Good morning.

The time is now 1001 a.m.

on April 20th, 2026, and the meeting of the PCDC committee is now called to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Corps.

Councilmember Castillo.

Councilmember Galvan.

Here.

Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

Chair Bungia.

President.

Sir, we have a quorum.

Excellent.

Thank you.

I believe we also have Spanish translation available.

Yes.

Would I make the announcement?

Thank you.

First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes.

Can I get uh a motion?

Motion of second, all in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion passes.

Great.

We have quite a few members of the public stand up to speak, so we'll begin here in a second.

Every member will have three minutes to speak.

So first on the list is Anita Kegley.

Okay, I think that's okay.

Um good morning, um, City Council members.

Thank you for serving.

I uh support expanding access to housing and helping voucher holders find stable homes.

That's an important goal for our community.

The issues isn't the goal, it's how the policy distributes the cost.

Right now it places a disproportionate financial and administration burden on individual property owners.

Rental housing is a business with fixed costs such as mortgages, taxes, maintenance, and insurance.

When policies require, require below market rents or add delays and compliance costs, that directly affects whether a property remains viable.

If the city or federal government wants to achieve a public good, the cost of that policy should be shared publicly, not carried by a small group of housing providers.

A more balanced approach would include incentives like tax credits, risk mitigation fund, direct subsidies so property owners can participate without taking a financial loss, signing bonuses for voucher tenants, faster inspections payments, damage protection funds, partial rent guarantees.

If policies make it financially unsustainable to operate rental housing, the likely result is fewer units, higher rents overall, or owners exiting the markets.

Outcome that work against the city's goals.

This is an opportunity to build a policy that works both for tenants and housing providers.

Mandating participation without compensation effectively turns private housing providers into unpaid partners in a public program.

That approach risk reduce in supply rather than expanding access.

Thank you for hearing me.

Thank you.

Up next is Martha Spinks.

Good morning.

I'm Martha Spinks, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army, retired.

I know that good housing is the single most impactful factor in ensuring the success of people under stress.

I knew that when I was the director of soldier and family support programs with the Department of Defense.

And I knew that when I wrote grant proposals for a housing first program for veterans.

The evidence is solid.

Fix housing, and you will minimize many other social problems.

We tell these young men and women when they come for training here in Military City USA that they're tough and strong and they'll keep the other 99% of us safe.

By the time they graduate from training, they believe that.

And then we remind them that San Antonio is military city USA.

Now fast forward a few years when these shiny young faces now show the experience of veterans.

Most rotate out of the military into what we would call a normal life.

But some come home deeply wounded physically or mentally from living under the constant pressure of military life.

Not because they're weak, not because they're unworthy, but because it's a hard life and harder for some people than for others.

They've been in life or death situations and they've been responsible for very serious decisions.

When they leave the military, they often discover they have to fight bureaucracies to get the benefits they were promised.

And now they become invisible to the same country and the same military city USA that call those fresh faced young troops heroes and promise to have their backs.

This ordinance is an example.

I understand, I've come late to this, that for two years it's been languishing.

Can't get past this committee to a council vote.

Now we treat our heroes as beggars.

They don't deserve assistance, or they aren't good enough to live in nice places, or it's too inexpensive or inconvenient for landlords sometimes who are not small businesses but are very large complexes that probably don't even show a blip on their budget when they have to deal with some of the challenges of financing with the government.

Maybe the members of the city council should consider this small or insignificant.

Maybe they consider this a small or insignificant issue, given the other issues that you must deal with.

I understand 800 veterans are potentially impacted, and only one percent of rentals.

But thank you very much.

Thank you.

Up next is Tony Fuentes.

I'm the executive director of the San Antonio Coalition for Veterans and Families.

And me and my team are here to support any housing discrimination against veterans.

Landlords currently have the ability to deny veterans who use HUD housing and choice vouchers.

That is why we need to advance this ordinance to ban that form of discrimination against our veterans who use these vouchers.

And uh our organization is soldiers' boots on the ground.

Uh we have veterans that are homeless.

In the last 16 months, we've helped almost 300 veterans that come to us that need support for housing.

We get them at the hotels for seven days.

We try to give them that that time to be able to get these vouchers to be able to get into apartments to help them further for more stable housing.

And you know, we we take it we take a pride in what we do.

And and uh we support this this program because we need to give the veterans and their families uh the ability to get stable housing.

A third of the veterans that we helped in the last three years is is or that last year was 500.

Half of those were female veterans sleeping in their cars with their children.

That is not acceptable.

So we need to uh pass this ordinance to be able to help them.

And one of the things that we're finding too, and I'm just kind of going a little bit out of the line is the the program for the HUD Vash is great, but the process is too long.

That's why we created the operation urgent needs because veterans need to support immediately, not three weeks or a month on the road.

Uh, it's important that that also that be taking a look and try to um streamline this process.

And I know the landlords have your right to screen these veterans that are coming in to be able to get them in there so they'll they're legitimate to be able to be there.

Uh but I think it's important that we also take a look at that.

And uh we're proud of the fact that we hope so many veterans that are in need with that immediate need, and we're gonna continue to serve our committee and military city UFC.

Yes, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done, even more work uh with this this ordinance.

So thank you for your time.

Uh uh everyone, and and uh it is my honor to be here representing our our coalition, and I'm a proud uh Vietnam veteran that tutorials are combat medic in Vietnam.

And our slogan is no one left behind.

We take pride in what we do.

As a combat medic, we didn't leave anybody behind.

And we do these to these veterans that are here that are struggling that we do our best not to uh go unheard.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is uh Mute Hole.

Sorry if I mispronounced that.

It's okay, happens all the time.

The name is Ute.

Ute Hall.

So thank you, uh committee members for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of unhoused veterans.

I don't want to throw any numbers at you this morning.

You get plenty of those.

I want to speak to you as a retired social worker working in the emergency department at the VA here in San Antonio.

So in my job as a mental health provider, providing urgent care to veterans with severe mental health problems, not so severe mental health problems, substance abuse problems.

My first job was to help them get stabilized.

Often that meant uh hospitalization for a period of time, residential treatment.

But many of these veterans were unhoused.

And so what happened?

They returned back to the street.

A number of them applied for the HUD Bash vouchers.

Um they were eligible at the time based on income uh requirements.

Uh but if you live on SSI, I don't know what the latest numbers are as far as SSI is concerned, but at the time that I was working, it was less than a thousand dollars a month.

So about a third of that is expected to go towards rent.

Many of these veterans could not live on six or seven hundred dollars a month, so they chose to walk away.

That's a problem.

They uh relapse on their problems, return back to the emergency department, get stabilized, happens all over again.

It's a revolving door.

Um in 2024, the rules were changed that allowed disability payments uh to be removed from the requirement for subsidies for veterans' housing for the VASH voucher.

Um with this, veterans now, those that are receiving those disability payments, they are now in a much better position financially to apply for these vouchers.

It is so important to have housing in order to get stabilized permanently.

Um it is very, very difficult if you're unhoused to find a job to stick to your treatment plan.

It is just so very difficult.

So housing is the first thing that we should consider for these veterans to help them regain their footing and become hopefully employed.

Um with this, I would strongly encourage any landlord out there to consider this when they may be feeling that uh this is not a good risk for me.

I understand that, I get that.

But with more income, I really strongly believe that we will see more veterans that will remain in their housing that will become successful in within the city too.

So thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you.

Thank you.

Martin Gutierrez, good morning, Chairman Munge and City Council members.

My name is Martin Guterres, and I serve as a vice president of government affairs and advocacy for the San Antonio Border Realtors.

We represent more than 13,000 licensed realtors across San Antonio, Bear County, and South Texas, including professionals in property management.

First, I want to thank you for your focus on veterans.

We all share the same goal, ensuring that those who have served our country have access to housing in our community.

The San Antonio Board of Realtors is strongly supports our veterans, and our members work every day to help veterans and their families find a place to call home.

As you consider this item, we respectfully ask that the discussion be focused on a solution to ensure our veterans have access to housing in our community.

The data provided to you by city staff shows that locally approximately 95% of VASH vouchers and 93% of housing choice vouchers held by veterans are successfully accepted by housing providers.

While we recognize that some veterans still face challenges finding housing, we should focus efforts on supporting the five to seven percent with a voucher who are struggling to find a home.

We believe a one-size-fits-all approach will not effectively address those gaps and could have unintended consequences to reduce housing options.

Instead, we encourage the city to focus on a targeted solution-oriented strategies that include strengthening partnerships with organizations like San Antonio Border Realtors, Opportunity Home, and the City's Department of Military and Veteran Affairs to connect veterans with available housing.

It also includes investing in additional resources, such as a dedicated staff member within the Department of Military and Veteran Affairs to work directly with veterans who are currently struggling to find housing and help them navigate the housing process.

We also support incentive-based approaches like the COSA vouchers program proposed by Councilwoman Casillo's CCR, which encourages greater participation in voucher programs that expands housing opportunities.

Our members are also held to restrict fair housing laws and code of ethics that does not tolerate discrimination.

At the end of the day, we all want the same outcome, ensuring our veterans have access to housing in our community.

Stay SABOR stands ready to be a partner in that effort, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the city to find solutions that are both effective and sustainable.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Up next is Brendan Rodriguez.

My name is Brandon Rodriguez.

I'm the secretary of the American GI Forum of Barry County.

I'm also an active duty military training instructor.

And while my position as an active duty member is not endorsed, or the comments that I'm making today are not endorsed by the DOD or Department of Defense, I believe that my status brings uh assist in bringing the known to the unknown in this uh discussion.

As part of the separation process, it is DOD mandated that service members attend an initial counseling briefing, pre-separation briefing, and transition assistance program.

It's mandatory before they can uh be discharged.

Um I am retiring from active duty this year in July, and I just attended my pre-separation briefing on 14 April, and to my surprise, they're actually discussing HUD VASH in those briefings now.

And the total of four that I've experienced in my career, they were not being discussed at all.

Um I learned that service members are who are at risk or will be homeless are identified during those initial counseling briefings early on and in an effort to prevent adding to our homeless population.

In the Air Force, we have a saying one team, one fight, and it effectively means that we do not do anything for ourselves.

We do not act for ourselves.

We have each other's backs.

I am not at risk for homelessness, but service members serving alongside me right now are, and that is exactly why I'm standing here in front of you today, and it's to protect all of those members, past and present.

To save time, my question is rhetorical and is just meant for food for thought and is not an attack.

Um, why would Military City USA not align with the military with the DOD's um with the DOD in this manner to effectively combat homelessness among the veteran population in San Antonio?

We gave up certain rights when we joined to protect the rights of others and to preserve opportunities for leadership at every level to include here today.

One team one fight isn't just a saying, it is a commitment to never leave an airman, soldier, sailor, marine, or guardian behind.

Please do not thank me for my service.

In exchange, please exercise the opportunities that we safeguarded for you to lead the city, have our backs, be wingmen to the San Antonio to San Antonio's homeless veterans, and please pass this ordinance.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Up next is um Delissa Brown.

Morning, everyone.

My name is Teresa Brown.

I am a daughter of an Army veteran, granddaughter of Air Force, stepdaughter of Marines.

I'm also a property manager, so I'm gonna kind of give a different context on this.

As a property manager, we are not against VASH.

We myself and many others, we do accept Section 8.

When we approach our owners to ask them if they will accept Section 8, because it's not my decision, it is the homeowner.

The first thing they say is they don't want it because of the stigmas of Section 8.

Also, it takes too long to get their money.

Three-fourths of my properties, I have about 158 that I manage.

Three-fourths of them are either active duty military or they are veterans.

And the way y'all have it, the way this is being presented now, I ask y'all to look at it again in a different light, because if it goes forward the way that it is being presented now, it's gonna also hurt veterans.

I think we need to look at the elephant in the room and address the issues that we are having with section eight as a whole, not just for our veterans, because I have never heard of anybody ever turning away a veteran.

This is a military city.

That's all I knew growing up until I was about 30 when my ex-husband got out of the military.

So you cut me, I bleed green, army green.

But I think we need to look at Section 8 as a whole with the issues that we're having, because you've got active duty veterans that may be out of the country.

I'm managing their house.

I have to accept VASH when this owner did not want to.

Now, because I have an owner right now about to go into foreclosure because we're still waiting on money from Section 8.

So I ask you to, I'm not saying to turn this down.

I'm asking you to look at the whole picture.

No one is discriminating against veterans.

We love our veterans.

I have owners who accept Section 8.

I don't ask, is it a VASH voucher?

What kind of voucher it is?

If the owners are accepting it, they're accepting it.

