City Council - Regular Meeting

The time is now 2.08 p.m. on Thursday, September 3rd, 2026, and the City of San Antonio Zoning and Land Use Session is called to order. The city clerk will call roll call.

Councilmember Kaur. Councilmember McHugh-Rodriguez.

Present.

Councilmember Villagran. Here. Councilmember Munguia. Present. Councilmember Castillo. Here. Councilmember Galvan. Present. Councilmember Alderete-Gavito. Present. Councilmember Mesa-Gonzalez. Present. Councilmember Speers. Here. Councilmember White. Here. Mayor Jones. Mayor Pro Tem, we have quorum.

Great, the first item is to continue cases to the September 17th, 2026 meeting. The case that we will be continuing is item number eight. Is there a motion to continue the item? We've got a motion and a second. We will be continuing this item so, oh. Oh, we do have one person to sign up to speak, but we will not be hearing the item today. So you're just going to have to save it for next week, Jack. But I've got you coming up right next. Just give me a second. So is there any council discussion on this item? If not, there's a motion and a second to continue. Item 8, please vote. I said we weren't hearing conversation because we're continuing this item. Thank you. Motion carries. All right, we will move on to the consent agenda. The following items are listed for individual considerations. Item 1, 2, 14, and 15. The remaining items are on today's agenda will be considered on the consent agenda. Do any council members wish to pull any item from the consent agenda to be heard individually? All right. Madam Clerk, is anyone signed up to speak on items remaining on the consent agenda? All right. And this is for agenda item number seven, Judas Garcia. You have three minutes, sir.

Okay, good afternoon. I would like the City Council, I would respectfully request that the proposed zoning change be denied for 829 West Harlan. We have a lot of people parking at night on the street, construction, and we've called the police a number of times and they do not remove the trailers and they said that They cannot do anything because they park temporary. The proposed development could significantly affect our property. We live at 828 West Harlan, right across the street, and the surrounding residential neighborhood through increased density, reduced privacy, traffic, parking, pressure, noise, construction activity, and added demands on local streets. Harlan is a very small street and the neighborhood uses it from 35 to get into their neighborhoods because of the school that's behind the property that's asking for the rezoning. Because our property has specific circumstances and is directly affected by 829 West Harlan Avenue, it should be evaluated separately rather than grouped with other properties. I respectfully ask the City Council to maintain the current zoning for 829 West Harlan Avenue, and if it cannot be removed from the application, I request that the rezoning be denied at this time, as it applies to our property or the appropriate protections be required, including setbacks and the parking and traffic consideration. Thank you for your time on this matter, and I ask this to be removed from the consent items. Thank you.

Thank You mr. Garcia next up is Jack finger on item number seven Pro tem other members of the council my name is Jack finger and I don't number seven. I also wish to comment on that one. I looked at the documents and I find out the proposal is for Three dwelling units over on West Harlan. Like the previous speaker mentioned, that's starting to get pretty intense. You're adding the traffic, maybe more noise from an extra resident over there, making the idea that it's harder for the people to get around that small street. I think Number seven that's no miss Castillo. That's in your district again Yeah, I think maybe you should deny this one miss Castillo because I can I can understand maybe two units, but not three so Yeah, I also like the way that I'm a mayor pro tem you denied persons who signed up to speak denied in their chance to do so earlier and

there a motion to the balance of the consent agenda we've got a motion and a second is there any council discussion on the items on the consent agenda there's so no discussion There is a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda, which are items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16. Please vote. Motion carries. All right. We will look at the remaining agenda items. These are individual. So the first we will move now to individual items. Please start with the items number one and two.

