The time is now 2 06 p.m.

on Thursday, August 7th, and the City of San Antonio zoning and land use session is called to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Corps.

Councilmember Castillo Angiano.

Councilmember Yagran.

Here.

Councilmember Mungia.

Councilmember Castillo.

Councilmember Galvan.

Here.

Councilmember Alderete Gavito.

Here.

Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

Present.

Councilmember Spears.

Here.

Councilmember White.

Mayor Jones.

Mayor, we have quorum.

Thank you.

Okay.

For the record, item 22 has been withdrawn and will not be considered today.

Items to continue to the August 21st meeting are 5, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 27.

Is there a motion to continue the items?

I make a motion to continue.

Madam Clerk, is anyone signed up to speak on these items?

Continued.

Okay, so a correction to that.

Items to continue to the August 21st meeting are 5, 14, 15, 21, and 27.

Okay.

Is there a motion to continue the items?

Second.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, anyone signed up to speak on these items?

Okay.

There is not.

Okay, there is not.

We'll move to council discussion.

Is there any council discussion on the items to be continued?

I don't have a list on here.

We're just gonna do the old-fashioned way.

I'm gonna look across the dais.

Um you'd like to speak.

No?

No, you're okay.

Would you like to speak?

Councilwoman Viegeran.

No, yeah.

No one speaking.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh so uh there being no discussion from the council.

There's a motion and second to continue items uh five, fourteen, fifteen, twenty-one, and twenty-seven to August 21st.

Please vote.

Okay.

The motion carries.

Okay.

The following items are listed for individual consideration.

Items one, sixteen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and twenty-six.

The remaining items on today's agenda will be considered on the consent agenda.

Do any council members wish to pull an item from the consent agenda to be heard individually?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Hearing none.

Uh Madam Cler did.

Okay.

Uh Madam Clerk hearing none.

Um, is anyone signed up to speak on the items remaining on the consent agenda?

Yes, there are.

We have uh members of the public signed up to speak on items two and three.

Nine and thirteen.

Okay.

Okay.

Um item two, um, Betty Eckhart, Jonathan Fly, and Jack Finger.

You each have three minutes.

You're speaking individually, so you call into one of them at a time.

Okay.

Uh Betty Eckhart, please.

You've got three minutes.

Not here.

Okay, Jonathan Fly.

Good afternoon.

Um, I'm the applicant, and I understand this is on uh the consent agenda.

Um thank you.

I would ask that it be approved.

That's all.

Okay, thank you.

Jack Finger.

Well, Madam Mayor, another members of our brand new San Antonio City Council.

For the record, my name is Jack M.

Finger, and my offer my welcome to those who are new and newer upon this council.

Uh zoning session is a unique uh animal, and I'll try to offer some helpful hints on my almost 30 years of experience with this here.

Item number two and three is about changing a zone.

This is in uh Ms.

Carr, this is in your your district there.

Yeah, that's right.

It's about uh changing uh over on uh Mariposa Street, a residents from R that's designated R4 to C one commercial.

So number of problems we see with this.

For one thing, uh Ms.

Carr, and for those of you who are uh not familiar with this, you had as many as oh five, six people at the zoning commission sign up to speak and speak in their opposition to this change.

Now when you have more, more than just a mere one or two, this becomes a controversy.

Yeah.

The uh why did they oppose this change?

Well, I guess because there are too many unanswered questions about this change.

Basically, what kind of business is going to go in there?

The fact that it's it's right next to residences, not much of a buffer there.

And a lot of people don't like that.

No, uh they don't.

So uh consequently, Ms.

Carr, if when you have that much opposition, at the very least you need to continue this, if not deny it outright.

I mean, I'm sorry, unless you know something that we don't as citizens, uh please for the record state what kind of business is going to go in there.

Uh we we as citizens would like to know before we get some a rude awakening with jackhammers in the so some morning in the future there.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, Armando Flores.

You have three minutes.

Thank you, council members.

So I have no experience at this, so I will be brief.

Um it's regards to the uh property trying to go from resident uh residential to commercial.

Uh they're installing a trade school and eight housing units, as I understand from the documents I received.

I'm very concerned.

I do not live on the property, but I have two, three properties directly across from it.

I'm very concerned because there are children all up and down that street, and I'm very concerned about the traffic patterns, everything like that.

I'm all for the redevelopment, but I would like to before I would pose it until I can see I guess some of the traffic patterns what's been studied to protect the many children that live in that neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Uh Vanessa Wurzer, you have three minutes.

Hello, Mayor.

Ken Brown and I represent the applicant, and we waive our time.

Thank you.

Okay, so they've okay.

That's all of them.

Okay.

Is there any council discussion on the items to be continued?

No.

Okay.

Sorry.

There's a motion and a second to continue items 5, 14, 15, 21, and 27 to August 21st.

Sorry.

Oh, apologies.

Apologies.

Okay.

Hold on.

Okay.

All right.

That concludes council discussion on the consent agenda.

There is a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda, which are two and three, four, six.

The following items are listed for individual consideration.

Items one, sixteen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and twenty-six.

The remaining items on today's agendas will be today's agenda will be considered on the consent agenda.

Do any council members wish to pull an item from the consent agenda to be heard individually?

No.

Okay.

We've already heard from those that would like to speak.

Okay.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda except for the items listed on individual and pulled items, which are items one, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 26.

I make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Is there any council discussion on the items on the consent agenda?

Okay.

That concludes council discussion on the consent agenda.

There's a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda, which are two and three, four, six, seven, and eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, seventeen, twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-five.

Please vote.

Okay.

The motion carries.

We have some items to hear individually, starting with item number one.

Agenda item number one is a rezoning from R5 to R5 C D with a conditional use for three dwelling units located at 119 Algarita Drive.

Staff and zoning commission recommend approval.

21 notices mailed, two in favor, six opposed.

And this there were four in favor outside the 200 foot boundary and seven opposed to this request.

This is going to require supermajority vote as the opposition was at twenty-seven point five nine percent.

No one has signed up to speak on this item.

Yep.

Um item number one is in district one.

Council member Corps recognized to speak.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you so much to city staff, and thank you to the folks that were helping on this um rezoning, and it's actually really not a rezoning.

So we had the chance to speak with some of the residents in the community, and this is actually already being used for the classification.

It was a non-conforming use previously, and then they wanted to change it so that it's official.

There's three actually dwelling units on this property, and the benefit from doing this is that we get two additional rental units that's put back on that for long-term rentals for the community.

One of those is actually an affordable unit.

It's at 700 of monthly rent, which we need more in our neighborhoods, and particularly in this area, because it's in the north part of district one, where we don't see as much affordable housing than some of our other areas.

There was some resident concern regarding short-term rentals because we know how sometimes that can be a little bit of challenging, and so um we were able to talk to the owners and make sure that things like overgrown grass get addressed in an expedited way.

We're gonna work with DSD to make sure we're monitoring that to ensure that the residents that are walking on the sidewalks can walk comfortably without overgrown shrubs, et cetera.

