Public Meetings - San Antonio, Texas

Chair John Bustamante called the meeting to order at 1:08 PM. Commissioners present: John Kelly (District 10), Kelly Kellen (District 1), Mia Loza (District 2), Ken (District 6), John Henojosa (District 3), Eddie Rodríguez (District 4), and Canon (District 7). The pledge of allegiance was recited. Consent Calendar - Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 were considered on the consent calendar. Details from the transcript: Article 1 – a zone change at 6719 Hume Road; Article 2 – a property at 402 and 416 La Chapel Street, seeking commercial use (not storage); Article 5 – a rezoning from C3NA to C2 for commercial use, with 21 notifications mailed and 1 resident response received (no opposition); Articles 4 and 6 were not described in detail. Notifications were sent and no responses were received for Articles 1, 2, and 4. The commission voted unanimously to approve these articles. Public Comments & Testimony - Jonathan Vázquez, owner of the property at 1108 West Woodland Avenue (Article 3), testified in support of his rezoning request, thanking Mr. Walker for working with the community. No other public comments were recorded. Discussion Items - Article 3 – Rezoning of 1108 West Woodland Avenue: The property was originally zoned R6 (or MF25 per applicant) and the applicant sought a change to R4. Staff explained that the R4 (RM4) zoning allows up to 4 units on lots of 4,000 square feet or more, and that multiple duplexes exist in the surrounding area, making the proposal consistent with the neighborhood character. Commissioner Kellen (District 1) praised the applicant's cooperation with the neighborhood association and expressed strong support. He moved to approve the rezoning to R4; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Pete Rodríguez. The vote was unanimous (9-0). Key Outcomes - All consent calendar items (Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6) were approved unanimously without further discussion. - Article 3 (rezoning at 1108 West Woodland Avenue from R6/MF25 to R4) was approved unanimously. - The commission then considered Article 7 (a mixed-use zoning approval) but quickly moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. No additional discussion or decisions were recorded. - The meeting adjourned at 1:14 PM. Applicants have six months to bring their approved cases to the City Council for final action.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2026, at 1:05 PM, the San Antonio City Council convened a budget work session focused on the FY2027 proposed budget reductions and revenues. The meeting, led by Mayor Jones and City Manager Eric, included a presentation by Budget Director Freddie Martinez on the $89.6 million in general fund reductions over two years and $30.4 million in new or adjusted revenues. Council members discussed the impact of cuts across departments, including police, fire, libraries, health, and the compliance office, and debated the balance between fee increases and service reductions. Discussion Items - Presentation of Reductions and Revenues (Freddie Martinez): The proposed FY2027 budget totals $4.4 billion, with $1.76 billion in the general fund. Reductions are categorized into three buckets: $27 million in efficiencies (e.g., right-sizing, comprehensive budget reviews), $23.4 million in transfers to other funding sources (e.g., street maintenance to capital budget), and $39.3 million in reductions with impact (e.g., police overtime, library staff, health programs). Revenue adjustments total $30.4 million over two years, including fee increases for towing, EMS transports, library non-resident cards, and Fiesta cost recovery. - Councilmember Concerns on Specific Reductions: Several council members voiced opposition to key cuts. Councilmember Castillo expressed concern over library staffing reductions (39 positions), tuition reimbursement elimination ($450,000), and the reduction in flashing stop signs. Councilmember Viagran strongly opposed cuts to the health department ($1.9 million) and the elimination of the compliance opportunity and access office, arguing these harm vulnerable residents and long-term equity goals. Councilmember Gavito supported fee increases for speeding tickets and vacant lot cleanup to avoid a property tax increase. Councilmember White questioned the use of capital budget for routine street maintenance, calling it a "shell game." Councilmember Mungia asked for details on position transfers and the impact on employees. Councilmember McKee Rodriguez stated he would not support any employee layoffs and worried about the demoralizing effect of relocation scenarios. - Mayor Jones and City Manager Responses: Mayor Jones requested additional analysis on the cumulative effects of reductions over time, competitive fee comparisons, and the impact of eliminating the compliance office. City Manager Eric confirmed that none of the filled positions would result in layoffs in FY2027—employees would be laterally transferred. He also noted that alternative scenarios, including deeper cuts if the property tax rate is not adjusted, would be presented the following day. Mayor Jones suggested using Ready-to-Work funds to backfill the San Antonio Education Partnership scholarships and tuition reimbursement.n Key Outcomes - No formal votes were taken; the session was a work session for discussion and information gathering. - The council directed staff to provide additional data, including branch-level circulation statistics for libraries, a breakdown of vacant versus filled positions in proposed cuts, and a comparison of San Antonio's property tax rates and fee levels with other major Texas cities. - Staff committed to providing a follow-up memo with the requested information and to present two alternative budget scenarios (with and without a property tax increase) at the next work session on August 19, 2026. - Multiple council members indicated they would propose amendments, such as restoring funding for tuition reimbursement, the SA Education Partnership, and CIP contributions, using potential revenue from Ready-to-Work funds or other sources.

