Good morning, everyone.

The time is now 10 03 a.m.

on May 20th, 2026, and we will call this meeting of the governance committee to order.

Uh Madam Herky, please please call roll.

Councilmember Viegran.

Councilmember Mugia.

Councilmember Spears.

Pro Tem McKee Rodriguez.

Present.

Pro Tem.

We have quorum.

Wonderful, wonderful.

The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from the April 15th meeting.

I entertain a motion for approval.

Motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

So we're going to do this a little bit differently this time because we have 376 items on the agenda.

We have nine CCRs.

And so we're going to do all of the presentations back to back.

And then we'll, if we have any members of the public summit to speak, they'll speak then.

And we'll also have members, the council members who authored the CCR speak at that time if they are present.

And then we'll get into council discussion and action.

Thank you, Chair.

Amin will start and like you said, we'll go back to back.

We'll be as efficient as we can, and we'll remain for questions when we're done.

Thank you so much.

The floor is yours.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Amin Tomaz, Development Services Director.

Let me move this a little around.

Here we go.

All right.

I'm here to talk about Cesar Chavez street name change.

So we receive.

Oh, let's wait for the.

Here we go.

So we received a council consideration request on April 13, 2026 by District 5.

And the request is being submitted following citywide survey and series of listening sessions from the community.

And the majority preference is to change the name.

This proposal seeks the change, change the name of Caesar Chavez Boulevard to Durango Boulevard.

And this section or segment runs between Southwest 36th Street and South Hackbury Street.

Development Services Department recommendation is to start that process.

The process includes technical review, consideration by historic design and review commission, consideration by planning commission, and then final consideration by city council.

That's my presentation for this one.

So we'll move on to the next item.

Splash Town.

Splash Town Drive Street name change as soon as the presentation is up.

Item number three.

Okay, here we go.

So similar to the previous one, we received the council consideration request April 8th, 2026, by Council District 2.

And the name change request is being submitted to honor an important member of the community, and for the street name to better reflect the area and its history.

This segment of this street uh goes uh I'm sorry, the proposed the proposal seeks to change the splashdown drive to Willie Mitchell Drive, and the proposed street segment goes between Interstate Highway 35 and Co-Plan Drive.

Similar to the previous one, our recommendation is to start that process.

The process uh includes technical review, consideration by planning commission, and final consideration by council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Item number four is a CCR to establish a defined review cycle for city boards and commissions.

The CCR was submitted by by Councilmember White on March 30th, 2026, and requests amendment of chapter two of the city code entitled administration to establish a defined review cycle for city boards and commissions, and the CCR was assigned to the city clerk.

The CCR will be presented today, and the proposal is to return in 60 days for a plan.

Review back to governance committee.

The current efforts, the city clerk maintains a list of all boards by type.

We collect annual reports from each board for performance and attendance.

And we also work with vacancies and applications received in the regular one on one-on-one meetings with council.

Our partners are the board members, liaisons of the boards, departments, and agencies that receive direction from the board, as well as the city attorney mayor and council.

Boards are not included in the budget priority surveys because you can only ask a certain number of things, but boards do align with city goals.

A review of boards is included in the city code currently.

Section 2-541.

There would be no funding required for this, and the recommendation is to return in 60 days.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, we're doing great.

All right, we'll keep the momentum going.

Good morning, Council.

This item is in regards to a council consideration request submitted by District One.

Just a little bit over a month ago to establish a quick build team both within the plant uh public works and transportation departments, including a dedicated traffic engineer with the experience in quick build implementation.

And just uh for background, uh quick build is really all about implementing transportation safety projects faster than we have before, and that's the goal of quick builds as well as the policy.

Quick builds is highlighted in the complete streets policy that council adopted back in 2024.

A couple of specifics on the request.

Um the request does identify potentially looking at uh staff within the public works and transportation departments to evaluate uh potential options to implement temporary measures.

Uh those measures could be items like pop-up bike lanes, traffic calming uh solutions, as well as crosswalk enhancements.

Part of the process will be going through an internal analysis, analyzing cost, staffing needs, potential output, and available department capacity both between both departments.

Through this, we would measure effectiveness and then determine if permanent measures are warranted as we go through the process.

Again, the kind of the goal of quick build is to do something sort of temporary, test it out, and then see how it operates, and then come back with a more permanent solution.

And then the last part of the CCR is looking at budget impacts.

Couple things that we'll consider as this process under uh unfolds is uh just want to make sure that the team knows that both public works and transportation we are supportive of of doing things quicker than we have before.

The CCR did highlight some past barriers and trying to implement quick build solutions, and we're actually moving in that direction already.

Um, one of the challenges I think that's been part of it is there hasn't been a singular definition of what locally we call quick build, both internally and externally.

There's very definitions across the country, uh so that'll be part of the work.

Uh we've also had several vacancies in our traffic engineering group that's impacted our responsiveness and performance over the years, and so we've actually already started working with HR on looking at those positions.

And then one last thing to note is the transportation department of reminder that did receive a grant to look at much of this information that will occur over the next two to three years.

So we're recommending we'd refer this to the transportation committee.

We'll continue it to evaluate the details of the CCR and report back in the future.

Thank you.

Good morning, governance committee.

My name is Homer Garcia, Parks and Recreation Director.

Uh, and this item number six is related to CCR submitted by District 10.