Also, if there's any noise complaints, we actually updated our policy for how we address noise complaints um in the last year.

And so we're gonna continue to monitor that with uh Mike and the DSD team, and that's for the short-term rental specifically.

But we want to go ahead and approve this because again, it adds two units of multi of long-term rental to the marketplace.

And as affordable housing will be a part of the discussion today.

We know that we need affordable housing across the entire city.

So I am happy to make a motion to approve this and hope my colleagues will support it.

Second is there any other council discussion on item one there is a motion and a second to approve item number one.

Please vote.

Motion carries the next item is number 16.

Agenda item number 16 is a rezoning from C2 to C2P C D with the conditional use for motor vehicle sales located at 402 and 406 South Sazamora Street.

Staff recommends approval.

Zoning Commission recommends denial.

30 notices mailed, zero in favor, four opposed.

And prospect Hill Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Outside the 200 foot boundary, we had zero in favor and six opposed.

The first person signed up to speak is Frank Sanchez.

You have three minutes, sir.

Am I able to show photos?

Hi, my name is uh Frank Sanchez.

I live at 2520 Saunders Avenue.

I'm the property adjacent to Rance's uh auto sales.

Um the zoning commission uh voted denial on June 3rd of this year for the zoning request for C2P with conditional use for auto sales.

Um this property is uh not conducive to the area for the residential area, as you can see in the photos.

Uh he blocks uh the traffic on Saunders Avenue, he impedes the the road there.

He basically hoards vehicles in that area in that 402 and 406 property.

You can see all the junk that he piles up.

Um there's been some safety concerns uh uh just a couple of couple of weeks ago.

He was working, he's supposed to, he's not supposed to be working on vehicles there.

He's working on vehicles.

Hood was popped up.

I happen to look out there.

Vehicle caught fire, fire department was called.

You know, it's just uh he's basically running uh a salvage yard there instead of an auto sales business.

Uh and I don't think auto sales is conducive for that area.

Um he was also blocking the service alley, both sides of the service alley, to the point that the city went ahead and moved our services to the front uh of our property on Saunders Avenue.

So we lost we lost that because he blocks traffic just the other day.

One of the photos had a cut through the service alley because someone was making a U-turn on Rosillo Street, and I cut through the service alley, and lo and behold, he was there blocking the traffic working on a vehicle on the service alley.

So uh just uh we went through four, I think, meetings with the zoning commission, and uh he was denied of the zoning commission on June 3rd.

And it just seems like he's still uh operating business as usual.

Uh my understanding is that uh he's kind of been operating under the radar for quite a few years.

Uh we've been there for about five or six years.

We uh inherited that property from uh my wife's uh grandparents.

I don't believe that they were aware uh that they had a voice that could speak and uh and make changes to their their neighborhood there.

We received the letter from the zoning commission a couple of a couple of months or a year back or something like that, and we we kind of snapped and say, hey, wait a minute, you know, this guy's not uh he's not uh is he's a nuisance, he's a nuisance to the to the area and to the property.

Uh and we just uh I just feel that the city council kind of goes in line with the zoning commission and denies this request for uh for C2P with the conditional use for auto sales.

Auto sales does not uh belong in that area.

Again, he hoards vehicles, it's a vagrancy magnet.

He doesn't have any gating there.

Vagrants go in there.

Uh I I see it from my kitchen window washing dishes.

There's people defecating there in the back of his property, they hide in there.

And I just vote, I just feel that uh this city council should vote uh denial of that request.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh Jack Finger, you have three minutes.

You have just now received even more information about this situation than I, the average citizen have received with the backup documents here.

I mean, the idea that you want to place what is it?

Another used car lot.

Use car lot on this place.

Like we don't have enough over there on Zor South Zorzamore already.

Also, I noticed that uh during that zoning session.

No, I let me back up here.

The uh the surrounding residents within 200 feet, 30 notices mailed out.

When you have uh when you have four four or were opposed to it, when you have more, that's 13 percent.

When you have more than for those of you who are uninitiated here, when you have more than five or ten percent of the surrounding residents opposed to something like this, uh that's something worth taking note of the and they're probably opposed to it because of the very same reasons this gentleman mentioned just a moment ago.

Ms.

Castillo, the very fact that the historic Westside Residents neighborhood association opposes this.

I think they may have a legitimate beep here as well.

Plus, when the when the any either one of the zoning commission or the or the zoning staff say they recommend denial, folks, that is a red flag.

A red flag that tells you hold up everything and stop this thing from going forward before we take a close look at it.

Well, you now have seen a close look at it with his photographs and so forth.

Maybe, maybe just it's just time to say no to this one.

Thank you.

Item number sixteen is in District 5.

Councilmember Castillo is recognized to speak.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to Mr.

Sanchez for giving public comment prior to the submission of this rezoning application.

This is a property that has been on the radar of my team and I.

It's a property in which uh prior to the submission of the application that I've personally uh walked and created 311 reports for blocking the right-of-way and several issues that uh Mr.

Sanchez and several neighbors have highlighted uh in their public comment.

Uh I want to thank the Historic West Side Residents Association as well as the neighbors on Saunders Street, uh, who have continued to be involved throughout this process to ensure that one, the concerns regarding um the violations taking place on the property are reported and taken care of, but also to um talk about uh the overall impact that this uh intensity would have in the area.

Um so with that being said, I motion to deny uh item 16 is the is there any other council discussion on item 16 okay.

There's a motion and a second to deny item six, excuse me.

Clarifying question.

If you're motioning to deny it, then we prove it.

The yay, the yes vote.

We always get kind of get confused with that.

Got it.

Yay means deny.

There is a motion and a second to deny item number sixteen.

Please vote.

Motion carries.

The next item is uh numbers 18 and 19.

Agenda number 18 and 19 is amending a northwest community plan from community commercial to mixed use from C2 and C3 to MXD with a maximum density of 25 units per acre located at the 5,000 block of Tesla Road.

Staff Planning Commission and Zoning Commission recommend approval.

40 notices mailed, one in favor, three opposed.

Great Northwest Neighborhood Association is opposed, and outside the 200 foot boundary, zero opposed.

I'm sorry, zero in favor and three opposed.

Uh the first person signed up to speak is Anisa Shell.

You have three minutes.

She'll be followed by James McKnight.

Good afternoon, I'm Anita Shaw and I'm yielding my time to James McKnight.

Good afternoon, James McKnight.

I also wanted to ask if uh Jason Adechiga would yield his time to me as well.

And I should have a presentation.

Excellent.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor Jones and Council.

I'm James McKnight with Ortiz McKnight here representing NRP group.

And I'm sure that you are familiar with NRP and their commitment to providing affordable housing in San Antonio.

Um in this case, it's actually a pretty straightforward, I think, land use case, rezoning.

So I want to take you through some important items about that.

Mainly I want to talk about land use because I believe it fits here, but also about housing policy.

So this is the 5.76 acre site on Tesla Road.

And this is the zoning map.

It's currently zone C3 mostly and some C2.