The City of San Antonio Board of Adjustments convened on August 17, 2026, at 1:00 PM to hear 11 cases involving requests for variances and special exceptions related to zoning and land use. The meeting concluded with the approval of several items, denials, and partial approvals, with two cases carried over due to loss of quorum. Consent Calendar - [No consent calendar items were noted; all cases were discussed individually.] Public Comments & Testimony - Item 7 (1102 Julia Ross Street): Leticia Sanchez, co-chair of the Historic West Side Residence Association, spoke in support of the applicant, noting that the neighborhood's houses were built without garages and many carports already exist. She confirmed the applicant agreed to install gutters to mitigate runoff. - Item 9 (5403 Port Townsend Drive): Two neighbors spoke in opposition to the corner clear vision variance, citing safety concerns for children using a nearby bus stop and obstruction of view due to parked trucks. One neighbor expressed support for the carport location if it did not block visibility. - Other items: No public comments were registered for other cases. Discussion Items - Item 1 (430 Montana Street, Unit 101) – Special Exception for Type 2 Short-Term Rental: Applicant Nolan Sconyers and Danielle Miller requested an additional short-term rental permit on a block already at 11.1% density (22.2% if approved). Staff recommended denial. The board heard arguments about existing off-street parking, proximity to Alamo Dome, and the applicant's clean operating record. The motion to grant failed 7-3 (needs 9 votes). - Item 3 (255 Tesla Drive) – Variances for Carport: Miriam Moreno sought variances for a carport built without permits. Staff recommended denial due to fire and water runoff concerns. The board granted all three variances (side setback, front setback, driveway clear vision) unanimously (10-0) after the applicant amended to include gutters. - Item 4 (1110 Brooklyn Avenue) – Sign Height and Area Variances: Initially tabled, later brought back. Applicant Eric Lowitz (Panic Coffee Bakery) requested a 6-foot height variance and 300 sq ft area variance (to 450 sq ft). Staff recommended denial of both. After discussion, a 6-foot height variance and 100 sq ft area variance (to 250 sq ft) were approved 9-1 (one abstention). - Item 5 (3510 North Main Avenue) – Landscape Buffer Reduction/Elimination: Raymond Aguilar sought variances for a 5-ft north buffer and elimination of south buffer due to existing building and driveways. Staff recommended denial. The board granted both variances unanimously (10-0). - Item 6 (4524 Sinclair Road) – Barbed Wire Fence Setback Variances: Applicant Ray Catad (Charter Spectrum) requested variances to allow a fence with 1-inch setbacks for security. Staff recommended denial. The board granted both variances unanimously (10-0). - Item 7 (1102 Julia Ross Street) – Multiple Variances: Margarita Rodriguez sought variances for a carport, porch, corner clear vision, and driveway clear vision. Staff recommended approval only for driveway clear vision. After public comment, the board granted all variances with conditions (gutters, fire mitigation) unanimously (10-0). - Item 8 (630 East Carson Street) – Variances Related to Address Change: Jose Sanchez requested variances to change property address from Carson Street to Palmetto Avenue due to a bus stop blocking access. Staff recommended denial. After debate, only a partial motion to reduce the west side setback to 1 inch passed (10-0); other variances were not approved. - Item 9 (5403 Port Townsend Drive) – Variances for Carport and Clear Vision: Alexander Banda sought variances for a carport and clear vision areas. Staff recommended denial. The board bifurcated: items 1 (front setback) and 2 (driveway clear vision) passed unanimously; item 3 (corner clear vision) failed 6-3 with one abstention. - Item 10 (9646 Marbok Road) – Landscape Buffer Elimination: Jason Lochty (McDonald's) requested elimination of a 15-ft buffer due to a pipeline easement. Staff recommended denial. The board granted elimination unanimously. - Item 11 (11670 Interstate 10 East) – Landscape Buffer Elimination: Ashley Fairman (JCB) requested elimination of a 15-ft buffer along I-10 due to multiple easements. Staff recommended denial. The board granted elimination unanimously. Key Outcomes - Denied: Item 1 (special exception for short-term rental) – motion failed 7-3. - Approved (unanimous, 10-0): Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11. - Approved with modifications: Item 4 (9-1); Item 9 (items 1&2 only, 10-0). - Partial approval: Item 8 (only side setback variance granted). - Carried over: Items not reached due to loss of quorum at 5:02 PM. The meeting adjourned early; remaining cases will be rescheduled for September 14, 2026. - Minutes: Approved with a correction for a misspelled name. - Next meeting: Scheduled for September 14, 2026.