It is specifically outlines four primary elements for development and implementation of a flood tree planting floodplain tree planting program, uh, specifically authorizing use of the tree mitigation fund for this purpose in floodplain and riparian areas, identifying priority planting sites along our creeks, rivers, and tributaries, as well as some others such as drainage easements, and then making sure that we are coordinating with the San Antonio River Authority in the process.

Also specifies requirement of planting native floodplain tolerant species, and then establishing an associated maintenance plan and annual reporting as part of this program.

There's a couple of things to consider.

Uh UDC chapter 35 outlines use of the tree mitigation fund.

Uh, and so for our part, the revenue coming into the fund that on the front end is handled by DSD through permitting process and development of the community.

On the back end, parks and recreation reprogram these dollars in the community.

It does allow for tree planting both on public and private property as well as a three-year maintenance period for trees planted with the fund.

And one thing to note since fiscal year 24, over 60% of planted trees on public property are within 500 feet of the floodplain.

And I do want to highlight one of the things down the slide.

Relative to private development, the tree preservation ordinance also establishes a minimum tree preservation requirement of 80% for floodplain areas.

Another consideration is that which governs public works and stormwater design that is listed citation as appendix appendix H in the UDC.

It really focuses on the conveyance of velocity of water and surface elevations, and then also want to make sure and has criteria for not doing planting in a way that's going to adversely impact the floodplain.

So staff's recommendation is we did coordinate with public works on this item.

We will continue to do so to develop a framework, expand that partnership to include the river authority.

So we're at the table informing the development of this program, and that we move this to Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with recommendations.

That concludes my presentation.

I'll ask Melody Weasley to come up for the next item.

Thank you.

Feels like we have every department director here today.

So good morning, Chair and Council members.

Melody Weasley, Human Services Director.

So this council consideration request was filed on May the 5th by Councilmember Alderate Gavito, and requesting that staff explore expanding transportation currently offered at the City of San Antonio operated senior centers through three targeted strategies exploring grant opportunities, bond funding and private uh public partnerships, expanding existing partnerships with VIA and Bear County to leverage additional resources, and collaborating with existing organizations and stakeholders focused on adult transportation, including the City County Joint Commission on Elderly Affairs, which is staffed by both the city and the county, successfully aging and living in San Antonio and DHS does currently have a seat on the steering committee in each subcommittee.

The Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and San Antonio Mobility Coalition.

We currently provide curb-to-curb transportation at 12 of our comprehensive centers and four part-time nutrition sites.

This is for members who are living within a five-mile radius of each center and face barriers to a consistent means of transportation.

We also provide transportation during normal programming for things like field trips and special events, such as our recent senior stay in the park.

Currently, we do have small coverage gaps outside of the five-mile radius of the centers in most council districts.

We are working to increase transportation access for members within a reasonable and safe ride time, which currently averages about one to one and a half hours each way.

To expand access, we are using easy transportation software that optimizes our daily routes and proposing to leverage consolidated funding to pilot a transportation program outside of those that five mile radius.

We're also developing those outside partnerships, including via to understand their scope and eligibility requirements, and Alamo Regional Transit.

Alma Regional Transit, in fact, is currently conducting a study on the transportation system within their coverage area and will present their findings to the Salsa Transportation Committee once completed.

And so that staff recommendation is to refer this request to the community health committee for additional review and discussion.

Our immediate next steps include continued discussion with VIA and Alamo Regional Transit and completion of the status of older adults in San Antonio report by UT San Antonio, which will include data on transportation barriers and needs.

And then we are also going to conduct an internal transportation needs surveys of our center members.

Okay.

And so I'll move on to the next presentation.

So this item, also I have a brief presentation and recommendation regarding the council consideration request on reimagining CAFE College.

The council consideration request was filed on March 17th by Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

It requests that city staff review the effectiveness of CAFE College in light of the number of opportunities that are available to young people graduating high school and to ensure the services provided at CAFE College are aligned, efficiently utilized, and not duplicative of other services provided by education and training stakeholders.

The CCR also asked staff to identify opportunities that CAFE College can implement to improve its impact in the community.

As background, CAFE College was launched in 2010 by Secretary Julian Castro, then mayor of San Antonio.

The primary goal was to increase college access by providing information and supports needed to pursue a college degree or degree or career credentials.

CAFE College is operated by the San Antonio Education Partnership and has been awarded the contract to operate CAFE College since its inception through four competitive RFP processes.

The fiscal year 2026 adopted budget includes almost $1 million from the general fund, which is contracted to education partnership to operate the center.

Additionally, the city owns and leases the CAFE College facility to the education partnership.

In fiscal year 25, CAFE College served over 5,700 and duplicated clients and through an array of services to assist with their post-secondary plans.

Advisors work with high school students and adults who want to complete college degrees or earn credentials to improve their career opportunities.

CAFE College helps from the very beginning of that process with career and college exploration to enrollment or re enrollment in college.

In 2023, the city's commission on education wanted to explore how to improve college career and military readiness of students.

The commission decided to explore how to better prepare high school students for college success and release recommendations to improve college career and military readiness of San Antonio students through CAFE College.

Some of the highlights include better alignment with CAFE College services with Texas Higher Education Coordinating Boards, building a strong Texas plan, aligning CAFE College with city initiatives, such as Ready to Work, Next Level Youth Opportunity Center and the Ambassador Summer Program, Enhancing Professional Development Development Opportunities for Advisors, and they also encouraged CAFE College to serve as an incubator of ideas.