But it's important to look at this map because you can see at the corner of two large arterials, you have all commercial.

And behind that, you can see the single family homes.

It's common practice in urban planning to have this transition between commercial and single family using multifamily.

So that's why our site is perfect for that because you can see that transition happening right there.

Staff agreed with us.

Zoning Commission agreed, planning commission agreed, and all recommended approval.

We're also rec are asking for a plan amendment for uh mixed use so we can have the MXD.

MXD is the zoning we're requesting today.

So that's a mixed use with multi-family, that's a maximum of 25 units an acre, but also C1 because we're gonna have or we're planning to have a pre-K on site.

This is important because that pre-K serves those the residents that are gonna be using that affordable, the affordable housing units.

Now, this is just a site plan, there's not much to this.

I want you to recognize that there is a traffic light here at the southern end of the property, which I pointed out on this one.

This is the actual site plan for the project.

Here you can see there's three three-story buildings that are pushed away from the neighborhood on purpose.

There's a small pre-K to the north side of the site and a drainage area.

So here's where I'm gonna talk about what the we've heard from the neighborhood and some of those land use issues that are really important.

Proximity.

We hear from all of them that this three-story unit is gonna be towering over the neighbors around them.

Well, you can see there's a drainage ditch to the north of us that's actually separating, it's natural separation from us and the neighbors.

To the east, there's only three homes, and two of them are not adjacent to any of the of the buildings that we're doing.

So you have one home that's closely affected, most closely affected, and that's 120 feet away.

So what I did is I drew this little drawing here so you could see what that looks like.

That's a 35-foot three-story structure, 110 feet away from a two-story home.

A home that could be 35 feet as well.

They have the ability to go the same height that we are building.

And I also wanted to show this example here.

This is just around the corner from us.

You can see what what 120 feet between a three-story building and a two-story home looks like.

That's an actual example that's right behind us.

We are not towering over these neighbors in any way.

And we've pushed these buildings away from them so that we can create that natural or create a buffer between us on purpose.

Traffic is another issue that we hear a lot about from the neighbors in the area.

This is from the city's major thoroughfare plan.

So, right at the corner of two arterials is this is our site.

Two arterials that are planned there to handle the most intense traffic, those intense commercial uses, the multifamily uses.

We're locating our site on that major thoroughfare.

And it just goes to show you again that that transition between the major thoroughfare and the single family happens most efficiently with multifamily use.

Now, when it comes to traffic, any development creates traffic that wasn't there before.

So the question is not are we bringing traffic because there wasn't any.

The question is what is the traffic we are gonna potentially bring compared to what could go there now?

And that's where we have a huge reduction in traffic.

Between the pre-K and the multifamily housing, we're looking at 87 peak hour trips.

That's how you measure when the most cars are going in and out.

Versus right now, you've got C3 and C2 create up to 70, that's an average, 70 peak hour trips per acre.

That's 403 peak hour trips on average.

At the low end, 236, up to 547.

What we're proposing greatly reduces that traffic.

But those are some of the those are the land use issues.

Now I want to talk about the housing policy part of this.

Because this is obviously a very important part for all of us.

We're providing with these 78 units, families making between 30 and 60% of the area median income.

So deep affordability here for those 30% units.

We hear a lot about percentages, but what is the number actually look like?

So we put that on the screen, the percentage of units for 30, 50, and 60%.

We're talking about people who make 28,350 as a family.

We're providing at least 12 units for these folks that could not afford the housing anywhere else.

This is how you get them housing, is by providing the specific type of housing that we're we're proposing here.

And I hope that that number actually resonates with you to show what we can actually do here.

The other part about it is this site is located next to all the amenities that you would want for this type of project.

If you have folks that need to work in the area and don't want to put a lot of gas, we don't want to spend a lot of money on gas and gas mileage.

We have an HEB directly next door to us, a Walmart across the street, two bus stops, urgent care, library, schools, professional services, restaurants, all of these things help those residents that could otherwise have to drive for miles.

They're all right here.

So you don't just have the land use principles, you have the housing principles that we have have talked about.

And we have talked about them in these plans.

We have SA Tomorrow, we have the Northwest Community Plans.

Both of these tell you what and where these types of uses should be located, and we meet those goals.

But beyond that, we meet the goals of the strategic housing implementation plan.

That ship is something we talk about all the time.

Affordability, deep affordability is something we talk about, it seems at every council.

They were talking about at the state as well.

And here we have that.

We're bringing something that meets those goals specifically.

But was I don't think talked about enough is that the folks that are gonna live there aren't in the room to vote on this, right?

We're voting on something and here listening to folks that are in the area, but not the folks that are gonna benefit the most.

They need represent representation too.

I'm here for that, and I want the council here for that as well.

Outreach, we had a lot of outreach with the neighborhood in the area.

We know that the neighborhood is part of this.

We would never ignore how important it is to address the folks that are in the area, and we did that.

This started in January, and we had two public meetings, large public meetings during that time.

We didn't make a lot of headway in in finding mitigation with them, but we had letters mailed, we were there to answer any questions, and we have addressed all of their concerns.

Now, whether or not they agree with our addressing the concerns, that's up to them.

But we did.

We have addressed the traffic and safety and proximity concerns for all of them.

So, in summary, I mean we're looking at a project that that meets land use goals and meets the policy goals for for housing, but I want to point something out about our policies.

Nothing in the policies talk about nothing changing for the surrounding property owners.

That's not a policy part of this.

Things may change.

Your commute might get longer, you know, and that's a burden, but that's a cost that should be paid for the enormous benefit.

It's a cost that we should all want to pay in our districts, because the benefit is enormous.

It provides housing for folks that otherwise couldn't get that housing.

And I also want to say there's there's this fear that multifamily can somehow destroy a community.

And I believe wholeheartedly that including multi-family, allowing multi-family in here creates the community.

Allowing these people, inviting them in, being inclusive and saying deep affordability matters to us, and we're gonna put you in our community.

That's what creates a community, and that's what we're asking for today.

Thank you.

Robert Robert Abraham, followed by Tim Crusal.

You have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor, and and council people.

Um my wife wants to discuss uh something important.

Uh she says, all devices down.

Um I'd appreciate that if uh if devices were down at the time that uh the voters are speaking to you.

So uh please do it my wife asked.

Um let's talk about affordable housing.

This is one of the best developed uh housing developments that I've seen.

Uh as you just saw the presentation, it's excellent.

Um they've they've thought up uh everything that uh that could be opposed to it, and they've addressed that.

Um affordable housing uh benefits everyone.

Economically speaking, no man is an island, even the people that aren't directly affected by the lack of affordable housing, such as homeowners and high-income households are still subject to indirect repercussions.

Here's why.

Affordable housing reduces homelessness, unaffordable housing is the biggest contributor to homelessness.

Even individuals and families that uh uh that can afford that, uh they're just one paycheck away from losing their houses and become home uh homeless themselves.

Uh affordable housing means more successful outcomes for children.

This one has a pre-K program involved in it as well.

Um research shows that stable, safe housing can be an important fact in children overall well-being in futures.