But I think we need to look at the whole thing, and we need to look at what's going on in Section 8.

We have inspectors that aren't following rules.

We have a lot, I don't won't even go into that because I think y'all have probably heard it before, but I'm asking to look at the whole picture.

Homelessness as a whole is a problem in this city, and it needs to be addressed, including our veterans, first and foremost.

But I'm asking you to look at the whole picture.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Lawrence Romo.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Good morning, uh council members, and good morning to my fellow veterans.

My name is Lawrence Guzman Romo, the honorable.

I am a 28-year veteran, born and raised in San Antonio.

Up seven years I work for President Obama up in Washington, D.C., running a federal agency.

I'm currently serving as a LULAC National Vice President for Veterans and the former national commander of the American GI Forum.

I'm here today to say, let's keep it simple, ladies and gentlemen.

Fort Worth already has an ordinance that's worked well for the past two years.

Okay.

They're municipality like we we are, they have military bases, they have veterans, like we do in Terran County.

So we should just keep it simple and look at theirs and either use that ordinance or better.

Now the gentleman, the vice president from San Antonio Board of Realtors, just said they discriminate.

They only accept 93, 95 percent.

It should be 100% in military city USA.

It should be 100% because these people, one percent serve our country.

One percent.

The other 99% can sacrifice a little bit.

It's just like a doctor.

When you go use your tri care military medical insurance, it takes paperwork, it takes a while to get reimbursed.

But it's the same thing.

You know, you got to sacrifice the rest of the country because they are protecting your freedom.

That's what's important about this.

It's it's important that we are military USA, we support our military veterans and their families.

Now I'm gonna bring this up in a positive way.

The Sanitary Border Realty has a PAC called TRAPEC, and they raise and invest funds to support elections of candidates to understand and advocate for their interests.

Trake PAC empowers realtors to support candidates dedicated to protect private property rights, promoting home ownership, and strike in the real estate industry.

I won't mention any names, but one person on this committee has received $1,500, another person $2,000, council member, another $1,500, another one $500, and one per poor person, uh say that much of you haven't received anything, okay, according to the uh paperwork since 2025.

And it says that you're here to look at their interests, okay?

But I guarantee you that we have many more veterans and military and family members here.

We want to look at our interests, so that's why we're here today.

So let's have a trifecta relationship between the San Antonio Border Realty, San Antonio Department Association, and the City of San Antonio.

Again, we're military C USA.

And one last thing is we just lost our missions from Army North and Army South, okay?

Because what happens when the Department of Defense looks at who they're gonna cut, they're gonna look at the whole picture, not just how we support the active duty, but also how we support our military veterans.

If we start not supporting this way, but I have an ordinance, then they're gonna say, you know, those are the little minor things.

So, you know, San Antonio isn't really supporting uh the veterans.

Why should we support the active duty military?

So it's important that we're a team effort at Military CDSA.

Again, San Jair Border Realties, San Antonio uh Partners Association.

Let's open up your arms and say, hey, this is the right thing to do.

It's a patriotic thing to do.

Let's get this done.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Larissa Martinez.

Hello, good morning, council members and committee members.

My name is Larissa.

Sorry.

I wore my heels today.

No, my name is Larissa Martinez, and I am the founder and executive director of Circle of Arms and Grassroots Local Nonprofit here in San Antonio.

I also am also a United States Air Force veteran.

My husband is an Army veteran, and I have a family family members full of military service.

Every day we are on the ground, boots on the ground, helping veterans access transportation to medical sedation appointments, food, mental health support, and most critically affordable housing options.

Let me be clear.

Housing is not a luxury, it's a basic need.

Yet many of our veterans we serve, despite having the house housing voucher, are still being denied housing simply because of how they pay.

They're doing everything right and still being told no.

Give them the chance to at least get through the door.

Nothing is being taken away from the landlords as far as credit checks, housing background checks.

I've heard concerns about landlord, landlord burden burden, delay or uncertainty with the voucher system.

And those are all valid operational concerns.

But the solution cannot be to deny veterans housing because of the system they do not control.

If there are issues with delays or payments, then fix the system.

Streamline inspections, ensure timely reliable payments, cut the red tape.

At the same time, the city has the ability to set a clear standard.

Housing decisions should be based on the applicant, not the source of income.

Let's cut the stereotype.

Not one person is better than another based off whether they use a voucher or not for housing.

This policy does not remove a landlord's right to screen tenants.

It simply ensures the personal preference is not used as a barrier to delay, uh deny someone who is otherwise uh qualified.

And if landlords are receiving public benefits, tax incentives, subsidies, or city support, then there must also be public accountability.

Access to housing should align with the values of fairness and equal opportunity.

We are also, we can also meet landlords halfway, provide risk mitigation funds, streamline process, and create clear communication channels.

There are solutions that support both landlords and tenants.

It shifts onto small grassroots nonprofits like myself, like San Antonio Veterans Coalition, and many others doing the work.

Because we are operating with limited funding, limited volunteers, and minimal support, doing everything we can to keep veterans off the street.

But the truth is we are reaching our limits.

Sorry.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Harry Robinson.

I'd like to thank this committee for giving us the opportunity as a community to speak on this issue.

Next month we recognize Mother's Day, Sequel Namayo, and it's also Mental Health Awareness Month.

But I want to remind everybody about what next month really stands out for me as a veteran.

Is to honor the men and women who died in active service of our country, Memorial Day.

Last week during the mayor's press conference, I emphasize how we and many other men and women who have served this nation are and currently in harm's way on duty around the world in service of our nation.

Thirteen American service members have been killed in conflict, Operation Epic Fury.

More than 30 dedicated individuals, veteran service organizations stood here on these steps and supported the mayor's uh uh ordinance.

Again, I want to be clear.

This issue is deeply personal to me.

My family got a hand up uh through public assistance because of the opportunity and that support, the assistance we received didn't just change my life, it inspired me to serve the military for 30 years.

This ordinance had no bill, no, no budget impact.

It has strong public support, it's already approved by another city in the state.

So let's talk about the politics behind this ordinance.

Very few people sitting here on this committee have served their military.

So let's highlight what that means.

They lack firsthand the experience of what it's like to be on deployment or to be in uniform and have truly never had any skin in the game.

Instead, we rely on halftime, armchair quarterback perspectives to influence a decision just to be straightforward.

Advance in this ordinance is clear.

It's a common sense choice.

So I ask someone in this committee or someone in this room to explain to me why this ordinance has not been brought before the committee for a vote.

Or should we, as veterans service organizations, as a committee, a community, and and military city USA, conclude that businesses, corporations that prospered on the backs of our veterans now stand in opposition to our ordinance because our veteran service is no longer valued.

I encourage every citizen to have their Bear County Commissioner, uh precinct, ask the question of why this ordinance is not passed.

I want to take time to say thank you to this committee and everyone here who's standing on firm with the approval of this ordinance.

And I ask this committee why the city county, uh, city council of Fort Worth can approve an ordinance like this, but we can't hear a Military City USA.

I want to say thank you on behalf of the American Association of Black Veterans working along the side of numerous civic civilian and veteran service organizations to urge this council to follow the mayor's lead and leadership and approve this ordinance for a vote and approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is uh Cynthia Garcia.

Thank you all for having me this morning.

Um to address this ordinance, we've had this in the works for two and a half years, if not more, that we've been working on all of the status on it.

We're asking that you approve this today and move it on.

Um for instance, it's a critical assumption.

We think that where veterans live now is exactly where they live if they had been given the choice.

Some of them have not, they've been told where they can go, where they have not been accepted, they go where there's an opening.

But that doesn't mean that's where they want to be.

Taken with this, if we pass this ordinance, they'll be able to move and do what they need to do for their families and for themselves, make them closer to their the VA hospital, etc.

But more importantly, the reason we're asking you to pass this is while we accept the fact that there's Section 8 housing that needs to be addressed, and those vouchers are not accepted everywhere.

The only thing that we can do with this point is pass this ordinance, move it forward.

The state's giving us the right to do that, the opportunity to help them.

Why would we not?

And what is it going to cost anyone and everyone?

Nothing.

It's not costing anyone an extra penny to pass this ordinance at all.

It's not taking away any of the rights of the landlords.

It's just saying uh please accept VASH vouchers.

You can still apply for all of the different things, and if I don't pass for credit for the reason of my renters, however I treated the apartments.

You can be denied for any other reason, but not because of the VASH voucher.

So we're asking today that you do this and you pass this up, you know, pass this ordinance.

Fort Worth has already done it, as Harry already mentioned.

Um, there's just a number of reasons why you wouldn't.

And in terms of just so you know, the VA Health, South Texas VA Health care system supports more housing units in San Antonio that accept vouchers, so veterans in need are able to secure safe living accommodations.

So if they can do that and they're in they're behind that, why wouldn't we be behind that?

Why wouldn't you take that into consideration?

And why wouldn't you push this ordinance through?

It's not costing anyone anything, and it's gonna help all of our veterans, particularly those that are still on the streets or that are living in homes or in areas where they have no access to the services that they need.

In addition, should you want it?

I also have a letter from State Representative Ray Lopez, uh, Josie Garcia.

They are in favor of this ordinance, and I can I have copies if anyone needs it, um, so that you can recognize that we are being supported by the state legislature as well.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Up next is Johnny Garcia.

Good morning, Chairman Gia.

And City Council members.

My name is Johnny Garcia, lifelong public servant with a family tree of military veterans, and I strongly support this ordinance to expand affordable housing for veterans.

We are proud to call ourselves Military City USA, but right now, too many veterans are being told they're not welcome.

Not because they can't pay, but because of how they pay.

That's what this comes down to.

HUD VASH is not a handout.

It's a partnership.

The veteran pays their share, the federal government pays the rest, and the landlord gets paid on time.

It is stable, it is structured, and it works.

And here, the reality, this ordinance impacts a small group.

Fewer than 800 veterans in a city with more than 250,000 rental units that continues to grow.

While these vouchers can technically be used anywhere, in reality, they cannot.

Most landlords can simply say no, and they do.

That forces veterans into limited housing options, often far from the VA hospitals and services they rely on.

And in San Antonio, location matters.

We already know there is a nearly 20-year life expectancy gap in our city, depending on where you live.

We know access to health care, transportation, and opportunity is not equal, especially south of Highway 90.

So when we limit where veterans can live, we're not just limiting housing.

We're limiting access to care, stability, and opportunity.

We should be working to close the gap, not reinforce it.

And let's be honest about the moment we're in.

Families across San Antonio, including our veterans, are feeling the pressure of rising costs.

Groceries cost more, gas costs more, prescription medications cost more.

For veterans living on fixed incomes, those pressures hit even harder.

So the question becomes why would we make it harder for them to access stable housing when they've already done everything right?

If a veteran qualifies, if they can pay their portion, if the rent is guaranteed, why are we telling them no?

This isn't about over-regulation.

It's about removing a barrier that should not exist in the first place.

And let's be clear.

Texas law already allows us to act.

Cities like Dallas and Fort Worth have already taken steps to protect veterans from this kind of discrimination.

And what San Antonio is considering today is not some radical idea.

It mirrors a broader effort at the federal level through the Fair Housing Improvement Act, which would protect veterans, service members, and voucher holders from being denied housing simply because of how they pay rent.

So until Congress gets done, cities like San Antonio have a responsibility to lead, especially when Texas law clearly gives us the authority to protect our veterans.

Our veterans didn't serve this country to come home and be told where they're allowed to live.

We need to break this quiet economic barrier that says you're good enough to serve, but not good enough to live here.

Passing this ordinance, ordinance is not just policy, it's principle.

It's about dignity, it's about fairness.

I respectfully ask you and urge you to pass this ordinance and allow San Antonio to continue being the shining beacon for our nation as Military City USA.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Myra Carrier.

Good morning, Councilman Mungia and members of the planning and community development committee.

Before I begin, I would like for you to think about this.

A veteran in San Antonio who serve their country finally qualifies for housing.

They find a place near Audi Murphy, close enough to make their appointments and close enough to stay connected to their care, their routine, and their stability.

They start planning their next steps, how they will get to their appointments, how they will rebuild, and how they'll finally have some consistency again.

And then they get the call and they're told that we don't accept vouchers.

Even though their rent is guaranteed, despite having support they've earned.

We are reinforcing the very lines of inequity that have historically divided our city, deciding where veterans can live and when they cannot.

And this is happening every single day.

Meanwhile, we have over 250,000 rental units and fewer than 800 veterans relying on these vouchers.

This is not about supply, it's about access.

This policy impacts a very small portion of the market, but creates life-changing access for veterans.

