting off from the viewpoint of if you're having a detention center facility within the City of San Antonio limits, then rules apply to you until you come and show us that you are exempt.

Okay.

So to push back a little bit on that, clarify for me.

The state correctional and rehabilitative facilities, this proposed ordinance would not apply to those.

If they are truly state facilities and meet the regulations that are required of them under the state, then yes, they would be exempt.

Right.

So the that that is different, right?

They're they're exempt.

That is a difference, right?

But neither would the feds if it is truly a federal facility.

Got it.

So if it's truly a federal facility, they wouldn't apply here anyways.

Okay.

All right.

So I I guess that that to confirm this, you had brought up two hypotheticals with private actors coming and applying.

If the feds showed up tomorrow and said, hey, we want to open up a facility on the east side, would they have to prove an access to the federal government, or does the development services say, hey, why did you show up here in the first place?

How does that how does that work?

Yeah.

They would they would have to they would have to demonstrate to the city how it is that they don't have to comply.

We start from the assumption that our rules apply to everyone.

We accept that there are situations where they don't apply, but you have to prove to us, you have to show us that you meet that exemption.

I don't have a crystal ball.

I don't know, I don't know who they are just because they walked through the door.

So if they want to say we don't have to comply with your local regulations, fine, we accept that may be the case.

Show us how.

So uh uh if I could ask, so just so I understand where the bounds are here, um city attorney's office.