In particular, low quality and unstable houses are known to be predicators of emotional and behavioral problems in children and later on uh lead to uh uh arrest and and war crime.

Affordable housing equals healthier people.

People who live in affordable high quality homes are healthier overall.

There's reasons for this.

First, people in low quality homes are likely to be uh exposed to health dangers.

This is poor ventilation, um, dirty carpets, pets, pest low water leaks.

On top of that, unstable and uh unaffordable housing is a big source of stress.

Or uh and last is uh affordable housing creates jobs.

Uh not only will it create jobs in the in the industry to build them themselves, but it'll also uh have employees that can work across the street at the HEB and all that.

Uh and the last thing is that if you leave something uh commercial, that means that you could have a 24 hour gas station across the street or a tire uh company across the street.

Um and anyway, so so that's my uh move on this, and uh just to let you know that that I am a housing commissioner.

I have been for three years, and uh we work on what the voters voted for, and that's to build more affordable housing.

Thank you.

Please approve this.

Thank you.

Tim Crusell followed by Melina Espertiwa Sokar.

Mayor and Council, congratulations on your hard hard fights out there.

Saw a lot of you on the trail, and I know you worked hard to sit here, and I thank y'all for the opportunity to come as a citizen of the Great Northwest, which is directly tied in to this project.

I've been to both of the open housing meetings that they've that the developer has uh presented at.

And I can tell you from my experience, and I think most of my residents that we speak on this issue with would agree.

The issues have not been addressed.

Okay.

They have a very polished presentation.

Lawyers that represent them.

We are a community of over 5,000 homes in the Great Northwest.

Within one quarter of a mile, we're talking 1,320 feet from where this project is proposed to go.

1,320 feet, imagine this.

We're bringing a group of people together in a tight quarter there that houses a super Walmart.

Now HEB also within that 1,320 uh foot from this project with plans to revitalize their store and bring more people in.

I'm assuming is the plan.

Text dot information records that there have been to date 146 traffic accidents at TESL and Grissom Road, which is not even an eighth of a mile down the street from where this project is proposed.

We're talking about bringing children into a school there.

You want safe transportation for them.

This is not represent safe transportation for them.

These figures that come from Tex Dot have to meet a certain criteria.

So that doesn't include any fender benders or whatever have not been included in these figures.

So today, with five more months going, we are well on track to achieve over well over 200 accidents that qualify to be reported by TechSot.

That is not safe.

I know that the um the other um zoning commissioner, I believe, for district six will address some issues on water runoff.

I'm very familiar because I I've lived in their house for 40 years now.

When the water comes down that creek to Great Northwest to Timberwild School, if any of you have driven across that bridge, it looks like a rolling river.

Okay.

I maintain that it's not safe to put this project in there.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Molina Esperatuasoka, followed by Anisa Shell.

Oh, she's a duplicate.

She's a duplicate, okay.

The next person.

Hold on.

Please.

Good afternoon, Mayor Jones and City Council members.

My name is Melina Espiditu Asuka, and I am the proud president of North Site AFT, the union representing thousands of educators and school workers in Northside ISD.

Let me begin by saying very clearly.

We support affordable housing.

Our educators, our members, and many families in our district in urgent need of it.

The proposed Hesle Road development inclusion of 30 to 60% AMI units is a step in the right direction for San Antonio.

But we cannot support the development as it currently stands because it includes partnerships with the Gervin Academy Charter School.

This is not just a detail, it's a direct threat to our neighborhood public schools and the students they serve.

Public schools are the heart of our communities.

They are transparent, democratically governed, and accountable to the public.

Charter schools, on the other hand, operate with far less oversight.

Girvin Academy in particular has been rated a D campus by the Texas Education Agency.

It is not a high quality option for families, and it is not what our community asked for.

Meanwhile, Northside ISD already serves this neighborhood with quality early childhood programs at Timberwilder and Fernandez Elementary.

Northside ISD offers some pre-K4-3 and robust pre-K4 programs and has the capacity to grow with the community.

A partnership with low-performing charter schools sets a dangerous precedent.

It is signals to the developers that education is just another box to check when in reality it shapes the future of entire neighborhoods.

Charter school expansion drains resources from our public schools.

Every student diverted to a charter means thousands of dollars lost in funding for our public campuses.

Campuses that serve all students, including those with disabilities, emergent bilingual students, and students in crisis.

This is not about choice, it's about responsibility.

Our city must not trade public investments for private opportunities, especially when our local schools are more than ready to meet community needs.

So again, we urge you to vote no on this proposal as long as it includes a partnership with Garvin Academy or any charter operator.

A vote against this plan is a vote for public schools for transparency and for San Antonio's children.

Thank you.

Um items 18 and 19 are in district six.

Before I ask Council Member Galvan to speak, I'd like to ask um assistant city manager Shannon to come speak about um uh legislation that is expected to be implemented and the impact that it would have on these two items.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

I'm Mike Shannon, Director of Development Services.

Uh I know, I know you just promoted me, so don't tell Eric.

Um so um uh yeah, I know.

Uh so uh you asked about some legislation that's coming up, so certainly uh state legislator slight state legislation was passed recently.

It goes into effect uh next month.

Uh some properties like this that are commercially zoned will by right be allowed to have multi-family in there.

There's some qualifications, it can't be around industrial facilities within a thousand feet, et cetera.

But uh there is uh a proper this property uh is likely uh to be allowed to have uh uh multifamily residents at a much higher density than it's being proposed, up to 65 units per acre.

Um so that's uh I think what you were asking about.

Well, just the the essence of it is um if this body does nothing, it sounds like this will move forward in a couple of weeks, even absent any action from us, correct?

That's likely, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, Councilmember Galvan is recognized to speak.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just want to say thank you to uh the district six residents who came out to speak today and who are uh watching online as well or on the TVs and who have engaged in this process for a while.

Um I also want to thank um James and Anisa as well as the NRP group for having these conversations with my community um over the past several months.

Uh prior to me being in office, I was able to attend each of these meetings, um, which are helpful in kind of shaping uh my thoughts today a bit as well as understanding for the community and myself about what was uh this project was uh about what's rezoning was about.

Um the case was really submitted back in January of this year, and it went to zoning commission for the first time on May 20th.

It is now here at council.

During that time, uh I was clear uh about my concern uh on the impact of our public schools in Orside ISD from multiple forces, including uh the ones discussed today.

Um just point four miles to the east of this location is Timberwild Elementary, Fernandes Elementary is one mile away, Knowlton Elementary is 1.2 miles away, so there appears to be no shorts of options for schooling near this location, including with those with pre-K options.

Um while North Side IC is continue to expand their pre-K options.

Um I believe it's important to note that there are pre-K options available in the area.

Um September, oh, as mentioned by uh by Mike Shannon, we heard a bit about legislation that has been passed by our state legislature that will impact this site um regardless of how we move today.

Um has moved their award date to accommodate the possibility of a denial today.

Representatives have indicated nothing will change going forward, from my understanding.