Cities like Fort Worth have already taken this step, showing it can be done without disrupting the housing market.

And here in San Antonio, we have the authority to act.

Our veterans have already fought for this country.

They should not have to fight for a place to live in.

Thank you.

Robert Mahara.

Army officer, West Point graduate, and advocate for the unsheltered, and I'm here to comment on item number five on the agenda.

Stable housing is a foundation of wellness and dignity.

Without it, the path toward chronic homelessness, mental illness, and hardship can begin quickly.

This is no less true for our veterans, some of whom carry past trauma and rely on programs like HUD VASH voucher to transition successfully to civilian life.

I take it for granted that we share a common ground.

Everyone, including those leary of the ordinance, wants veterans housed and able to build a stable life here in Military City USA.

So the question on our minds has never been whether veterans deserve housing.

Wow, the question is really who should expect to bear the cost of ensuring that veterans can fairly access that housing.

Look, no policy is without trade-offs.

That point is easy to overlook precisely because it is seems so obvious, but it matters here.

Veterans are handed the HUD VASH program as it exists, its administrative requirements, its payment timelines, and its limitations.

They didn't design it and they can't change it on their own.

What this community can determine is whether veterans carry that burden alone, or whether property owners, fellow residents, and local government step up to share it.

If the administrative friction associated with HUDVASH are a headache, apartment and realtor associations can join veterans of advocacy groups and pressing the Trump administration, Congress, and our state to fix safety net programs.

That is the place for addressing the problems with these vouchers.

The place where we should not be acting on voucher problems is in the lease applications of our veterans.

The question this commission must help answer is straightforward.

Do the sacrifices of these veterans warrant some sacrifice in return from us?

Or does the inconvenience or business risk of the voucher program's flaws make shared sacrifice too dear a cost for us to bear?

I believe the answer is clear.

And so I urge this uh respectfully urge this commission to recommend to the city council that we move forward with source of income protections for veterans.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Irene White.

Good morning.

Morning, Council members and committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Irene White.

I am the wife of a proud Air Force veteran, but working as a community health worker with Empower House SA here in San Antonio.

And Power House seeks to transform community through women and girls of color while serving all community members with access to community health services, education, youth development programs, and advocacy.

In that vein, I'm here today to support adding the source of income protections to San Antonio housing policies, specifically to ensure that veterans who rely on housing vouchers or fixed benefits are not shut out of the rental market.

Right now, many veterans do everything we ask them.

They secure a housing voucher, receive VA benefits like HUD, VASH, or disability income.

They show up ready to lease with rent largely guaranteed.

And still they can hear.

We don't accept vouchers.

That is not a credit issue, background issue, or a behavior issue.

It's a policy choice that closes the door on people who have already earned stability for their service.

This matters because veterans are overrepresented among those experiencing homelessness.

A large percentage of those happen to be women.

A voucher that can't be used is not a solution.

It's a delay and often a return to a crisis.

Source of income protections are a practical fix.

They don't require landlords to lower standards.

They simply say if rent is legally paid, if rent is paid legally and reliably, whether by wages, VA benefits, or voucher, it must be considered.

Cities across the country have adopted these protections and seen better voucher utilization, faster leaseups, and reduced returns to homelessness.

For landlords, this is not a burden.

It's an opportunity.

Voucher programs provide consistent payments and support services that reduce risk.

Clear local policy also creates consistency across the market, so expectations are fair and predictable.

For our city, military city, USA.

This is about aligning our intent, our investments with outcomes.

San Antonio already invests in homeless response, homelessness response, veteran services, and housing stability.

Without source of income protections, we leave those investments on the table.

I respectfully ask the committee to move forward with protections that prohibit blanket refusals based on lawful sources of incomes, including vouchers and VA benefits, ensure a clear and timely application process for voucher holders, and provide education and support to landlords, to landlords to make participation straightforward.

Thank you very for your time.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Wayne, and I can't see the writing.

Here today to speak on behalf of all the veterans and the active duty military service members that we're proud to serve.

Roughly over 55% of the homes that I currently manage in Northwest, West, and North Central Bear County are owned by active duty military service members that have had to relocate out of the area.

Today, as we speak about this this proposal in front of the council, the greatest concern isn't so much about the source of income consideration as much as it is the cost to implement the program that how it impacts our current service members.

Right now, it takes roughly 60 to 90 days to receive payment once a bash housing voucher is approved and the lease is signed.

At that same time, we're asking our active duty military members who have a mortgage to wait 60 to 90 days while we receive payment.

At the same time, that same home can be operated in full compliance with Texas Property Code 92, which governs all rental properties in the state of Texas.

We can be in full compliance with every requirement within the City of San Antonio.

But yet, when it comes to accepting a bash voucher, there's a secondary inspection that will be required of the home to make sure it meets all the criteria.

That inspection is a bit grayer, and we do not always know what the additional cost requirements will be that will have to relay to that active duty military member whose home is now in the Bash program.

As a member of the National Association of Residential Property Managers, we are not opposed to including the source of income requirement.

Our concern is how the program is administered so that we can protect not only the veteran-seeking housing, but also our active duty military members that are providing that housing.

As you take that into full consideration as we roll forward, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Up next is Marty Hutchinson.

Good morning, Chairman and Council members.

I'm Marty Hutchison.

I'm a property manager professional operating in San Antonio.

I appreciate the city's effort to expand housing, including the voucher holding into households and veterans.

However, I respectfully submit that the current proposal does not address the primary barrier to participation.

Program faciliation.

The concern is not refusal, it is feasibility.

In the private rental market, qualified applicants are typically placed into a house within three to seven days.

Under current voucher programs administered by opportunity homes and the housing authority of Bear County, inspection timelines can exceed 30 days.

During this period, property owners can receive no rental income.

If a property fails inspections, even a minor or subjective items, the property is delayed further.

This creates a further financial burden, particularly for small housing providers and military homeowners.

In many cases, these owners rely on timely monthly payments for their mortgage obligations, extended delays can result in lease payments, credit damage, or in the case of a military personnel, potential impacts of their security clearance.

Additional concerns include lack of rent guarantees during the inspection delays, reinspection cycles caused by extended vacancies, administrative burden and increased operational cost, rent rationalization adequity and limited market alignment.

These factors collectively discourage participation in the voucher program.

A mandate requiring acceptance of vouchers without addressing these operational deficiencies is likely to produce an opposite to the intended effect, reducing the number of available units for voucher holders.

A more effective approach would be to enforce inspection timelines down to three to five business days, temporary rate rent protections during delays, pre-inspection certification options, and streamlined communications with the housing authorities.

Addressing these issues would naturally increase participation without imposing mandates that may restrain the housing supply.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Up next is Albert Acevedo.

Thank you.

He has PTSD, and he's one of my vets who's on the on my uh organization.

He's the sergeant of arms of our organization.

So I'm gonna speak on his behalf.

I actually have heard everybody in here in Realms of Saints.

We haven't heard from somebody who has been affected by the Batch voucher.

So this man here has been affected by the Batch voucher.

And saying this, this man right here has been turned away about eight times in our city before he found a house.

But guess where he lives now?

Where he found a house.

Canyon Lake.

Not in our city, not in military C USA, but in Canyon Lake.

He wants to let you know that a lot we hear about um 90% get accepted, but they they get put into places where they don't want to be.

He wants to return back to San Antonio.

But with his some of his disabilities, he's not able to get into a certain situational home where it's where it's portable or where it's a feasible for him because he has PT.

Now there's laws out there that throw them out in three days if he yells, ah, because he has PTSD.

So you can't live in an apartment because oh, why?

Because he's got disturbance against him.

So there's issues out there that create these barriers for our people who are not big.

You want to hear from somebody.

He doesn't really want to speak on that issues, all these issues, but he's been letting me do that for him.

I want you to hear this because this is someone you say, oh, we don't see for somebody who's been affected.

This is someone who's been affected.

But he's been placed.

He's probably one of the 593 people that have been placed, but yet it's not in San Antonio.

So let's pass this ordinance for this man so that way he can get back into San Antonio.

And if any we we hear from like all these organizations, the the managers and other stuff, but when we go to still put the voucher in front of them, they can say no.

This ordinance just says you don't have the right to say no to a man who gives you a voucher that says Section 8 VASH voucher.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Aaron Hunter, Miss Aaron Hahn.

I'm with Texas Housers.

We're a nonprofit dedicating to ensuring uh that low-income Texans have access to safe, stable and affordable housing, and I'm here to speak in support of a source of income protection for veterans who use VASH vouchers.

Uh, Texas law allows cities to adopt this type of protection specifically for veterans, and it would have a positive impact by expanding housing choice for low-income veterans in San Antonio.

According to MLS data, just around 8% of available rental listings in San Antonio indicate that they accept vouchers.

Source of income discrimination has clear implications for veterans.

Our analysis of data from Opportunity Home San Antonio shows that more than 70% of veterans using Vosch vouchers are concentrated in areas of high social vulnerability as defined by the CDC, areas with higher levels of poverty, limited transportation access, and other barriers to opportunity.

It also shows that 84% of San Antonio's veterans using vouchers live in multifamily housing.

At Texas Housers, we've been hearing from veterans about what these barriers look like in practice.

They've shared with us that many veterans living with PTSD or physical disabilities are not just looking for any available unit, they're looking for accessible homes in quieter single-family neighborhoods, uh, closer to the VA hospital on the north side and other critical resources.

Too often those options are out of reach because landlords won't accept vouchers.

Alternatively, we hear that a highly slip rate for vouch vouchers means the system is working.

But lease up alone doesn't equal success.

It doesn't measure whether veterans have meaningful choice and where they live or whether they're able to access the kind of housing that supports their health and well-being.

Given there are fewer than 800 veterans using uh housing vouchers through local our local housing authorities, ensuring these veterans can use their vouchers in these in the neighborhoods and housing types that meets their needs as a focus achieve achievable goal.

A source of income protection for veteran voucher holders would help expand access to housing across more neighborhoods and more housing types, moving us closer to a system where vouchers provide not just access but real choice.

Um Texas Housers respects reflect respectfully requests your support for advancing this policy, which has been um thoughtfully considered by multiple committees and in commissions over the past couple years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Crispin Petas.

Morning.

My name is Christine Pettis, retired U.S.

Army combat vet.

I'm also a 29-year retired Fed.

I moved to your fair city uh October 2023.

And that uh first experience here in your city uh that I look forward to moving to for many years.

I'm actually born and raised in Austin until the dad turned 18 and joined the Army 1974.

But it was Thanksgiving 2023 when I was driving over off the frontier road there uh 410 35, and I noticed a bunch of uh a wooded area there by the gentleman's club and the train tracks and highway 35 and noticed a bunch of people that were living in there and didn't think much about it, and uh, but as I was exiting to get on the exit of 35, I noticed the guy had a first calf patch, and I quickly stopped and I turned into the dirt area there by the tracks, and I got off and I walked over because it was Thanksgiving Day.

I was on my way over to pick up my brother and bring him over for Thanksgiving meal.

Anyhow, pulled over in there and I walked over to see this guy with the calf hat and I started talking to him and come to find out this guy was in the first calve around the same time I was in the first calf.

I was in the first eighth infantry, first brigade.

He was in the same brigade.

I got to talking to him, and I he invited me into his makeshift home there in the wooded area with his three children and his wife, and I did everything from from crying.

It hurt me so bad.

This combat vet, this guy that I have known.

I didn't know him then, but he was one of my brothers because he served in the calf, just like all these vets that are out here.

We stand here every morning.

I got up this morning, I brushed my teeth in my nice house with school and pool and had my little taco before I came here with a cup of coffee, took me a shower, shampooed, put my little smellies on, old spice before I came here.

Like we all sit here clean, showered, brushed teeth, fortunate at life.

So I spoke to him for a little bit.

We talked a little bit about what his circumstances were.

He couldn't find housing in this city that they call US military USA.

And so I left, picked up my brother, came back.

I took half of everything I had, had two turkeys, some ham, I had made some and other foods that we like to enjoy Tamales.

And I brought her over to that area there, come to find out there was two or three other vet families that were living there in that makeshift little community there on highway 35 and 410.

And uh brought my granddaughter with me.

She was only 10.

And she would ask me, Why are these people living here, Grandpa?

And I would look at her and I says, Because we fell them.

We all of us.

We vote, we pay taxes.

There's homeless right there across 35, where this city is spending millions and billions of dollars of building up the history of the Alamo.

I come to eat at uh I think it's called Pete's tacos sometimes.

And I know a few vets that live right over there under the bridge, and I'll buy me a handful of tacos, and I'll come by there and I'll give it to them because that's the most I can do for these vets.

