Public Meetings - San Antonio, Texas

The San Antonio City Council Zoning and Land Use Commission met on January 15, 2026, at 2:02 PM to consider a consent calendar of zoning changes, conditional use permits, and plan amendments, followed by several individual agenda items. The meeting included extensive public testimony, particularly regarding a paint and body shop near Mission San José, and concluded with a vote to deny a hair salon rezoning in the Jefferson neighborhood. Consent Calendar - Items 21 and 22 were removed from the agenda; Item 29 was postponed. The remaining items on the consent calendar were approved after public speakers addressed specific items. Councilmember Villagrán moved approval for items 1–3, 4–5, 6–8, 11–19, 24–25, 26–26, 20, 32, 36–39, and the motion passed. Public Comments & Testimony - Jack Finger spoke on consent items 4 and 5 (transit‑oriented development and Alta Vista neighborhood association), expressing concern that light‑rail stations might be established without proper planning. He also opposed consent item 1 (alcohol variance near Carol Bell Educational Center) and item 3 (tattoo parlor). - John Mesa supported his own item 3, stating he plans to open a tattoo shop and offer community art projects. - Christian Pache spoke in favor of items 11 and 12 (zoning change at 1510 Houston Street), as an adjacent property owner. - Majid Meraz supported his own item 9 & 10 (C2 to C3 NA rezoning), stating he had met with the neighborhood association and wanted to sell vintage motorcycles; he agreed to the C3 NA designation to prevent alcohol sales. - Jack Finger opposed items 9 & 10, arguing that C3 zoning allows intensive commercial uses like vehicle repair, incompatible with the nearby residence. - Joel Ferdinand (owner of the paint shop at 3406 Roosevelt Ave.) spoke in support of his rezoning request, detailing a $1.5 million investment, improvements to the paint booth, and agreements with the zoning commission on lighting, hours, and noise. - Luis Vedder (representing Joel’s Collection) reiterated support for item 20, noting a letter of support from the Laclan Neighborhood Association and the applicant’s willingness to work with the community. - Luis Rivera (President, San Antonio Conservation Society) opposed item 20, arguing the property had been developed without required permits, violated UNESCO buffer zone requirements, and set a bad precedent. - Jane Henry opposed item 20, stating the paint shop’s chimneys, spurs, and operations are incompatible with the historic Mission San José and the UNESCO World Heritage buffer. - Priscila Cabral (Mission San José Neighborhood Association) opposed item 20, citing the owner’s failure to obtain permits, receipt of fines, and the inappropriate location across from the national park. She argued the business belongs in an industrial area. - Raleigh Alexander opposed item 20, stating the project degrades the historical character of the area and that the city should incentivize better development. - Susan Strong opposed item 20, noting that 1.3 million visitors came to the missions in 2024, generating $174 million, and that a paint shop is incompatible with the tourist destination. - Jack Finger opposed item 20, calling it an injustice after years of code violations by previous owners, and urged council to deny. - Vincent Huberza asked for postponement of item 26 (wireless tower) to allow further discussion. - Jack Finger opposed item 26, calling a 20‑foot tower a monstrosity and inappropriate for a residential area. - Leticia Sánchez (Vice President, neighborhood association) supported item 33 (Montezuma St.) because the tortilla factory has been a positive community presence and the parking is on Guadalupe Street, not the residential area. - Jack Finger opposed item 33, arguing that C2 zoning is too intensive for a residential street. - Bianca Barón (owner) supported items 34 & 35 (East Sunshine Drive), explaining that she had invested in the property, operated a hair salon by appointment, and had gathered 90 signatures of support, despite the Jefferson Neighborhood Association’s formal opposition. Discussion Items - Items 9 & 10 – West Avenue Rezoning: Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial (C2 to C3 NA). Staff recommended denial; the commission suggested Community Commercial. 36 notifications were sent: one in favor, one opposed. Applicant Majid Meraz requested the change to sell vintage motorcycles. Council approved on a motion, with no opposition reported. - Item 20 – 3406 Roosevelt Avenue: Rezoning from IDZ and C2 to IDZ for a paint and body shop. Staff recommended approval with conditions (no temporary signs, operating hours Mon–Sat 7 AM–6 PM, no outdoor audio). 13 notifications were sent within 200 feet: two in favor, one opposed (Mission San José). Outside 200 feet: nine in favor, one opposed. After extensive public testimony, Councilmember Villagrán moved to approve with the stated conditions. The motion passed. - Item 23 – 622 Southwest: Conditional use for oversized vehicle sales and storage. Staff recommended approval. No opposition registered. Council approved with conditions. - Item 26 – Wireless Communication Tower (1901 acres): Rezoning from R5 to R5‑S. Staff and commission recommended approval; the Garden Neighborhood Association supported. Two speakers addressed it. Councilmember Castillo asked the representative if the applicant agreed to a postponement; the representative confirmed. Council voted to postpone to February 5, 2026. - Items 30 & 31 – Castillo Avenue Density Change: Amendment from Urban Low Density to Urban Medium Density Residential. Staff recommended denial; the commission approved. 42 notifications: none in favor, two opposed. Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association supported. Councilmember Castillo moved to approve as presented. The motion passed. - Item 33 – Montezuma Street Rezoning: From R4 MR and C2 PNA to C2 NPA. Staff recommended denial; the commission approved. 50 notifications: none in favor or opposed. The neighborhood association supported. After testimony from Leticia Sánchez and Jack Finger, Councilmember Castillo moved to approve as presented. The motion passed. - Items 34 & 35 – East Sunshine Drive Rezoning: Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. Staff and commission recommended approval. 18 notifications: three in favor, none opposed, but the Jefferson Neighborhood Association formally opposed and the Sunshine Neighborhood Association gave no response. Applicant Bianca Barón spoke in support. Councilmember Garbito moved to deny, citing the association’s concern about setting a precedent for a commercial corridor. The motion to deny passed. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Approved with items 21, 22 removed and item 29 postponed. - Items 9 & 10 (West Ave): Approved. - Item 20 (Roosevelt Ave paint shop): Approved with conditions (lighting, hours, no outdoor audio, no temporary signs). - Item 23 (622 Southwest): Approved with conditions. - Item 26 (wireless tower): Postponed to February 5, 2026. - Items 30 & 31 (Castillo Ave): Approved. - Item 33 (Montezuma St): Approved. - Items 34 & 35 (East Sunshine Drive): Denied. The meeting adjourned at 3:21 PM.