The parcels clearly right for some kind of development currently allows for commercial and on September 1st, it may allow for housing.

However, I will not play an active role uh in shipping away at our public school system, which this project asks me to do.

So I motion to deny today.

Councilwin via Garon.

Um been here done that.

This is unacceptable.

You can't sit here and talk about how you support housing and you support our ship goals and you support a affordable housing, and then we offer 30 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent options, and you deny because you think it's going to impact a public school district that is already being impacted because of a school voucher program.

This is unacceptable.

We need to go on record on things, and I will not be supporting a denial.

Uh we can uh I would like to see a continuance because I would like this council to stand behind what they're saying in terms of yes, we want affordability, yes, we want to meet our ship goals.

And it's 75, it's 75 students, 78 families, what 50 students, 30 percent AMI, 28,000.

I I keep on going back to the stats that we have an almost a 20 percent poverty rate.

Of that 20% poverty rate, it's women.

The majority is women.

Those women are probably raising kids if they're in the poverty rate.

They probably have hospitality and service industry jobs.

They work at that Walmart or that HEB, and how convenient would it be for them if they had a pre-K on-site at their housing?

So I I will not be voting for this denial.

I I if if this council needs a continuance, I would make that motion, but we we need we we either want to meet our ship goals or we don't.

And I I support all my school districts, but they're we are in this state of school school choice now with vouchers.

So um, you know, I I just I I feel like I feel like we just need to get on on board of what we're doing.

And next year, without a housing bond, 30% is off the table.

And and councilwoman uh Corey and I have been trying to tell you that 30% is off the table.

So we talk about how we want to address our our homeless rates and and this will part of that is by providing housing for 30 percent.

So uh that's where I'm now.

I won't be supporting uh a denial, and I I will I will be asking for a continuance because I would like uh the majority of this council to go on record that they support uh our ship goals in affordable housing.

Thank you.

Um councilwoman, actually, I'm gonna take a point of a privilege here.

Um Melina um spiritual so car, can you uh do you mind coming up to the the mic to just elaborate on something a point that you made do you have information?

Um do you have information that that supports that if a child goes to a charter school for pre-K that they are less likely to enter public education we can get I mean we can provide data to you that kind of shows I guess the track if that's what you're asking.

Um we can certainly get that.

I don't have that with me this very second now, councilwoman.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I did have two clarifying questions, and this might be for James.

The school at the site is will accept three-year-olds, right?

What the what the neighboring public schools do not.

Is that correct?

That's right.

According to uh the website for Timberwild, there they have pre-K on site, but it does not accept three-year-olds, and ours would accept three and four units.

Which to Councilwoman Via Gunn's point is extremely important.

If you're a working mom, you do have to find a place for your three-year-old.

So I I did want to clarify that.

The second thing is the second question is really for Mike Shannon.

So if let's just say this is um denied today, then on September 1st, they can go seek approval and probably possibly be granted that approval with additional units.

Correct.

The the state law, um, it was SB 840 that was passed was related to allowing more uh housing by right, uh, which allows uh certain commercial properties.

So if it's zoned commercial like this one, they would not have to seek a zoning change.

They would allow to just apply through my department for typical building permits and look at our normal development standards.

But uh that's one of the changes, probably the most significant changes in in my arena and for for this topic uh that just recently passed um this past led led session.

Okay.

So again, if if they if let's just say this body um denies this project September 1st is we're likely to see it happen either way.

Correct.

Yes.

That's making a lot of assumptions, but yes.

Yes.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Councilwoman Corr.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um pre-K for SA is a citywide program.

And pre-K for SA serves early childhood.

It's a high quality program, and we've been working to grow their work.

It's one of I know the mayor's been talking about it a lot, and of how we can continue to support pre-K for SA.

The last um zoning case that we had a LITEC deal on in District 10 also had a charter school that was partnering with it.

And many of us chose to support that, even though ultimately unfortunately that failed as well.

So as a council, I think it's really important for us to decide whether or not 30% AMI units and family units are important to us.

So the way LITEC deals work is at the state, they go in a rank order list of one, two, three, four.

So the project below this has less 30% units.

It has no three-bedroom units.

And so from this deal, we're getting both goals that we've said we really care about if if it gets approved.

But if it doesn't get approved, it doesn't even have that fighting chance.

So as Councilman Via Gran mentioned, we have to figure out a way to come together to support these affordable housing projects when they come to us.

Because it feels like we say we really want this, we really want to achieve our ship goals, but then when there's a little bit of uh uh uh one question about whether or not uh 30 students for if we just count uh four pre-K4, since pre-K3 isn't offered as councilman just mentioned.

If we just count PK four for that one classroom where that's one classroom, we would be willing to deny this complex in a district.

So I I understand political pressure.

I just took a vote on uh a case that some of my residents weren't happy about because it was multifamily in a single family area.

But that's something we're going to have to do if we want to build more housing.

And when we have a project by a developer that's done this time and time again, we have to get the courage to figure out a way to support them in making this possible because otherwise having a discussion about a housing bond doesn't make sense.

So I um request all of my colleagues, let's not wait for this state law to change to have this go through.

Let's find the courage to vote yes on this today because it's affordable housing that we need in our community.

I wish it was in district one NRP.

Find me another project in district one, but let's support this today.

Point of clarification for uh um the speakers with the um those that have put it forward.

The uh the pre-K program, does it meet the same standards as pre-K for SA?

Yes, that's all right.

They have to meet the same high quality education standards that pre-KS for SA would have to, yes.

Okay.

Not all the pre not not all pre-K programs meet the same standards.

So just want to make sure pre-K for SA is the highest.

So you're saying it meets the same?

That's correct, yes, same standards.

Mayor, probably just to clarify pre-K for SA, I think that there's a minimum bar that everybody has to meet, and I think they're saying that they meet the minimum bar.

The minimum.

That's right.

That's different than theirs.

Okay.

Um Councilman Castillo.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to the applicant and the folks that gave public comment today.

Uh within District 5, we have five independent school districts, four of which experience school closures.

And you know, what we heard from superintendents, whether it was Harland L ISD, North Side, or SDIST, um, were the reasons why um they had to close our public schools.

And what we heard was a low birth rate, access and accessibility to charters, and then of course lack of affordable housing.

Um so here we have an affordable housing project at a number that's very hard for us to fund.

Uh we all are well aware of the ship goals and the need to chip away at meeting the 30% AMI.

And of course, as the housing trust has informed its committee members that the big beautiful bill is going to impact drastically the ways in which we afford and fund uh those uh projects that meet where we have our most need.

Uh now at the same time, right?

Um public education and our public schools are the heartbeats of our communities.

And what we hear from our community members uh that come in because they're having issues uh in a charter school system, rather, oftentimes whether it's disciplinary or they feel like some type of discrimination is taking place, there's not a board member that I could point them to to hold that school accountable.

Um and what we know, right, is while there's currently not um a German academy uh within this uh footprint, we know that it can serve as a catalyst um to open up in elementary school and potentially funnel away our kids away from the public education system.

