Public Meetings - San Antonio, Texas

The San Antonio Building Standards Board convened on August 14, 2025, at 9:00 AM with President Duane Nelson presiding. Roll call established a quorum with members Duane Nelson, Joel Solís, George Grams Jr., Dr. Erlita López Rodríguez, and Keyla Moranda present. The board approved the minutes of the July 10, 2025 meeting and received a staff update on an emergency demolition. Four contested cases were heard: 1412 Pasadena, 601 South Hackberry, 329 South San Gabriel, and 1711 East Carson Street. The meeting adjourned at 11:02 AM. Consent Calendar - Approval of Minutes: The board unanimously approved the minutes of the Building Standards Board meeting held on July 10, 2025. - Staff Update – Emergency Demolition (200 Dios Amarillo Avenue, District 5): Jenny Ramirez, Code Compliance Manager, reported that an emergency demolition was conducted on July 29, 2025, for an accessory structure. No board action was required. Public Comments & Testimony - 1412 Pasadena: Property owner Gregory Sertuche stated he did not understand the proceedings and claimed he had not received proper notice of violations. San Antonio Police Officer Peña testified that the property had been the site of over 30 police calls in two years, including a murder, drug arrests, and vehicle theft. Officer Peña described the property as a prominent location for criminal activity, with children from nearby schools walking past. - 601 South Hackberry: Angela German (daughter of deceased owner) testified that she intends to repair the fire‑damaged property and move in. She stated she has contacted a licensed contractor and plans to secure funding herself. She requested time to gather documentation and complete the transfer of ownership. - 329 South San Gabriel: Carolina Lara (sister of owner Denise Lara) testified that the owner does not want to spend money on the property and is willing to transfer it to Carolina. Carolina requested additional time to complete the name change and obtain a demolition permit. - 1711 East Carson Street: Erika Smith (daughter of deceased owner Joel L. Smith) stated she and her sister have no interest in the property and want to clear the land for sale. She confirmed they will not repair the structure. Discussion Items - 1412 Pasadena – Demolition Recommendation: Code Officer Crystal Town presented photographs and inspection findings showing extensive structural decay, electrical hazards, exposed wiring, lack of smoke detectors, and unsafe living conditions. Approximately 15 cubic yards of debris had been removed, but the property remained dangerous. The board questioned the officer about gas meter placement, blocked exits, and the number of extension cords. After hearing police testimony, the board moved to demolish. - 601 South Hackberry – Repair Recommendation: Code Officer Cinthia Santana presented evidence of a 1913 residence damaged by fire in February 2024. The structure had smoke and water damage, missing siding, a collapsed porch, and deteriorated foundations. The property was vacant with utilities disconnected. The board discussed the owner’s intention to repair and noted that the owner had not yet provided a contractor’s estimate or timeline. The board voted to reprogram the case to a future date to allow the owner to gather required documentation. - 329 South San Gabriel – Demolition Recommendation: Code Officer Jaime Jasso showed photographs of severe dilapidation: collapsed roof, missing flooring, exposed foundations, and open holes inviting animals and transients. The property had no utilities and no permits. Carolina Lara requested time to complete a property transfer but could not provide a timeline. The board determined that ordering demolition would not prevent a transfer and voted to demolish within 30 days. - 1711 East Carson Street – Demolition Recommendation: Code Officer Cinthia Santana described a two‑story structure built in 1948, vacant and decaying since 1999. The building had collapsed balconies, water‑damaged interiors, open walls, and a detached garage. The structure was so unsafe that the city could not even contract for debris removal. The board moved for demolition within 30 days and requested priority assignment for contractors due to safety concerns (extreme hazard and risk of collapse onto neighboring property). Key Outcomes - 1412 Pasadena – The board unanimously voted (5‑0) to declare the property a public nuisance and order demolition within 30 days. The order also requires the property to be vacated, secured, all utilities disconnected, and all debris removed. - 601 South Hackberry – The board unanimously voted to reprogram (table) the case to the next available meeting date, allowing Angela German additional time to obtain a contractor’s estimate and provide financial documentation. Staff will work with the owner to coordinate the rescheduling. - 329 South San Gabriel – The board unanimously voted to order demolition within 30 days, with all utilities disconnected. The owner may still transfer title and self‑demolish before the city takes action. - 1711 East Carson Street – The board unanimously voted to order demolition within 30 days, with all utilities disconnected. The board also directed staff to prioritize this case for contractor assignment due to the immediate safety risk.

