San Antonio — Dozens of residents spoke Nov. 6 for and against a proposed event center on Roosevelt Avenue (item 14), which proponents say would provide space for quinceañeras, weddings and community events and opponents say could harm the Mission San José historic district if bingo or other gambling‑style games are included.

Speakers in favor described a long‑running operator and said the center would provide family‑oriented, uplifted event space. "This will be a place where families can create memories," said a supporter who identified herself as a managing operator with decades of experience. Several speakers asked the council not to delay approval and to allow the project to proceed with expected parking and operational plans.

Opponents — including Mission neighborhood residents and representatives of local stewardship groups — urged delay and stricter conditions, especially opposing any bingo/gaming operation. Rosemary Anguiano Zúñiga, a Mission resident, told the council the Mission San José district is a UNESCO‑designated historic area and said developers should avoid introducing uses that could change the character of the district. "We support responsible development, but we do not support a bingo operation that could undermine the integrity of the San José area," she said.

Youth and other speakers offered mixed views: a 12‑year‑old neighborhood resident said he supported the event center as a safe place for community activities but said he did not want a gambling space on site. Supporters and opponents both referenced nearby alternative venues and concerns about parking, traffic and noise.

Before the council took up individual items, the consent motion that included item 14 passed; the record shows the consent package was moved and approved earlier in the meeting. Members of the public were advised they could submit written materials to the record. Staff noted typical parking and noise conditions are reviewed at permitting and that any gaming activity would separately require review under state law.

The transcript records public testimony but does not show that the council added item‑specific conditions about gaming at the Nov. 6 meeting; the item was included in the consent package and the consent motion passed during the meeting.