And now I understand that this is a conversation about uh land use, right, and zoning, um, but I think we need to acknowledge the role uh that this component in this project plays uh within the larger public education system here in the city of San Antonio.

And while I can't vote no uh on this project, I also can't vote yes.

Um because again, these are two very important pillars um that I can't in good conscience support a charter that's derated.

Um and I also can't support voting no uh with affordable housing.

And I guess my question to NRP, Jason, right?

Um if NRP is committed to deep affordability, would you all be open to finding another uh child care provider to operate uh within this project?

Uh good afternoon.

For the record, my name is Jason Arachica with the uh with the NRP group.

At the moment we have a commitment we made with uh with with the German Academy.

Um we will of course put in our documents and our memorandum of understanding and in our agreement with them that if they fail to meet certain standards, then they would be replaced.

But until they can do so, I don't cannot in good conscience just replace them uh for doing that.

It should also be pointed out that uh previously in district six, um three months ago, four months ago, this same partner proposing this same uh pre-K was approved unanimously by this council.

So a 78 unit deal by the uh with in partnership with the Gurban Youth Academy was approved.

So this time under these circumstances, uh I think going forward with that, we would keep the same partner unless they uh there was misconduct.

Okay, and then in terms of this uh project, right?

Are they contractually obligated for one year, four years?

What is the the commitment in terms of the government academy operating at this site?

That's actually we have the commitment to the state.

Uh when we uh so just for a little bit of background, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs uh incentivized tax credit deals across the entire state to include pre-K.

Uh it's a governor's initiative and it's just it's part of the agency's initiative, so we elected to do that.

Um we have that commitment to keep a pre-K for the entire compliance period, which is at least 15 years.

That being said, who provides it is going to be uh is uh that's still in negotiation with with the German Academy for how long they wish to provide it versus how many um versus like I said, those bad actor clauses.

So if there was uh a motion to continue and in that continuance conversation, you don't see a world in which um the Gurvin Academy is removed from the equation.

I would I would not see a world where I would be asking them to leave if they if they chose to do so uh or if there was another entity, um, then we could look at that certainly.

I would not say no to that, but uh but at the same time we also have to live by um the promises that we made to them and to the community as well.

Okay.

And then I I think for future projects, right?

I I think uh the ratings really uh important and uh just fulfilling a slot with any charter.

And I understand there's uh a relationship right with this charter if it's one that in the past they all have worked with.

Um but I think you know when we're talking about deep affordability uh and families and single moms, our single moms and their children deserve quality education, right?

And that's typically, you know, Northside uh ISD, it's our public education system, and I want to ensure we're not just putting uh a low-rated charter to check a box to appease the governor.

I I would uh I would ask, I would challenge the low-rated part of it.

There was one rating there that was mentioned, but I would be if there was a continuance, I would happily uh bring data to to either refute or corroborate if that's the case.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Jason.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman.

Okay.

Mungia, please.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I appreciate the um difficult position.

Our our colleague is in, especially with the conversation with affordable housing uh and public education.

So I think we could stand to use some more information.

So I would definitely support a continuance to get more uh and abstain from this vote.

But uh was I correct in hearing that it there's a possibility this could this you could have a development here that would be a hundred percent market rate.

Yes, after September the first, there would be the possibility it could be a hundred percent market rate at the current zoning, which uh the current acreage, which I think it's five, seven, six times sixty-five units.

So that would be extreme.

I don't I'm not saying that that would that would actually happen, but that is that would be allowed.

That would be allowed under the current zoning?

That would be allowed, excuse not under current zoning.

That'd be allowed after September the first if it does pass the the criteria that the uh that Mr.

Shandon pointed out.

Gotcha, okay.

Uh and just real quick with that market rate development, what are the rents looking like per um bedroom size?

Um, you know, that's kind of hard to answer.

You're probably looking at around, well, for a market rate to work, you'd be at $2 a square foot.

So you would be charging that if you wanted to make it work.

Could it actually achieve that?

You'd probably be closer to 150, 160 in that neighborhood a foot.

So for uh one bedroom, you're at least looking at $1,500 to $2,000, uh, depending on the size, and from two bedrooms in excess of that.

Three bedrooms usually don't happen in market rate, but when they do, they're they're they're probably closer to three thousand dollars.

Yeah, definitely much more than my mortgage.

So uh it's important information to have, so I appreciate that.

I look forward to getting some more info.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Councilman White.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um you know the discussion about charter school versus versus I mean charter schools are public schools.

So I I think it's important to say that at the outset.

And uh to to be against this project um because it's a charter school, um, I I just I I cannot get on board with that.

There are there are great charter schools in this city, and and they should be um promoted and welcomed.

And so uh I and as as you stated, councilwoman, it this is a zoning case, so to me we're here to look at land use issues and not what type of school is um is gonna be housed in the in the property.

Um with that said, I I I try to stay um consistent, and the councilman in in this district has uh knows his district the best.

Uh he's talked to the neighbors in his district, he he understands the area, he understands the land use uh issues in play.

Uh and so for that reason uh I'm going to um despite the fact that I I I do I I think it's a it's a good project.

And I want to say too um to the NRP group, uh Jason, you know, Deborah, everybody over there, you all do such a phenomenal job and your representation um with James and his firm is always you know, you know, that those guys are the best and do such professional work.

Um but you know, for the reason stated, uh the councilman has taken a position on this uh and I'm gonna be supportive of his his motion.

Thanks.

Councilmember Galvon.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I just wanted to wrap up my comments uh by saying thank you to my colleagues uh for discussing this piece, uh discussing this particular zoning case.

And I'm eager to work together with everybody on here to help achieve our ship goals and uh achieve a more robust housing bond in the future.

Um those are all my comments.

Thank you.

Councilmember Corps Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to, I was looking at the rental rates, and I I think it's also important for us to uh make sure we're clearing up confusion about rental rates.

So I got this one pager that said because of the market area market um rate around the neighborhood, that 60% AMI range means $1,400 per unit.

And I just wanted to make sure that we understood that that's not the case.

So just making sure that we know that HUD sets our rental units is really important and it's based on your AMI level.

And so this uh development, like I mentioned, has um rentals at 3050-60.

So that would be set based on HUD.

So I wanted to clear that up.

The second thing I just wanted to clear up is when we're looking at uh regardless of the fact that our A through F system is just completely broken at the state, um you get a rating in an elementary school based on third grade reading levels.

So your early child care is not influencing your rating for your elementary schools.

If we're looking at just based on a rating basis, we have to look at um we're looking at third grade and above.

So if we wanted to really measure quality for child care, we'd have to look at different indicators, which is what our United Way project is doing.

Um and the last thing I want to mention is with head start funding potentially on the chopping block, we know that our schools on the west side and I I know this is north side, but um I know Edgewood is gonna be really affected by that.

So we just again the more child care we can have, I think, the better.

Um I do understand the concern uh concerns from folks, but uh just wanted to reiterate that.

So thanks, Mayor.

Councilmember Castillo and Guiano.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I think we have a very unique case here.