Thank you, Mr.

Pettis.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Jason Bridgman.

Good morning, council members, chairman.

Thank you for your time.

My name's Jason Bridgeman.

I'm a broker, owner of True Asset Management in San Antonio, Texas.

We currently manage nearly 600 homes in and around the San Antonio area.

Um my grandfather, my father, my wife, my two sons, and myself are all veterans.

Um proudly served in the United States military.

The last thing that property managers in the San Antonio area want to see, and probably in the state of Texas is veterans without a home.

Um it's personal to me.

Being a former military training instructor and welcoming kids kindly into United States Air Force.

Um, it's personal.

Um in my experience as a property manager over the past 25 years, we've always looked for a reason to say yes.

We've never looked or solely focused and ever denied anyone based upon a voucher.

It didn't matter what the voucher was.

In fact, if we have an owner that wants to deny someone because of a voucher, we would terminate our relationship with that owner.

We're just not going to stand for it.

We're not going to stand for discrimination.

That's not how we operate.

And as already said, the majority of our homeowners are veterans.

They get it, they understand it.

They understand the struggles while active duty and while you while you leave active duty.

There's struggles.

I was on active duty and I was getting government assistance, eating government cheese.

So I understand the struggles.

I've done that before.

I've been on WIC while on active duty.

So I understand it, and we would never deny someone based upon a credit voucher or any voucher, city, state, or county, we would never deny that.

Every day, what I've witnessed over the past 25 years is a way to get to yes and a way to help these individuals out.

If there are veterans that are struggling in our community, we believe the way to find a connection is to bring those veterans to the property managers.

I've been the vice president of San Antonio Narpham.

I've been on different committees, and the connection needs to be brought between the city of San Antonio, the City of San Antonio's Department of Military Veterans need to connect with the property management companies in San Antonio and get these veterans to us.

I understand there is a five to seven percent number out there of veterans that are not being served, but yet the city is not bringing them to the property managers.

There's companies that manage a hundred, two hundred, five hundred, six hundred, fifteen hundred properties.

The city needs to make a connection between the department that already exists and the local property managers.

That most of the companies in San Antonio are veteran-owned.

I could list the names of property management companies that are veteran-owned.

And I appreciate your time.

Available for any questions.

And again, thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Pete Brunell.

Thank you, committee, for having me here to give you a few of response.

So I've heard a lot of the stuff that's been happening with all the responses that have been coming up to you.

But for years, San Antonio Apartment Association Saboard have been repeated concerns about paperwork inspections, administration burdens, and many times, but the administrative concerns are not justification for allowing our veterans to continue to be denied housing.

There is burdens.

The thing is, it's not about the people that are in here.

It's about the people that are out there that denying this.

Let's recognize that there's gonna be people that are not in here that are not gonna be telling you that they're denying this.

And we're here to tell you stop them from denying this.

It's an easy fix, it's simple.

We are not using any tax dollars.

We can add on, we can pass it and add on to it.

Like I appreciate uh this Terry Gastillo's move on adding incentives.

But once that money runs out, what's gonna happen?

We we shouldn't be depending on some money to be there to ask people to be a part of this.

We should be allowing the people because we fought for those rights.

The homeowners' rights, we went over there and fought for those rights because they could end any time.

Our administration is out there, head administration, all the way to the top.

We're doing some more we can it can end anything at any time.

But we should be recognizing that that we should be able to do what we can do here, not over there, but what we can do here in San Antonio.

Do not deny these vets an opportunity when they see that vatch voucher says section eight, they get denied.

Let them run the gauntlet, let them run a night, the gauntlet that says, hey, um, they don't have a good criminal criminal, they have criminal background.

They have a uh um they are not uh credit is not being well, their credit's not well.

Let them run the gunlet that we they can get disqualified for those issues, but never for an issue of being using the VASH voucher.

And I I hear all the support that I get from council members, council members, because I've went to every one of y'all, and y'all say, Well, yeah, we're supportive, we're supportive, we're supportive.

Yes, it's a time to be supportive now because we went all because there was legal issues.

We went, we found out there was the way we wrote it is legal, and then anything you could do, there's always policy one on one.

You can always create the policy, later on go up and correct the policy the way you don't want it to.

You could add to but never take away.

It's a simple fix.

Pass it, we fix it later.

If we needed administration, all the stuff that Terry Castillo wants to we can add it later.

But we need to get this because you know what?

I don't want to see another vet going to the parking lot of the VA and off themselves.

Two bets this past year, but then I heard like 20.

The last number that I got for last year, we had 25 vets off themselves in San Antonio.

That's a lot.

And that number came from the VA.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And our final speaker is Antonio Roman.

Good morning.

And thank you for what you're doing here.

Running through Roman Served in the United States Marine Corps.

I made twice wounded Vietnam veteran and have been awarded to Purple Heart.

At the age of 19 years old, I was asked to write my last will and testament before I went into the journals of Vietnam.

This ordinance is simple.

Landlords not to deny method of payment because you're a veteran.

Boardworth passed the ordinance two years ago.

San Antonio City Council, let's live up to the name of Military City USA.

I urge you to move forward with this.

I've heard all the concerns.

And uh I understand, but the nothing can be fixed without moving this ordinance forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Those were all the members of the public signed up to speak today.

We want to thank everybody for coming out today, and thank you to all the veterans for your service who are here today as well.

We will now move on to the consent agenda.

Uh, does any member uh wish to remove any item from the consent for individual briefing?

No objections.

The uh remaining items on the consent agenda will be adopted together.

Excuse me, Chair.

Yes, I'm sorry.

I did want to note that the agenda right now has an item under consent that's uh stated as a briefing.

Um we will not be able to pass any item that's listed for briefing on consent.

So if there's going to be an actual briefing or discussion or questions to staff about the item that will need to be pulled.

Okay, so to pass that, we'll have to pull it.

Well, if there is going to be a briefing on them on the matter.

We don't need a briefing, do we?

Okay.

All righty.

Is there a motion uh and a second to approve the consent agenda?

There's a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

We'll now move on to item number four.

Motion second.

Thank you, Veronica.

Good morning.

Chair and committee members.

My name is Veronica Gonzalez, assistant director with neighborhood and housing services department.

Today we're looking at a request from Councilwoman Castillo that was submitted on April 23rd, 2025.

The CCR proposes that we explore a city-run housing voucher program called COSA Vouchers.

This would be a new program run by the city, separate from the federal voucher programs we already have.

Before we get into the CCR, we'll briefly look at how housing vouchers work today.

The housing choice voucher program is the largest rental assistance program in the country.

And voucher covers the rest.

To qualify tenants must earn below 80% of area median income, and the unit must pass a safety inspection.

Rent has to be close to HUD's typical price for the area, so that's no more than 10% above it to prevent overcharging.

Landlords don't have to accept vouchers unless it's required as part of funding they receive from the city of San Antonio.

About a thousand vouchers were unused in 2023, meaning some families could not find a unit where the voucher could be used.

Second, it can take two to three months for property owners to receive their first voucher payment, which may discourage participation.

And third, HUD's rent limits can be lower than actual rents in some areas, which can be a barrier for landlords.

The CCR outlines three possible ways the city could help address these challenges.

Creating bridge funding to help landlords while they wait for HUD approval and the first voucher payment.

Providing gap funding to landlords when HUD's rent limit is lower than actual rents in the area, and exploring other solutions that could remove barriers and encourage more landlords to participate.

Voucher programs are administered by public housing authorities, as I mentioned.

Here in San Antonio, Opportunity Home administers about 87% of our local vouchers, with the remainder administered by housing authority of Bear County.

Across both organizations, about 800 households with vouchers are either looking for a new apartment or renewing their current lease.

Around 100 of those households are headed by veterans.

While the city does not administer vouchers, council has asked for ways the city can support voucher use, especially for veterans.

Increasing voucher availability and utilization is also part of this the ship strategy.

The first recommendation of the CCR is to provide bridge funding for HUD's portion of the initial payments, which can at times be delayed.

A few current efforts that already aligned with this recommendation include that since April 2025, both Opportunity Home and HABC have reduced processing times from 30 to 60 days to as fast as 14 days.

Most payments are received within 30 days.

Opportunity Home had implemented an incentive of up to 500 for leasing to a new voucher holder or for landlords participating for the first time.

This initiative I'll share more details on later in the slides.

Veterans using VASH vouchers can receive relocation assistance, including help with security deposits, which can help cover temporary payment delays.

A few major challenges with this recommendation to consider are that advanced payments could be made to landlords who later turn out not to meet HUD's requirements, or the renter may decide not to move forward with the unit.

Faster processing could lead to double payments if bridge funding and the regular payment happen at the same time.

Opportunity home cannot reimburse the city because their payments can only go directly to landlords.

If reimbursement were required, it would add extra extra contracts and slow down the process.

Having city staff review documents, create contracts and issue payments would not speed things up.

For comparison, payments in our rental assistance program can take more than two weeks.

The next recommendation deals with covering the gap when a unit's rent is higher than HUD's fair market rent.

Some of the current work in this area to highlight includes that housing authorities complete a rent evaluation for every unit looking at factors like size, condition, and location.

They can approve higher rents, but that takes from the same fixed budget, so fewer households can be served as a result.

Housing authorities may approve rents up to 110% of fair market rent, depending on the zip code, but anything above that must be covered within their existing voucher budget.

A few challenges with this improv with this approach include HUD only allows landlords to receive the approved contract rent, so any extra monthly payments from the city would be considered an unauthorized side payment and is not allowed.

This slide highlights the improvements already completed to strengthen voucher utilization.

City staff has worked with close to home to convene key stakeholders on this issue through REACH, also known as our rental engagement and assistance to connect with housing initiative.

Members of the group include housing authorities, homelessness service providers, and rental owner operator representatives.

In October 2024, the group developed nine improvements to boost voucher utilization and has been putting them into action.

Successes include faster onboarding paperwork, simpler documentation with inspections happening in as little as 24 hours, improved accounting processes, rental payment process in as little as 17 days, most payments completed within 30 days, and lastly, new MLS rental listings must now indicate when they accept vouchers.

While source of income protections were not a recommendation of REACH at the time, such an ordinance could still help more renters use their vouchers.

Related to the bridge funding concept in the CCR, Opportunity Home previously ran a short-term incentive program for new landlords and those affected by COVID related delays.

It was designed to speed up leasing and support voucher utilization.

Over 13 months, the program issued more than 3,000 payments, including payments to about 300 new landlords.

The total cost was 1.3 million.

And the program ended when funding ran out.

To build on the progress already underway, staff is recommending two actions.

First, we recommend creating an incentive for landlords who sign a new 12-month lease with a voucher holder.

A 500 incentive could support about 900 households.

This incentive would be funded through this city's existing rental and relocation assistance program beginning October 1st, the start of the fiscal year 2027.

This approach could also help address concerns related to possible source of income protections for veterans.

And if the council prefers, the incentive could be targeted specifically to veteran households.

Second, staff recommends updating our relocation assistance qualifications.

This update would allow voucher holders who need more time to find housing to qualify for this assistance.

Voucher holders usually have three months to lease up, but housing authorities often grant extensions.

Under this change, an approved extension would count as a qualifying hardship for this program, making the household eligible for relocation assistance.

Staff will continue working closely with REACH as we move this work forward.

So thank you, and we look forward to your questions and conversation ahead.

Thank you, Veronica.

This was a CCR followed by Councilman Castile, so we'll start with you first.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Veronica, for the presentation, as well as to members of the public.

On the right of City Hall, there is a statue of FDR who was the first president during one of his state of the addresses to coin housing is a human right.

So that phrase that we often use was given by FDR in one of his speeches.

So I just want to express my gratitude not only for your service but your continued work to ensure that we continue to advocate for federally subsidized housing.

Now more than ever, we are seeing our housing authorities and Bear County housing authorities as well, uh severely underfunded at the federal level.

So just pleased that you all continue to do that work again for VASH and Section 8 as well, because veterans often will apply for a Section 8 VASH a Section 8 voucher as well.

Um and to that point, right, hearing uh the commitment from community in terms of mental health, housing, and homelessness.

The SA speak up surveys currently live and closes Friday.

If you have not completed that budget survey, strongly encouraged because that data then serves as a guide for council to put our money where our policy is.

So please complete that survey if you haven't completed it.

Um wanted to thank uh Veronica and of course um my council colleagues for being supportive of agendizing this item.

I do believe this item complements item five that we'll be discussing in a bit.

Uh again, some context in which how this CCR was born out of in District 5.

Rachel Tucker on our team and now Cynthia Morales, their all things housing in district five.