The San Antonio Board of Adjustment (Zoning Board of Adjustment) met on August 17, 2026, at 1:00 PM to hear and decide on ten variance and special exception cases. The meeting included presentations by city staff, testimony from applicants and neighbors, and votes on each item. Several cases involved requests for relief from zoning code requirements related to short-term rentals, setbacks, signs, landscaping buffers, and vision clearance. The board approved most requests with modifications, denied one variance, and postponed two items due to loss of quorum at 5:00 PM. Public Comments & Testimony - Case 1 (430 Montana Street – STR): One written opposition was received; no public speakers appeared. The applicant, Daniel Miller, argued the area’s commercial character and his professional management justified exceeding the density cap. - Case 2 (255 Tesla Drive – carport): The applicant, María Moreno, stated she had spoken with neighbors and no one objected. - Case 3 (1110 Brooklyn Avenue – sign): The applicant, representing Bank of America, requested reuse of an existing sign structure that predated current code limits. - Case 4 (3510 North Main Avenue – landscape buffer): The applicant (Catalino Díaz) explained the building was purchased as-is; they sought a variance to match existing conditions. - Case 5 (4524 Sinclair Road – fence): The applicant (Spectrum/Charter) highlighted security needs and the site’s unique telecommunications use. No public opposition was recorded. - Case 6 (1102 Julia Ross Street – carport, porch, fence): Neighbor Genoveva Lorán expressed concerns about fire spread, rainwater runoff, and vibrations. The neighborhood association president (Leticia Sánchez) supported the variance, noting the small lot sizes. - Case 7 (630 Carson Street – ADU and fence): The applicant, José Sánchez, argued the change of address created technical violations. Seven neighbors supported; none opposed. - Case 8 (5403 Thousand Drive – carport and vision clearance): Neighbors Alicia Mares and Elisabeth Orozco opposed, citing safety for school bus stops and existing parking issues. The applicant, Alexandra Banda, stated he needed a larger carport for his truck. - Case 9 (9646 Marbach Road – buffer elimination): No public comment. - Case 10 (11670 I-10 East – buffer elimination): No public comment. Discussion Items - Case 1 – 430 Montana Street (Short-Term Rental Type 2 Special Exception): Staff recommended denial because the density (22.2%) exceeded the 12.5% cap. The applicant argued the block’s mixed-use character (stadium parking, vacant lots, a church-turned-restaurant) and his five-star operation record justified a special exception. The board debated; a motion to approve failed 7-3 (needed 9 votes). The special exception was denied. - Case 2 – 255 Tesla Drive (Carport Setback Variance): Staff recommended approval. The applicant had built a carport without a permit. The board approved a variance reducing the required rear setback to 1” (from 5’) and allowing a 6” overhang, with conditions. Vote: 10-0 approved. - Case 3 – 1110 Brooklyn Avenue (Sign Height and Area Variance): Deferred until the applicant arrived. Later, the board approved a compromise: height variance of 6 ft (up to 30 ft) and sign area of 250 sq ft (instead of requested 425 sq ft). Staff had recommended denial due to public interest concerns. Vote: 9-1 approved. - Case 4 – 3510 North Main Avenue (Landscape Buffer Variance): Applicant sought reduction and elimination of Type B buffers along the north and south property lines. Staff recommended denial. The board approved both reductions, citing the existing non-conforming development and limited space. Vote: 10-0 approved. - Case 5 – 4524 Sinclair Road (Fence Setback and Barbed Wire Variance): Staff recommended approval. The board granted variances to allow a 6-ft chain-link fence with barbed wire within 1” of the required 30-ft rear setback, and reduced corner vision clearance from 25 ft to 7 ft. Vote: 10-0 approved. - Case 6 – 1102 Julia Ross Street (Multiple Variances for Carport, Porch, Fence): Staff recommended denial for setbacks and approval for vision clearance. The board approved all requested variances (5-ft side setback to 1”, 25-ft vision clearance to 9 ft, and 15-ft driveway vision to 11.5 ft) with an added condition that the applicant install gutters to manage runoff. Vote: 10-0 (with amendment) approved. - Case 7 – 630 Carson Street (ADU Setback and Fence Variance): The applicant’s change of address created four technical violations. The board only approved a partial setback reduction of 4 ft 11 in on the west side (reducing required 20-ft to 1”). All other requested variances were not addressed in the motion; effectively denied. Vote: 10-0 approved only for that specific relief. - Case 8 – 5403 Thousand Drive (Carport and Vision Clearance Variances): The board voted separately on three items. Two items (front setback reduction to 5 ft and driveway vision clearance to 7 ft) were approved 9-1. The third item (corner vision clearance from 25 ft to 7 ft) was denied 6-3 (with one abstention), requiring the applicant to lower the fence for better sight lines. - Case 9 – 9646 Marbach Road (Landscape Buffer Elimination): Applicant (McDonald’s) sought to eliminate the required 15-ft Type B landscape buffer due to utility conflicts. Staff recommended denial. The board approved the elimination, noting the buffer’s function would be partly met by existing trees and separation. Vote: voice vote, unanimous approval. - Case 10 – 11670 I-10 East (Landscape Buffer Elimination): Applicant (Killing Griffin/Ferrimont) requested elimination of a Type B buffer along the interstate frontage due to existing infrastructure (power lines, utilities). Staff recommended denial. The board approved, allowing reduction from 15 ft to 5 ft. Vote: voice vote, unanimous approval. Key Outcomes - Denied: Special exception for short-term rental at 430 Montana Street (Item 1) – failed to reach 9 votes. - Approved with conditions: Sign variance at 1110 Brooklyn Avenue (Item 3) – height up to 30 ft, sign area 250 sq ft; ADDITIONAL condition: gutters for carport at 1102 Julia Ross Street (Item 6). - Partially approved: Carport and vision clearance variances at 5403 Thousand Drive (Item 8) – front setback and driveway vision approved; corner vision denied. - Approved: All other requested variances (Items 2, 4, 5, 7 [partial], 9, 10). - Postponed: Two agenda items (numbers not specified) were carried to the next meeting on September 14, 2026, due to lack of quorum after 5:00 PM. - Next meeting: Scheduled for September 14, 2026; the two postponed items will be heard first.