The San Antonio City Council convened on August 14, 2025, at 9:04 AM, with a quorum present. The meeting included a ceremonial invocation, recognition of community events, approval of consent agenda items, public hearings on property tax rates and budget, a detailed presentation of the proposed FY2026 budget, and council discussion on fiscal priorities. Consent Calendar - Items 6-15 were approved as a block (consent agenda) with the exception of Item 12B (withdrawn) and Item 9 (pulled for separate consideration). The motion passed with a vote. - Item 9: An ordinance extending the lease contract for La Villita for one year (September 2025 to August 2026) with a $9,000 deposit from the general fund. Council approved the motion. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 4 (Public Hearing on Tax Rate): Jack Finger, a resident, opposed the proposed property tax rate, arguing that the relief measures (homestead exemptions, senior freeze, etc.) are insufficient relative to rising property values. He called for a 10% tax relief and for the city to return CPS energy revenues to taxpayers. The council subsequently approved the tax rate ordinance (no increase) with a motion and second, and passed on a vote. - Item 5 (Public Hearing Dates): No one registered to speak. The ordinance setting dates and locations for two public hearings was approved without discussion. Discussion Items - FY2026 Proposed Budget Presentation: City Manager Eric Walsh presented the proposed $4.4 billion total budget, including $1.69 billion general fund. Key points: - No property tax rate increase (maintained at $0.54159 per $100 valuation). - Projected two-year deficit of $173 million, addressed through spending reductions, revenue adjustments (fee increases, CPS energy sales policy), and use of one-time funds. - Proposed 2% COLA for civilian employees, 8% for fire, and 4% for police (as per contracts). - Investments: $4.8 million for a low-barrier homeless shelter, $33 million for street/sidewalk/drainage, $24 million for affordable housing, 53 new police officers (25 patrol + 28 for substation), and two new fire squad units. - Staff reductions: 68 positions eliminated (35 filled, employees being reassigned). - Council Member Comments (in order): - Council Member Castillo-Anguiano requested a 3% COLA for employees, asked about blinking stop signs, alley funding, and increased fines for illegal dumping. - Council Member Gavito praised the budget team, supported infrastructure and public safety, and asked for clarification on the $4.8 million camp cleanup funds. - Council Member Cor thanked staff, emphasized performance measures, asked about health insurance premium increases (5% for employees), and suggested increasing fines for illegal dumping. - Council Member White supported 65 additional police officers (versus the proposed 25) and requested information on the cost of adding 65 officers. He expressed concern about the low-barrier shelter ($4.8M for 450 people ≈ $10,000/person) and urged focusing on basic services. - Council Member Mungía echoed the call for 3% COLA, supported fire squad units and street lighting, and questioned the efficiency of homeless camp sweeps, suggesting more investment in root causes. - Council Member Viagran of District 8 supported no tax increase, called for a 3% COLA, asked about fire station evaluations, and supported increased fines for illegal dumping. - Council Member Castillo emphasized coordinated efforts with the county for homeless services, support for arts and culture, and inclusion of CIP funds for sidewalks and parks. - Council Member Spears requested a demographic study of homelessness in District 9 and reiteration of CIP funding for infrastructure. - Council Member Cor supported eastern development, after-school programs, and a sidewalk plan. She expressed concern over lack of blinking stop signs and traffic enforcement. - Council Member Galvan supported arts funding and community marketing. Key Outcomes - Consent Agenda (Items 6-15, except 12B and 9): Approved on a motion with a second. (No recorded roll call split, but passed.) - Item 9 (La Villita Lease): Approved on a motion. - Item 4 (Tax Rate Ordinance): Approved (no increase, rate unchanged at $0.54159). - Item 5 (Public Hearing Dates): Approved. - Budget Direction: The council directed staff to provide additional information by Tuesday, including: - Cost analysis of adding 65 police officers (vs. the proposed 25). - Details on a 3% COLA for employees (costing $13.1 million). - Data on homeless camp sweeps, shelter occupancy, and denial rates. - A sidewalk plan and prioritized CIP funding. - Updates on the low-barrier shelter and homeless strategy. - Next Steps: Five budget work sessions will begin the week of August 18, with community meetings and a final adoption scheduled for September 18, 2025.

