City Council Governance Committee Meeting: December 11, 2025

The Governance Committee convened on December 11, 2025, to review multiple Citizens' Consideration Requests (CCRs) regarding high-density development threats to the Edwards Aquifer, the regulation of data center growth, second-chance employment initiatives, Community Benefit Agreements, vacant property enforcement, and the establishment of a medical diversion center. The committee heard extensive public testimony expressing strong opposition to development without water impact studies and strong support for housing and employment equity, followed by deliberations on referring items to full council or specific standing committees for further action.

Consent Calendar

• Approvals: The committee unanimously approved the minutes from the previous meeting via a motion and second.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Alan Montemayor (Sierra Club): Expressed categorical opposition to the "Guajolote Ranch" high-density development (3,000 units), citing guaranteed aquifer contamination, drainage issues, and traffic congestion. Stated residents have been ignored and advocated for denying utility district formation.
• Peter Vela: Expressed concern regarding the environmental and infrastructure impacts of rapid data center development, specifically regarding energy demand and potential electricity rate increases for citizens.
• Deborah Ponce (Catholic Health Services): Expressed full support for a diversion center project to treat low-level offenders with mental health or substance abuse issues in a residential setting to prevent incarceration.
• Lidi Montares (District 4 Community Organizer): Expressed strong support for CCRs regulating data centers, emphasizing that current codes lack standards for water usage (200,000–300,000 gallons daily), electricity, and noise. Stated that developers negotiate in secret and that LLC structures obscure ownership.
• Judith Tempo (Private Citizen): Expressed full support for the CCR by Councilmember Galván regarding data centers, citing resource conservation and the need for transparency and independent impact studies.
• Judith Temple (San Antonio Environmental Collaborative): Expressed opposition to the Guajolote Ranch development, urging the council to delay the process to allow for conservation designation of parts of the property and to prevent sewage overflows from contaminating the Edwards Aquifer.
• Steve Huerta (Employment with Justice): Expressed strong support for the Second Chance Initiative CCR, stating it is a moral and economic imperative to hire individuals with criminal records to combat poverty and improve public safety.
• Barbara Costa (Participatory Defense): Expressed strong support for the Second Chance Initiative, describing her personal experience of being denied housing and employment due to criminal records, framing the initiative as a restoration of dignity.
• Destiny de la Rosa: Expressed strong support for the Second Chance Initiative, stating that criminal records currently close doors to employment and housing, preventing individuals from rebuilding their lives.
• Dr. Alexander Testa (University of Texas): Expressed strong support for the medical diversion center committee, citing research showing that individuals with mental health issues remain in jail longer than necessary without appropriate treatment.

Discussion Items

• Guajolote Ranch & Edwards Aquifer Threats:

  • Staff presented a request from Councilmembers Mesa González and Gavito to consider the acquisition of the Guajolote Ranch land and evaluate threats to the Edwards Aquifer. Staff noted a 90-day statutory timeline to refer this to the full council.
  • SOS (San Antonio Water System) Representative Donovan Bursen: Stated that while geology includes a fault line, they do not currently see a significant threat to the aquifer based on existing contract clauses and monitoring, though conceded uncertainty regarding specific water flow paths.
  • Councilmember Munguía: Expressed support for the motion to refer the issue to the full council but requested clarification on funding sources for land acquisition and specific threat metrics.
  • Councilmember Villagrán: Expressed support for referring the item to the full council for broader discussion involving ETJ (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction) impacts and the need for investor inclusion.
  • Councilmember Mickey Rodríguez: Noted that SOS had not previously notified the city of a threat, questioning why this situation now warrants elevation to a council-level threat. Requested public sharing of SOS metrics defining "threats."
  • Action: The committee voted to refer both the land acquisition inquiry and the SOS threat assessment to the full council (specifically referencing a future Session B) while requesting a committee update on threat definitions and specific metrics before the council meeting in February.