On January 14, 2026, the San Antonio City Council received updates on two major downtown projects: the proposed sports and entertainment district (including a new Spurs arena) and the proposed downtown minor league baseball stadium. The meeting began at 1:03 PM and ended at 5:42 PM. Staff presented detailed work plans for 2026, including timelines, budgets, and public engagement strategies. Council members provided feedback on priorities such as parking, transportation, affordable housing, community engagement, and the need to balance downtown investments with citywide infrastructure needs. Downtown Sports and Entertainment District Update Presentation: Ben (staff) presented a 2026 work plan that builds on the non-binding term sheet approved last summer. Key elements: - Acquisition of Federal Property (GSA): The city proposes a $30 million offer for three parcels totaling 5.7 acres. The Spurs will contribute $30 million and up to $120,000 in closing costs. The city would acquire fee simple title, subject to a contingency deed. City Council will vote on this item on January 15, 2026. - Connectivity Planning Grant: A $3 million USDOT grant (with a $740,000 local match) must be spent by December 31, 2026. Staff is considering whether to proceed with the existing procurement or reissue it quickly. - District Study RFP: A consultant will analyze cost of services (traffic, fire, EMS, security, maintenance), general fund revenue projections, and new revenue opportunities. RFP release planned for January 16, 2026, with a consultant recommendation by April 16, 2026. - Executive Program Manager (EPM) RFQ: A 5-year contract (initial $10 million) to coordinate district projects. The EPM will report to a designated city official. Staff will structure the contract with accountability measures, including incentives and penalties for on-time and on-budget performance. - ITC Property Acquisition: The city has exclusive rights to purchase the 60-acre arena site from the UT System for an estimated $60 million, funded from the Midtown TIRZ. Negotiations will begin in early 2026. - Chilled Water Plant Feasibility Study: SAWS is leading a study to expand district cooling capacity. Options include relocating the Market Street plant, expanding the Cherry Street plant, or building a satellite facility. A draft report is expected in January 2026. - Parking Feasibility Study: An RFP will be issued in February 2026, with a consultant recommendation by May 2026. The study will examine existing parking assets, technology platforms, and the potential need for additional parking. - Negotiation of Definitive Agreements: Staff aims to complete substantive negotiations on all agreements (bond indentures, community benefits agreement, development agreement, etc.) by December 31, 2026. - Convention Center Expansion: A feasibility report is expected by September 2026. - District Infrastructure: The initial estimate of $220–250 million for phase 1 infrastructure will be refined. A parking garage originally included will be re-evaluated based on revenue potential. - Alamo Dome Assessment: Focus on operational capital needs over the next 10 years; major renovation pushed to 2035. - Displacement Impact Assessment: To be completed in spring 2026 by the Neighborhood and Housing Services Department. Council Discussion: - Mayor Nirenberg called for a downtown master development plan and noted the city faces a $142 million budget gap in FY27. - Councilwoman Smith (Corp) emphasized the need for a parking app, micro-mobility, and affordable housing. She supported the dashboard CCR. - Councilman Galvan (D6) asked about the timing of definitive agreements and stressed early community engagement on community benefits agreements, small business inclusion, and housing trust revolving funds. - Councilwoman Viagran (D2) prioritized the arena, land bridge, and convention center expansion. She wanted existing parking garages to show occupancy and opposed excessive B sessions. - Councilwoman Alderete Gavito (D7) supported moving forward, asked about EPM reporting structure, and called for multimodal transportation alternatives to parking. - Councilwoman Spears (D8) expressed concern about studies overlapping with budget and bond work, and requested clear timelines and funding sources (no general fund used). - Councilman White (D10) emphasized that the project is an economic driver, insisted on honoring the term sheet, and suggested the EPM contract include performance incentives. - Councilman Mesa Gonzalez (D3) asked about earnest money, deed restrictions, and the need for community engagement from the start. - Councilwoman Castillo (D5) supported frequent public briefings, asked about affordable housing in mixed-use development, and wanted to use in-house capacity for studies. - Councilman McKee Rodriguez (D1) questioned the federal property acquisition structure, raised concerns about TxDOT cooperation on the land bridge, and worried about the impact of using Midtown TIRZ on other projects. - Councilman Mungia (D4) called for a comprehensive timeline website, public input opportunities, and attention to the city's “donut” (inner-ring neighborhoods) that have been neglected. Key Outcomes: - Staff will establish a regular update tempo (quarterly suggested) and include executive session discussions for negotiations. - The board will consider the federal property acquisition on January 15, 2026. - The EPM RFQ will be released on January 16, 2026, with a council decision in April. - The parking feasibility study RFP will go to the Audit Committee in February. - The ITC property negotiations will begin in early 2026. - The Alamo Dome assessment report is expected in February 2026. Downtown Minor League Baseball Stadium Update Presentation: Ben presented the 2026 work plan for the proposed downtown ballpark, which is further along. Key elements: - Project Summary: A 4,500-fixed-seat ballpark (capacity 7,500) at North Flores and Kingsbury, with an estimated cost of $160 million. Funding: $34 million team equity, $126 million in bonds backed by the Houston Street TIRZ and a Municipal Management District. The ballpark is scheduled to open in April 2028. - Mixed-Use Development: Four phases; phases 1 and 2 (guaranteed $575 million total) include a hotel and housing. Phase 3 and 4 are not guaranteed. The bond issuance requires phase 1 to be ready to proceed and phase 2 design to have commenced. - San Pedro Creek Development Authority (LGC): Created to own the ballpark. Board seats: 3 city, 3 county, 3 team. - Relocation Plan: 381 units across three phases. Phase 1 (189 units) tenants have been relocated. Weston Urban distributed $152,000 and the city distributed $74,000; $274,000 remains for phases 2 and 3. - Community Benefits: $250,000 annual team contribution to maintenance, local hiring goals, youth program, stakeholder days, wage commitment equal to city's minimum entry wage, and the 1888 Baseball Foundation ($200,000 annually for children and homeless veterans). - 2026 Work Plan: - Baseball feasibility study (bond) – consultant engaged by team, draft report in April, final in June. - Traffic security plan – internal work, January–April. - Intersection improvements at West Martin and North Flores – funded ($5–6 million), RFQ in July, construction after April 2027. - Displacement impact assessment – spring 2026. - Negotiation of definitive agreements – target completion by May 31, 2026, with council approval in June. - Nelson Wolff Stadium site redevelopment – concept plan with consultant, community engagement led by Councilman Galvan. Council Discussion: - Councilwoman Smith (Corp) thanked staff for relocation efforts and highlighted the five points underpass project. - Councilman Galvan (D6) stressed that he wants to lead community engagement for the Wolff Stadium site without a consultant. - Councilwoman Viagran (D2) asked about programming for stakeholder days. - Councilwoman Alderete Gavito (D7) praised the conditions on bond issuance and the need for transportation alternatives. - Councilman White (D10) supported the project and called the financing structure a “unicorn.” - Councilman Mungia (D4) challenged the statement that there is “no direct displacement” from the ballpark, noting that the surrounding development caused displacement. He called for using the SHIP definition. - Councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez (D3) supported community-led engagement for Wolff. - Councilwoman Castillo (D5) asked about the LGC makeup, relocation data, wage commitment for contractors, and thanked Councilwoman Smith for community benefits. Key Outcomes: - The city will continue negotiating definitive agreements with the Missions and Weston Urban, aiming for council approval in June 2026. - The bond feasibility study will be conducted with city input; the team will pay for it. - The intersection improvement project is already funded and on schedule. - The Wolff Stadium redevelopment will be led by Councilman Galvan's office, with staff support. - Staff will provide a reconciliation of relocation funds and clarify the “no direct displacement” language. Additional Matters - Mayor Nirenberg asked about the outstanding $2 million issue with the Spurs regarding the MLS soccer stadium rent. Staff will provide a one-pager on resolution. - The city's debt management plan and bond process will be presented next week (January 21, 2026). - The meeting adjourned at 5:42 PM.