So whether it's applying for homeowner rehab under one roof or helping our constituents who may have a voucher get connected with opportunity home and then just follow up on any paperwork like that.

Um, and the trend that we saw primarily with uh section eight vouchers was there is issues in terms of placement, um, but at the same time uh we're hearing that there may be instances in which VASH vouchers may not be accepted.

So, with this proposal and with uh as recommended by staff, with the half a million dollars, there's an opportunity to impact 900 families.

And I think my recommendation in terms of how that is utilized is of course to target VASH holders for our veterans, but also ensure that remaining balance and fund is being used to support uh section eight holders as well.

Um, I did want to thank the housing advocates that brought this issue to our attention as well as industry for co-creating the council consideration request.

Um, but I did have a couple of questions uh with staff's recommendation.

Um, I I think it's uh key to ensure that there is a provision in which, if there is a property that is currently accepting VASH vouchers that we're tracking, right?

Because I want to ensure that we're not um that that we're omitting participation from those already accepting them, right?

So that way we don't have double dipping.

So if staff can confirm if we'll be tracking that to ensure that um properties that are currently accepting MASH won't then be applying for the incentive when they're in fact already providing housing.

So the um staff recommendation was to consider both, um, but that's part of why we wanted to get the feedback.

Um one consideration we had was we don't want people, landlords who are already accepting vouchers to stop accepting them.

But at the same time, we were hoping it is a very limited amount of funds, and we are hoping to draw in new landlords to participate in the program.

So if the feedback from the committee is that we focus on new landlords only, or even um targeted areas, or perhaps focus on veterans with the vouchers, um, all of that is welcome to help us finalize that recommendation.

It's uh again, given uh item five.

I do believe there is value in having a target of initiative with this incentive for veterans uh in close proximity, of course.

Um near VA care, but uh I did have a question on the next item for opportunity home because therefore just recently approved some uh lease agreement changes, uh one in which where you have to accept the property being offered to you.

Um curious uh if opportunity home is gonna then create an exception for VASH holders, but I'll ask that question on item five.

Okay.

Um but I I guess that the goal is that we're expanding the amount of multifamily and single family landlords to accept VASH and Section 8.

So uh I would encourage that we're prioritizing new participants uh with this pilot.

Uh and a question regarding with the half a million, will any of that be used for administration costs or will it all be used towards the incentives?

Yes, uh, we'll be finalizing if we do work directly with opportunity home to administer it, um, whether or not there's an administrative cost.

We haven't we haven't finalized that yet.

I don't believe there will be, um, but we would have to um have those further discussions with their team.

Okay, and then a couple of things that uh I would like for us to track is the number of new landlords, uh, new and existing voucher units preserved, households and types of households served, as well as demographics of residents, such as were they homeless or unhoused, and are they moved into high opportunity areas?

So those are a couple of things uh with this pilot.

Uh I'd like us to track.

Um, but beyond the pilot, right?

Uh I I think there's opportunity.

Um, just looking at the opportunity home program.

They had a lot of success in housing families with incentive program.

So my goal and expectation is that this becomes baked into the city budget.

This is part of uh the city strategic housing implementation plan and policy recommendation uh that was vetted through the committee voted by council.

So hopeful that uh this will also demonstrate that there's value in us baking um COSA vouchers into uh the next several uh city of San Antonio budget cycles.

But those are all my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brianka.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh any other colleagues have any questions or comments.

Councilman Gilbon.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for all the folks who spoke today and for your service to our community and to our country, as well as thank you to Council Recastillo for pushing uh putting this CCR forward and for being on the agenda today.

Um quick question I wanted to ask was I know we're looking at at least the recommendation uh on the last slide was looking towards um recommendations to be incorporated in the FY2027 budget process.

Um so would this would these funds um for the existing rental relocation assistance program be additional dollars to it or is that anticipated to be initial dollars, or is it just moving the current regular funding amount?

It would be utilizing our existing funding and creating a set aside specifically for this new incentive.

Okay, I see.

Um support of uh the recommendation to make sure that we're still addressing this issue, uh, especially as we look concurrently with the other one that we're gonna discuss a bit later.

Um I think we can't look at them separate or uh separate, we gotta make sure that we're addressing both at the same time.

Um I am a little concerned about the removal, I guess, of funding from relocation assistance um or rental assistance programs, but I think it's something that we can work on at council, try to figure out how to make sure that we're supplementing it because my expectation would be that we were able to still uh support other folks uh who uh need rental assistance in some other form.

Um I think that's my only question here.

Um thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Veronica.

Thank you, Councilman, the council missile gonzals.

Thank you.

Just some um quick comments.

Thank you to staff for putting this together and council member Castillo for bringing this forward.

Um I think expanding housing access to housing, excuse me, through this voucher incentive incentive program is an important step towards addressing affordability challenges that many of our residents continue to face, and we clearly heard that with uh public comment.

So I appreciate focusing on those creating pathways uh for more families to access stable housing.

So just a few clarifying questions on the revolving loan.

And you made a councilman um Galvan may have asked this.

Sorry, the revolve you loan is coming from where is who's that on pay on slide four yeah the revolving loan the bridge fund?

Councilwoman, that's that was part of the CCR.

Um so our recommendation is actually to do more of a grant where we would incentivize $500 for uh land for property owners that would take the housing voucher.

Okay, where was the revolving loan coming from?

I guess is my question.

It was part of the CCR.

Okay, that was that was one of the things that was requested for us to look at.

Okay, got it, got it.

Um and then I think I I just wanted to also tug to what uh councilmember Castillo was saying on target the VASH holders with those 500,000, those 900 families.

So I support that recommendation as well.

Um those are all my questions.

Thanks.

Councilwoman Corp.

Thank you, and thank you to staff for your work on this, and thank you to Councilman Castillo for bringing it forward.

I always think it's really important that sometimes when folks don't know how to access a program, providing an incentive allows them to try and um see what is possible with doing that.

So I'm grateful that we are putting this forward today because we see that the need is so high in the community, as we heard from public comment.

Um, my just a couple of quick questions um for the grant program, or so to to Councilman Castillo's point.

Um, how did you guys come up with the $500 as the incentive amount?

So we modeled the concept after a program that Opportunity Home Um did back in 2023, and they found that that um did greatly increase the number of new landlords that were brought into the program.

Um so we were simply um using that same incentive amount.

And do we know how many of those folks retained in the program that were in the pilot?

I will um we do have someone here from Opportunity Home that can provide information.

Um, Stephanie, so I'll invite her.

Hi, good afternoon.

Um, so we don't we are morning, we don't currently track it right now, but we could pull the data in order to verify most of the residents that did move in that we know of are still in lease.

But I would in order to give you like more accurate information, we we would need to pull the data, but we could provide that to you.

Okay, yes, I would be curious about seeing what that number is because I know that the total number increased, but the thing that we want to make sure is we're retaining them in the program because if we're just continuously funding an increase, it's going to be a grant program that's not actually increasing the total amount if they're not choosing to stay or go back or stay in the program, for example.

There's about 300 new lands that we got during that time frame.

Um, and we do we did track them separately because we did get new landlords after we stopped the incentive because we did make some changes through the REACH program, so we would definitely need to separate those out from that grouping, but we could get you that information.

Okay, thank you so much.

Yeah, I think that's important, and I know some of the metrics that councilman Castillo um shared also, I would be interested in seeing, and when we revisit all of this stuff, maybe in six months, we could see what the metrics look like from there and how many folks are actually interested.

But just to clarify, um, this incentive would not start until uh fiscal year, the next fiscal year, right?

And can you to council member Galan's point?

Are we going to be adding 500,000 or are we going to be taking it from the overall relocation bucket?

As of today, uh, we do propose fiscal year 27 funding, and it would be part of the allocated rental assistance budget.

That's not in addition to.

It wouldn't be in addition to it would be.

And why are you all not recommending in addition to we would still plan on serving the same amount of folks?

So the the I understand that.

Okay.

Why are we not recommending in addition to to increase the budget by 500,000?

And we can consider that, of course, that would be council's priority at the time.

Okay.

Through the process.

Okay, so I would push uh um, I would like for us when we come back into the budget, and if my colleagues agree to say that this is an add-on because we don't the that bucket of funding right now already goes so quickly, and we have such a long wait list for it.

I know it opens and then immediately um it's already gone.

And so um we should not be doing just one-for-one exchanges, we should be increasing the number of people that were were helping support get in um get into housing.

So that would be my request.

Just to comment on that.

So we will be doing our five-year forecast next next week, and um that will give us an idea of the financial challenges that we'll be facing coming up in 27 and 28.

So we'll we'll weigh those against the other priorities of the city council.

Yeah, for sure.

And so there, I mean, if my colleagues, some of them are shaking their heads, so let's just make sure we weigh that in housing is a one we have many of us have talked about housing being the number one priority.

So let's uh uh can't wait for the budget forecast conversation.

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you.

Councilman Castille.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Uh uh that was one of the first questions I asked Veronica and her team was is this in addition to or within the uh current fund?

Um Veronica, can you walk us through a little bit the ways in which this pilot program would potentially streamline uh and house families uh faster and just help us understand like that process, please?

Sure.

So a couple of ways it can help um, as mentioned, help new landlords kind of learn how to use the program, take a chance on it.

We understand that the inspection process can delay when someone moves in, um, can even be a little bit of delay on that first month's payment that is made, and so that $500 incentive can help with that.

The second part of that would be the ensuring families who've been searching for three months at least could qualify for that additional relocation assistance help.

Sometimes families may not have the full security deposit, especially considering they're only paying a portion of the rent, so we could help with those upfront costs right away.

Um, and so allowing us to partner with uh the housing authorities directly ensures that landlords are really working with that primary agency, the housing authority, and we're not introducing yet another government partner um that may cause additional challenges with getting that upfront incentive.

Thank you.

I appreciate that, Veronica.

And lastly, just wanted to thank Opportunity Home and their work uh in creating uh the first incentive program as well as the work that y'all do in terms of ensuring that uh whether you're a section eight or a VASH voucher holder, um, doing the best that you can with the federal resources that you all have.

And uh I look forward that as we discuss our legislative agenda that we continue to advocate for more investment in the housing and urban development, particularly for uh opportunity home.

So, just thank you for your working and leadership.

Thank you, Veronica.

Um, with that, I would like to motion to approve this item.

There's a motion and a second, and we'll go to further discussion.

Uh, did any other council member want to add something to the discussion?

Councilman Gilvan.

Just one last thing.

Thank you, Chair was uh wanted to make sure that I voice my support for ensuring that you know what these funds are utilized for all the Vash vouchers that we can use in also for Section 8 vouchers overall, and then of course focusing on new landlords as well.

Or primarily.

Thank you, Councilman Court.

Uh sorry, thank you.

Just one thing that I also wanted to add, which I know will come up in the next one, is housing choice vouchers have a lot less um data on them from what I was understanding in terms of who's receiving them and if veterans are receiving them where they're going.

And so I'd like not just VASH, but if we can figure out a way to um VASH is easier identifiable and then veterans doing HCV and then the rest.

So I just wanted to make that point.

Thanks.

Any other discussion?

I'll add that I um you know appreciate the CCR and I I do support this.

I think this is a great way to add um folks to accept vouchers.

So we look at our special supply housing task force report that we recently adopted.

Um, you know, actions for veterans in the next year, encourage more property managers to accept vouchers, especially in the medical center, add a hundred more rental properties that accept vouchers on property search sites and identify housing strategies to increase case management capacity with the VA.

Um, so these are some great things that are going right to the things that we've just discussed recently, and I think also in the future, now that we have two items, we have the ship and we have this.

I think every housing item coming here should have some sort of tag as far as which um item it's following or which item that we've adopted it's supporting uh and enhancing.

So I look forward to seeing this at the budget of the conversation, and I do believe we should prioritize uh those with VASH uh and work with the opportunity home and ensure it's a smooth transition.

Justine, do you have something to add?

I just wanted to summarize real quick so that we incorporate the committee's feedback.

So, as part of the program, we'll focus on new landlords as well as veterans with VASH, then veterans with uh housing choice, and then finally uh uh section eight.

Thank you.

We'll see what the rest of our colleagues have to say of budget.

Um other discussion.

There's a motion, a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, all opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Uh Madam Clerk, can you please read the caption for item number five?

Item number five is a source of income protections for veterans in San Antonio.

Good morning, still morning, Chair, committee members.

Veronica Garcia, director for the neighborhood and housing services department.

Today we'll talk about the proposed ordinance to grant source of income protection specifically for veterans.