The San Antonio City Council convened a special session on Monday, August 17, 2026, at 9:03 AM to consider an ordinance ordering a general election on November 3, 2026, for city voters to decide on the city's proposed $489 million contribution to the construction of a new NBA arena in the downtown sports and entertainment district. After over three hours of public testimony and council debate, the council voted down the motion, meaning city voters will not have a direct vote on the contribution. Public Comments & Testimony - Supporters of moving forward without a new vote: Kimberly Bragman (San Antonio Realtors, representing nearly 4,600 city residents), Benito Ocovio, James Anderson (CEO of Bartlicock General Contractors), Bobby Perez (Spurs Sports & Entertainment), Sean Elliott (Spurs legend), Mateo Lopez (downtown ambassador), Brett Finley (Hispanic Chamber of Commerce), Kevin Dennon (Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce), Stephanie Reyes (Real Estate Council of San Antonio), Robert Shelby, and others. They argued that voters already approved a similar proposition in November 2025 (Prop B), that uncertainty harms investment, and that the project will generate economic benefits, jobs, and downtown revitalization. - Opponents of the project and proponents of a public vote: Monica Cruz (detailed presentation questioning funding sources and transparency), Christine Drennan (criticized secret NDAs and lack of public education), Graciela Sanchez (Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, demanded a city vote and highlighted opportunity costs), Leticia Vela (expressed exhaustion and distrust, cited history of unfulfilled promises), Susan Strong (pointed to confusion over what was voted on and the true sources of funding), Deb Cole (small business owner, asked for a fair compromise), Rebecca Galvan (highlighted infrastructure neglect), Mary Cabral (called it voter suppression), Cindy Munch (argued Texas law requires separate ballot items for infrastructure), Antonio Diaz (stressed that county vote was not a city vote), Jose Gallegos, Albert Campbell, Jack Finger, and others. They argued that the $489 million city contribution was not part of the November 2025 county vote, that the financing relies on uncertain revenue streams, and that the public deserves a direct say on such a large commitment. Discussion Items - Councilmember Corps (District 2): Opposed a new vote, stating that the city already voted 52% in favor, the deal has not changed, and the city routinely makes large investments without a public vote. She emphasized the need for unity and focusing on community engagement and affordable housing. - Councilmember McKee Rodriguez (District 2): Supported a new vote, arguing that the project's implications for city taxpayers have grown, that the East Side is getting a poor deal, and that a second vote would not remove certainty since the term sheet is non-binding. She noted that her district remains in heavy opposition. - Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez (District 8): Asked clarifying questions about revenue from the Hemisphere TIRS and Project Finance Zone, and whether the general fund would be on the hook for shortfalls. City staff confirmed that the revenue bonds are secured by specific pledges and the general fund would not be liable. She concluded that the city regularly finances projects without a vote and that carving out this deal would be inconsistent. - Councilmember Castillo (District 5): Supported the public vote, reiterating his position that “public money for public good” and that corporate welfare to billionaires is unconscionable. He acknowledged the project will move forward regardless and called for stronger community benefits and labor protections. - Councilmember Brawl Dorate Gabito (District 10): Opposed a new vote, arguing that uncertainty has a cost, that voters already spoke, and that leadership requires acting on the vision. - Councilmember Galvan (District 6): Supported the vote, noting that a majority of his district opposed the funding and that the city should work to ensure the project delivers for working families. - Councilmember White (District 7): Opposed a new vote, stating that the community debated the entire financing structure last year and voters approved it. He called for moving forward without delay. - Councilmember Spears (District 9): Opposed a new vote, arguing that the term sheet was a good-faith framework, that voters understood the city’s commitment, and that walking away could invite litigation. She emphasized that the revenue sources are legally restricted and cannot be used for other priorities. - Councilmember McGill (District 4): Supported a new vote, noting that turnout in his district for the November 2025 election was 80% higher than for his own election, indicating strong public interest. He said he could not explain to his constituents why he would oppose a public vote. - Councilmember Via Garan (District 3): Opposed a new vote, warning that requiring a second vote on large items would be bad for business and effective government, and that the city should respect the existing vote and the term sheet. Key Outcomes - Motion to order the election failed. The council voted down the ordinance that would have placed the $489 million city contribution on the November 3, 2026 ballot for a public vote. The exact vote tally was not provided in the transcript, but the motion failed as stated by the mayor: “The motion fails.” - The meeting adjourned at 12:21 PM. Without a public vote, the city council will continue to negotiate the final terms of the agreement with the Spurs and county partners, with many council members pledging to advocate for stronger community benefits, labor standards, and fiscal accountability.