These recommendations shown on the slide above in more detail were included in the most recent RFP to be implemented within budget.

And so as far as next steps, we are referring this request to the recommending referring this request to the educational opportunities committee for additional discussion and review, and working with the education partnership on analysis of how current CAFE College services align with the Commission on Education's recommendations.

And that concludes my presentations, and I will turn this over to Bridget White.

Good morning, Bridget White, Planning Department for Item Number Nine.

The CCR requesting consideration of a review and possible amendments to the city's annexation growth management policy was submitted May 4th by Council District 8.

As a matter of background, the city's annexation growth management policy is a component of the SHMR conference of plan.

It was updated in 2023 to conform to state law changes and outlines how the city can manage growth in the ETJ through various growth management tools.

Identified tools include annexation, special districts and agreements, and regional planning and coordination.

Under special districts and agreements, public improvement districts, as well as water districts and utilities, one of which are municipal utility districts, are tools used to finance development.

Generally, a municipality's written consent is required to create a district in a city's ETJ and for the district to exercise its school powers.

If the city does not consent to the district's creation, the landowner may seek an alternative creation process through a state agency or state legislation.

By participating in the creation of a district, the city of San Antonio has the ability to negotiate terms of its consent via development agreement.

The city does have a process in place regarding the consent to create and execution of a development agreement.

To date, the city has consented to 31 districts in the ETJ, 29 public improvement districts, one water control improvement district, and one freshwater supply district.

The CCR submitted is requesting a staff review of the current policy and proposing a set of minimum standards for consideration of consent.

The CCR acknowledges that we do currently have a set of minimum standards, but as noted, the request is to consider items including but not limited to additional national natural resource protection, cost analyses, inspection related to building code compliance, and annual reports to city council.

Staff recommends that this item be sent to the planning community and development committee for review, and I will now turn it over to Dr.

Mata for the final presentation.

Good morning, Chair and Council members.

I'm Dr.

Jennifer Matha, Director of Compliance Opportunity and Access.

I'm here today to present on the looking out for vulnerable impacted neighbors or the 11 CCR.

The 11 CCR was submitted by Councilman Jalen McKee Rodriguez on April 9th, 2026.

The CCR seeks to protect transgender, non-binary, and intersect San Antonians from discrimination and barriers to access.

The request includes ensuring access to public facilities, strengthening protections for personal health and personal identity information, expanding single user restrooms, and exploring options for self-selected name gender markers and accurate IDs.

COA will coordinate efforts with city departments to implement.

Our current efforts include the non-discrimination ordinance, which protects against sexual, which protects sexual orientation and gender identity.

We also have some facilities that already provide single-user gender-inclusive bathrooms that we uh located during SB8 rollout.

Our city also has city-issued ID processes as well as ID verification processes in effect.

We have AD 7.12 on data governance, which protects personal identifiable information, and we also have AD 4.67, which protects against discrimination based on gender identity, and this is the AD Equal Employment Opportunity, the anti-harassment AD.

We will work with potential partners to locate model ways that we can implement the CCR as well as to look for community support.

Providing protections for gender identity is not a priority identified in the community survey.

However, it is in alignment with the city's goal for San Antonio to be a city that maximizes its citizens' well-being and human potential while capitalizing on its cultural diversity.

It is also in alignment with COWA's mission, which our mission is to ensure that all residents can access city programs, services, and spaces free from discrimination or barriers.

At the federal level, we have to keep in mind that the evolving nature of law affecting programs or initiatives related to inclusivity and civil civil rights may impact limitations on federal grant assurances at the state level, as noted in the CCR.

We also have HB 229 and SB 8, which include legal obligations that we need to be aware of as we move towards implementation.

COA with the city attorney's office is continually monitoring legislation.

And as noted earlier, we still have the city's NDO protections for gender identity and gender expression.

The uh implementation will require resources depending on the scope.

Costs may include facility assessment, restroom conversions, staff training development, privacy system enhancements, or software changes for data handling updates.

I think the largest cost may be conducting building facilities connections and visibility studies, excuse me.

Should we move forward with the expansion of single-user restrooms?

The largest cost will be the rehab rehabilitation or construction of new facilities.

Implementation may require general fund support depending on the skill of facility updates.

Staff recommends that this, I'm sorry, I skipped a slide.

Staff recommends that this CCR be forwarded to the community health committee to provide further guidance on prioritizing elements and developing next steps.

This concludes the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We got through all nine presentations in less than 30 minutes.

So good job on you all.

We're going to move on to public comments, and then followed by C Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez here, and then we have a letter from Council Member Aldraite Carito.

We'll start off with uh Yami.

And if I say your name incorrectly, please correct me.

No worries, I got you.

Hello, my name is Yamani Karandika.

I'm a resident of district one, and I'm the chapter lead for Strongtown San Antonio.

I want to express support for establishing the interdepartmental quick build team focused on street safety and supporting prioritizing this team for the upcoming budget cycle.

Instead of waiting for years for expensive street safety improvements, the quick build team can respond faster using lower cost adaptable solutions to test safety improvements and learn what works before we invest in permanent construction.

This interdepartmental team can break down silos and create a culture of action, which I think would be great for the city.

Any small changes can have immediate impact and save lives.

So as Strong Towns, we believe that stronger communities come from incremental improvements and continuously adapting.