The San Antonio City Council meeting was called to order at 9:04 AM on August 14, 2025, with all members present except Councilmember Via Gran, who joined virtually later. The meeting began with an invocation by Arya Nayak from Am Ashram, followed by a pledge of allegiance. Councilmember Castillo recognized Central SAFE officers for their community 5K and back-to-school drive that served hundreds of SCISD students. The consent agenda (items 6-15) was approved with item 12B withdrawn and item 9 heard individually. The main focus was the presentation of the FY2026 proposed operating and capital budget, followed by discussion and votes on the tax rate and public hearing dates. Consent Calendar - Items 6-15 approved as a group, except 12B (withdrawn) and item 9 (heard individually for recusal). - Councilmember Alderete Gavito highlighted reappointments to boards and commissions, including Francis Guzman (Pre-K 4 SA), Robert Sipes (Zoning Commission), Melanie Cawthorn (Disability Access Advisory Committee), and Irene Zinmeister (Commission on Education). - Councilmember Castillo announced appointments to the Zoning Commission (John Kelly) and Zoning Board of Adjustments (Donald Orion) for District 8. Public Comments & Testimony - Jack Finger spoke on item 4 (tax rate), arguing that despite no rate increase, property tax bills have risen due to increased property values, and called for a substantial tax cut, a return of CPS energy revenue, and a sales tax rebate. He stated the average taxpayer receives "nothing decent" from the city's property tax relief programs. Discussion Items Item 3: FY2026 Proposed Budget Presentation City Manager Eric Walsh presented the $4.04 billion total budget (2.2% increase), with a $1.69 billion general fund (1.6% increase). Key points: - Tax Rate: Unchanged at 54.159 cents per $100 valuation for the 33rd consecutive year. Property tax revenue is projected to increase by only $500,000 due to a 0.86% taxable value growth (base values decreased 0.99%, new construction added 1.76%). - Deficit Reduction: The trial budget projected deficits of $21 million in FY26 and $152 million in FY27. The proposed budget balances through spending reductions ($111 million), fee increases ($12 million), CPS off-system sales ($69.2 million), and revised revenue projections ($9 million). - Employee Compensation: 2% COLA for civilian employees (down from 3% in trial budget), 8% for firefighters, 4% for police. Health insurance premiums for police and fire increase 10%. - Public Safety: 53 new police officers (28 for substation, 25 for patrol) and 12 new fire positions for two enhanced squads at stations 10 and 21. Police budget $630.6 million, fire budget $428.5 million. Public safety comprises 63.7% of general fund. - New Departments: Homeless Services and Strategy Office (under Chief Housing Officer Mark Carmona) with $4.8 million to continue the low-barrier shelter; Capital Delivery Department (188 positions, led by Mike Shannon) to focus on project delivery. - Infrastructure: $122 million for street maintenance (1,500 projects, 416 miles), $17 million for sidewalks (21 miles new, 11 miles repaired), $2 million for additional streetlights, $11.4 million for flood damage repair on Bidal Creek, Old O'Connor, and Old Grissom Road. - Affordable Housing: $30.4 million total; 13,100 units of the 28,000 goal completed or in pipeline; 47% of goal met. - Other: No solid waste fee increase; airport budget $169.4 million; hotel occupancy tax $108.7 million; delegate agencies funded through May 2026; $500,000 reduction for anticipated unspent funds. - Councilmember Comments: - Councilmember Castillo (D5): Supported 3% COLA, requested heat map for traffic citations, and supported increased fines for vacant properties. Expressed concern about encampment abatement funding and the need for permanent supportive housing. - Councilmember Alderete Gavito (D7): Supported core services, questioned the impact of 88 vacant public works positions, and requested information on adding 65 police officers instead of 25. - Councilmember Corr (D1): Requested performance-based budgeting, supported 3% COLA, and asked for data on low-barrier shelter turnaways. Requested restoration of funding for flashing stop signs and radar feedback signs. - Councilmember White (D10): Opposed low-barrier shelter funding ($4.8 million), advocated for adding 65 police officers (the full 360 plan), and called for zero-based budgeting. Emphasized spending on core services. - Councilmember Spears (D9): Wanted 100 police officers, 3% COLA, and collaboration with county. Requested economic impact data from businesses. - Councilmember Castillo Angiano (D2): Supported 3% COLA, opposed encampment sweeps, advocated for detox beds and higher wages for outreach workers. Requested pre-authorization of inner city TIRZ funds. - Councilmember Mungia (D4): Supported 3% COLA, requested timeline for return of district-specific animal care officers, and asked about SAPD Explorer program. Supported traffic calming and streetlight improvements. - Councilmember Galvan (D6): Raised concerns about homeless services budget (perceived $4 million vs. $30 million total), requested breakdown of outreach worker funding, and supported 3% COLA with a scaled approach. Supported stormwater fee adjustments and increased arts funding. - Councilmember Via Gran (D8, virtual): Supported core services, no tax increase, and 3% COLA. Requested information on mental health clinic for first responders and stakeholder involvement in federal funding tabletop exercise. - Mayor Jones: Directed staff to provide analysis of alternative COLA structures (e.g., bottom-up) and requested a tabletop exercise on potential federal funding cuts. Emphasized need for long-term fiscal sustainability. Item 9: La Vietta Lease Agreement (Recusal for Mayor) - Ordinance extending lease with B Link for one year (September 1, 2025 – August 31, 2026) with $9,348.45 revenue. Approved unanimously. Item 4: Proposed Tax Rate - Ordinance setting the maintenance and operation tax rate at 33.009 cents and debt service at 21.150 cents per $100 valuation, with no increase. Approved. Item 5: Budget and Tax Rate Public Hearing Dates - Ordinance setting dates, times, and places for two budget hearings and two tax rate hearings in September 2025. Approved. Key Outcomes - Votes: - Consent agenda (items 6-15) approved with item 12B withdrawn and item 9 heard separately. Motion carried. - Item 9 (La Vietta lease) approved unanimously. - Item 4 (tax rate) approved with no increase. Councilmember Via Gran voted yes. - Item 5 (public hearing dates) approved. Councilmember Via Gran was not present for this vote. - Directives and Next Steps: - Staff to provide analysis of a 3% COLA for civilian employees and a scaled COLA from the bottom up. - Staff to prepare information on the cost of adding 65 police officers (vs. 25) for the FY26 budget. - Staff to provide a heat map of traffic citations and data on encampment sweep costs. - Staff to develop a tabletop exercise with stakeholders on potential federal funding cuts (CDBG, HOME, etc.). - Budget work sessions begin Tuesday, August 19, 2025; town halls start August 18, 2025; final adoption on September 18, 2025. - Councilmember Castillo Angiano to send memo on pre-authorization of inner city TIRZ funds. - Councilmember Corr asked for sidewalk plan to be completed and presented. - City Manager's Report: Metro Health received two national awards; Pre-K 4 SA schools open August 18, 2025, with new South Center.

