Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Growth Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilmembers split over routing of San Antonio annexation and growth-policy review
Summary
Councilmembers debated whether the proposed review of annexation and growth-management policy should go first to Session B, the planning commission committee, or the newly formed EGR body; the committee ultimately routed the CCR for further committee/session consideration after an alternative motion drew two recorded oppositions.
Debate over where to route a proposed review of San Antonio’s annexation and growth-management policies surfaced at the Government Committee meeting on May 20.
Brigitte White, representing the Planning Department, told the committee that staff had prepared a CCR to update the city’s annexation and growth-management policy to reflect recent state-law changes and increasing development in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). "...una vez que se desarrolle la ciudad el día de hoy ha considerado consentido en 31 distritos..." White said, describing the need for minimum consent standards and annual reporting to council.
Several councilmembers argued the review should go to Session B or to the Planning/PCDC committee so the full council could later receive more robust recommendations. One councilmember warned that a policy starting in a small committee could fail procedurally if the full council later disagreed; another urged sending the CCR first to Planning so technical issues and legislative implications could be worked out.
"Para, digamos, para el diálogo y que no se detenga de manera innecesaria, yo creo que es un camino claro, porque lo van a ver el departamento de planeación," Brigitte White said, recommending planning committee review. Several colleagues agreed that starting at the committee level would produce more thorough recommendations for the council.
An alternative motion to send the CCR to the EGR body was offered and seconded; the transcript records two opposing votes to that alternative but shows the committee ultimately moved the CCR for further review under the routing it adopted (the record notes '2 opuestos'). The committee did not adopt a final policy in committee; it decided where the matter should go next for additional work.
What this means Staff will provide additional detail on legislative implications and recommended committee routing. The Planning Department was central to the discussion; councilmembers asked staff to develop a path that allows technical review and gives the full council an opportunity to weigh in before substantive legislation is proposed.
Next steps The CCR will return to committee or session as directed by the committee’s routing decision; staff were asked to coordinate with Planning and to prepare any necessary analyses of state-law implications before further action.