The San Antonio City Council held a special session on Monday, August 17, 2026, at 9:03 AM to consider an ordinance that would place on the November 3, 2026 ballot a question authorizing the city to issue bonds up to $489 million to help construct an NBA arena in a proposed downtown sports and entertainment district. The bonds would be repaid through Spurs operating lease payments, land lease payments, tax increment financing from the Hemisfair area, and project financing zone revenues. After extensive public testimony, the council began its discussion; no final vote was taken during the portion of the meeting captured in the transcript. Public Comments & Testimony - Martin Gutiérrez (vice president of a government area group, representing over 14,000 voters, 4,600 in San Antonio): Expressed full support for the arena, stating it will be a catalyst for downtown development and attract private investment. He urged the council to move forward without another election, arguing that the 489 million does not come from the general budget but from dedicated lease and rental payments. - Kimberly Braggman (District 9): Opposed putting the item on the ballot, saying voters already approved in November 2025 (the county vote) and should not re-vote. - Benito Acovio (District 10, presenting slides): Asked the council to allow city residents to vote on the $489 million city contribution, arguing that the November 2025 county vote was a different question. He cited declining hotel occupancy (54% in Q4 2025, down 8% year-over-year), canceled hotel rooms near the convention center, and a 3.2% drop in air travelers. He questioned the financial projections and called for an informed, transparent process. - James Anderson (president/CEO of Bartlett-Cocke, a local general contractor for 65 years): Supported the arena as a generational investment that will create opportunities for contractors, small businesses, and apprentices in trades. He stated voters already approved the investment and the council should proceed with confidence. - Christine Dronen (District 1, with added time from René González): Criticized the process as "fatally flawed" and secretive, referencing "Project Marvel" and closed-door agreements. She argued the city should negotiate a better deal, suggesting a city contribution of $100–150 million instead of $489 million, and called for a public vote. - Bobby Pérez (speaking for a group): Supported the arena, citing $156 million in Spurs-related spending during summer NBA games and over $2 billion in total Spurs contributions to the community. He argued the November vote already gave direction and the city should honor it. - Sonal Eli (speaking after Pérez): Thanked council members for studying the project and making tough decisions. She emphasized the need for leadership, vision, and momentum, noting the excitement around the Spurs and the potential to revitalize downtown with hotels, restaurants, and events. - Mateo López (downtown ambassador for 7 years): Shared a personal story of homelessness and recovery, urging the council to build for all working-class people and to listen to the voices of those who serve the city. - Luis Rodríguez (president of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, speaking for a coalition): Asked the council to move forward, stating voters have spoken and the project will strengthen commerce, tourism, and jobs. He emphasized fiscal responsibility and transparency. - Kevin Deno (president of the Greater Chamber of Commerce): Supported the arena as a major investment in downtown, noting the bonds will be paid by visitor taxes and Spurs lease payments, not new local taxes. He urged the council to honor the November vote. - Graciela Sánchez (executive director of Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, West Side resident): Opposed putting the measure on the ballot unless voters are allowed to decide. She argued the November 2025 vote was only for the county's $31 million contribution, not for the city's $489 million. She questioned the reliability of projected revenues and noted the city would be on the hook for the bonds if revenues fall short. She listed unmet needs in infrastructure, parks, and affordable housing, and urged the council to allow a citywide vote. - Leticia Vela (District 6, later corrected to District 7): Expressed frustration that the council has not listened to constituents. She described attending a community meeting where the arena location was unclear, and argued that similar promises of economic development have failed in the past. She read a statement criticizing a small group of powerful men controlling the city. - Susan Storm (with added time from Elaine and others): Questioned the 489 million figure, noting additional costs like $60 million for land and $310 million in other city contributions. She argued that the November vote was about county funds, not city funds, and that voters are confused. She produced a flyer claiming the arena would be paid by visitor taxes, but stated that only 48% of the truth is being told. She called for a public vote. - Aaron Brasses (speaker): Feared endless discussions would kill the project. He argued the November vote should be respected and that the city should move forward boldly, comparing the arena investment to past transformative projects like the River Walk and HemisFair. - Dia Cole (District 2, small business owner in District 10): Noted her council member had not asked about the arena's impact on her business. She urged the council to allow a citywide vote and to do things correctly. - Steven Price (speaker): Questioned why the council fears democracy and allowing residents to vote on the $489 million. He cited the city's obligation to repay debt even if revenues fail, and argued that the city needs better representation. - Rebeca Flores (with group, added time from Vilma):Stated she is a homeowner in District 9 and a commissioner on the City's Commission for Voter Registration. She cited an editorial from July 15 and supported the right to vote on the arena, arguing the November vote was not for city funds. She expressed concern over transparency and called for an honest answer about the bond structure. - Trisha Gunabek (4th generation San Antonian, District 9 resident, Spurs fan): Described the issue as a matter of democracy. She attended all five community sessions and heard both sides, but noted that the speakers in favor of re-voting were not present at those sessions. She argued that suppressing a vote is disrespectful and that a good deal should withstand a vote. - Stephanie Reyes (president/CEO of Reyes Real Estate, representing developers): Opposed a second vote, stating it would create uncertainty for investors. She argued that voters already decided and that the city should focus on execution to deliver jobs and growth. - Leticia Sánchez (West Side resident, homeowner and taxpayer): Demanded the council allow a vote on the $489 million, arguing that the November vote was for county funds, not city funds. She expressed concern that the city faces a budget deficit while promising huge bond payments, and that working-class residents struggle to pay for basic needs. - Molly (speaker, emotional): Accused the mayor, Eric Walsh, Marc White Jr., and other council members of lying and fearing a vote because they know the public is better informed. She warned