As we've heard a lot about this morning, source of income protections ensure qualified renters do not get turned away from housing solely on the basis of their income source, such as a housing choice voucher.

The housing choice voucher program is the largest rental assistance program in the country.

It is funded by HUD and administered by our local housing authorities.

We do have Opportunity Home San Antonio team members as well as the Bear County Housing Authority team members here this morning to help answer any detailed questions you may have about how that administration takes place.

In addition to the housing choice voucher Section 8 vouchers, there is another special category of voucher program specifically for veterans called the Veterans Affairs Support of Housing or the VASH Vouchers.

This is jointly funded by HUD with case management services directly provided by veterans affairs.

The program serves veterans who have experienced homelessness or at risk of homelessness with not only a voucher but that direct case management support.

What we heard a lot this morning is because of that extra case management support, a lot of veterans with the special VASH vouchers are able to get housed more quickly and able to kind of navigate the housing search process.

Under Texas law, source of income legislation prevent preempt cities from adopting broad source of income protections for all renters.

But what we can do is adopt these protections specifically for properties that have received city incentives or for veterans specifically in all properties citywide.

We have been talking about this proposed ordinance and the city council has done a lot to help address this issue.

Back in 2021, City Council did approve the first part of that Texas law, which was ensuring that all properties who receive city incentives must accept vouchers or must not turn away a tenant simply on their source of income.

That was the housing voucher incentive policy again adopted in May 2021.

In April 2024, our team briefed the existing planning and community development committee on a potential source of income protection for veterans.

The direction from the committee at the time was to explore more uh broadly how we can help all voucher holders better utilize this benefit.

We were asked and work closely with Close to Home to set up a diverse working group, multiple stakeholders who looked at this issue, and again, as shared in the previous presentation, lots of improvements were made to the system overall that has helped ensure broader acceptance.

After REACH convened in July 2024, we shared those key recommendations with the housing commission and then again with the planning community development committee in April 2025.

Again, the direction was to continue to convene the REACH working group and continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure continued streamlines and what more we could do to help address housing voucher access for everyone.

On April 1st, we presented to at B session to all council on a potential source of income discrimination, source of income protection for veterans, and at that time we were asked to come to this committee and have this discussion here today.

When we look at veterans across all of San Antonio, we have nearly 9,500 veterans, and we've noted that about 830 have VASH vouchers, and of those are approximately 39 that are searching for housing now.

I'm pleased to report that of those numbers, there are 14 that are pending inspection and are already in the actively lease up process.

When we look at housing choice voucher holders overall, there are over 14,000 families in San Antonio who rely on these vouchers, and we're estimating that about 1,100 of those are veterans, and then estimated 61 are searching.

As we heard this morning, while there is a very limited number, less than 100 who are actively searching for housing.

Um, this does not necessarily dictate how many have maybe have been denied housing based on the voucher.

We have um had continued conversations since the April 1st B session with stakeholders on this topic, and we've heard um a lot of what you heard this morning from our veteran advocates.

We heard a lot of concerns centered on maximizing housing choice overall for veterans and ensuring that the voucher is not the barrier to be housed.

We also heard um general consensus on working together to reduce Sigma for all voucher holders and helping ensure that veterans have housing choices citywide, particularly in desired areas such as near the medical center.

In working with our REACH stakeholders, Opportunity Home San Antonio and San Antonio Board of Realtors will be hosting a landlord summit this July, specifically in the medical center.

Again, trying to get the word out about the housing voucher program and trying to help landlords understand the improvements that have made and encourage broader acceptance.

From rental owners and operators, we heard concerns about the administration and the barriers of the voucher program, such as the speed of payments, administrative barriers, and costs to comply with HUD standards and inspections.

Again, we heard overall support to continue to make improvements to the system so that this benefits everyone and all parties.

And again, REACH has done a lot of progress to help reduce those processing and inspection times, faster initial payments, in particular for VASH voucher holders.

We have been working closely with both housing authorities.

They continue to be engaged in all of these efforts.

And we did hear from the South Texas VA healthcare system indicating again support for more housing units that accept vouchers.

In the proposed ordinance, it would be prohibiting all operators of rental housing from denying otherwise qualified prospective renters who are veterans based solely on their lawful source of income, including vouchers.

Again, um the voucher could not be the reason for the denial.

Landlords would still have the um the ability to look at all other rental criteria that they may have in their own policy, such as credit history and other items.

The ordinance would be focused on a complaint-based enforcement where calls or would be routed through 311 or through our department, neighborhood and housing services, and we'd have support from compliance, opportunity and access, city attorney's office, and even municipal courts to enforce as needed.

Violations could lead to either required training for first offenses, including up to misdemeanor fines of up to $500 per violation.

Today's discussion again, we'd like to hear your feedback on the proposed ordinance.

We'd like to hear more from you all on applicability of the ordinance.

Should it apply to all properties?

Should we begin with large multifamily properties and instead maybe exempt smaller portfolios such as properties with four or fewer units?

I'd like to hear feedback on our proposed enforcement, where again, first offenses, just like our city policy for city incentivized properties where the first offense is mandatory training, and then we escalate from there with non-criminal penalties and up to a $500 fine.

And then I wanted to note that regardless of the action, our team will continue to work with both all stakeholders, including the housing authorities, our veterans advocates, and our property owners and managers across the aisles so we can help ensure what education is needed, what information do we need to help make sure is out there.

And if there is an ordinance that is eventually adopted, we want to make sure that all parties understand those changes and that we are there to help ensure compliance and going forward.

So look forward to our discussion this morning.

Want to incorporate your feedback onto the proposed and before any ordinance would be final, it would require city council approval.

Thank you.

Thank you, Veronica.

Appreciate that.

Um before we get to our conversation, I do want to ask um Stephanie from Opportunity Home to say a few words.

I think we I missed you earlier for the public comment.

What if you wouldn't mind coming up and adding a few words?

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon again.

Um I just wanted to um represent so I'm Stephanie Rodriguez with Opportunity Home San Antonio.

I'm the director for our voucher program.

And I just wanted to express so landlords are essential for our program.

And we want to make sure that we are being collaborative.

We want to work together to make sure that the program is working for our voucher holders and our landlords together.

Because when we have more housing options, right, that's one more person that does get housed and having that option available to them.

It's not, it's even though they may get housed, it's where they get housed that meets their needs.

Um, and so we want to continue to work through the REACH group and collaboratively with Bear County and our landlords.

So we do try to meet with uh Sabor, Narbum, uh, San Juan Department Station.

We're gonna start to try to go to more of their quarterly meetings to meet with them about the um concerns that they have about the program so we can try to make meet them, come together to make sure that we're getting the program to where it needs to be to help our veterans to help all of our voucher holders in the part of this process for this um source of income protections.

Um, and we want to make sure that we're continuously looking at making sure that we're streamlining where we can.

Um there will always be red tape related to our program, but we want to make sure we're trying to ease that process as much as we can.

Um, and then for this program specifically uh for veterans, we do try to expedite as much as we can.

I know Bear County's here and I probably shouldn't speak on their behalf, but I know Nelly's um and I know that they also do as well for their processes that we do expedite specifically for our Bash program.

Thank you.

Thank you, Stephanie.

And I think I just want to add that your success is all of our success.

So the the better job we can help you with, um, I think the better off we will all be.

So thank you very much for that.

Um, I just do want to set start out the conversation by saying thank you to the stakeholders that we engaged with yesterday here across the whole uh from four to five.

There were several of us here in our offices present, several of you in the audience were there as well.

I think it was a very good discussion.

And I think at the end of the day, what I wanted us to have is um a lot of different ideas and takes on it, sitting together and talking in a very uh calm and deliberate manner.

Um, and I think we all walked away with some new information on that and possibly some new partnerships, regardless of what happens today.

Uh but I do want to say I think this is a good thing.

I think this is uh an uh an opportunity where it's a this and that approach.

There's a carrot and a stick approach to this.

If we look at our ship that we adopted many, many years ago, page 27 says Texas law allows landlords to turn down applications on the basis that they're using a housing voucher.

However, the state does allow cities to prohibit this at city funded properties or for veterans who apply at any property within the city limits.

That's a very narrow window the state gives us to add anti-discrimination efforts, which I think is actually pretty rare that the state would give us that opportunity.

Um so I say that we work on this, uh, get this to council, uh, get a lot of feedback and pass it.

I think this is a package deal.

Um, the stick approach that we're working on now with the things the councilman castillo is talking about, with the REACH committee that is working with Opportunity Home to streamline their process uh and make it easier for folks to do that.

So I think it is a comprehensive toolbox that we're looking at, and this just happens to be the stick in the toolbox.

Um but with that, we will start our council conversation.

Do any council members wish to come?

Councilman Gilbug.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Veronica, for the presentation, all the staff work on this.

Uh, thank you for all the folks who have been involved in this process uh for years on out at this point.

Uh really appreciative of the conversation we've been having around this, uh, as well as the public comment given today.

And I just you know want to start off with I think uh the elephant in the room, right?

Overall with this whole thing is it's just a shame of how our country has uh served our veterans after they've served us, um, leaving folks to live on the streets, struggle to access health care here in our community, um, even within uh some of the VA hospitals, no shade to them, but just a matter of the process, right?

Struggle to access education, retirement benefits, and many of the other struggles that our veterans face day in and day out, in particular with poverty here in our city.

Um it's it's frustrating.

It's something that's affected my life and my father.

Um our federal government has continued to stay laxed on the issue, creating overcomplicated programs for not only veterans to go through, but also vulnerable folks in our community, folks with the the least means that to navigate through somehow to be able to access basic human rights, healthcare, housing, education, etc.

And so whenever that happens, I think this council and uh prior council as well have tried their best to intervene in some way and step in with a local solution that uh impacts our folks best possible by focusing, and this one's focused on primarily on just the problems of a complicated voucher system, a broken social safety net, a continuous uh stalled federal government.

All that being said, uh I'm supportive of this uh moving forward, a staff recommended it.

Um grateful uh again to the chair uh for agendizing both of these uh items today uh in tandem because again, I agree with what you mentioned, right?

It's a holistic approach we have to take here, uh, making sure that we're not leaving one out for the other.

Um I think it makes sense to try to do our best.

We already have good systems of communication uh ongoing and continuing on and can continue to grow that system of communication.

Um also you know, make sure that we're connecting the folks to the programs that we're laying out here with the the vouchers program itself, right?

If there's someone who's not a compliance with this is hopefully approved, um, that they're able to still get that access resource to join into accept vouchers and not uh just get penalized the whole time.

Um supportive of adding um a veteran housing navigator uh within the military affairs department or within HSD, which everyone feels to be the better uh have the better outcome there.

Um overall, I mean I just think we just gotta make sure we're preventing housing discrimination and making it easier uh to house people here in our city.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Councilman uh Councilwoman Court.

Thank you, Chair.

I want to start off by thanking all of the folks that came out to advocate for such an important issue and for I think educating at least me and a lot of us on some of the challenges.

I learned I was sharing earlier today that I learned a lot during this process about just how challenging the system is in so many different ways.

And so I just wanted to highlight some of the things when y'all were speaking that I heard is that the system is broken, that we need to figure out how to get more vouchers in to the into folks' hands, more vouchers being used quickly, and also getting people who are landlords paid more quickly.

I heard that our one of the biggest challenges why we have is our unhoused population that's still not being addressed in the supportive way that they need to be and not getting getting the opportunities that they need to really find the support and permanent supportive housing.

I heard earlier today from Pete a challenge about and from the uh soldier that came today about mental health and how do we provide more supports for mental health that with folks that are struggling with PTSD.

And then overall, I heard that we have just a challenge with sufficient housing for our veterans.

And so to me, it's really, I would say all of us are a hundred and fifty percent committed to making sure that no veteran has to sleep on the streets, and that the put what we put into place actually addresses that.

And so that has been my biggest focus in this whole process as we've been communicating with the vouch program is to truly understand what the problem is by talking to the folks that aren't receiving the housing that they need.

And so when we dug into the data because everyone here knows how much I love the data, the first thing I was shocked by is we don't even know how many veterans are out there.

The VASH program gives us good data, but HCV is an estimate.

So that estimate that we had been seeing of 127, which is now different from the presentation today, could be different tomorrow because it's a percentage of the population that has HCV.

That's what they're using for the estimate of number of veterans that don't have housing.

We have to at least know who it is that is is struggling with this and figure out what's going on with them.

So if we can't even get the list of people, I feel like we're uh we are missing a big step.

So then looking at the data that we did have, which is the VASH program data, of the 39 people where they were in the system, there were seven folks that had not found housing in over 60 days.