So I encourage that we embrace this approach and move the CCR forward and take this very important step towards safer streets for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Austin.

Austin, you'll be followed by Joey.

I believe Mitch is also continuing his time to me.

Yes.

Is he giving us time to you?

Great.

We have six minutes.

Thanks.

My name is Austin Kelm.

I'm a district one resident, and I lead Strongtown San Antonio's Safe and Productive Streets Initiative.

Strong Towns is a local group of advocates that push for missing middle housing like duplexes, fourplexes, and courtyard cottages.

Transparent local accounting that recognizes the economic importance of the urban core and streets that are safe, comfortable, and accessible for all, whether you're in a car or not.

For the past seven years, I've been a Carlight resident of Texas and largely to bend on my own bike and my own two feet to get around.

My journey began when I made the fantastic decision to sell my Toyota Camry to purchase my wife's engagement ring.

One of the best swaps I have ever made.

By biking in the urban core, I've discovered more local businesses, met more of my neighbors, but I'm healthier than I would have if I had driven everywhere.

Despite this, the infrastructure I encounter daily makes me feel like a second-rate citizen.

All over, I see wide four or five-lane roads with dedicated crews to come patch a pothole on a moment's notice, while I am left with a strip of paint and a prayer in many cases.

There are entire areas of our city that are inaccessible to me simply because I don't have a car, and I have to take unnecessary risks where infrastructure is lacking to do simple things like access the park across from my house.

Now, Councilwoman Corps' office has been an absolute fantastic supporter of my neighborhood.

Um, and early last year, however, due to securing a contractor, inflated construction timelines, and unexpected utility work, that crosswalk is still not built over a year later and won't even begin construction until uh fall of this year.

Uh Council, if it takes us almost two years to build a single crosswalk, we have no hope of ever building Vision Zero, the bike network plan, or providing mobility for our most vulnerable residents.

That's why I'm here today with Strong Towns to support District One's council consideration request to establish a quick build department within public works and transportation.

Quick builds are a tried and true method to deliver low-cost improvements to public spaces without massive budgets or years of planning and construction.

They rely on the existing expertise of city staff and materials that we already use, like barrels, flex posts, and planners.

They can deliver things like safe ways to cross the street, speed limit compliance, and comfortable routes to get to the grocery store in days instead of years.

Other cities across North America are already turning to this approach.

Jersey City, New Jersey has embedded QuickBuild into its transportation planning, using it to test bike lanes and pedestrian plazas before making permanent investments.

Price Utah has leveraged temporary interventions to activate underutilized spaces and pilot ideas.

Even the Maryland Department of Transportation utilized QuickBuilds to address dangerous locations.

MDOT's project saw a 90% decrease in the number of people exceeding the speed limit by 20 miles an hour, as well as a 15% drop in average top speeds, all while increasing traffic volumes by 20%.

MDOT is even scaling up its program and installed quick build projects in six communities last summer.

We know that quick builds work in San Antonio too because they already happen here every day.

We just don't realize it.

Every time we redirect traffic flow for a game, every time a construction crew closes a lane to perform work, and every time we dedicate a street to a block party, we are utilizing QuickBuild infrastructure.

This is all approved work that public works overseas and permits already.

Fundamentally, Quick Builds is based on the fact that we already have the knowledge and expertise within transportation and public works to fix our roads and make them work for everyone, not just a select few.

In supporting QuickBuild programs across the US, Strong Towns.

Is that me?

Cool.

Thanks all.

Thank you so much.

Joey, followed by Kevin.

Good morning, Councilman McKee Rodriguez and San Antonio City Council members.

My name is Joey Polic, executive director of ActivateSA, and I'm here in support of agenda item number five.

Quitbuild projects are one of the smartest tools cities have today.

They will also use low-cost, flexible materials like paint, posts, and temporary curb extensions to make streets safer and more accessible in months, not years.

In a growing city like San Antonio, that speed matters, especially as a Vision Zero city.

Every delayed safety improvement is another month where people are exposed to preventable risk on our roadways from pedestrians to even motorists.

ActiveSA recently completed an ARP grant funded uh quit build project in Beacon Hill at the intersection of Blanco and Ellesmere, one block north of the roundabouts.

Many of y'all might be familiar with.

From what we know, our project was one of the first quit builds completed by community organization in San Antonio of this type.

While we are truly excited to have our project implemented on the ground, we have times followed guinea pigs and an unwritten process.

Staff from public works and transportation were key to bringing this project to life, but clear guidance earlier on could help prevent it, potentially save months from the implementation process.

It is our hope that this is CR CCR will help chart a better, more productive future for quick future quick build requests from city council members and community organizations like ourselves.

We know that safer streets support economic activity, connect people to opportunity, and improve quality of life.

Quit build helps us test solutions, respond to community needs faster, and use funds more efficiently, whether they are public funds or brought forward by community organizations like ourselves.

San Antonio has an innovation, has the innovation and the talent to lead in this space with an improved quick build process and dedicated staff to steer this process.

We can deliver safer, more equitable streets faster.

I encourage you to prioritize these process improvements and help make quick builds a key part of how we serve our community.

Thank you especially to Councilmembers Castillo and CORE for their leadership in authoring the CCR and to the city staff who have helped us in bringing our own quick builds in Beacon Hill to life, especially those in public works and transportation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Kevin, you'll be followed by Megan.