that denying the vote would end their political careers. - Rebeca Galván (speaker): Recalled childhood memories of children drowning because of inadequate drainage infrastructure. She said the debate is not about the Spurs (whom she loves) but about the city's poverty and misplaced priorities. She argued the city is being extorted by the threat of the team leaving. - Mary Cabral (retired high school teacher, District 10): Asked why the council fears allowing a vote. She stated that the November county vote was accompanied by $9 million in Spurs-funded advertising and that key details were hidden. She called the denial of a vote "voter suppression." - Cindy Munch (District 9): Stated she voted in November 2025 but lacked full information. She argued that Texas law requires a separate bond election for this purpose, and that the city could use bond funds for other infrastructure if not used for the arena. She noted that if a proposition fails, it cannot be brought again for three years. She demanded a vote. - Robert Shelby (District 1, Spurs season ticket holder for 25 years): Supported the bond issuance, arguing that the bonds would be repaid from arena-related revenues, not property taxes. He said the long-term economic impact justifies the short-term cost, and that the team might leave otherwise. - Antonio Díaz (speaker): Corrected that the county vote included residents of Converse, Live Oak, Balcones Heights, etc., who are not San Antonio city voters. He argued that city residents never voted on this $489 million and deserve the right. He noted that this would be the third arena built for the Spurs and that similar promises have not materialized for the East Side. - Diana Flores Uriegas (speaker): Echoed that city residents have not voted on the contribution. She accused the council of suppressing the vote and treating residents as if they do not matter. She called for a democratic process. - Araceli Herrera (house cleaner who also cleaned Spurs arenas for 36 years): Spoke as a worker who remains poor despite the billions made by Spurs owners. She said she and her colleagues earn miserable wages and have not benefited from the team. She urged the council to consider the working class and to allow a vote. - José Gallegos (District 5, long-time West Side resident): Recalled the fight for single-member districts in 1977, which was supposed to bring representation and transparency. He said 50 years later, the council is again denying constituents a voice. He urged the council to allow a vote. - Albert Campbell (District 5, veteran): Stated that for decades the Spurs have demanded new arenas and the city has complied, but residents have seen no benefit. He said the $489 million could be used for other needs. He warned that council members who deny a vote will lose their seats. - Jack Miller (former campaign worker for District 9): Challenged the Spurs organization to be good corporate citizens and allow a vote. He noted that the first Spurs game was in HemisFair Arena and that the team has already had multiple arenas. He called for integrity and a public vote. - Jack Singer (final speaker): Supported a vote, arguing that the November election was for the county, not the city. He pointed out that hotel taxes are off the table and other uncertainties remain. He said the Spurs have already moved from HemisFair to the Alamodome to the AT&T Center, and now they want another arena. Discussion Items After public comments, Councilmember Core spoke first. She noted that the day was the first day of school, and her constituents are concerned about school zone safety and speeding. But she acknowledged that the arena discussion persists. She stated that the numbers had not changed and questioned why a re-vote is being demanded. She emphasized that the city-county partnership was always clear and that she continues to listen to her residents. Key Outcomes - No vote was taken during the portion of the meeting captured in the transcript. The council was in the early stages of discussion. - The item under consideration was a proposed ordinance to place on the November 3, 2026 ballot a question authorizing the city to issue up to $489 million in bonds for an NBA arena. - Public comment was overwhelmingly split, with many speakers demanding a direct citywide vote and others arguing that the November 2025 county election already settled the matter. - Council discussion had just begun at the point the transcript ends.

The San Antonio City Council met on August 13, 2026, to consider a proposed FY2027 budget, a property tax rate increase, and a ballot measure to reauthorize Pre-K for SA for 20 years. The meeting opened with an invocation, pledge of allegiance, and a proclamation celebrating the Children's Shelter's 125th anniversary. The council approved the consent calendar (except items 15 and 16), adopted the tax rate ordinance and public hearing schedule, and voted to place the Pre-K for SA reauthorization on the November 2026 ballot. The council also approved an extended sick leave restoration for a fire engineer. Consent Calendar - Approved items 8-3 (routine and unanimous actions) as a group, except item 15 (withdrawn by staff) and item 16 (pulled by a council member for separate consideration). Public Comments & Testimony - Jack Finger (member of the public) spoke against the proposed budget and tax increase, arguing the city should live within its means, reduce spending, and not raise taxes while residents are struggling. He also questioned the effectiveness of Pre-K for SA, asking for data on long-term outcomes. - Andrea Ramirez (District 5 resident, educator) supported the Pre-K for SA reauthorization, emphasizing the program's positive impact on children and families, and urged the council to let voters decide. - Paul Rodriguez (director of policy at a partnership organization) supported the Pre-K for SA reauthorization, citing the program's role in early childhood education and economic development, and noted the need for continued investment. - Jack Finger (second appearance) clarified he was not signed up for the Pre-K item and left the podium when told the topic was Pre-K. Discussion Items - FY2027 Budget & Tax Rate (Items 4, 5, 6): City Manager Eric Walsh presented the proposed $4.4 billion total budget ($1.76 billion general fund), addressing a $158 million deficit through a combination of spending reductions ($89.6 million), the use of unused property tax increment, and fee increases. The proposed property tax rate is 35.8 cents per $100 for operations and 21 cents for debt service, an average increase of $2.95 per month for residents (with 47% of properties having frozen taxes). The budget includes 3% cost-of-living adjustments for civilian employees, 4% for police, 5% for firefighters, and adds 27 police officers for the new airport terminal. Cuts include 101 positions (54 filled), consolidation of some parks police duties, and reductions in overtime. Council members debated the necessity of a tax increase; some (Councilmember White, Villagran, Alderete Gavito) argued for deeper cuts before raising taxes, while others (Councilmember Villagran, Mesa Gonzalez, Castillo, Kore, Galvan, Munguia) supported the increase as needed to maintain services and invest in public safety, infrastructure, and homelessness programs. Councilmember Spears requested a budget scenario without the tax