The San Antonio Planning Commission met on January 14, 2026, from approximately 2:07 PM to 3:21 PM. The meeting included a consent calendar and individual hearing items involving land use plan amendments, continuances, and a vote on a vehicle storage facility. Several applicants requested continuances to refine their proposals, while one case was decided by a roll call vote. Consent Calendar - Items 1–10 (excluding items 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18) were approved unanimously by a roll call vote of 8–0. Discussion Items - Item 11 – 1514 Rigsby Avenue (Southeast Community Area Plan Amendment): The applicant requested a two‑week continuance to January 28, 2026. Staff reported 38 notices mailed, 4 in favor, 0 opposed within 200 feet; no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet. Outside 200 feet, 6 in favor, 0 opposed. The commission granted the continuance unanimously. - Item 12 – 439 West Military Drive (West Southwest Sector Plan Amendment from General Urban Tier to Mixed Use Center): The applicant, a mechanic shop owner, proposed using the vacant lot for short‑ and long‑term vehicle storage (work trucks, not oversized). Staff recommended denial, citing incompatibility with surrounding residential and suburban land uses. The applicant stated he had spoken with District 6 staff and the Lackland Terrace Neighborhood Association (which is in favor) and had gone door‑to‑door. During discussion, commissioners raised concerns about dust, noise, impervious cover, and the lack of enforceable buffers. A motion to approve the request passed 5–3 (Commissioners DeSucci, Ulett, Sanchez, Lopez, Mylam in favor; Bustamante, Siegel, Peck opposed). Staff noted the site plan would be binding and that any future change would require a new public process. - Item 13 – 4131 Kulibra Road (West‑Southwest Sector Plan Amendment from General Urban Tier to Regional Center): The applicant sought a plan amendment to allow a car dealership (C3 zoning) on four lots fronting Culebra Road. Staff recommended denial, citing potential impacts on adjacent residential uses. During the hearing, the applicant offered to amend the request to only the southern two lots (fronting Culebra) and expressed willingness to accept a C2 with conditional use for motor vehicle sales rather than a C3. Commissioners suggested that a C2 with conditional use could accomplish the goal without a plan amendment. The applicant agreed to pursue that route and also to resolve a work‑without‑permit issue identified by staff. The commission granted a two‑week continuance to January 28, 2026, to allow the applicant to submit a site plan and amend the zoning request before the Zoning Commission. - Items 15 & 16 – Gonzaba Medical Group properties on Pleasanton Road: The representative requested a four‑week continuance to February 11, 2026, to work with staff toward a recommendation for approval after staff had recommended denial. The commission granted the continuance unanimously. - Item 18 – 2601 Guadalupe Street (Guadalupe West Side Community Plan Amendment from low density mixed use to community commercial): The applicant, owner of a property that was rezoned from C2 to residential in 2023 without his knowledge, sought a plan amendment to allow commercial uses (e.g., flower shop, mechanic, taco cart). Staff recommended denial, noting the mid‑block location amid established single‑family homes and potential negative impacts. The applicant stated he had spoken with the neighborhood association president and that she was supportive. Several commissioners expressed concern about the lack of a specific business plan and the intrusion of commercial into a residential area. On a motion by Commissioner Bustamante, the commission granted a four‑week continuance to February 11, 2026, by a unanimous roll call vote (8–0). Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Approved 8–0. - Item 11: Continued to January 28, 2026 (unanimous). - Item 12: Approved (5–3). The plan amendment from General Urban Tier to Mixed Use Center at 439 West Military Drive was recommended for approval, contingent on a site plan showing vehicle storage for work trucks and buffers to the south. - Item 13: Continued to January 28, 2026 (unanimous). The applicant is to submit a site plan and amend the zoning request to C2 with conditional use for motor vehicle sales on the southern portion of the property; the plan amendment may be withdrawn if the zoning is approved. - Items 15 & 16: Continued to February 11, 2026 (unanimous). - Item 18: Continued to February 11, 2026 (unanimous). The applicant is advised to hire a professional consultant and develop a specific business plan.