Um yeah, very, very, very tough decisions.

Um but just for the record, I just want to make it clear um in a time when our public schools are uh the funding to our public schools is being gutted, you know, this kind of leaves our schools subject to closures in mass, um simultaneously facing a housing crisis citywide, nationwide.

Um and I I I feel like the choice should really never be between siding between our public schools and opting into affordable housing.

Um and as someone who works specifically with youth experiencing how uh homelessness, um I myself, you know, I I stand firm in uh our public school systems against predatorial charter schools, but uh well as well as with uh safe affordable accessible housing today.

Um so I'll be voting in support of this project in the hopes of creating more housing at an affordable rate for the everyday San Antonians.

I just wanted that for the record.

Councilmember White.

Yeah, I I omitted from my comments.

I'm not sure if the motion for continuance was made, but uh but I do agree with uh Councilman Munja.

Uh I'd be open to getting some some more information as well.

So if a motion for continuance uh is made, I I would support that.

Councilmember Councilmember Alderta Gavito.

Yeah, thank you.

I I um definitely am curious about the conversation on whether we can continue this or not.

But I also do want to be realistic.

If we were to continue this case, and sorry, Mike, I'm looking at you.

Um this goes past September 1st.

I think you mentioned that these could be all market rate apartments, right?

So we completely use lose the affordability factor.

That's correct, right?

I and I'm sorry, I'm looking, it's it's kind of a two-fold question.

Um the NRP group would still honor its commitment for affordable housing if we were allowed to do zoning.

However, if uh we for some re for any other reason could not somehow completely close the deal, um, which does happen.

There are a lot of market factors and other factors outside of our control, then it would be open for anybody else to come in and build up to I did the math, it's somewhere under barely underneath 500 units.

So uh it would be it could theoretically be very dense.

Yeah, and I and I I do think that that's important for us to consider because if we do um kick the can down the curb uh then you know we might be setting ourselves up for a completely different scenario, potentially losing the affordability.

Uh yes, I understand that you said y'all would try to keep y'all's commitment, but that's that's not guaranteed.

It's not well, no, it's not we uh as I had said earlier regarding uh like other commitments to the charter school, we do everything we can.

If we make a commitment, we're gonna stick to it.

I mean, that's that's a reputation, but at the same time, there are other factors that that you know may come in.

We may not be able to close on it.

Somebody else could.

Yeah.

And I and I do understand the sentiment of you know, but public schools uh being under attack.

I I do think though that it is an important um it is important to highlight, like I did earlier, that this school would provide care for three-year-olds.

And that is a very real thing.

You're you're waiting to sign your kid up for school because you know uh that is just the reality a lot of parents face.

So I I don't want us to lose sight of that because that is important, um, and it it's where rubber meets the road for a lot of moms.

Thank you.

May I ask NRP.

Um, would you clarify how this particular child care provider was selected?

We had previously worked with them, so again, this mandate's not new.

Uh it's relatively new, but it's not new this year from the state agency to select to partner with with a pre-K.

Uh we tried last year to do it, just like unfortunately that some of the other uh failed tax credit deals.

We had met with uh the Gervin Youth Academy uh two years ago in preparation to try to to work with them, and that was in District 2.

So it was also kind of they were near the nearby, so it was also appropriate considering they had other uh they had other academies in the area.

But they also said that they had wished uh to be able to serve just for the for the pre-Ks from what I understood, the three and four-year-olds and various other parts of the community where there was a need.

So we had identified coming up to this year two new developments, one here on on Tesla Road and the other one down on Marbach and Penn, and they said that they would be interested in providing the same services to that, to which we clarified that there are certain expectations that you had mentioned before about that are outlined in the agency of high quality pre-K that they have to meet.

Uh and they said yes, we're that's we can absolutely do that.

And so again, it was a given a little bit of history with the previous deal that we did, uh, and then we uh and then when we went back to them, um it was simply continuing that relationship and asking them if they would be interested, in which they said yes.

Councilmember Gastillo.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh oftentimes when we discuss phenomenons, whether it's school closures, gentrification, or environmental racism, we discuss them as phenomenons that just occur.

But when we look at the actors and how we facilitate those processes, that concentration and or that divestment, it's through policies and practices and actions of things like rezoning, right?

And I think about the South side of District 5 that has a high concentration of auto and metal recyclers that pollute our neighborhoods, drop a lot of debris, and we got to that place because of zoning, right?

And when we talk about um school closures, it's easy to point to the state and say, oh, the governor, right?

But our role here is us facilitating uh that action, right?

And uh the applicant mentioned today, right, that this is something that the governor is looking for.

So, like, and now we're seeing within this proposed project a charter within this project, and it's a trend that's going to eventually serve as a Trojan horse for where the potential school closures in Northside may take place, where the charter has the right of first refusal to purchase that property, open up a charter school, siphon off kids from our public education system.

So I wanted to be sure to highlight that.

While yes, we are talking about land use and zoning, uh, these are larger tools to facilitate larger projects.

Uh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't connect those dots.

Um, because yes, the affordability is important, um, but our public education system is just as important.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilmember View Garan, did you have a comment?

Um if and this is for the lawyer.

How many motions can we make today?

So right now on the floor, I believe the current motion is for denial.

The councilman can choose to withdraw that motion if he wants to, along with the second, if if he wants something else to be considered.

But right now, that motion is the one that's on the floor.

Should that motion fail for any reason, the floor could then be opened up for an alternative motion for you all to vote on.

So I would politely ask my council colleague to remove his motion so that we could move forward with a motion to approve.

And if that fails, uh and people want to do a motion to continue it, continue.

But I think it's important that if we can get this done today, we get it done today.

If we don't have the votes, and we need to bring the information back regarding Gervin.

I uh because I don't want to bring them here if if it's a no vote.

But I would like to bring uh the Gervin Academy here because your point and and I know it was a different council that approved this.

Uh, and I think there's been a lot said um about schools and quality education, and then uh I would like to see us discuss how many of these are actually gonna be 3K positions.

I if we don't have the approval today, but I feel like we can we should move if we can move forward with this today.

I'd rather move forward with this today with approval, but I'd I'd invite I'd ask my um council colleague to remove his motion so we can make a motion to approve, see if that fails, and if not, see if we can't give it one last college try and bring it back for a continuance.

Um so that we can we can get Gervin here.

But I don't want to bring Gervin if we're already, if we're not gonna, if if it doesn't, if it's not worth fit.

So point of order, Mayor.

One second.

Um the clerk and the uh the attorney are discussing something that'll may impact our discussion.

Thanks, so Mayor Jones, in can in conference with the city clerk, you can go ahead and vote on the motion for continuance before you vote.

If you get a motion and a second for the continuance, that would take precedence over the motion to die.

Okay, so the original motion then does not have to be withdrawn in order to proceed with what you just described?

Exactly.

Okay.

Councilwoman Vivagradon?

Okay, I make a motion to continue to August 21st.

I'd like the Girvin Academy to come that day to present.

Second.

We'll discuss that later.