The San Antonio City Council met on August 14, 2025, at 9:04 AM, with all members present (Councilmember Via Gran attending virtually) and a quorum. The primary focus was the presentation of the proposed FY 2026 operating and capital budget by City Manager Eric Walsh, followed by council discussion on priorities, spending, and tax rates. The meeting adjourned at 12:11 PM. Consent Calendar - Items 6 through 15 were approved as a group, except Item 12B (withdrawn) and Item 9 (heard separately for recusal). No items were pulled for individual discussion. - Councilmember Alderete Gavito highlighted reappointments to boards and commissions for Districts 7 and 8, including Francis Guzman (Pre-K for SA), Robert Sipes (Zoning Commission), Melanie Cawthorn (Disability Access Advisory Committee), and Irene Zinmeister (Education Commission). - Councilmember Castillo Angiono highlighted the appointment of John Kelly to the Zoning Commission and Donald Orion to the Zoning Board of Adjustments for District 8. Public Comments & Testimony - Jack M. Finger (speaking on Item 4 – tax rate) opposed the proposed tax rate, arguing that property tax bills have increased despite the city claiming "no new taxes." He requested a 10% tax cut and the return of CPS Energy revenue or a sales tax rebate to taxpayers. Discussion Items - Item 3: Presentation of the FY 2026 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget – City Manager Eric Walsh presented the $4.04 billion overall budget (2.2% increase), with a $1.69 billion general fund (1.6% increase). The proposed tax rate remains at 54.159 cents per $100 valuation (33rd consecutive year without an increase). Key highlights: - Balancing a projected $173 million deficit over FY 2026 and 2027 through reduced spending ($111 million), fee/fine adjustments ($12 million), CPS off-system sales revenue ($69.2 million), and revised revenue projections. - 68 civilian positions reduced (35 filled); 53 new police officers added (28 for new substation, 25 for patrol); 12 new fire positions for enhanced squads. - Establishment of a Homeless Services and Strategy Department and a Capital Delivery Department. - $30.4 million for affordable housing; $122 million for street maintenance; $17 million for sidewalks; $4.8 million to continue the low barrier shelter. - 2% cost-of-living adjustment for civilian employees (down from 3% in trial budget); 8% for firefighters; 4% for police. - Councilmember Castillo requested consideration of a 3% civilian COLA, restoration of employee wellness programs (Personify), and data on traffic citation heat maps and encampment abatement costs. - Councilmember Alderete Gavito supported core services, the new homelessness department, and requested information on adding 65 instead of 25 police officers. - Councilmember Corps supported outcome-based budgeting, a 3% COLA, and requested data on the low barrier shelter turnaway rate and potential illegal dumping fine increases. - Councilmember White opposed the low barrier shelter funding ($4.8 million) and strongly advocated for funding 65 police officers (instead of 25), emphasizing public safety as the top priority. He also called for a review of delegate agency funding based on return on investment. - Councilmember Spears supported 100 police officers, a 3% COLA, and urged collaboration with the county and suburban cities to reduce redundancies. - Councilmember Castillo Angiono supported the 3% COLA but expressed concern over encampment sweeps, requesting cost data and advocating for reinvestment in integrated community safety. - Councilmember Mungia supported the 3% COLA, asked about district-specific animal care officers, and requested updates on the 60/40 patrol plan and the SAPD Explorer program. - Councilmember Galvan supported the 3% COLA but requested a detailed breakdown of the homelessness budget, expressing concern that only one outreach worker per district is insufficient. He also questioned the use of CPS policy funds and stormwater fees. - Councilmember Via Gran (virtual) supported core services, no tax increase, and requested a review of civilian compensation, illegal dumping fines, and participation in a tabletop exercise on federal funding cuts. - Mayor Jones directed staff to provide alternative scenarios for the civilian COLA (e.g., bottom-up distribution) and to conduct a tabletop exercise on federal funding cuts (CDBG, HOME, metro health grants). She also called for data on how budget changes impact vulnerable populations geographically. - Councilmember Castillo (second round) expressed support for increasing the hotel occupancy tax contribution to arts and culture, restoring CIP funding for each district, and ensuring that outreach workers receive adequate support. - Councilmember Spears (second round) requested a point-in-time heat map for homelessness in District 9, broken down by demographics (elderly, veterans). - Councilmember White (second round) expressed willingness to look into the TURS issue in District 2 and echoed support for restoring CIP funding. - Councilmember Corps (second round) requested restoration of funding for flashing stop signs and radar feedback signs ($700,000) and urged the development of a citywide sidewalk plan, noting that the current CIP process forces council members to "pick winners and losers." - Councilmember Mungia (second round) asked whether funding for the CHEST nonprofit (a homelessness service) was retained in the budget, which was confirmed. He also requested that budget survey results be used to guide departmental