The San Antonio City Council held a zoning and land use session on Thursday, October 16, 2025, at 2:09 PM. The meeting covered continuations, consent agenda items, and three individual rezoning and land use items. Key actions included approval of a multifamily assisted living project, a continuation for a wireless communications tower, and approval of a comprehensive rezoning in District 7.
Good afternoon. The time is now 2 09 p.m. on Thursday, October 16th at 2025 in the City of San Antonio's zoning and land use session is called to order. Madam Clerk, please call roll. Councilmember Corr. President. Councilmember Mickey Rodriguez. Present. Councilmember Viegeron. Here. Councilmember Mungia. Present. Councilmember Castillo. Councilmember Galvan. Here. Councilmember Aldarete Gavito. Here. Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez. Present. Councilmember Spears. Here. Councilmember White. Mayor Jones. Here. Mayor, we have quorum. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Items to continue to the December 4th meeting are items 10 and 11. Is there a motion to continue the items? Motion to continue. Second. Madam Clerk, is anyone signed up to speak on these items? We have one individual, Jack Finger. Sir, you have three minutes. They fall into Mr. Mungheus district. Yes, sir. And uh well, sir, I wish you wouldn't just continue it. I wish you would you just uh deny it outright. And there are various reasons for this. Maybe you you're maybe you're familiar with them. We the public are also familiar with them because we saw the backup documents on them. And I'm just quoting from the staffers whom we employed to give us the straight truth on it there. They say that uh the C2 designation was purposefully zoned for development along Potique Jordenton Highway to provide goods and services to the commercial the the commerce there and and act as a buffer between the residents and the industry. That's why this thing has at least two two big red flags from the from the uh the planning staff and the uh the zoning staff. Also, they say that uh it will impact the the residents nearby and but but here's uh one thing I notice that kind of buried down in there, maybe you know this. The developer says, and the developer has not I repeat not met the agreed upon obligations in the uh in the agreement there, and you so I mean with all those things there. Why are we even deciding to go ahead with this thing? If if the person cannot in a good faith attempt do what he's supposed to do, he or she is supposed to do. Why are we even giving this person a break? I would ask you to please instead of just continue it, say no to it outright.