The San Antonio City Council held a meeting on January 14, 2026, to receive detailed updates on two major development projects: the downtown entertainment and sports district (including a potential NBA arena) and a new minor league baseball stadium and mixed-use development at San Pedro Creek. Council members discussed timelines, financing, community benefits, parking, transit, affordable housing, and community engagement. No formal votes were taken, but several agenda items were set for upcoming council action. Downtown Entertainment District Update - Federal Property Acquisition: Staff presented an offer of $30 million (plus $120,000 closing costs) to purchase 5.7 acres (three parcels) from the GSA. The Spurs would contribute $30 million toward the acquisition, with the city retaining ownership if the arena project proceeds. The council was scheduled to consider this item on January 15. - Connectivity: TXDOT awarded $2.96 million for planning connectivity between the Alamodome and the eastern property, including pedestrian bridges and street crossings. Funding for 2026 is not yet secured. - Parking Study: A consultant will analyze existing parking (public and private) and explore digital platforms to manage supply. The RFP is expected in February, with council consideration in May and results in December. - Executive Program Manager (EPM): A $10 million initial phase for an EPM to coordinate multiple district projects was presented. RFQ to be issued January 16, council action on April 7, with work beginning April 16. The EPM will oversee planning, design, and construction sequencing. - ITC Property: The city has exclusive rights to purchase land from UT System for an arena, with an estimated cost of $60 million to be financed through TIRZ. Negotiations start in early 2026, with a target closing by December 31. - Chilled Water Plant Expansion: SOS is studying options (relocation, expansion on Cherry Street, or satellite plants) to support new developments. Feedback from SOS expected in January, with full analysis through December. - Convention Center Expansion: A study will inform expansion plans, with a presentation to council scheduled for September 2026. - Alamodome Renovations: A consultant’s evaluation due in January 2026, with recommendations in September for a 10-year improvement plan. - Community Engagement: Staff proposed aligning the district’s development with broader city priorities (housing, parks, transit). Council members emphasized early and frequent community involvement, including virtual meetings and a public dashboard. - Council Positions: - Alcaldesa Jones: Stressed the need for a balanced approach that includes affordable housing and infrastructure for all residents, not just tourists. Noted a $142 million budget gap that must be addressed. - Concejal Core: Supported aligning investments with existing housing and transit plans; urged immediate improvements to parking and pedestrian access; questioned the need for a new convention center hotel. - Concejal Villagran: Prioritized the arena, bridge, and expansion; requested real cost estimates and a parking inventory; emphasized that the center belongs to all San Antonio. - Concejal White: Focused on economic impact and fiscal responsibility; supported an EPM with performance incentives and a public dashboard; cautioned against changing agreed term sheets. - Concejal Mesa González: Asked about parking study details, displacement impact, and historical preservation; stressed that the center must be affordable and accessible. - Concejal Galván: Called for transparency and community input, especially to ensure funds remain for other city needs like street repairs. - Concejal Mungía: Warned against bond competition with other capital projects; requested more detail on displacement and community benefit agreements. Baseball Stadium and Mixed-Use Development Update - Project Overview: A minor league baseball stadium (4,500 seats, expandable to 7,500) with a $160 million budget, funded by team equity and TIRZ revenue. Mixed-use development in four phases (two guaranteed at $575 million combined, total up to $1 billion). Phase 1 includes 381 residential units; a soap factory relocation with no displacement of existing housing. - Community Benefits: The team contributes $250,000 annually for stadium maintenance; city contributes $500,000 from TIRZ. A baseball foundation will provide at least $200,000 yearly for homeless children and veterans. Free tickets for disadvantaged youth, and community programming. - Relocation Assistance: For phase 1 tenants, $152,000 in total assistance distributed (city contributed $74,000). Phase 2 and 3 have additional funds available. - Traffic and Intersection Improvements: $5–6 million from capital budget for upgrades at West Martin and North Flores, with design starting October 2026. - Displacement Impact Assessment: Required for the overall development, expected in spring 2026. - Timeline: Design and negotiations through May 2026; council approval in June; bond issuance in June; construction to be complete by spring 2028. - Council Positions: - Concejal Castillo: Hailed collaboration with county and SAISD; stressed need for 2- and 3-bedroom units and continued relocation support. - Concejal Galván: Emphasized community-led engagement for the Westside; opposed hiring external consultants for local outreach. - Concejal White: Praised the financial structure as solid; supported the project as an economic generator for the entire city. - Concejal Mesa González: Called for clear definitions of displacement and transparency in relocation data. - Concejal Mungía: Questioned the stadium’s operating costs and requested details on how unspent relocation funds would be used. - Concejal Villagran: Requested that community events be scheduled during low season and that the repurposed Nelson Wolff Stadium be made into a multi-use facility with affordable housing. Key Outcomes - The council will vote on the federal property acquisition (agenda item January 15). - The EPM RFQ is set for January 16, with council action on April 7. - City staff to return with refined parking analysis and a community engagement plan. - The baseball stadium project remains on track for council approval in June 2026, with construction to begin thereafter. - Council members emphasized that all future decisions must include robust public input and transparent reporting.

The San Antonio Planning Commission met on January 14, 2026, beginning at 2:10 PM (after a late start noted at 2:07 PM). The session included a consent agenda, several individual hearing items, and two continuances. The meeting was conducted in Spanish and English with an interpreter. Commissioners present: Sánchez, Tezuki, López, Ley, Maylam, Samante, Sigo, and Presidenta Peck. Commissioner Samante temporarily recused himself for one agenda item. Action was taken on six items: one consent agenda, four zoning/plan amendment requests (one approved, one continued, one deferred to a later meeting, one continued for four weeks), and two identical items jointly continued. Consent Calendar - The commission approved the consent agenda (all items except 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18) on a motion by Commissioner Maylam, seconded by Commissioner Sánchez. The vote was unanimous: 8–0. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 11 (continued): No public testimony was taken; the item was immediately continued to the February 2026 meeting. - Item 12 – West Military Drive property (rezoning request): The applicant, Hazard Palvisi (address: 749 West Military Drive, San Antonio, Texas), spoke in favor. He stated that he purchased the vacant lot in October 2019 and operates a mechanic shop on the same street. He expressed support for his request, noting he had spoken with the district council member (who was in favor) and with the president of the Cantera Neighborhood Association (Melinda), who expressed concerns but later gave support. He also went door‑to‑door to neighboring residents, collecting a petition of support. He provided photographs showing earlier illegal dumping and drug activity on the property and argued his proposal would clean up the area. He cited a neighboring property at 7523 West Military (which received a similar zoning change in June 2025) as precedent. He also noted that several CPS‑contracting businesses had expressed interest in renting the space for short‑ and long‑term vehicle storage. - Item 13 – Culebra Road property (rezoning request): The applicant’s representative, John Len (representing owner Andrew Hajali of Misa Motors), spoke in favor. Len argued that the current zoning does not reflect the area’s growth along Culebra Road. Owner Andrew Hajali also