increase. A motion to approve item 5 (tax rate ordinance) passed on a voice vote. A motion to approve item 6 (public hearing schedule) also passed. - Pre-K for SA Reauthorization (Item 7): Sarah Bray (President of Pre-K for SA) presented a request to place a ballot measure on November 3, 2026, reauthorizing the program for 20 years with a 1/8 cent sales tax (current authorization expires March 2029). She highlighted the program's successes: serving over 25,000 children since 2020, improving third-grade reading and math scores, and supporting military families. Council members debated the timing and 20-year term; Councilmember Villagran expressed concern about approving before a strategic plan is finalized, while Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez, Munguia, Galvan, and Kore supported letting voters decide. Councilmember White opposed due to lack of long-term metrics. The council voted to approve the ordinance (motion passed). - Extended Sick Leave Restoration (Item 16): The fire chief requested approval to restore 416 hours of sick leave for Fire Engineer Robert Bayer, used for treatment of an injury suffered in the line of duty. The council briefly discussed the precedent and fiscal impact ($20,000), then voted to call the question (motion passed) and subsequently approved the ordinance (motion passed). Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Approved as amended (excluding items 15 and 16). - Item 5 (Tax Rate): Approved (voice vote). The proposed property tax rate of 35.8 cents per $100 (operations) and 21 cents per $100 (debt service) moves forward. - Item 6 (Public Hearing Schedule): Approved (voice vote). Public hearings set for September 2, 2026 (5:00 PM) and September 10, 2026 (9:00 AM). - Item 7 (Pre-K for SA Election): Approved (voice vote). The ballot measure will ask voters to reauthorize Pre-K for SA for 20 years on November 3, 2026. - Item 16 (Sick Leave Restoration): Approved (voice vote). Fire Engineer Robert Bayer's 416 hours of sick leave restored. - The council adjourned to executive session at 1:46 PM to discuss real estate and legal matters (no action taken). Note: The meeting took place on August 13, 2026, as confirmed by the transcript.

The San Antonio Planning Commission met on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, at approximately 2:29 PM and adjourned at 3:30 PM. A quorum was present with Commissioners Sanchez, Dezuki, Miller, Wallerstead, Orion, Bustamante, Siegel, and Profit. The meeting covered a consent agenda, multiple variance requests, a large area rezoning, and a community plan amendment. Key outcomes included approval of the consent agenda, continuances for several irrigation variance cases, approval of a large area rezoning plan amendment, and approval of a Southeast Community Area Plan amendment. Consent Calendar - All consent agenda items were approved unanimously (8-0) except items 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 33, and 29 which were pulled for individual hearings. Public comment was heard on items 34 (Clausen Road volleyball) and 8 (plats), but the plat for item 8 was approved as it met statutory requirements. Public Comments & Testimony - Doug Welch (Vice President, Briar Wick Neighborhood Association) spoke on item 34 (Clausen Road). He expressed concerns about traffic safety, off-site parking, and pedestrians crossing railroad tracks. He stated the association is leaning against the plan but hasn't made a final decision, and requested a traffic impact analysis (TIA). Staff confirmed a TIA would be conducted at platting. - Ann McGuinness (owner, 749 Crest Hill) opposed item 8 plat increase to 72 lots, citing traffic bottlenecks on Home Green Road near an elementary school and lack of left-turn lanes. - Ed McGuinness (owner, 755 Crest Hill) opposed item 8, arguing the plan misrepresents density and traffic impacts. He noted that only 200-foot notices were sent, but a quarter-mile radius would have drawn more opposition. He referenced past neighborhood resistance. - Sure Contreras (resident, 135 Home Green) expressed safety concerns about a proposed cul-de-sac entrance, citing prior accidents, speeding, and lack of sidewalks. She requested speed mitigation. - Cassidy Keller (resident, 125 Home Green) opposed the entrance location directly facing her home, citing child safety, drunk drivers, and potential property value reduction if lower-cost housing is built. She suggested an entrance on Boulder Avenue to reduce traffic on Home Green. - Joe Most (resident, 10762 Giaconi Drive) opposed item 28 (Vasquez property), arguing commercial rezoning would decrease property values and quality of life. He supported commercial on the frontage but not adjacent to homes. - April Maldonado (realtor and resident) opposed item 29 (large area rezoning on Blanco Road). She argued the plan violates the North Central Neighborhood Community Plan, which recommends low-density residential. She noted only 200-foot notices were sent despite a 300-foot study area, and presented a petition with nearly 40 signatures opposing the change. Discussion Items - Items 21, 20, 23, 24, 25 (Irrigation Variances): Applicants Ken Brown (IHOP) and Daniel Nisling (Bill Miller Barbecue) requested waivers from irrigation system requirements, proposing hand watering and drought-tolerant landscaping. They cited water conservation, SAWS rebate programs, and past administrative approvals. Staff recommended denial, citing lack of documented hardship and the need for irrigation to sustain plantings. Commissioners expressed interest in maintenance agreements and continued all five items to August 26, 2026, to allow submission of such agreements. - Item 28 (Vasquez Rezoning): A four-week continuance to September 9, 2026, was requested and granted. Public comment was heard before the continuance. - Item 29 (North Central/Greater Delview Large Area Rezoning): Staff proposed 118 plan amendments from low-density residential, neighborhood commercial, community commercial, parks/open space, and office to mixed-use. The rezoning is intended to align zoning with existing uses, allow middle housing, and preclude industrial uses. Two community meetings were held. 306 notices were sent; 2 in favor, 17 opposed. No response from neighborhood associations. Public commenter April Maldonado opposed, citing potential parking and density issues. Commissioners clarified that the land use change does not automatically rezone individual properties; the zoning commission will handle that. Motion to approve passed 7-1 (Commissioner Dezuki voted no; Commissioner Bustamante recused and left at 3:21 PM). - Item 30: A two-week continuance to August 26, 2026, was granted without discussion. - Item 33 (Southeast Community Area Plan Amendment): Staff proposed changing low-density and medium-density residential to residential estate for multiple properties to maintain rural character and match existing RE/R20 zoning. 63 notices were sent; 1 in favor, 2 opposed. Public commenter Henry Baldrack supported the change. Approved unanimously. Key Outcomes - Consent agenda approved (8-0). - Items 21, 20, 23, 24, 25: Continued to August 26, 2026, for submission of maintenance agreements. - Item 28: Continued to September 9, 2026. - Item 29: Approved (7-1) as a recommendation to City Council. - Item 30: Continued to August 26, 2026. - Item 33: Approved unanimously.