There is a motion and a second to continue items 18 and 19.

Um is there any discussion?

Yeah, from one second, one second.

Ma'am, go ahead.

Okay.

Is there any discussion on the continuance?

Councilman White?

Yeah.

Um you said the 21st, Councilwoman.

Uh did did we not want to continue it uh until a date after September 1st?

Oh, well, it's it's it's the councilwoman's motion.

Would you like councilwoman?

Would you like to clarify the need for the date?

Yeah, uh, the date would be the next zoning case, which would zoning, which would be August 21st.

Councilman White, do you have something?

Please go ahead.

Yeah, I only ask that because it would seem to me with the law change that it it may be better to do it after the first, but um uh either way, I'll I'll support, I'll support the councilwoman's position for for the continuance.

Is there any other discussion on them on the motion for continuance until the 21st, Councilwoman?

I I would just uh echo councilman White's um suggestion that it be after September 1st, just so that we know what we're doing with.

But it but respect your motion too.

No, and and I appreciate the comments, but I would like it to go uh the 21st, just because after September 1st, we may see more uh market rate come in for that property.

So I would like to get this done before the law changes um and things like that happen.

So if we could if we could do this on the 21st and we could get Gervin here, I think that would be best.

If uh and and in the meantime, I would love to see um the developers continue to talk to the neighborhood and continue to talk to my council colleagues and and try and find a way for uh the school district to get involved and understand that of these 53 kids we're talking about how many are in 3K, how many are 4K, and can the school district provide a path for them in in a specialized school that leads to a specialized middle school and things like that.

So I think there's opportunity here, and I think we have enough time like that.

So let's just do that because if district six is anything like district three, there are their market rate developers waiting for that opportunity.

Um councilwoman, thank you for the motion.

Um your motion includes inviting the Gervin Academy to come speak on the 21st.

Um I would ask the North Side ISD folks, uh Belina Espera to Asokar, um, and the that contingent if they would also like to present on that day.

Um the motion before us is uh continuance until the 21st, uh, with a presentation uh by the Gervin Academy as well as an accompanying presentation by the Northside um AFT and other Northside elements if they want to be included in that.

There is a second.

Okay.

Okay, there's been a motion and a second for a continuance on items 18 and 19.

Um please vote.

The motion carries okay.

The next item is number 20.

Agenda item number 20 is a rezoning from R6 to C2, located at 7630 Petranko Road.

Staff recommends denial with an alternate recommendation for C2NA, commercial non-alcoholic sales district.

Zoning Commission recommends approval.

Uh 31 notices mailed, zero in favor, one opposed, and that's all I have for you today.

The first person is um Claudia Ortega, followed by Jacob Ortega, please.

Okay, Jack Finger, please.

Talk about underlying currents here.

Item number 26 is about changing the zoning from a route.

So we're on number 20.

Oh, my number 20.

My my mistake.

Changing the resonant from a residential to C2, commercial number two over on Petranco Road.

And uh, Mr.

Galvan, uh the uh staff recommended denial.

That's that's all like I say, that's always a red flag there.

Why did they do so?

Well, basically it's because it's about uh the commercial proposal is sitting abutting not one but two residents just on right there on the corner excuse me.

Um I mean, there's no buffer and to go ahead and fill alcohol.

No, uh this has too many uh too many negatives on it, sir, and uh too many adversarial effects as the staff has written has suggested.

And so consequently, I think uh if you want to continue this one too, we'll go ahead.

But well, why not uh just uh get a little bit of a courage and say no to to one more of these babies here, huh?

Thank you.

Um thank you.

Um item number 20 is in district six.

Councilmember Galvan is recognized to speak.

May I motion to approve this item?

Second.

Is there any other council discussion on item 20?

Okay.

Hearing none, there's a motion and a second to approve item 20, please vote.

The motion carries.

The next item is number 26.

Agenda item number 26 is a rezoning from R5 to R5 C D with conditional use for an assisted living facility with no more than eight residents located at 4215 Hilton Head Street.

Staff recommends denial zoning commission recommends approval.

32 notices mailed, two in favor, two opposed.

Outside the 200 foot boundary, there are two opposed.

The first person is Carol Ganbar, followed by Jack Finger.

Hello, I'm Carol Gambar.

I'm the property owner.

I've been in business for 17 years.

We have three assisted livings here in San Antonio.

We're very welcomed in the neighborhood.

The homeowners associations have no problems with us.

That's all I have.

Jack Finger, please.

Well, maybe the neighbors don't, but uh there are some professional persons whom the city employs to look at this, and they do have concerns about this.

Mr.

White, this is in your district.

Um basically those concerns is that that uh they're increasing, increasing the uh the clientele there from six persons to eight.

That's about uh a 33 percent increase.

And uh no uh increase in the space at this property.

So when uh the person is already living there, or living there, and eventually, essentially they're going there's the living quarters are eventually going to become a little bit more in my viewpoint, cramped because of these extra persons coming in.

So if that's the case, then we're asking for a change here simply for more money.

Yeah.

Um not necessarily for more accommodations for those already living there.

I uh I think Mr.

White, I think you should say no to this one.

It just uh it's it's it's why the uh well is why the zoning staff has said uh said no to it as well.

Thank you.

Item number 26 is in district ten.

Councilmember White is recognized to speak.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um actually, this there's already eight people that are at this facility.

Um nothing's changing with the building inside or out.

It's already an assisted living facility.

Um thank you very much to Northern Hills Neighborhood Association for working with us on this.

This is well needed in the area.

They're they're a good community citizen.

Um, and for all of those reasons, I move to approve.

Is there any other council discussion on item 26?

Um a point of clarification, uh, Mr.

Shannon.

In light of what the councilman has just described, um when you look at the criteria for review, though, in the packet, um it says staff has found indication of likely adverse effects on the public health safety or welfare.

Would you please elaborate?

Well, we look at each case uh in the surrounding community.

Uh certainly we understand it's an existing condition that they have maybe non-conforming use, so bringing it into uh allowing a little bit more uh the eight persons as opposed to normally in residential is by right six.

So uh it was a tough call for us, but we looked at it and we made a recommendation for denial.

But as it's made its way through the process, um it's here today with a little bit of uh diverse um recommendations.

So uh that was our take on it, but uh certainly understand uh the councilman's comments and everything too.

So go ahead, councilman.

And just to be clear, uh it was unanimously approved uh at the zoning commission.

Uh and again, I appreciate the neighborhood uh working with us and and staff was was very professional the whole way.

Shannon just as you sat down my apologies but but to clarify your the uh you're talking the adverse effects you're talking about is is merely the six person to eight person correct yeah generally that's it yeah thank you for clarifying that is there any other council uh discussion on item twenty six there is a motion and second to approve item twenty six please vote the motion carries um that concludes today's zoning and land use session the time is three thirty seven and the meeting is adjourned oh one second one second please sit down um we've got a birthday and we have to sing councilman Castillo Angiano um it was his birthday on the second so we are going to sing happy birthday to you happy birthday to you birthday here