testified, stating he combined four lots (Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10) and that the dealership would be on Lots 9 and 10, facing Culebra Road. He noted that Texas state law requires a C‑3 zoning designation for a vehicle dealer license, and that other dealerships exist within 1,000 feet. During questioning, the applicant agreed to amend the request to apply only to Lots 9 and 10 (the southern half) and to seek a C‑2 designation with a conditional use permit rather than a full C‑3 rezoning. - Item 18 – Guadalupe Street property (rezoning request): The applicant, Walter Cembrano, stated he is the owner of the property at 1141 Guadalupe Street. He testified that when he purchased the property, it was zoned C‑2 (commercial), but later (after a 2023 West Side Community Plan process) it was rezoned to residential without his knowledge or attendance at a hearing. He said he has been working with Councilwoman Leticia Vancil’s office and had initial support from the neighborhood association. He did not present a specific business plan, but mentioned possible uses: a taco truck, flower shop, mechanic shop, or animal grooming. Discussion Items - Item 11 – Southeast Community Plan amendment (1514 Rigsby Avenue): Staff reported that 38 notices were sent, with 4 in favor and 0 against. There is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet. The request is for a continuance to the February 28, 2026 meeting. The commission unanimously approved the continuance. - Item 12 – West Military Drive property (rezoning to C‑3 with IDZ for heavy vehicle storage): Staff reported 30 notices sent, 6 in favor, 0 against. Within 200 feet, the Cantera Neighborhood Association responded; beyond 200 feet, no response. Staff found the proposed mixed‑use center inconsistent with surrounding properties. During discussion, Commissioner Sigo raised concerns about: lack of a 15‑foot buffer between the property and the southerly residential lot; a requirement for a 15‑foot setback (noted as not currently required in the IDZ); impervious cover increase (the site is currently unpaved; a paved or compacted‑base lot would increase runoff). The applicant said he would use compacted base, not concrete, but staff clarified that compacted base is not acceptable—permeable pavement (concrete, asphalt, or permeable pavers) would be required. Commissioner Maylam noted potential dust and noise issues. Commissioner D’Suki asked about hours of operation and lighting: the applicant answered that lighting (two lamps) would be on from 7:00 PM to 6:00 AM, and gates would be electric, no speakers or music. The commission voted 6–2 to approve (Commissioners Sigo and Bustamante voted no; Presidenta Peck initially voted yes, then corrected to no). - Item 13 – Culebra Road property (rezoning to C‑3): Staff recommended denial, stating that the Urban General designation is appropriate for the block and that C‑3 would be inconsistent. During public testimony, the applicant amended the request to seek a C‑2 designation with a conditional use permit for vehicle sales on Lots 9 and 10 only. Commissioner Sigo expressed support for the amended request (limited to the southern half) but noted concerns about work done without permits. Commissioner López asked about an earlier November 2025 investigations for unpermitted work. The applicant’s representative admitted that the contractor had told them permits were not needed. The commission voted unanimously to continue the item to the January 28, 2026 meeting to allow the applicant to prepare a site plan and address the permit issue. - Items 15 and 16 – Pleasington Rose Medical Group properties: The applicant requested a four‑week continuance (to February 11, 2026) to explore whether the cases could be resolved without returning to the Planning Commission. The commission unanimously approved the continuances. - Item 18 – Guadalupe Street property (rezoning to C‑2 for general commercial use): Staff recommended denial, citing intrusiveness into a residential area, potential adverse effects (noise, pollution), and inconsistency with the West Side Community Plan (adopted May 2007). Commissioners expressed frustration that the applicant had no specific business plan. Commissioner Sigo stated, “You come without a plan… it’s very difficult to support this case.” Commissioner Bustamante added, “I could not approve an intrusion of commercial into a residential zone.” The commission voted unanimously to continue the item to the February 11, 2026 meeting to give the applicant time to develop a concrete proposal and consult with a professional planner. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously (8–0). - Item 11 (1514 Rigsby Ave): Continued to February 28, 2026 (unanimous). - Item 12 (749 West Military Dr): Rezoning to C‑3 with IDZ approved by a vote of 6–2 (Commissioners Sigo and Bustamante opposed; Presidenta Peck corrected to no). - Item 13 (441 Culebra Rd): Continued to January 28, 2026 (unanimous) to allow for a site plan, amendment to C‑2 with conditional use, and resolution of unpermitted work. - Items 15 & 16 (two Pleasington Rose properties): Continued to February 11, 2026 (unanimous). - Item 18 (1141 Guadalupe St): Continued to February 11, 2026 (unanimous) to allow the applicant to prepare a specific business plan. - Director’s Report: None. - Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 3:21 PM.

The City Council convened on January 13, 2026, to discuss and vote on two Single Species Coordination Permit-Habitat Conservation Plan (SCP-HCP) applications for future development projects involving Microsoft Corporation and Pedcor Investments LLC. The meeting also included the approval of the minutes from the December 9th meeting. No public comments were received. The Council unanimously approved both conservation applications and the meeting minutes before adjourning. Consent Calendar - No routine approvals or unanimous actions were listed as separate consent agenda items; all actions were handled as discussion items or via specific motions. Public Comments & Testimony - Public Record: No public comments or testimony were received during this meeting. Discussion Items - SCP-HCP Application for Microsoft Corporation (Item 1): - Proposal: Microsoft Corporation seeks enrollment in the SCP-HCP for a 79.98-acre project located in Council District 6 at the intersection of Petrenko Road and Military Drive. The project involves zero acres of Golden-Cheeked Warbler (GCW) habitat and zero acres of Black-Capped Vireo (BCV) habitat, resulting in no required conservation credits. The area overlaps CARSO 3 (78.62 acres) and CARSO 4 (1.36 acres). - Fees: The applicant has paid a $2,500 application fee. Full mitigation fees totaling $86,482 (comprising a $78,620 CARSO 3/4 participation fee and a $7,862 administration fee) are required prior to enrollment completion. - Staff Position: The Senior Planner, Riley Bosiger, recommended approval. - SCP-HCP Application for Pedcor Investments LLC (Item 2): - Proposal: Pedcor Investments LLC seeks enrollment in the SCP-HCP for a 19.313-acre project located in Council District 9 south of U.S. 281 and South Breeze Street. The project area contains 11.94 acres of GCW habitat within the property and 23.53 acres of GCW habitat within 300 feet, requiring a total of 36 GCW conservation credits. The area does not contain BCV habitat. The entire 19.313 acres are located within CARSO 1. - Fees: The applicant has paid a $2,500 application fee. Full mitigation fees totaling $388,044.30 (comprising $288,000 for GCW credits, $19,313 for CARSO 1 and 2 participation, and $30,731.30 for administration) are required prior to enrollment completion. - Staff Position: The Senior Planner, Riley Bosiger, recommended approval. - Approval of Minutes (Item 3): - Proposal: The Council reviewed the minutes from the December 9th meeting. - Observations: A committee member noted that the minutes utilized a new format updated by PrimeGub over the break, expressing preference for the new structure which provides a summary of events. - Correction Requests: No corrections to the December 9th minutes were proposed or requested. Key Outcomes - Microsoft Corporation Application: Passed by a roll call vote of 6 Aye (McLamry, Simper, Brock, Garcia, Nino, Sparrow). The application was approved contingent on the payment of the $86,482 mitigation fee. - Pedcor Investments LLC Application: Passed by a roll call vote of 6 Aye (Garcia, McLamry, Brock, Simper, Nino, Sparrow). The application was approved contingent on the payment of the $388,044.30 mitigation fee. - Minutes Approval: The minutes from the December 9th meeting were approved via voice vote (Ayes having it). - Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:37.