Kevin Monsha.

Megan.

Megan journal again.

Trent.

Trent Ingram.

Okay, that concludes public comment.

We'll move to uh the council.

We have uh a council member who authored a couple of the CCRs, Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

If you would like, no pressure.

Yeah, yeah.

I would like.

How are you?

Thank you so much to the Governance Committee for taking on the CCR and to the colleagues who uh supported this.

Uh as it was stated in the presentation since 2010, Cafe College has connected thousands of San Antonio students to college advising, financial aid, and support services.

But we know as career pathways continue to diversify the city should ensure that one of our primary resources for youth career readiness should be aligned with those new opportunities.

In the fall of 2023, roughly one in three SAISD graduates did not enroll in any higher education.

This represents thousands of young people in our community who would benefit from career support and who deserve just as much as an opportunity to succeed.

The CCR asked for a coordinated review of CAFE College to explore how we can expand it to meet the moment that we're in, aligning with career readiness partners like SA works, Alamo Colleges, UT San Antonio, Texas AM, building on the college career and military readiness standards.

We've clearly shown a commitment to education with pre-K4SA and ready to work and Alamo Promise, and so that middle piece I think would be beneficial to our city to just kind of bring this full circle.

We've done programs like this in the past.

San Antonio Neighborhood Youth Organization, known as Sonia, was around in the 70s and 80s, had a lot of community support, a federally funded program, but this was our city's youth employment program that gave folks real work experience that laid the foundation for their future successes.

So you see San Yo kids all over the city to this day.

My dad is one of them.

And they call themselves Sanyo Kids.

I mean, it's something that they light up when they talk about, you know, 50 years later.

Uh so thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to the committee's input in the conversation ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

Uh, I'll read, uh I did get permission from uh Councilmember Alderatiquito to shorten her letter a little bit, but I'll read uh a good portion of it.

Chair and colleagues, I filed this council consideration request because transportation should not be the reason an older adult is cut off from community, friendship, meals, or critical services.

Today the city provides transportation within a five-mile radius of senior centers, but as San Antonio and Bear County continue to grow outward, many older adults living just outside that boundary are left without access, and in some cases without reliable via service either.

We've heard directly from residents who wanted to participate in programs and services but were turned away simply because they lived a few miles beyond the current pickup zone.

The CCR asked city staff to explore ways to expand transportation access while still ensuring rides remain safe, efficient, and timely.

It also asks staff to think creatively about partnerships and funding opportunities, whether through via Bear County, grants, or community stakeholders, so we're not relying solely on the general fund.

Our senior centers already serve more than 22,000 older adults annually, and that need will only continue to grow as our population ages.

I appreciate your consideration and look forward to the committee discussion.

And we'll submit a um uh this for the record as well.

And then Councilmember Spears has a statement to read on behalf of Councilmember White.

Thank you, Chair.

I have one on item four and item six.

Uh I'll start with item four.

This is from Councilmember Mark White.

Um I want to thank the committee for taking up this item today.

I'm sorry I can't be there in person.

This CCR is straightforward in its intent.

San Antonio has dozens of boards, commissions, and advisory bodies, and right now there's no consistent mechanism to evaluate whether they're still doing what they were created to do.

That's not a criticism of the people who serve on them, it's a gap in how we manage them.

A structured, predictable review cycle fixes that.

I also want to specifically recognize Debbie Raka Sitter and the city Clerk's office.

This CCR was addressed directly to Debbie, and I've had the chance to speak with her about it.

She and her team are ready and genuinely enthusiastic about being part of this process.

The clerk's office has the institutional knowledge and the operational vantage point to make this framework framework work in practice, not just on paper.

I'd ask the committee to make sure that partnership is reflected in how state and how staff moves this forward.

And then item six, Councilmember White.

San Antonio has real flooding challenges, and tree canopy in our floodplains is one tool we haven't fully put to work.

This CCR asks staff to develop a floodplain tree planting program that uses existing tree mitigation funds to plant native flood tolerant species along our creeks, rivers, and drainage easements in partnership with Sarah.

This isn't a new funding task.

Ask.

The mitigation funds exist, the partnerships are there, and the potential benefits, erosion reduction, water quality, wildlife habitat, flood mitigation, are worth pursuing in a coordinated way.

What we don't have yet is a program with clear planting targets, species requirements, and a maintenance plan that tracks results over time.

I appreciate the committee's time on this item and hope we can move it forward today.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you, everybody who came.

Oh, speaking on the deck, the second CCR.

Gotcha.

Thank you again to the governance committee for considering the CCR and to my colleagues who signed on.

As we know, San Antonio is growing and that growth extends well beyond our city limits.

As development continues to expand into our ETJ, the city must ensure that the tools we use to evaluate and consent to special districts keep pace with the reality that we are in.

This CCR asks council to update the existing standards for special district applications.

The goal is not to discourage development, but to ensure that when we do grant consent, we do see what do so with the full picture in front of us and with meaningful safeguards in place for our residents, our environment, and our city's fiscal future.

A recent experience with the Wahalata Ranch Development made clear that our current framework can be improved to meet the development challenges of the future.

As a city, we can act now to help ensure that future development projects approved through the consent process meet adequate environmental thresholds and align with our residents' interest.

That's why the CCR asked council to consider additional standards to the policy for special district applications to include stronger environmental accountability, improved alignment with city goals, and enhanced fiscal responsibility.