good afternoon council items one and two are a plan amendment and change of zoning amending the greater delview area community plan and the north central community plan from low density residential neighborhood commercial community commercial office and parks and open space to mixed use and rezoning from multiple zoning districts too RM4, RM4 with conditional use for a non-commercial parking lot. IDZ2 with uses permitted in C2 and RM4. IDZ2 with uses permitted in C2. Auto upholstery sales and installation completely enclosed and studio sound and recording. IDZ2 with uses permitted in C2 commercial district and three dwelling units. C1, C2, C2 and A. C2NA with conditional use for auto and light truck repair, also with conditional use for auto paint and body repair with outside storage of vehicles and parts permitted, but totally screen adjacent properties and public roadways. C2NA CD with conditional use for motor vehicle sales full service. Another C2NA with conditional use for feed, seed, and fertilizer sales. C2NA with conditional use for stone monument retail and wholesale. another with conditional use with for a vocational school with outside storage and training area permitted see to an ACD with conditional use for candy manufacturing see to an A with specific use authorization for a car wash and see to an ACD with conditional use for a home improvement center the location is generally bound by Fresno Street to the north West Hildebrand Avenue to the south and extending approximately 300 feet to the east and west of Blanco Road. Staff, zoning commission, and planning commission recommend approval with the following properties to be excluded. 82 Westwood Way number six, 820 Elmwood Drive, 823 Elmwood Drive, 826 Westwood Way 919 West Ridgewood Court 914 Pasadena Street and 819 Elmwood Drive 306 notices were mailed 10 were returned in favor 24 opposed North Central Neighborhood Association is opposed and the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association is Requesting a continuance lastly outside of the 200 foot notification boundary an additional 26 notices were returned in opposition Thank you Madam clerk I see we have seven individuals here to speak on this item that correct

If you come up as an individual, you'll be given three minutes. In a group of two, six. If you'd like to come up more than a group of two, you'll be given nine minutes. So please let us know when you're coming up if you're going to speak as an individual group or just two people. So the first one up is Jeanette Bada. Great, you'll have three minutes.

Hello, my name is Jeanette Barra and I live on 810 Elmont Drive within the area that's being affected. I respectfully, sorry, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the zoning request. Quick story, I grew up across the street where I currently live. and chose to come back because of how special the neighborhood is. There are a lot of stories like mine where there's generations of families that come back that live doors down from each other and appreciate the character of our neighborhood. I worry that the rezoning will affect this character, Not only that, but also affect the infrastructure that we already have. So increasing the density of roads, parking, utilities, people, rather than preserving what it was designated as a low density single family residential use. Excuse me. I also want to share why this matters beyond the zoning codes. So in census tracts 1906.03 and 1906.04, which encompass that area, That neighborhood home ownership is 63.4% compared to District 1, which is 47.7%, and San Antonio overall, 52.2%. I say that because that just comes to show how hard the people in my neighborhood have worked to preserve their homes, stay in those neighborhoods, and come back. We love our neighborhood. We like living there. We like the way it is as far as being a place that we can call home and being accessible still. I also want to say that only 6.7% of residents here moved in the past year compared to 16.6% in District 1 overall and compared to 17.1% in San Antonio. That also shows we like our neighborhood. We like to stay there. And there's people who want to come back, like me. I came back after college because I love where I'm at. I love the feel of the neighborhood. I know everybody across the street, everybody on my block. I met a lot of lovely neighbors who care about the area as well. So finally, I'd like to point out that while I appreciate the efforts to notify folks and notifications, though translated, were not accessible enough to be able to understand what exactly this zoning change meant for the neighborhood and what it meant for the homeowners who live there. Again, 63% is owned by homeowners. And again, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny this zoning request. Thank you for your time and attention. Thanks. Thank you.

Next up, April Maldonado. Okay, so you'll have six minutes. Julian?

Yes.

All right.

No, we're not up right now. All right.

Okay.