The Audit Committee convened on January 13, 2026, to approve minutes, consent for two internal audit reports, and review pre-solicitation briefings for four major projects: a district study and program manager for the Sports and Entertainment District, and two community center construction projects. Staff presented scopes, evaluation criteria, and aggressive timelines for all items, while committee members focused on enhancing evaluation criteria for experience, addressing public safety coordination, ensuring community engagement, and establishing performance-based fee structures. Consent Calendar - Minutes: The committee unanimously approved the minutes of the previous meeting following a motion and second. - Internal Audit Reports: Two final internal audit reports regarding routine departmental operations were approved unanimously via the consent agenda. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public signed up to speak; the committee proceeded without public testimony. Discussion Items Item 4: Sports and Entertainment District Cost of Services Study - Staff Presentation: Chief Financial Officer Troy Olaid presented a pre-solicitation briefing for a $350,000 study to analyze projected cost of services (traffic, security, fire/EMS, maintenance) and new revenue opportunities (sales tax from pop-ups/marketing) for the district, including the Alamo Dome, John Wood Courthouse, and a proposed MBA arena. The scope excludes bond repayment revenues. - Chair Via Gran's Position: Chair Gran expressed support for the aggressive timeline and the dynamic, scalable nature of the study but emphasized the need to clarify the specific timeline covered (potentially through 2045) to account for inflation and competition, as well as rare event scenarios like government shutdowns or pandemics. She voiced a strong position that the evaluation team must heavily weight experience to ensure credible data for Council. - Councilman White's Position: Councilman White expressed support for identifying new revenue opportunities, noting that experiences at venues outside the city often feature pre-entry revenue streams like concessions and pop-ups. He emphasized the need to maximize general fund revenue to support quality of life issues citywide. - Councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez and Councilman Metcalf's Position: Councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez and Councilman Metcalf expressed the position that the evaluation team requires public safety specialists, not just finance experts, to accurately assess costs for mobilizing security and traffic management in a perpetually construction-zoned downtown. They requested a follow-up memo on incorporating public safety personnel into the evaluation team. - Councilman Mesa Gonzalez (Additional): Added the position that the study must account for specific traffic and security costs related to parking scenarios, such as residents parking in yards for events, potentially requiring ordinance changes and permits. She also noted the need to consider the experience of vendors regarding local events like New Year's Eve and Dia de los Muertos. - Ben Gorzell (Staff Response): Stressed that while the evaluation team is finance-focused, the selected consultant will be required to coordinate directly with Police, Fire, and Public Works to create accurate models. - Chair Via Gran (Additional): Clarified that parking studies are intentionaly excluded from this scope to be handled in a separate, more complex feasibility study, though traffic scenarios must still be considered in the cost of services model. Item 5: Executive Program Manager (EPM) for Sports and Entertainment District - Staff Presentation: CFO Troy Olaid presented a briefing for a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to hire an EPM at a total potential value of $10 million (approx. $2 million initial phase plus options). The EPM will oversee the coordination of multiple projects (arena, convention center, mixed-use) to minimize risk and maximize efficiencies, similar to the airport model. - Chair Via Gran's Position: Chair Gran expressed full support for the program but argued for increasing the evaluation points for "Experience, Background, and Qualifications" and "Proposed Plan" to 80 points total (by reducing local preference points to 5), stating she does not want a "big zero" where local preference outweighs plan quality. - Councilman White's Position: Councilman White expressed a strong position that the EPM contract must include performance-based pay structures (incentives or penalties) tied to on-time and on-budget delivery, citing that other firms are willing to accept such terms. - Councilman White (Additional): Clarified that the EPM must be held ultimately responsible for district-wide progress, though the Council must retain oversight on contractor selection to ensure labor standards are met. He emphasized the need for a public accountability dashboard. - Councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez's Position: Expressed a cautious position regarding the EPM's ability to pick contractors, stating she is not comfortable ceding Council oversight on contractor selection or labor pay parameters to gain programmatic speed. She wants the proposed plan to explicitly address how the EPM will work within Council constraints. - Councilman White (Additional): Highlighted the critical nature of the EPM role in coordinating simultaneous construction projects within a small footprint to avoid creating competition among contractors for labor and materials. - Buddy Vargas (Staff Response): Confirmed the vetting process is robust, including reference checks and financial solvency reviews, and noted that the first phase is strictly for planning and foundation setting, with the second phase (implementation) to be brought to Council with amendments and safeguards for incentives. Items 6 & 7: Community Center Construction Projects (Kenwood & Father Roman) - Item 6 (Kenwood - District 1): Assistant Director Christy Chapman presented a briefing for a $6.15M construction project to replace a 2024-demolished center. Councilman Pacheco expressed enthusiastic support for the District 1 project, emphasizing the need to remind Council members of the upcoming political contribution blackout period (Feb 13) to ensure compliance. - Item 7 (Father Roman - District 3): Chapman presented a briefing for an $8.61M construction project to replace a facility deemed unusable due to soil conditions caused by climate and drought. Councilman Pacheco expressed support for the District 3 project, noting the hard work of the community in maintaining the site and the excitement to see it replaced. - Councilman Pacheco's Position: Expressed support for both projects, acknowledging the community's desire to keep certain design elements (e.g., murals) during the design phase, and thanked the team for moving forward. Outstanding Management Actions for Prior Audits - Buddy Vargas (City Auditor): Presented a status update on prior audit recommendations. He clarified that "Verification Pending" (yellow) is due to departments requiring time to generate activity for sampling, not resource constraints. "Red" indicates exceptions where implementation has failed or documentation is missing. He confirmed no items are delayed due to audit team staffing limitations. - Chair Via Gran's Position: Expressed the position that the committee should review the red and yellow items for trends regarding employee access controls and departmental manpower constraints, particularly as they relate to upcoming budget discussions. Key Outcomes - Consent: Approved Minutes and two internal audit reports unanimously. - District Study (Item 4): Staff directed to revise the RFP to clarify the timeline (potentially through 2045) and consider adding public safety specialists to the evaluation team pending a memo; solicitation to release Jan 16. - EPM (Item 5): Staff directed to: (1) Consult with City Attorney to adjust local preference points to increase weight on experience and proposed plan; (2) Explore performance-based pay structures (incentives/penalties) for the EPM contract; (3) Ensure community engagement and accountability dashboards are included in the scope; solicitation to release Jan 30. - Kenwood Center (Item 6): Pre-solicitation briefing approved; solicitation to release Jan 30. - Father Roman Center (Item 7): Pre-solicitation briefing approved; solicitation to release Feb 6. - Audit Follow-up: Staff to monitor red/yellow status items for trends regarding IT access controls and staffing levels to address in future budget cycles.