So I want to know what those seven folks are, where they're looking and where they want to be and who why they can't actually successfully find housing in in the area they want to be at.

And I think it's incumbent upon all of us to reach out, work together as a community to go find those seven people and make sure we get them where they need to be, because that it like I mentioned, we all have to stay really committed to housing our veterans.

And so I would challenge us all to go.

I mean, I asked how do I who who are those people, and um the the thing is VA manages that, so I tried to make some calls this morning to figure out who are the social workers that are responsible for them, but I think we should try to figure out how General Ayala's office could be a support.

Um, Councilmember Glavon mentioned a housing navigator and education outreach was on one of the slides.

Um, I think slide seven, and I'd like to see what our Department of Military Affairs could do more for our voucher holders and how we could be truly seen as a service.

I know Councilman Castillo worked with him to help support one of her residents, and I think everyone should have that support.

So I would like to see us put that in our budget for next fiscal year to have a housing navigator within his office.

Um, and then the other thing that I I really wanted to try to figure out is how do we make more supportive housing?

Because at the end of the day, what we've seen with Valor Hill with the accessible units and how we're using our housing bond dollars, I think that that has shown a true light on what is possible when we put real public dollars behind a housing support space for our veterans.

And so I think we have to continue to address this holistically by making sure the solutions that we are putting into place are truly helping our veterans because I absolutely believe that it is that that that is what we all want to do.

I think an individual landlord who and I we're talking to the folks that a veteran who has now left, who bought a house on a VA loan, has now left, would of course love to rent their home to a veteran, but they may not be able to afford to do that because they would might have to wait two to three months to be able to get that reimbursement.

So it's really important to think about it's not that it's uh more than likely not that they don't want to, but that they can't afford to.

So, how do we help fix the gap of them being able to afford to do that?

And so that's the thing that I really want to focus on, and I want to make sure we're not penalizing the the res I have so many residents in my district that truly do just rent their home, family home, um, and they may not be living in it, and they need that uh income to be able to pay their mortgage.

And so we want to make sure we're not uh putting the burden of solving our problem on those individuals.

We need to take this on as a community to make sure that all of our veterans have a place to live, and that's the charge that I would put upon us.

So I'm gonna move and I'm moving to support this ordinance moving forward with a couple of of these components added in to um accept that a property owner.

The thing with applicability on this is if you own more if you own one unit that you're renting, you may not be able to afford a three-month gap, but if you own several, you can probably take that hit because it's a business now.

Um, so I believe that it's important that we look at folks that own more than four properties, and that we uh assess enforcement in six months.

So take out the fee for now and come back and access evaluate the enforcement piece.

One of the things we've done on the proactive inspection program is we do accelerated payments.

So it for after the first violation, you get a fee, and then it goes up higher and higher if you get more.

That way the folks that are um uh that are bad actors can be addressed appropriately, which was something we actually came up together in partnership with the apartment association as well.

So um I'll finish my comments by moving that we recommend the city's office prepare an ordinance to establish a source of income protections for veterans in San Antonio for housing providers that own five or more residential units without a fine, and that city reassessed the ordinance in six months after adoption.

So there is a motion and a second uh we'll continue council discussion.

Uh but to be clear, your motion is to send this to the full council with the stipulation of four or more property owners.

Uh five that own five or more.

That own five or more properties.

Okay, we'll continue discussion.

Councilwoman Ms.

Gonzalez.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, just uh a couple of comments.

Uh I was in that meeting yesterday we had with a number of folks in the room.

I thought it was a uh really good discussion.

Um, and in that I invited Endeavors to attend that meeting.

They are headquartered in district eight and do a number of um things nationwide.

Uh their their nonprofit is focused on on supporting veterans, and so they work with a hundred and more a hundred or more landlords uh for folks that are accepting vouchers.

And I think it's just important that um somebody brought up the veteran housing navigator.

Um that would be ideal for us to do that as a city, but we have partners that are already in this system and and do this work every day.

Um, and I think we would be best served working with endeavors uh to learn more about how they're they're navigating uh this with uh their veterans.

Um, and it's all it seems to be going well.

So I would just ask that we work with our endeavors uh on that veteran housing navigator piece, um, and maybe that's a partnership that we could do with with endeavors.

Um, and I think it was I feel like we all share the same goal um ensuring that uh the men and women that served our country are uh have a high quality place to call home.

Um, and we we had a great meeting yesterday with so many stakeholders.

Uh we have a thousand units in district eight.

I represent district eight that also represents the medical center and Audi Murphy.

We have over a thousand units uh that accept vouchers in district eight right now.

Uh Valor Hill is another wonderful example about what veteran housing looks like that has that that wraparound services in there with Sam Ministries and Endeavors, uh GI Forum is based in there.

So I uh as far as the I think the motion, um, I would uh support that motion to move this forward to full council, uh, making sure that we are not uh impacting those mom and pop veterans with one or two uh you know tenants really.

Um that's what so many of our property management managers deal with.

I would say a majority of their clients are probably uh landlords that have one or two uh tenants, and so we don't want to hurt those landlords in this process, and so uh support the uh motion that uh councilman core made.

Um, those are all my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before we continue on with discussion, I'll have legal add a couple uh items of concern that they had.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, we just wanted to make sure we were clear on uh on the motion and if the committee does approve recommending the ordinance with no fine associated with a violation.

What is the goal and and how would you like the ordinance to be enforced?

Because if it is going to be an ordinance, the city has the authority to implement a fine or assess a fine after prosecution, but that's the extent of our authority.

So I think staff would need to know what to build into the ordinance as an enforcement mechanism.

Yep.

Uh and councilman course, I'll just offer maybe to help streamline this a little bit.

Would you consider amending your motion to send this to council with PCDC feedback broadly speaking?

That way we can get some greater um detail as far as amending the ordinance and obviously still have input at full council.

I'd like to vote on a motion to put it forward, but this is the language I got from the city attorney's office, so I'm not sure.

Well so the language that we proposed as the motion was based off of the ordinance that's under consideration.

There was an original ask that the penalty be assessed as a $500 fine.

And so we were going off of that.

And so if your motion was to propose have our office prepare an ordinance but remove or not include a $500 fine, then we need to know what is the committee and ultimately council's vision on how that ordinance would be enforced if there was in fact a violation.

John Peter, did you have to add?

Yeah, I think that there's some clarity that could be added around what was in the proposed ordinance, um, and then what was proposed with the amendment.

I just was gonna ask Veronica to step up if that's okay, Chair.

Okay.

Yes, so oh jeez, okay.

So uh what we could consider is maybe there's no fine on the first offense or second offense, um, and that there could be a fee instead of a fine.

The fee um I know we heard some feedback this morning on is it a criminal penalty or a civil penalty?

I think the word um fine leans itself more towards the criminal penalty, and that's what Jamine was clarifying.

Um, so we could consider maybe fees instead, and those could be maybe structured, uh escalating, maybe more like the proactive apartment inspection program.

Um, so those are all things that we can take into consideration on how we um look towards that enforcement provision.

Yeah, so maybe you know, my personal thing is maybe we amend it to not be so prescriptive going to full council.

We should still, my opinion, send this to council.

Everyone's gonna have their feedback.

The rest of our colleagues will also get briefed before that uh with the different recommendations that we'll have.

Uh, and I think it just helps us get a little more streamlined out of here if it's not so detailed that you're adding to it.

Okay, so we will go on to councilwoman.

I'm sorry, Council Mr.

Gonzalez, you had a final point on your comments.

Sorry, I just had a question on um we amended the NDO in 2013 to include veteran status.

Can we also amend it to include veteran source of income?

Yes, councilwoman, that amendment can be um can be made.

And that would be obviously separate from this movement.

Well, it would be different, um, and but we would still have the same issue in terms of how you want it enforced.

But the but the current NDO doesn't have a fines attached to it either, right?

So any part of our code that states that doing something or failing to do something is a violation.

Sure.

We have the capability to assess a fine.

Now there's language in there that for any violation of any ordinance.

And so the way the NDO is currently set up is in the enforcement section.

It already provides for an investigation into a violation conducted by staff.

And upon a finding of a violation, then the entire file is per provided to the city attorney's office for further handling, and then there are range of ways that that we can um handle the violation.

Okay.

Um, I guess it that was maybe a point of clarification.

I don't know if that's something that other council members would be interested in in essentially adding that language to our existing fair housing ordinance or NDO, excuse me.

Um, so just wanted to make that point.

Thank you.

Councilman Castillo.

Uh thank you, Chair, and thank you, Veronica, for the presentation.

I just wanted to be sure that I commend Rich Equosa of My City's My Home.

Uh, this is an initiative that he's been uh circulating around the city for several years, and he's a very humble man, which may be why he's not here.

Um, but this is something that he has been bringing to council and community in terms of how can we best support veterans here in the city of San Antonio?

Um so uh he's not present, but just wanted to commend him for his leadership and his continued advocacy for uh housing uh of all spectrums.

Um during uh council discussion right now, I was just reflecting back on some of the public comment that we heard and the highlighting of mental health.

Um there's just an article that was released that um Laurel Ridge is going to have to let go of several uh hundreds rather of their employees to provide mental health care uh to San Antonio and Bear County residents and how can we continue to one right invest in affordable housing, uh the entire spectrum, but also mental health.

Um, because uh seeing firsthand with our constituents again, going back to one constituent in which he had a VASH and a Section 8 voucher, um, because he was struggling with his mental health, he didn't use either the Section 8 or the VASH voucher, they expired.

Uh then he did come back to us and say, Can you help me reapply?

We connected him with Opportunity Home.

We were able to do that.

Um, but this happened during a code snap.

Grateful that we were able to work with Jen Rayala to find him temporary uh shelter uh until the weather uh warmed up, and of course he was able to find long-term housing.

Um but I highlight that piece because him um not being able to access housing because of the mental health struggle, he's tracked as not having uh the voucher being accepted, right?

So I want to be sure that while we're talking about um landlords denying and or accepting a voucher, that we're talking about uh the struggles that someone who may hold the voucher have may have and the support system needed for that individual.

Uh and again, this was a Marine veteran with um mental health struggles, and um we've been uh providing a lot of assistance in terms of making sure uh that he's safe and housed.

Um, but of course, um that was with the support of General Ayala and his team, so I believe there is value uh in providing housing support under General Yala's team.

I'd be remiss if I didn't think John Guana, who works with the Department of Human Service and also serves uh as a point for uh homeless veterans in the city of San Antonio and just as a wealth of experience, uh all things veteran and is also a veteran himself, so thank you, John.

We really appreciate you and your leadership uh in prioritizing housing all San Antonio residents.

Uh now with the proposed um ordinance before us, I am supportive of the motion put forth.

Uh, I do think there is opportunity for us to one uh this was a learning process in which uh I learned that the majority, not the majority, that many of the property owners of single family rentals are active military members, and I want to ensure that we're not unintentionally penalizing active duty military members that may have their home on the rental market while they're out on active duty uh and serving our country.

So I believe with the proposed recommendation by Dr.

Core that there is opportunity for us to ensure that we're not um unintentionally impacting uh our active duty military members.

Uh, in addition to that, I am one of the only council districts that's 100% urban.

Uh and we talk as we talk about Project Marvel uh inner city development.

Uh my concern with the penalty is that as folks have shared, you may see increased rents or the removal of entire rental units and what that can look like uh is vacant homes in our community, vacant units.

Uh and it could also look like Airbnb.

So you're then removing long-term housing off of the market.

So uh I think the value in us re-evaluating in terms of the penalty uh will allow us to track to see how many violations are we seeing and then assess to have that fee and that penalty because my concern is removing long-term housing, particularly within the inner city where we are already seeing banned speculation uh within our community, and then of course um uh just the increase of Airbnbs again, removing long-term rental units for short-term rental use.

Um, but look forward to taking action on this item at full city council.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

We'll continue with conversation.

I'll just add that I think this ordinance is going into the uh you look at the different buckets, inputs and outputs buckets versus the outcome.

So we all obviously want to influence the outcome of this process, uh, but this is not going to mandate, and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's not gonna mandate that someone must take um a voucher holder.

It's simply adding simply asking that you give someone the chance to apply for it.

So, Veronica, can you kind of walk us through that?

Yes, so uh they are not going to be forced other than they cannot at the onset say, I don't accept vouchers.

So they would have to um consider the voucher and evaluate the prospective tenant against all their other leasing criteria that they may have.

Right.

So you could also through this process um educate and then fine.

Proactive apartment inspection is a great you know example, right?

We we ask them you have this process that's due, you have this timeline that's due, work with us if you can complete it, and if not, you will be fined.