improvements. - Councilmember Alderete Gavito (second round) reiterated the importance of restoring CIP funding for sidewalk projects. - Councilmember Galvan (second round) supported increasing the hotel occupancy tax allocation for arts and culture and praised the ACS marketing team. Key Outcomes - Approval of Consent Agenda (Items 6-15): Approved with Item 12B withdrawn and Item 9 separated for recusal. Motion carried. - Approval of Item 9 (La Villita Lease Extension): Approved (motion and second, no public speakers). Motion carried. - Approval of Item 4 (Property Tax Rate for FY 2026): Approved, setting the rate at 54.159 cents per $100 valuation (no increase). Motion carried. - Approval of Item 5 (Setting Public Hearing Dates for Budget and Tax Rate): Approved. Motion carried. - Next Steps: Budget work sessions begin Tuesday, August 19, 2025, and continue through September 17, 2025. Town halls in each district run August 18–27, 2025. The council will adopt the final budget on September 18, 2025. - Directives: Staff will provide data on alternative COLA scenarios, a breakdown of the homelessness budget, cost per encampment sweep, traffic citation heat maps, and information on expanding police hiring to 65 officers. A tabletop exercise on federal funding cuts will be organized.

The Building Standards Board of San Antonio convened on August 14, 2025, at 9:00 AM (approximate start) to address multiple cases of dangerous and dilapidated structures. The board heard four cases, with recommendations ranging from demolition to repair, and took unanimous votes on each. A staff update noted an emergency demolition of an accessory structure at 202 Avenue following a fire. Consent Calendar - The board approved the minutes from the July 10, 2025, meeting by unanimous voice vote. Public Comments & Testimony - 1412 Pasadena: Gregory Zertucci, the property owner, stated he was unaware of most violations and had not received prior notices. San Antonio Police Officer Anthony Pena testified that the property was a hub for criminal activity, with over 30 calls for service since March 2023, including a murder in August 2024. The owner was arrested twice during inspections. - 601 South Hackberry: Angela Jarman, daughter of the deceased owner and holder of a life estate, testified that she intended to repair the family home. She had no cost estimate or documented financial proof but stated she would fund repairs from personal savings and retirement. She had not pulled permits for previous renovations. - 329 San Gabriel: Carolina Lara, sister of the owner, requested additional time to transfer title and obtain a demolition permit. She stated the owner (her sister) had no funds for repairs or demolition. - 1711 East Carson Street: Erica Smith, daughter of the deceased owner, stated she and her sister had no interest in the property and planned to sell the land. She was unaware of the condition before the hearing. Discussion Items - 1412 Pasadena: Code Officer Crystal Town presented photos showing extensive interior and exterior damage. The main structure and accessory were occupied despite no permits, with dangerous electrical setups (generator, extension cords). CPS had disconnected power due to inadequate panel. The structures lacked smoke detectors, had blocked egress, and were infested with dogs. Staff recommended demolition. - 601 South Hackberry: Code Officer Cynthia Santana presented a structure with fire damage from February 7, 2024. The roof decking was smoke-damaged, walls were charred, and the foundation was compromised. The property was unsecured (driveway open) but the house was boarded. Staff recommended repair, noting the structure was otherwise in decent condition. The board reset the case to allow the owner to gather documentation. - 329 San Gabriel: Code Officer Jaime Haso presented a structure with collapsed roof, missing walls, and foundation sinking into grade. Utilities were disconnected. Staff recommended demolition. - 1711 East Carson Street: Code Officer Cynthia Santana presented a multi-story structure with severe structural issues: detached walls, collapsing roof, and unsafe balcony. The city deemed it too dangerous for contractors to secure or abate. Sections had fallen into a neighbor's yard. Staff recommended demolition. Key Outcomes - 1412 Pasadena: Unanimous vote (5-0) to declare the property a public nuisance and order demolition within 30 days, with vacation, securing, utilities disconnected, and clearance of trash and debris. - 601 South Hackberry: Unanimous vote to reset the case to a future date, allowing Angela Jarman time to obtain a contractor’s scope of work and proof of financial ability. No demolition ordered. - 329 San Gabriel: Unanimous motion (5-0) to declare the property a public nuisance and order demolition within 30 days. The board advised Carolina Lara that she could obtain a demolition permit in the interim. - 1711 East Carson Street: Unanimous motion (5-0) to declare the property a public nuisance and order demolition within 30 days, with utilities cut. The board requested prioritization for contractors due to safety hazards. - Staff Update: An emergency demolition of an accessory structure at 202 Avenue (Council District 5) occurred on August 6, 2025, following a fire on July 29, 2025. No board action needed. - Administrative: Judy Kroom announced the reappointment of four board members: Paul Hernandez (District 7, June 12, 2025), Joel Solis (District 10), Dr. Erlinda Lopez Rodriguez (District 4), and Kayla Miranda (District 5) (all August 7, 2025).