The City Council convened on January 13, 2026, to approve meeting minutes and the Consent Calendar. The meeting focused on three major pre-solicitation items: a study on service costs and revenue opportunities for the Sports and Entertainment District, the selection of an Executive Program Manager (EPM) for the district, and two construction contracts for new community centers in Districts 1 and 3. Council members provided feedback on timeline aggressiveness, local business preferences, and performance-based payment structures. Consent Calendar - Agenda Item 1 (Minutes): Motion to approve minutes with corrections passed unanimously. - Agenda Items 2-3 (Audits): Final audit report presentations accepted; two specific areas (freight operations and housing improvement programs) noted as requiring follow-up. - Consent Calendar Action: A motion to approve the consent calendar (covering routine audit approvals) passed unanimously without any items removed. Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were received or scheduled during this session. Discussion Items Pre-Solicitation: Service Cost Study & Revenue Opportunities for Sports & Entertainment District (Article 4) - Proposal Overview: Presentation by Troy (Chief of Finance) regarding a $350,000 contract to study service costs (traffic, safety, fire) and revenue opportunities (sales tax, hotel tax, concessions) for the Sports and Entertainment District, including the new NBA arena and Alamo Dome expansion. - Council Feedback & Positions: - Councilmember 1: Expressed appreciation for the aggressive timeline but requested that the study scope explicitly include a timeframe extending to 2045 and scenarios for government shutdowns or pandemics to analyze potential service cost increases. Request: A follow-up memo on these specific scenarios. - Councilmember 1: Emphasized the importance of local business preference and the need to clarify the deadline for political campaign contributions to avoid disqualification. - Councilmember 1: Requested the study cover solid waste management, parking permit logistics (including private lots), and traffic flow, citing past events (e.g., Garrocks concert) as reference points. - Councilmember 2: Questioned the financial team's composition, suggesting the inclusion of public safety experts (police/fire) to ensure accurate cost modeling. - Councilmember 2: Requested a memo detailing how to negotiate costs for ongoing construction phases and street closures. - Councilmember 2: Stressed the need to evaluate parking permit programs and police/fire costs associated with parking to ensure safety and cost recovery. - Councilmember 3: Clarified that the advisory committee will coordinate with police and fire departments after selection, aiming for a scalable service model. - Councilmember 3: Requested that the study separate parking analysis as a distinct component to focus on traffic feeder routes and police location. Pre-Solicitation: Executive Program Manager (EPM) for Sports & Entertainment District (Article 5) - Proposal Overview: Presentation regarding a contract (estimated $200k-$18M over phases) to hire an EPM to coordinate the Convention Center expansion, NBA arena, and mixed-use development. The initial phase focuses on planning and governance; subsequent phases involve implementation. - Evaluation Criteria: 50 points for experience/qualifications, 25 for the proposed plan, 15 for cost/value. - Council Feedback & Positions: - Councilmember 1: Proposed adjustments to the evaluation criteria: increase "Experience, Background, and Qualifications" to 80 points, add 5 points to the "Proposed Plan," and allocate 5 points to "Local Preference" to ensure strong local involvement. - Councilmember 1: Requested that "Veteran Business Preference" be included in the scoring criteria. - Councilmember 1: Suggested that the solicitation include performance-based payment structures (bonuses for on-time/on-budget completion, penalties for delays) and asked staff to explore this option. - Councilmember 2: Expressed concern that the EPM might have too much authority over contractor selection without council oversight; emphasized the need for clear metrics and council control. - CouncilMember 3: Clarified that the EPM is responsible for overall program supervision and cost control, while specific contractors are selected by the City/Council. - CouncilMember 3: Stressed the necessity of robust community communication and requested that community engagement (including the external dashboard) be explicitly part of the EPM's scope. - CouncilMember 3: Requested clarification on whether community engagement would be a separate contract or part of the EPM contract. Pre-Solicitation: Construction for Kenwood Community Center (Article 6) - Presentation: Christi Chapman (Capital Delivery) presented on a $6.2M contract for a new 8,800 sq. ft. center in District 1, including senior dining, a gym, and offices. - Evaluation Criteria: 35 points for experience, 30 for project understanding, 10 for regional experience, 15 for price; requires 7% small business participation. No local preference or veteran preference applies. - Councilmember 1: Expressed strong support for the project given the age of the current structure and issued a reminder regarding the February 13 deadline for political campaign contributions for the 2026 fiscal year. Pre-Solicitation: Construction for Padre Román Community Center (Article 7) - Presentation: Capital Delivery presented on an $8.6M contract for a new 2,000 sq. ft. center in District 3 to replace a demolished building, including park connections and parking. - Evaluation Criteria: 35 points for experience, 30 for project understanding, 10 for regional experience, 15 for price, 10 for small business program; no local preference or veteran preference. - Councilmember 3: Expressed gratitude to the community and staff for the long-awaited project, noting the building was unsafe due to soil conditions and weather. Reaffirmed the community's desire to keep the original mural in the new design. Audit Follow-Up (Article 8) - Presentation: City Auditor Baddy Vargas provided a status update on implementation of prior audit recommendations. 39 recommendations are complete, 2 are pending verification. - Status: Most items in "yellow" are in process; "red" items indicate completed recommendations pending final verification or resource adjustments. The Police Department noted delays due to case adjournments. - Council Discussion: Council members discussed the tracking methodology and the reasons for delays (primarily staffing/resources). Key Outcomes - Approvals: The agenda minutes and consent calendar were approved unanimously. - Directives to Staff: - Article 4 & 5: Staff are directed to prepare follow-up memos addressing: (1) scenario-based service cost modeling (2045 horizon), (2) integration of public safety experts, (3) integration of parking and street closure cost analysis, (4) adjustments to evaluation criteria (specifically higher local and veteran preferences) if feasible, and (5) inclusion of performance-based payment structures. - Article 5: Staff to clarify the scope of community engagement within the EPM contract. - Article 6 & 7: Staff to ensure strict adherence to political contribution deadlines (February 13, 2026) for bidders. - Timeline Acknowledgement: Council acknowledged the aggressive timelines for the study and EPM solicitations, with pre-solicitation comments requested by January 16, 2026. - Audits: The audit implementation matrix status was noted; no immediate votes required as follow-up is ongoing.