So is that a similar process that you could implement with this ordinance?

Yes, and that's exactly what we do with the existing housing choice incentive voucher policy.

Um we start with any violations are investigated.

If there is a violation, we mandate a training.

There is no fine or fee at the beginning.

Um but if there were to be repeat instances, uh we would consider that.

So that's already underway with the housing choice voucher.

Right.

And has there been any um fees assessed through that ordinance?

No, there is not.

How long has that ordinance been in effect?

2021.

Okay, so a few years.

Um okay.

I just wanted to add that it's kind of it reminds me of you know, ban the box, right?

Where we're saying if you have a communal record, you're still allowed to apply for the job uh and go through the process.

It's giving somebody a chance.

So I think that's a very similar analogy to this, right?

There's giving somebody the chance who has a VASH or a veteran with a voucher of any co of any type, the opportunity to apply for something.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Uh we'll continue with council discussion.

Anybody else have any other points?

Councilman Court.

Okay.

I amend the motion to say uh move that we recommend to the city attorney's office to prepare an ordinance establishing source of income protection for veterans in San Antonio for housing providers that own five or more residential units with an escalating fee structure similar to the housing choice voucher program, and that the city reassessed the ordinance in six months after adoption.

Okay, there's a motion to consecond uh continue council discussion.

Council of Messi Gonzales.

Thank you for that nuanced clarification.

Any other uh discussion slash points of clarification?

Okay, well, you know, I uh appreciate this moving I to full council.

Um I don't necessarily agree with the um starting off at uh five you know listings or more.

I think any time there's a denial based on a voucher um for applying is is you know one too many times, especially when it talks about our veteran population.

Um however, this is very, very important ordinance to continue.

Uh there is a fee attached now, you know, as it's being recommended uh with some more in education.

So uh while I do have pause about the um requirement about five or more properties that will be supportive of this going to full council.

Any other questions or concerns?

All right, there's a motion and a second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we will move on to item number six.

Madam Clerk, can you please read the question?

Item number six is the timeline for amendments to chapter 35 Unified Development Code UDC.

Thank you.

And folks, we'll ask you to please be a little quiet as you leave the room here so we can get started on the presentation.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Council members.

Amin Tomaz with Development Services Department.

I'm here to folks in the back, if you can please keep it down as we begin our UDC conversations.

Thank you.

Amin is cutting into lunch.

Thank you.

I'll make it quick.

Okay.

So uh I'm here to talk about uh UDC, the unified development code amendment process, and then specifically talk about the data center CCR that we talked about uh in B session.

So just real quick uh UDC is updated every five years based on our ordinance.

Normally it's every year that ends with zero or five.

But then when COVID hit and uh 2019, we did pause and we did not do the amendments in 2020 because we couldn't meet in person, and normally to update the UDC, it's a lot of in-person meetings, a lot of discussions.

So we paused that and we adopted uh or worked on the UDC and adopted it in 2022 with adoption date of January 1, 2023.

And that ordinance we talked about, the next code cycle will be in 2027, that's five years from the 2022.

The big reason why we update the UDC is you know, new laws, regulations from the city, from the state, federal rules as well.

Uh new technology kicks in and new materials kick in, and normally we try to make sure we we adopt all that and include that into our uh code.

The standard process takes about a year.

Uh we break it down to four sections.

Each section is three a month.

A quarter.

So normally the first quarter starts in this case January 1, 2027.

And we open up uh the door for people to apply for or propose amendments, internal and external uh proposals.

We collect all that, and then the second quarter we go to the planning commission and then to the PTAC, the Technical Advisory Committee.

They review all those proposals, and then we move forward with those two the zoning commission and to the planning commission and board of adjustment.

We go through those three commissions to get their feedback and then we take it to council for final consideration.

When it's adopted at that point, hopefully, then the effective date that we ask for is January 1.

What that does is give us the last quarter of the year to do full education for internal staff and for external developers and community members because again, major changes affects those projects that that uh they are designing or working on for several years sometimes.

So we want to make sure everybody is on the same page with those changes.

So, as I said, that's the normal process for the UDC.

Now, talking about the CCR that we received from Councilman Galvan uh in October 2025.

It did talk about specifically the data centers, and mainly the big item was the utility usage, mainly the consumption of power, CPS, and water saws.

In the CCR, there was um a topic or or um a consideration to look into the UDC and uh see if there is any possible changes or amendments that makes it a little bit more restrictive for data centers.

We went to governance in December 2025, then we went to full uh not to full, I'm sorry, to B session council on March 4th, and we did receive uh some feedback at that time about potentially creating um a stakeholder meeting or group and start meeting with them, mainly the industry folks and obviously the community to make sure we get their feedback and look into uh what kind of amendments we want to add to the UDC.

Some of the topics we talked about during B session is potentially adding an S to the zoning, which is specific use authorization for any new data center.

Uh we uh had discussion about additional development standards such as fencing, uh landscape buffers, depending on the site.

Obviously, each case will be case by case depending on the location, depending on the residential area around it.

We talked about noise mitigating techniques because we heard from the community that some residents they say they hear the humming noise all the time.

So, again, all these topics were presented, and all those will be again case by case uh at the time if we go forward with this, at the time they come before council for uh the special use authorization.

So, with that said, uh there was some comments about uh should we do this within the normal cycle of UDC or should we do it out of cycle?

So I just presented the normal cycle, which takes a full year in 2027.

If the decision is to move forward with out of cycle for data centers, then it's gonna be a lot shorter time.

We already established uh the first meeting with the stakeholders on May 8th.

If we're gonna do that, we're gonna proceed with it.

Uh, we can continue several meetings in May and June and then develop the proposed amendments.

We can take those in July to the planning and zoning commissions and then bring it to council in August with effective date.

It could be August, end of August, could be January, depends on what council wants to do.

But that that time frame is a lot shorter and it can be done out of cycle.

So next steps, basically, as I said, we established the stakeholder meeting on May 8th as the first one.

Um, but we really need feedback from you on which way do you want us to take this?

Uh should we take this as a normal cycle with the UDC?

We can still meet with the stakeholders, we can still develop all those recommendations and put them into the regular cycle with the UDC, or we can again move forward with out of cycle.

That's my presentation, and I just need I'm seeking feedback from you.

Thank you.

Thank you, I mean very much.

We will start with council discussion, Councilman Govern.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, I mean, for the work on this and the conversation we had uh feels like months ago, but I think we probably eight month ago.

Um but I really appreciate the work that staff has been doing on this.

Uh I'm supportive of it going through an out-of-cycle um process.

Um grateful to see the meetings are scheduled for stakeholders.

When talking to a couple of different folks in the in district six who operate data centers here, there's a lot of interest in being a part of that conversation, looking at ways that they can help address some of these issues that neighbors have brought to them as well.

And making sure that we're being clear on what's going on in these particular uh sites here in our community.

And so I'm very excited to help connect any folks uh there as well.

Um and I I'm sure it's not limited to just buffers as well.

I'm sure there's some more conversation once they're in the room.

Uh but I wanted to make sure that you know it's not just limited to the ones listed on the slide, correct?

Those are just some of the topics we talked about doing B session, but when the discussion happens with the stakeholders fully open, and we'll see what what comes out of it.

Great.

Um is uh SAFD, the fire department going to be part of the conversations as well related to the fire code.

Yes, we would we would have them uh involved with that process, uh just in case they have any recommendations.

Okay, great.

I know one of the centers uh in my community had an incident uh that was ultimately resolved and taken care of, and the person who was impacted is doing well, is my understanding.

Um but there was a a clear need for understanding how these particular buildings um operate, where folks are at, where folks are doing work in these kind of places and making sure that there's a clear fire route.

Thankfully, uh fire department made uh made on site within I believe a minute, uh which is really incredible.

Um but you know, regardless, uh I know that entity in particular was really excited to say how can we be more collaborative with the fire department, make sure that we're connected here.

And if there's anything that we can look at for actual UDC guidelines related to that, happy to open up the kind of conversation.

So just wanted to make sure I have voice support for that as well.

Um otherwise, uh support of the recommendations as listed.

Um excited to get started.

Thank you, I mean.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Any other council discussion?

Councilman McCourt.

Um, I wanted to thank again Councilmember Councilmember Gulvan for putting this issue forward.

I uh have gotten so many emails from folks asking for support on this.

So the community is doing really good at advocating.

I uh support this because I know how important of an issue it is for council member Gulvan, but I like have so many UDC amendments that I've asked for the last three years, and I never get this opportunity to do an out of cycle.

So I you must have a lot of power because I have never been offered that.

I've been told keep your mouth shut and wait till 2027.

Okay, I'm being a facetious.

I would never know how like we do get, you know, we do get sad, like, okay, yeah, that you know, for example, single staircase is really important to me.

Um, and there's so many that are going to come up around housing that are going to be really important to me for UDC.

And so I support this because of the uniqueness of the situation, but I would like for us to reconsider um when UDC comes around.

Why do we have it on every five-year cycle?

Like I asked Amin that in our my briefing, and he was like, is just what we might after we talked yesterday.

I asked Melissa, and Melissa was involved with the UDC for the last time you'll let her explain why.

Good afternoon, uh, council members.

Yes, um, I've been involved with the UDC amendment process for probably the last decade.

Um, and we in the beginning we used to have them uh every three years, um just like we have our other code cycles, but this is so broad, and there's so many amendments that come in.

Last cycle we did over 200 UDC amendments to imagine sitting down and having discussions word for word for each one of those.

It's quite consuming.

So the development committee along with the city of San Antonio took that into consideration.

Training our staff, training our customers, training our stakeholders and our residents, making sure that they understand the codes.

And once we get through that for the first year that we pass those ordinances and then we start again, it's almost ready for the next cycle.

So it it is time consuming.

So we recommended and was passed five every five years.

Cool.

We can recommend the opposite back, right?

You can uh it it will be uh consuming for everyone, not just staff, but also for our customers.

The certainty and the codes is what they're looking for, and if they have that every five years, they can ensure that what their development is gonna look for look towards, you know, the next UDC amendment cycle.

I I hear that, and at the same time, there's so much evolving in our housing space, and we have to be able to be nimble.

And so um, it's a both end conversation that I think we have to have.

But I know this is probably we'll probably have a lot more chances to do that before January because Amin did tell me I couldn't make that change.

I was like, well, why don't we just start the UDC amendment process this summer?

And he he said that wasn't possible.

So uh he said after the next one, if we wanted to change it, we could have that discussion.

So I guess we will have that discussion then to see how do we make sure that we get we don't have to wait X amount of year five years every time we have uh something we want to help for um our community.

Okay, I'm done.

Sorry, thanks, sir.

Thank you.

Councilman Corps has a great memory.

I mean uh Councilman Castillo.

Chair, thank you, I'm in and uh Melissa.

Uh I'm and Councilman Galvan for the council consideration request.

I'm supportive of the out of cycle conversation on this UDC code, uh given how fast this industry is uh evolving and expanding in our city.

Um I believe we have a responsibility to evaluate the UDC before we see um the development of these large data centers.

Uh so in short, supportive of the council members' uh recommendation.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Messi Gonzalez.

Uh likewise, uh supportive of the recommendation to have out of cycle uh UDC amendments, and uh thank you to Councilman Galvan for bringing this up.

This is the first CCR that I think I signed.

Um, right, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um anyway, uh, and I actually went on a tour.

Uh we did a data center tour a couple of weeks ago, and so there's a lot happening in in district six.

Um, and so making sure that we prepared for that um is important.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

It's the CCR that just caused so many waves uh in a good way.

Um so I do agree with Councilman Corps.

I mean, there's so many great housing things, but I think um to the point that this is a very specific industry, fast growing.

Uh obviously, all the housing things that we're considering uh is gonna be far reaching, it's gonna affect every property when they kind of redevelop or build.

So I think this is we can be very quick and nimble on this one, uh, especially because it is such a high concern.

We've gotten so many residents that reach out to us.

Um and even at a town hall that we had on Marbuck area, I mean it came up, right?

For folks in that area.

So I support the expedite timeline, and then we will be having a conversation about all the priorities for PCDC for the upcoming uh normal UDC process that hopefully you can get a head start on.

So hopefully that was enough feedback for you today.

Quick and expedited.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Do we need a we don't need to vote for that?

I think the feedback is sufficient.

I think for both items, we'll move to the ordinance on the source of income protection to council.

Uh update that ordinance based upon the motion, and then for this, we will um move forward with proposed amendments and uh bring them to city council out of cycle.

Awesome, great.

The time is now 12 29 and the meeting is now adjourned.

Thank you.