The San Antonio Planning Commission met on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, to consider a consent agenda and several individual items including zoning changes, irrigation variances, and neighborhood plan amendments. The meeting concluded at 3:30 PM. All votes were unanimous unless otherwise noted. Consent Calendar - The commission approved the consent agenda by unanimous vote, covering routine items not pulled for individual consideration. Items 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 33 were heard individually. - Prior to the consent vote, the commission heard public comments on consent items 34 and 8. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 34 – Doug Welch, Vice President of the Bradwood Homeowners Association, expressed concerns about a proposed development near his subdivision. He stated the property is 300 feet away, separated only by a tree line and railroad tracks. Welch noted that designated parking is across the railroad tracks, requiring pedestrians to cross tracks with minimal sidewalks, a dangerous situation. He said the association is "against" the project given the situation, but has not made a final decision, and requested a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). - Item 8 – Ann Mackinez, a property owner at 749 Crest (or similar), opposed a proposed subdivision density increase, saying lots would increase from 55 to 72, causing traffic bottlenecks near Caroline Elementary School and creating safety concerns. - Item 8 – Ed (last name not given), a resident at 755 Crest, argued that the site plans show excessive density, traffic congestion, and a blind corner exit. He noted there have been speeding incidents despite existing speed enforcement, and the area already has a school zone. - Item 8 – Share Contreras, a resident at 135 Home Green (or similar), expressed concerns about traffic speed, a knocked-over mailbox, and the visual impact of new development on his street. - Item 8 – Cassi Keller, a resident at 125 Home Green, worried about her child's safety due to speeding and reckless driving, mentioning accidents in front of her home. She said they bought their house for $160,000 and feared lower-priced new construction would decrease property values. Discussion Items - Item 21 (IHOP, 101 NE Loop 410) – The applicant, Kim Brown, requested an irrigation variance, stating they have 26 restaurants, 23 built before the irrigation program, and that water systems are wasteful and expensive ($1,000–$3,000 water bills). He said they manually water trees and landscaped areas and are willing to sign a maintenance agreement. Staff did not support the variance, and the commission postponed the item to August 26, 2026, to allow review of maintenance plans. - Item 20 (Bill Miller, 1604 N) – A similar irrigation variance request for a Bill Miller restaurant. The applicant stated they water manually and take water conservation seriously. Staff opposed the variance. The commission postponed the item to August 26, 2026. - Items 23, 24, 25 – These items were also postponed to August 26, 2026, following a motion by a commissioner. - Item 28 – The commission granted a four-week continuance to September 9, 2026. Public speaker Joe Most opposed the proposed commercial rezoning, showing photos of tall weeds and a neighboring apartment complex, and expressed concerns about a potential gas station, trash, and reduced property values. - Item 29 (Delview area rezoning) – Staff planner Manuel Motrú presented a proposal to rezone properties along Blanco Road to lower-density mixed-use to align with the 2025 Delview Area Plan, which was approved by City Council on April 30. Staff recommended approval. Public speaker Abril Maldonado, a resident and realtor, appealed, arguing the rezoning contradicts the community's master plan, involved improper notification (200 feet vs. 300 feet), and would worsen parking and density issues. She stated she had 40 signatures and 17 people present in opposition. After discussion, the commission approved the rezoning recommendation unanimously. - Item 30 – The commission approved a two-week postponement to August 26, 2026. - Item 33 (Low-density residential resolution) – Staff planner Ana Harkins presented a request to approve a resolution designating a low-density residential area (R-20) to maintain existing neighborhood character. Notifications were sent to 263 property owners. Public speaker Henry Bolberg spoke in favor, citing concerns about overdevelopment and traffic along Rigsby. The commission approved the resolution unanimously. Key Outcomes - Approved the consent agenda unanimously. - Postponed items 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 30 to August 26, 2026. - Continued item 28 to September 9, 2026. - Approved item 29 (Delview rezoning) unanimously. - Approved item 33 (low-density residential resolution) unanimously. - No other decisions or directives were made.