The San Antonio Adjustment Board convened on January 12, 2026, to hear appeals and variance requests, primarily focusing on complex statutory interpretations regarding SB 840 and rights by acquisition, as well as routine zoning violations involving short-term rentals, fences, and setbacks. Consent Calendar - Minutes Approval: The minutes from the previous meeting were approved without objection. Public Comments & Testimony - Case 274 (1604 Houseman Rd) & Case 275: Several residents expressed opposition to the potential change from commercial to mixed-use multifamily development. Specific concerns included traffic congestion, loss of privacy due to apartment exposure, and decreased property values. One resident noted the area currently has significant school traffic and unsafe sidewalk conditions. Conversely, neighbors of another property expressed full support for a new development, citing neighborhood revitalization benefits. - Case 269 & 267: Two homeowners voiced support for approving revocations of short-term rental permits for nearby properties, having experienced no negative impacts from the operators. - Case 261: A resident strongly opposed a variance request for a large parking lot (8,000 sq ft), expressing concerns about its oversized nature compared to residential structures and potential impacts on a nearby Catholic school's traffic and safety. - Case 276: The President of the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association urged denial of height and setback variances for a new development, stating a 9-foot fence is inappropriate for a residential zone and citing a lack of prior consultation with the association. - Case 262: A resident expressed support for a 10-foot fence variance, emphasizing security concerns due to prior thefts and illegal dumping in the area. Discussion Items State Law Interpretation (Cases 274 & 275): - Staff Position: Staff stated that under the codification of SB 840, a project cannot simultaneously be classified as initiated in 1984/1988 (for rights by acquisition) and initiated on or after September 1, 2025 (for SB 840 benefits). They clarified that the law is clear and mandatory; applicants must choose either rights by acquisition OR SB 840, not both. - Appellant Position (Brown & McDonald PLLC): The applicant's representative argued that an agreement of consent signed with the city in 2024 explicitly allows the developer to take advantage of new regulations and codes without abandoning rights by acquisition. They stated, "We have an agreement with the city that says I can utilize... without abandoning my accrued rights," and requested the board honor this contract rather than interpret state law. - Commissioner Debate: Commissioner Reed and others questioned the ability to apply new laws without forfeiting old rights, while the applicant maintained the issue was a contract interpretation, not a state statute dispute. Commissioner Ibañez and others noted the statutory language regarding project start dates was definitive. Short-Term Rental Appeal (Cases 264, 260, 266): - Case 264 (Mission St): The Board discussed a property where the operator claimed the failure to pay HOT taxes was due to an administrative company's oversight, noting they were now current. Staff recommended denial due to non-compliance, but the Board voted to grant the appeal. - Case 260 (River Pad) & 266 (Wyoming St): Applicants for these cases admitted to late payments or confusion regarding the Avenue software platform but confirmed all taxes and reports were now current. The Board voted to grant these appeals, noting the errors were administrative and have been corrected. Variance & Exception Requests (Cases 261, 265, 267, 262, 263, 268): - Case 261 (Barnsdall): The applicant requested a 9-foot fence variance citing security. The Board granted a variance for the fence material (corrugated metal) with a condition to install safety caps, but the height variance was discussed. - Case 265 (Town Briar): A resident opposed a 10-inch exception for a solid front fence due to visibility concerns for an elderly neighbor. The Board granted the 10-inch exception after the applicant promised to reduce the solid portion further, and granted a vision clearance variance. - Case 267 (Springfield Rd): An industrial prefabricated building was found to violate setback requirements due to engineering confusion. The Board granted a 12-foot setback variance, citing technical difficulties and lack of fault by the owner. - Case 262 (Faye Ave): The Board granted a variance for corrugated metal fence material and a 10-foot height exception, citing safety needs and neighborhood consistency. - Case 263 (Talisman Rd): Despite initial staff recommendation for denial, the Board granted a 4.5-foot fence variance after neighbors expressed support and the area has high pedestrian traffic. - Case 268 (Refugio): The Board granted a rear setback variance for a metal staircase and a lot size variance, citing the historic nature of the neighborhood and the owner's significant financial investment in the property. - Case 272 (East Park): An appeal for a 51-56 foot height variance for a 4-story multifamily building was granted after the Board clarified the height limits via the elevator tower. Commissioner Dean expressed full support, while Commissioner Dean voted against it; the motion passed due to other votes. Key Outcomes - Cases 274 & 275 (State Law Appeals): The appeal by Brown & McDonald PLLC was denied. The vote was 6 in favor, 4 against, 1 abstention. The Board upheld the staff's position that the applicant cannot combine rights by acquisition with SB 840 due to conflicting project start date definitions in the statute. - Case 264 (314 Mission St): The appeal for short-term rental permit reinstatement was granted. Vote: 9 in favor, 2 against. - Case 260 (3495 River Pad): The appeal for short-term rental permit reinstatement was granted. Vote: 10 in favor, 1 against. - Case 266 (917 Wyoming St): The appeal for short-term rental permit reinstatement was granted. Vote: 10 in favor, 1 against. - Case 268 (710 Sub-Brownleaf): The variance request for rear setbacks and lot size was granted. Vote: 11 in favor, 0 opposed. - Case 262 (123 Faye Ave): The variance for fence material and height was granted. Vote: 11 in favor, 0 opposed. Condition: Install safety caps. - Case 265 (2522 Town Briar): The exception for fence height and vision clearance was granted. Vote: 11 in favor, 0 opposed. - Case 263 (210 Talisman Rd): The variance for fence height and setback was granted. Vote: 10 in favor, 0 opposed. - Case 272 (811 & 815 East Park): The height variance was granted with specific limitations on height dimensions (48 ft, with 51 ft for elevator tower). Vote: 9 in favor, 1 against (Commissioner Dean against). - Case 276 (1038 Sherman St): The Board granted the first two items regarding front and side setbacks. The remaining three items (fence height and vision clearance) were continued/adjourned to February 26, 2026, pending further review and a meeting with the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association. Note: The Board took a brief executive session during the meeting to discuss legal matters related to Case 274.