On August 13, 2025, at 2:00 PM, the San Antonio Planning Commission met with a quorum present. The meeting included public comments, approval of the consent calendar (as amended), a contested zoning case, and an informational presentation on Uniform Development Code (UDC) amendments required by the 89th Texas Legislative Session. Commissioners President Peck and Commissioner Bustamante recused themselves from the consent calendar vote but returned for subsequent agenda items. Consent Calendar - The consent agenda (including Agenda Item 13 and other routine items) was approved as amended. The vote was unanimous among the seven commissioners present (Profit, Sánchez, García, López, Elot, Oren, Siegel). President Peck and Commissioner Bustamante recused from this vote. Public Comments & Testimony - Agenda Item 13: Three speakers addressed the commission: - Scott Day (owner of property at 1919 Florestre) expressed support, stating the existing zoning matches surrounding uses and that adjacent property owners were perplexed by the need for action. - Maria Alvarado (resident of 135 Higman) opposed the proposal, citing high crime and homeless issues in the area and stating she did not want any construction. - Nathalie Shuar (voicemail, 1840 North Tamal Street) opposed the development, arguing the proposed land use change was not appropriate given the regional center plan and that it was not the right time to discuss the concrete proposal. Discussion Items - Agenda Item 12 – Zoning Case (Amendment to Land Use Plan near San Antonio International Airport): Planning staff (Alexa Retana) presented a request to rezone properties from medium-density residential to regional commercial (C3). The applicant, Octavio Miramantes, sought C3 or C2 with special treatment to allow future office/storage uses and noted that adjacent property owners supported the change. Staff recommended an alternative: community commercial (C2) designation, which would be more consistent with the area and less intense. After discussion, commissioners debated the compatibility; Commissioner Profit supported the staff alternative. The motion to approve the staff’s alternative recommendation passed. - Agenda Item 18 – Informational Report on UDC Amendments: Staff presented changes required by state laws from the 89th Legislative Session. Key topics included: - HB 3234: County building permit exemptions (not specifically for Bexar County) allowing licensed professionals to certify compliance instead of DSD permits, with applicable state fire marshal oversight. - HB 2464: Zoning notice signs change from 2x3 to 2x4 feet; clarification that city is not required to mail notices to every property owner; and supermajority vote required for rezoning that results in more housing units if a protest is filed by 20% of property owners. - HB 2464 also regulates home occupations, prohibiting street parking of business vehicles. - SB 15: Allows subdivision of raw land (unplatted, at least 5 acres) into lots as small as 3,000 square feet without city requirement for larger lots, with flexible setback standards (front 15 ft, rear 10 ft) and height limits; cannot apply within 15,000 feet of military bases (Lackland, Randolph). - SB 840: Requires cities to permit mixed-use and multi-family development on commercial, office, or light industrial zones by right (up to 65 units/acre), including conversion of buildings vacant for at least 5 years into residential/mixed-use, with exemptions from certain street and pavement standards except in historic districts; density up to 36 units/acre state, locally 65 units/acre. Commissioners questioned impacts on existing neighborhood regulations, home occupation parking rules, utility size requirements, and third-party certification of building permits. Staff noted the laws take effect September 1, 2025, and the city plans to present formal amendments to the City Council on September 4, 2025. No action was taken. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Approved as amended (unanimous, 7–0–0). - Agenda Item 12 (Zoning Case): Motion to approve the staff’s recommended alternative (community commercial designation) passed 7–1–0. Commissioner Bustamante voted no; Commissioner López did not vote? (only 8 votes recorded). President Peck and Commissioner Bustamante returned for this vote. - Agenda Item 18 (UDC Amendments): No vote; informational only. - Meeting adjourned at 2:40 PM.