Thank you so much.

So that concludes public comment and uh comment from council members who filed the CCRs.

Um this feels a little chaotic at first glance because it does a lot of subject matters, a lot of different departments impacted all at one time.

But in essence, they're all going to be if you should council should the committee take affirmative action today for each of the items.

They would all be moving forward in the process to their respective committee or coming back here in the case of the um do do the item four.

Um, and so to that end, I'll be fairly short with my comments.

I'll be supportive today for each of each of them.

I think there's going to be some great discussion at each of the committees.

Several of these are going to be at transportation infrastructure, which I chair, including the quick build uh CCR from council member core.

Uh and so I look forward to you know ushering those along through the process and ensuring that the intents of their the authors uh are fulfilled ultimately at the end of the day, and that we have very substantive discussion, and uh we end up with an end result that is positive for our city.

With regards to the second CCR that I authored, um I do want to give uh tremendous kudos and shout out to uh community organizations, including uh Equality Texas, Thrive Youth Center, uh former council member uh Leo Castillo Anguano, who uh they all together authored the CCR.

I'm happy to shepherd it through as the uh official filer, but uh it took a lot of work before I got to this point, and so I'll be supporting that one today, of course.

But I will be asking that instead of sending it to check that we send it to the public safety committee.

So when the time comes for a motion, I'll make sure to make note of that.

Um we'll do because there's so many subject matters.

I can't imagine everyone wants to talk about all of the items, uh, but we'll do one round of 10 minutes and one round of five minutes if anybody needs a second.

Councilmember to be everyone you're good.

Thank you.

So I will be moving, uh, I will be in support of item number two, item number three, item number four, item number seven, and item number eight, as staff has recommended.

Uh item number nine, that I don't understand why we didn't, and you don't have to answer it now, why we didn't send that to a B session.

I think that does not need to go that needs to go to PCDC and IGR, and because that's two committees, I think it should be a B session.

So I will not be supporting staff's recommendations uh on item number nine.

Uh item number six is another that needs to go to the B session because it has to do with flooding, and I I do not feel like it is an infrastructure issue.

It is a it is a public safety and municipal issue, and the other problem I have with that is um yeah, that's my district.

Y'all are talking about in terms of what gets flooded.

So I understand that that it is created by District 10, but I will not be supporting staff recommendations there, and I will be making an alternative uh amendment to send it to B session.

And number five, I do not understand why this did not come to committee and was proposed by the committee chair.

Um I am not in I do not have problems with public works sending out and doing what has said.

I do not know why we need to formalize it into this quick build status.

So whatever comes out of committee, I'm gonna send back to B session anyway, because this is this is this just costs, this just sounds like it's gonna cost money, and this should be something that we should be working as council members with the team, and this sounds like a council member council district issue.

District three geographically is the largest, and I do not want I do not want slap dash in my in my district.

We're gonna do projects, we need to do them right.

Um if we started this as a pilot and I could see success, that would do that, but I'm not gonna do this.

I just we do this to an extent, yes, at the request of the council members, to make this a policy.

I have very significant concerns with that because let me tell you where it's gonna be done first, the south side of San Antonio, and I'm not I'm not okay with that uh if we make this a policy moving forward.

So that needs to be fleshed out.

Uh y'all can take it to I won't be supporting it, y'all can take it to committee, but I I won't be supporting number five.

So um, yeah, and 10 with the public safety amendment, that's fine.

So I will only be making a recommendation that number six goes to B session before it goes to uh committee, and then um, and then number nine um goes to B session before it goes to committee, but uh that is we're gonna need to go to the state regarding annexation.

I don't, and so I don't understand, and so if at this time, those that presented number six and number nine can explain to me why they did not send it to a B session and why we are sending it to committee.

Councilwoman, those are just the staff recommendations for how we think the the CCR should proceed.

If you you all as a committee would like them to go to somewhere else, we're open to that as well.

For both six and nine.

So I just want to be clear.

Six is the quick build item, right?

So this quick build.

So we think the the natural place for that one.

No, five, five.

I I'm not supporting it all.

Six is the parks, Homer.

Why are we or David?

Why are we sending this to uh committee rather than B?

Councilwoman, obviously, we're open to um the destination for these.

If you'd like to make that recommendation, we're we're happy to do it.

Uh and I I will be making recommendations for six and nine, and my council colleagues can do uh can vote however they want, but I don't understand why part of this is governance.

Why isn't staff coming with me with recommendations?

If you know it's gonna have to end up in B session, why we aren't sending it to B session first before committee.

If I could try that, councilwoman, because usually it's not staff that determines what goes on a B session.

Uh frankly that's a council mayor, city manager discussion as to what goes to B session.

That's why departments don't recommend items go to B session unless they get direction from like Eric or the council that that's what you all want to do.

I'll say uh councilwoman.

So my practice, uh at least for transportation infrastructure where we send items fairly frequently, or we have see we hear CCRs and here have discussion on policy.

Our practice is to send things to B session, not directly to an A session following, so that council can get uh all of council can have the opportunity to provide feedback.

I think the value in an item going to committee before going to B session is that you have at least a solid makeup of council who are able to weigh in or and are able to say, hey, this is what I think is gonna work for me and for my district, and most of the committees are pretty diverse, and so should they then come up with a recommendation that's a little bit different than what we might have gotten here at this body.