• Second Chance Initiative for Employment (CCR by Castillo):

  • Staff recommended referral to the Workforce Development and Economic Development Committee (WDEDC) to explore best practices, grant opportunities, and contract incentives for hiring individuals with criminal records.
  • Councilmember Castillo: Expressed that the initiative complements existing "Ready to Work" programs and aims to fill gaps in employment for the justice-impacted population.
  • Councilmembers: Discussed the need for individualized assessments in contracts and confirmed that the policy does not exceed current legal limits for employment practices. Council unanimously supported referral to the appropriate committee.

• Community Benefit Agreements (CBA) Policy (CCR by Castillo & Munguía):

  • Staff presented the CCR requesting development of a formal CBA policy for discretionary city projects to ensure community benefits such as jobs and housing.
  • Councilmember Munguía: Expressed that a formal policy might be too rigid for districts with different needs (e.g., District 3 vs. District 10). Stated a preference for a "strategic framework" or "template" that allows negotiation on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket mandate.
  • Councilmember Galván: Expressed support for a formal policy but emphasized the need to distinguish between CBA obligations and the separate issue of naming rights (e.g., Spurs arena).
  • Councilmember Villagrán: Suggested a broader conversation about economic incentives and the need for transparency regarding how CBAs worked for the Spurs and the baseball arena.
  • Action: The committee voted to refer the CCR to the Workforce Development and Economic Development Committee, with the intention of incorporating it into a broader dialogue on development incentives and a potential strategic framework to be discussed at a future full council meeting.

• Vacant and Nuisance Property Program (CCR by Castillo):

  • Staff recommended referral to the full council to expand the existing program to include vacant lots, implement escalating fines based on duration of vacancy, and explore demolition as a last resort.
  • Councilmember Munguía: Expresssed support, citing numerous vacant lots in District 4 causing neighborhood blight.
  • Action: The committee voted unanimously to refer the CCR to the full council for further evaluation and potential action.

• Medical Diversion Center (CCR by Castillo):

  • Staff recommended referral to the Public Safety Committee to study the feasibility of a diversion center for individuals with developmental disabilities, mental health, or substance use issues, in partnership with the County and UH (University Hospital System).
  • Councilmember Villagrán: Expressed support but called for a broader community conversation regarding mental health normalization.
  • Action: The committee voted unanimously to refer the CCR to the Public Safety Committee for further review and to schedule a full council session B to discuss the broader system of care and funding.

• Data Center Planning Policy (CCR by Galván):

  • Staff recommended referral to the Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) to review the city's authority to regulate data centers, relevant state laws, water/energy consumption codes, and economic impacts.
  • Councilmember Galván: Expressed that the CCR is needed to understand the economic and environmental footprint of data centers, including noise, water usage, and electricity rates.
  • Councilmember Vela: Expressed that the issue is complex and requires detailed analysis before code changes, noting that data centers might not be located in high-density areas but could impact infrastructure.
  • Action: The committee voted unanimously to refer the CCR to the Planning and Community Development Committee.

Key Outcomes

• Referrals: All five CCRs (Guajolote Ranch, Second Chance Employment, Community Benefit Agreements, Vacant Properties, Medical Diversion, and Data Centers) were referred to the Workforce Development and Economic Development Committee, the Public Safety Committee, or the Planning and Community Development Committee (or the full council) for further deliberation.
• Next Steps:
  • The committee will coordinate with the full council to hold a Session B discussion in early January regarding the Guajolote Ranch aquifer threats and Community Benefit Agreements prior to the February deadline.
  • The Public Safety Committee is tasked with reviewing the Medical Diversion Center proposal and presenting a timeline to the full council.
  • The PCDC is to review data center regulations and present recommendations by early next year.
  • SOS representatives agreed to provide updated threat metrics and analysis for the committee's review before the next council action.
• Vote Summary: All motions to proceed with referrals were passed unanimously with no opposition recorded.