On August 13, 2025, the San Antonio City Council held a special session to discuss proposed enhancements to the Council Consideration Request (CCR) process. The mayor outlined two main changes: requiring the city manager to initial acknowledgement of receipt of draft CCRs within 24 hours, and requiring an early legal review by the city attorney before the CCR goes to the Governance Committee. The mayor argued these changes would increase efficiency, ensure accountability, and minimize legal risks to the city, especially given the evolving legal environment. She emphasized that the changes are consistent with the existing 2013 ordinance and do not grant any veto power to the city manager or attorney. Discussion Items - Mayor’s Proposal: The mayor stated that the proposed enhancements are simple: (1) have the city manager initial to confirm receipt of draft CCRs, which had not been happening consistently, and (2) provide early legal review so all council members have the benefit of legal analysis before deciding whether to sponsor a CCR. She noted that these changes are within her authority as chair of the Governance Committee and do not require a council vote, as they are supplementary to the existing ordinance. - Council Member Castillo: Argued that the proposed changes conflict with the existing CCR ordinance adopted by the council in 2024. She stated that any changes to the process should go through the full council via a vote, and that the city manager’s initialing requirement adds an unnecessary step that could be used to delay or block CCRs. She also noted that the city attorney had previously advised that the council, not the mayor, has authority to change procedural rules. - Council Member White: Provided historical context on the CCR process, noting that the 2024 ordinance was the result of extensive council deliberation and should not be altered unilaterally. He pointed out that the current ordinance requires only notification to the city manager, not written acknowledgement, and that any change to that requirement should be done by amending the ordinance through a council vote. He expressed concern about setting a precedent for future mayors to bypass the council. - Council Member Alban (Concejal Alban): Supported the current process and opposed requiring coordination with the city manager. He stated that while he values early legal review, it should be optional for council members, not mandatory. He also noted that if changes are to be made, they should be brought to a council vote. - Council Member Munguía (Concejal Mungía): Agreed that any changes to the CCR process should be discussed and approved by the full council, and suggested that the matter be referred to committee for further deliberation. - Council Member de Tagavito (Concejal de Tagavito): Raised concern about the proposal to require re-filing of CCRs from the previous council term. She argued that it would be disrespectful to council members who had invested months of work, and that existing CCRs should continue through the process. - Council Member Spears: Expressed concern that the new requirements could be used as a weapon by future mayors to slow down or block CCRs, and stated a preference for keeping the current process. - Council Member Mesa González: Asked for clarification on whether the changes would actually alter the outcome, and suggested that the council should vote on any amendments. - Council Member Cour (Concejal Cour): Supported the idea of continuing to work on existing CCRs without re-filing, and noted that the city should use tools like DocuSign to streamline the initialing process. Key Outcomes - No formal vote was taken during the session. The meeting was primarily a discussion to gather feedback. - The mayor acknowledged the council’s feedback and stated she would take it into consideration. She reiterated that the changes are intended to ensure accountability and legal risk mitigation, not to delay or block CCRs. - The council expressed broad consensus that any substantive changes to the CCR process should be made by the council as a whole through a vote on an ordinance amendment, not unilaterally by the mayor. - The city attorney (Andy) clarified that the proposed changes do not conflict with the existing ordinance, but also noted that the council has the authority to amend the ordinance at any time. - The meeting concluded with a move to executive session (closed to the public) to discuss economic development negotiations and legal matters. No further action on the CCR process was announced.

The San Antonio Planning Commission met on August 13, 2025, at 2:00 PM. The meeting included a consent agenda, public hearings, and a briefing on Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments mandated by the 89th Texas Legislative Session. The meeting adjourned at 2:40 PM. Consent Calendar - Item 13 (initially on consent but pulled for public hearing): The consent agenda was approved as amended, with a roll call vote (7-0, with Chair Peck and Commissioner Bustamante recused during that vote). The minutes were approved with an amendment. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 13 – Land Use Amendment: - Scott Day (managing partner, GRLS Partners, 1919 North Florida Street) opposed the proposed zoning change from medium density residential to regional commercial (C3). He argued the adjacent area is low/medium density residential and that San Pedro (two blocks away) is more appropriate for such zoning. - Maria Alvarado (131 Hickman) opposed the change, citing existing crime, homelessness, and traffic concerns. - Madeline Schumart (owner, 1814 North Tamal Street) submitted a voicemail opposing the land use amendment, stating the current zoning should remain until a concrete development proposal is presented. Discussion Items - Item 13 – Zoning Change Request (114 Hickman Street): - The applicant requested a plan amendment from medium density residential to regional commercial to rezone the 0.992-acre property to C3 General Commercial District. The applicant argued the change aligns with surrounding C3-zoned properties and industrial uses across the street, and that letters of consent were obtained from adjacent owners. The Zoning Commission had recommended approval for C3. - Staff's alternate recommendation was to approve community commercial instead of regional commercial, noting that C3 is not permitted under the regional commercial land use designation. - Commissioner discussion: Several commissioners supported the alternate recommendation, citing the property's size and location as unsuitable for regional commercial. Commissioner Orion noted that the adjacent church-owned R6 parcel had previously attempted rezoning but failed due to access issues. Staff confirmed the aviation department had been notified due to airport hazard overlay. - Vote: Motion to approve staff's alternate recommendation of community commercial passed 8-1 (Commissioner Bustamante dissenting). - Item 18 – UDC Amendments Briefing (Matthew, DSD): - Staff presented a 10-minute briefing on proposed UDC amendments to comply with new state laws effective September 1, 2025. Key bills discussed: - House Bill 2464: Increases size of rezoning signs (from 2x3 to 2x4 feet) and changes the protest process: if a rezoning results in more housing units, the supermajority requirement is eliminated (simple majority suffices even if 20% or more property owners object). - Senate Bill 15 (Small Lot Development): For tracts ≥5 acres with no recorded plat and zoned single-family, the city cannot require lots 3,000 sq ft. Lots ≤4,000 sq ft qualify as small lots with relaxed setbacks (front ≤15 ft, rear ≤10 ft, side 5 ft) and height up to 3 stories (30 ft). Exemptions within 3,000 ft of airports/military bases and 15,000 ft of Randolph/Lackland clear zones. - Senate Bill 840 (Multifamily/Mixed-Use): Allows multifamily on commercial, office, or light industrial zoned land (or special districts authorizing those uses). Density allowed at greater of 36 units/acre or city's highest multifamily density (65 units/acre). Adaptive reuse of buildings ≥5 years old exempt from traffic studies, utility upsizing, and design standards (except historic districts). Exemptions within 3,000 ft of military bases/airports and within 1,000 ft of heavy industrial uses. - County Exemption from Building Permits: County-owned facilities can bypass city permits if supervised by a licensed engineer/architect and comply with building codes. The city cannot inspect but may request certification letters. - Commissioner questions addressed impact on established neighborhoods (SB15 likely limited to greenfield), interpretation of single-family zoning (RM4 considered single-family), home occupation parking restrictions, coordination with SAWS on utility upsizing, and implications for existing design standards in center city. Staff noted the amendments will go to Zoning Commission on September 2 and City Council on September 4. - No action was taken on this item; it was a briefing only. Key Outcomes - Consent agenda approved as amended (7-0, with two recusals). - Item 13: Approved with staff's alternate recommendation for community commercial (8-1). - Item 18: Briefing received; no vote taken. - Meeting adjourned at 2:40 PM.