Um, you know, I think it's more smooth once it goes to B session versus starting from scratch with 11 voices.

So I'll hear you, but I will ask that.

Uh my concern today is that there's only four of us, and so the issue of an item passing is that it requires three votes, and I would hate to see you know good policy fail because of a procedural challenge or a difference of opinion on whether it should go to a committee versus B session first.

And so we'll be interested to hear any motions that you make when the time comes, but ultimately I hope you do decide to support those items that at least you agree with fundamentally.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other council discussion?

Councilmember Spears.

Um, very supportive of item two.

Durango's a great name, has a lot of history behind it, so I'm very happy about that.

Um, very supportive of item three as well.

I think it's great that we're recognizing our community and local history.

Um, item four, I'm supportive of.

I think that we can do a lot of good things there, and a lot of good works will come out of that.

I'm supportive of item five and six and seven.

Oh, yeah.

Item eight.

So I guess I want to flesh that out some more to better understand the metrics around that.

And then item nine, very supportive of looking into this.

I think it should go to IGR as well.

I know uh Senator Campbell, Representative Theresio are also working on things at the state level here, so I think that will be extremely important.

Um, thank you for bringing that forward.

Um, councilwoman is a gonzale.

I think that's gonna be very impactful.

Uh did I say nine?

Did I say nine?

Okay, and then number 10.

My concerns are about the legality here.

Um Andy, are we?

I think I want to see the some more about the costs and and the legalities around number 10.

Um, I think it needs to go to committee and find that out.

So uh councilwoman, that's why we highlighted some of the legal parameters we have to fit under.

So yeah, we'll work with the committee on that.

So y'all are flushing, okay.

Flushing that out.

Flashing.

So, anyways.

Uh yeah, I'm ready for these to all go up to committee.

Thank you, Councilmember Mungia.

Thank you.

Um, I think this is a great example of all the the wide variety of policy issues that the council deals with.

I mean, this is such a diverse uh amount of CCRs that are covering different topics.

So I am supportive of all of these today.

I think um, especially on the quick build.

I do want to highlight something that you know, councilwoman, via grand mention on the quick build, uh, which I am supportive of, and I think it's gonna be a good thing.

Um, but I do, you know, I think we have to look at where neighborhoods are where we have high uh amount of density for these projects, right?

Like the pop-up bike lanes is great.

I know there's a lot of writers, right?

Cyclists, that's very important.

Uh, but I think we do have to be careful to her point about where we put those things.

So we want to make sure that we're accommodating um, you know, cyclist population that already exists and kind of uses roads to do that.

I don't know that putting that on like military drive, for example, or you know, um, some of the wide large New Laredo highway, right?

That's those are not gonna be really safe for cyclists to do.

Uh, and those are areas where we don't see a high amount of cyclists currently.

So I think eventually we can get there uh and and do some big things on those streets, but I just want us to be real careful where we implement those strategies.

Um, and I think it works best in the dense areas because people are already used to that, um, and drivers are kind of having to go slow already.

So that's the only thing I would mention on that.

And I do also like the annexation uh and growth management policy because district four of course has a border with the county all the way right on their western and southern ends.

So um I know those communities are don't want to be annexed, right?

And a lot of them like their small towns and and their communities, so I think we have to be really careful.

But I do think it's it going to PCDC is a great first step, and then I think from there, whatever policy recommendations come out, we send that to IGR, uh, because I don't think IGR has even met yet.

So I think that's still some time coming.

Uh and very happy to so have supported item number 10.

Um, and we got to go actually speak to some folks that were active on this, and they were very, very hopeful um that we can come up with some good solutions.

And I think particularly trying to do public facilities going forward with single-use restrooms is a really good way to go.

Um, I think anybody, whoever you are, appreciates privacy when using the restroom.

Um, and I think that that could be a really good thing, and it just accommodates different folks, different families, right?

People having to change their kids' diapers uh and all that.

Single use is definitely a way to go.

So I will be supportive of all these today uh and the staff recommendations.

Thank you.

Councilmember Viacron.

Uh I will be supportive of number six since it is going to transportation, and I will be making a motion that number nine moves to IGR because I want it to get on the agenda first thing if we can.

I will flag as it relates to IGR is over the past month since uh the mayor announced the formation of the IGR committee.

We have had a number of conversations about items that are going to be heard at IGR.

Um, and I think the very first thing that's gonna happen, just to lay it out, is going to be a B session uh from staff.

I think an overview of uh legislative actions, review of recap of last session, maybe a little bit of a forecast of what we anticipate, you know, next session, but we still won't know what the body looks like until November.

Um the following meetings I think will be uh then a sort of a list of different I guess items that staff has already identified, things that they want to advocate for.

We've heard from uh the we've heard from DSD, we've heard from SAPD, we've heard from ACS, we've heard from a number of departments, uh different policies and uh bills they would ultimately like to uh see through.

And so it's going to be a mess, I think the first little bit trying to it's gonna be a uh it's going to be a lot to try to get in.

So I would support moving it to PCDC first and then sending a recommendation to IGR and then fleshing it out a little bit more from there.

Okay, then I will not be supporting that because I will not be supporting that.

I don't think it then it I think it should go to a B session.

So I um I'm gonna I'm gonna then I'm gonna make a motion that we move it to a B session.