The San Antonio City Council held a special session on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, from 2:01 PM to 4:25 PM, to discuss proposed enhancements to the Council Consideration Request (CCR) process. The meeting, called by the Mayor, featured extended debate over whether the proposed changes could be implemented administratively or required a formal council vote. No action was taken; the meeting concluded with an executive session and adjournment. Discussion Items - Mayor's Opening Remarks: The Mayor outlined three enhancements to the CCR process designed to increase efficiency and reduce legal risk: (1) requiring the City Manager to initial the CCR to confirm notification, (2) obtaining an early legal review from the City Attorney within 24 hours, and (3) asking sponsors to include a one- or two-sentence statement on how the CCR relates to a core city service, especially given the upcoming difficult fiscal environment. - City Attorney's Legal Opinion: City Attorney Andy Segovia stated that the enhancements are legal, supplemental to the existing ordinance, and do not conflict with it. He emphasized that the changes are a matter of internal council prerogative and do not alter the ordinance's requirements. - Councilmember Positions: - Councilwoman Castillo (District 5) and Councilman White (District 8) argued that any changes to the CCR process must be adopted by a full council vote, citing the 2024 ordinance that set the current process. They expressed concern that unilateral changes could set a precedent for future mayors to throttle ideas. - Councilwoman Alderete Gavito (District 3) echoed that the CCR is a council tool and should not be modified without a vote. She cited her experience with a dangerous dog policy that initially faced legal hurdles but was resolved through the existing process. - Councilwoman Viagran (District 3) supported formalizing the notifications but recommended that broader changes go through committee first. - Councilwoman Core (District 7) advocated for teamwork and suggested resetting on norms rather than changing the process. She also raised the issue of CCRs left unfinished by termed-out council members, proposing a discussion on whether they should be refiled. - Councilwoman Spears (District 2) expressed concern that future mayors could weaponize the enhancements, even though she understood the spirit of the changes. She preferred to experience the current process first. - Councilman Galvan (District 4) questioned the need for changes and favored a council vote, noting that the legal environment is already considered in decision-making. - Councilman Mungia (District 6) suggested that legal issues raised might warrant an executive session discussion. - Councilwoman Meza Gonzalez (District 5) asked for clarification on the differences between the current process and the proposed enhancements, and supported a full council vote on any changes. - Councilman McKee Rodriguez (newly elected) noted that the CCR process is opaque to residents and suggested moving to an A session for a vote. He also supported the current process. - City Manager's Role: City Manager Eric White stated he is indifferent to the notification method but emphasized that the council should decide how to proceed. He noted that early notification can help identify issues (e.g., a CCR already covered in the budget). - Refiling of Unfinished CCRs: The Mayor stated that CCRs not fully actioned in the previous term must be refiled, citing respect for new council members. Several council members, including Councilwoman Alderete Gavito and Councilman White, disagreed, arguing it wastes time and disregards prior work. Councilwoman Alderete Gavito highlighted a cluster mailbox CCR that had already gone through multiple committees. - Clarifications on No Veto Power: The Mayor and City Attorney repeatedly clarified that the enhancements do not give the City Manager or City Attorney veto power over CCRs. The early legal review does not stop a CCR from moving forward; it only provides information to council members. Key Outcomes - No Action Taken: The meeting was a briefing and discussion only; no votes were taken. - Consensus for Council Vote: A majority of council members expressed that any formal changes to the CCR process should be decided by a full council vote in an A session, not through mayoral memo. - Next Steps: The Mayor will take the feedback under advisement. Councilman White suggested directing staff to draft an ordinance amendment requiring that future changes to the CCR process be made by council vote. The meeting moved into executive session at 3:50 PM to discuss economic development, real property, and legal issues, reconvened at 4:25 PM with no action, and adjourned.