I don't think it should go to PCDC because uh we're gonna need to go legislative and I don't want it to look like five people in PCDC made legislation that the whole council should agree with so I'm gonna make that motion um and then we can get it on IGR and PCDC after we weigh in as the whole council so uh that that's my recommendation here um and uh because it it just is um and and I mean I signed it because I want to discuss it but I don't want to discuss it in a committee that I don't belong in and I and I don't think there's other people on the dais that want to do that either.

Okay.

Okay so we're gonna do the motions in order um is there any further discussion on councilman I got a frog on my throat I agree with councilman beakron sounds good I don't think it matters to councilman white whether it goes to committee or to a B session so whatever makes this smooth number nine oh that's for number nine councilman she says she's good wonderful oh she says she's not good yeah sure and I I just I think we need the the conversations need to stay focused at the table with the folks on the committee deliberation yeah or should be just within the committee okay no worries um we'll do we have any further discussion on the items good okay we're ready to go through this this might this is a surprisingly fast meeting um we'll start off with item two uh council member castillo's um uh street name change from Cesar Chavez to Durango Boulevard I'll understand a motion for approval of staff recommendation motion to approve second we have a motion a second all in favor aye motion carries we'll move on to um item two from district two on street name change from splash town drive to Willie Mitchell drive item three item three oh item three my bad um I understand a motion for approval motion to approve second we have a motion second all in favor aye motion carries item four CCR from council member white on review of city boards and commissions um I'll entertain a motion for approval motion to approve second we have a motion to second all in favor aye motion carries unanimously item five um this one is council member core's CCR on quick builds I'll entertain a motion motion to approve second recommendation what do you think motion to prove staff recommendation second we have a motion second all in favor aye all opposed no motion carries item six from council member white on floodplain tree planting program I will entertain a motion motion to approve staff recommendation second we have a motion and second all in favor aye aye motion carries unanimously item seven from council member alderantec on expanding transportation to senior centers on understanding motion motion to approve staff recommendation second we have a motion and a second all in favor aye aye motion carries unanimously item eight uh from council member mesa conzalez on reimagining cafe college I'll entertain a motion motion to approve staff recommendation second we have a motion and a second all in favor aye motion carries unanimously item nine from council member mesa conzalez on review and possible amendments to annexation and growth management policy motion to approve staff recommendation.

Was this the one that you were gonna make a separate?

Let's do what's two fellows.

Uh I make a motion that we move this to the next available B session um for the entire council to hear.

I thought you were gonna move it to IGR.

Okay.

No, we're moving it to B.

Do we have a second?

Okay, there being no second.

Is there an alternative motion?

Motion to approve staff recommendation.

Okay, we have a motion.

Any second?

There being no second, do we have an alternative motion?

I'll make a motion to move it to the IGR first.

Okay, we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Do we have discussion real quick?

Yeah, let's go ahead.

Uh Andy, what part of the CCR is gonna require any changes to state law?

Obviously, councilman, it'll depend on what the recommendations are that come out of the committee, but I would imagine it might be some having to do with the ability of the city to annex and the ability of the city to regulate outside its territorial district.

Which department I know the answer to this.

Which department oversees our annexation and growth plan?

The planning department.

Which committee does it report to?

I mean, the PCDC committee hears any adjustments to any of the planning documents that are being approved by council, any of the uh the uh work that's happening outside of the in the ETJ.

But the clarify doesn't report to a committee.

Right.

Sorry, it currently isn't a part of the charge of that committee.

I think it's the more proper way to say it.

Let's do this just for discussions purposes and for not stalling unnecessarily.

Um, I think it's a clear path for this item to go to uh because it will be overseen by the planning department.

I think it makes sense for it to go to the planning and community development committee.

Within that recommendation, that discussion that happens at PCDC, there will be some uh recommendations.

I think that will have that will happen within the city, it'll happen internally.

There's gonna be some recommendations that may require change uh some legislative efforts, and so at that point those recommendations uh can then be forwarded to the IGR committee or to the full council, and so I would support a motion to uh PCDC if we can if we can get that.

If I may also add chair, I think the councilwoman's um intent on this is reviewing current policy for special districts and that the council set of minimum standards for consideration of consent.

So it appears to be mostly based on council policies that fit currently within the state's annexation laws based on what the CCR says and what councilman Mesa Gonzalez has communicated.

It's no problem it can go to IGR once that committee gets developed, but I think to start this discussion much sooner.

I think it could go easily to the committee, PCD soon.

So again, I'll motion to approve staff recommendation.

Real quick, we do have a motion and second from uh Councilmember Spears, Elvia Gran.

Is there any interest in changing the motion based off of the discussion that we've had?

Uh if there's not desire to send it, no, there is no, there is no uh we want to have a discussion about this.

The the next step is is uh a three-signature memo to have this discussion uh at a B session.

I'm I'm up for doing that.

This because this is too much um information to just put in front of one committee with five members.

So um, no, I will support IGR, or we can uh bring this back as a three-signature memo.

So the motion stands.

We have a motion and a second to send to the IGR committee.

Um all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, they.

Motion carrict 2 CCR looking out for vulnerable impacted neighbors.

Um I would entertain a motion to send this to the public safety committee.

Motion to forward to the public safety committee.

Second.

We have a motion to second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

There being no further business.

The time is now 11.06 a.m.

and we have cleared out nine CCRs.

Thank you.

Meeting adjourned.