Good afternoon. My name is April Maldonado. I reside at 825 Westwood. I am a real estate realtor and I have been in the business for over 20 years. So this is very familiar to me. I love my area. I was born and raised in this neighborhood. My parents still live in the home that I grew up in, which is just a few blocks away. My husband and I chose to purchase our home here to put down our roots to have our child and to stay with the community that raised me. I'm here because the proposed rezoning of the Blanco Corridor Going well the RM for to our for zoning Threatens to encroach into our residential blocks. Let me be clear. We aren't asking the neighborhood to be kept low density Overcrowding would destroy the character of what makes this neighborhood special the space between the homes We want to keep the aesthetics of this and the feel of these streets. That's not an accident. I This is what drew us here and this is what keeps us here to this day. The north central community plan doesn't suggest low density. It mandates it. It explicitly prohibits encroachment into our residences. This plan was adopted by the city and was crafted with input from the community. And the rezoning of the R4 to RM4 in the Edison area directly contradicts that plan. This rezoning was brought forth by a non-resident. It was brought forth by D1. We were not consulted at the beginning stages. By the time this reached us, it had already been drawn up, as if our input did not matter. We're not against progress on Blanco. We encourage it. But we would like progress not done to us. Rather, we would like to be a part of this progress so that it is not an imposition. We deserve a seat at the table. at the beginning stages of planning, not after everything has already been decided. This was set in motion from my understanding with the city back in February. We were not notified until June once it was said and done. We ask that District One demonstrate through action, not words, that she cares what her constituent thinks and wants, as stated in her social media post when she mentioned this was going to start. Now we understand that there are a few houses the other side of Blanco which started this because the rezoning was needed in order for them to pull permits and I applaud district one for listening to them and helping those residents achieve what they needed now we're asking district one to do the same to us on this site and listen to us we are opposed to the encroachment into our residential blocks especially when we already have a street that serves as a natural buffer on our side so we have that buffer which is Papa Bear Lane Please respect it, respect us, and respect the community plan that this city had already adopted instead of trying to amend it to something that we do not wish for. I brought with me today these two boards to represent our neighbors. I did not get to talk to everybody. This was a lot for me to do. But this is, the markers show the ones that are opposed to this. Almost, it's all duplexes so you will not see anything on there because those are all rental properties. I did not get to the street of Norwood and just started Ridgewood. All the houses I have, I would say 95% of them have all been opposed.

I continue to block walk the neighborhood.

to where I could with my ability. And these represent all the people who are against. And again, I did not finish. If I had the opportunity, if we had more time, which is what we were asking during the planning and the zoning commissions, we would have had time to hear from all of the neighbors. In the Edison meeting that was held, that I did attend with District 1, where there were other residents included, one of the things that was asked and brought up is, how does this affect our taxes? both district and both city representatives stated it does not of course me being a realtor i learned this to be not necessarily true at a hundred percent so i reached out to be cat they're the ones who assess and they guided me and this is what they said does rezoning change my property value If rezoning makes the property more desirable in the market, example, from residential to mixed use, buyers may be willing to pay more, and this is when the market will rise. Now, if rezoning restricts the use, as it does currently in R4 and not RM4, now, that could keep it at bay. So I feel that the residents in the neighborhood need to have some more discussion about this. We would love to have more discussion as a neighborhood in whole with the district councilwoman to be able to see how we can come together and make our neighborhood both desirable and a place where we can still call home. Again, we are not opposed to the Blanco rezoning, but we are asking her to take into consideration, just like she did, that one constituent on the other side now to take into effect all the constituents who signed, not only turned in their forms, but also signed a petition, which I have here in front of me, that we do not want this. So I ask the council to please either deny the R4 to RM4 zoning or to at least give us a continuance to have further discussion as a neighborhood since many were not aware of what was going on. Thank you. Thank you.

next up is Lisa Talley Lisa you'll have three minutes yes ma'am my name is Lisa Talley I'm the president of North Central Neighborhood Association it was brought to my attention that the residents affected by the zoning are a are opposed to it. And so therefore, as the neighborhood, we stand with them. We also are opposed to any encroachment that goes back into from the border streets like Blanco that goes back into the residential neighborhood and changes the aesthetics of our neighborhood. Everything April said, we stand with too. We want our neighbors to be residential, not a three-story condominium. um and we are wanting to protect our property tax values as most people are middle to low income and can't afford that increase but mostly we do not want the aesthetics of our neighborhood to change so we also are opposed thank you thank you esther de leon

Esther, you will have three minutes.

Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Esther De Leon. I've got to take off these glasses. My name is Esther De Leon, living at 106 Haverhill Drive, San Antonio, Texas. Although I no longer reside in District 1, my son with his young family live at my old house, located at 715 Westwood Drive. We lived there for 39 years. I am still concerned about my old neighborhood. I am a former board member of the Edison Neighborhood Association that was established in 1999, serving in the capacity of secretary, and due to low participation, secretary and treasurer at the same time. We dissolved the association in 2016 due to low participation. It was always the same five residents, month after month. We were all or are elderly. I'm the youngest one of them all. The zoning department sought me out to participate in the rezoning case. We met in community meetings on June 11th and 18th at Edison High School. The coordinators indicated that the reason for this rezoning was because one resident wanted to sell the property and found out that the residence was zoned industrial. That's when the zoning department began checking on the zoning of all the lots on Blanco Road from Hildebrand to Fresno. At the first two meetings, the coordinators spoke only about the commercial buildings and those residence zone industrial. They never mentioned anything about changing from single residence to quad residential. I understand that the city is expecting one million people to move here by 2050, and I understand that they want to you know, fill in, you know, the dense properties. At the first zoning meeting, I asked Manuel Matu about the map indicating future residences on Papa Bear Lane, which is an alley behind the commercial buildings between the commercial buildings and Edison High School. The residences would actually be on the football field of the Edison High School in an empty lot next to the tennis courts. Those properties belong to SAISD. He told me that that was a mistake. With time after studying the proposed map, the present R1 residents are proposed to become R4, which are quadplexes. These lots are not big enough. They would have to be two and three story buildings looking on to the one story residence next door. The lots are not big enough. And they would not blend in with the neighborhood, which were all built in the late 1930s. No backyards, parking lot in the front. There would be eight vehicles in that new home. Of course, only four are allowed. But anyway, I request that you deny this case. Thank you.

Thank you, Esther. Next up is Kendra Swords.

Good afternoon. My name is Kendra Swords and I own and reside at 817 Westwood Drive in the Edison neighborhood. I'm here today to speak in opposition to the RM4 designation proposed for the lots and the homes along the Blanca corridor. I want to be clear about something upfront. I am not opposed to change. I'm not opposed to businesses coming into the corridor and I understand that cities grow and evolve. What I am opposed to is zoning designation that fundamentally undermines the character of the neighborhoods that sit just behind that corridor. The neighborhoods that make this part of San Antonio worth investing in in the first place. I grew up in the suburbs of Los Angeles and I've lived in the boroughs of New York. 17 years ago I moved to San Antonio and nine years ago I chose to buy a home here in the Edison neighborhood. a single family home in a single family neighborhood because this place offered something I couldn't find in those cities, a true sense of community. It offered stability. It offered a street where neighbors have lived for decades, where multiple generations of the same families have put down roots, where children have grown up knowing the people across the street and next door. These homes, many built in the 1940s, were designed and zoned with a purpose, to create lasting, low density residential communities where families could settle and stay. An RM4 designation changes that purpose. It allows up to four units per lot, lot sizes as small as 4,000 square feet, and building heights of 35 feet or three stories on lots that currently protect single-family homes. That's not a small adjustment. That's a fundamental shift in what these properties are for, and it devalues the investment that every family on these blocks has made over the last 80 years. The people who live in these homes didn't buy them as redevelopment opportunities. They bought them as homes for their families, for their futures, and for the long term. I chose this neighborhood because of its permanence, its people, and its history. RM4 erodes all three. So let me be direct about what I'm asking. Keep the residential lots surrounding the Blanco Corridor at their current single family designation, R4, and do not rezone them to RM4. If the goal is to bring more commercial vitality to the corridor itself, I am here for that conversation. But the homes behind it, the families behind it, the decades of investment behind it, those deserve protection, not a zoning change that treats them as future redevelopment sites. Please preserve the single family zoning on these lots. protect what was built here in the 1940s and what has been cared for by families ever since. That's the legacy this neighborhood deserves. Thank you and thank you to my neighbors for coming out today to speak as well.

Thank you, Kendra. Next up is Jack Finger.

Madam Mayor, other members of our illustrious San Antonio City Council, my name is Jack M. Finger. This particular item is in District 1. Ms. Carr, that's your district. It's about realigning a number of properties up and down Blanco Road to reflect what they are right now compared to what it was originally zoned as. Maybe that's a good idea. Maybe it isn't. At least, I'm just going by the documents to tell us more about this here. It says at least 15 people outside of the 200 foot boundaries there on each of these properties, they thought it was a bad idea. Maybe it's because they don't like the fact that there's another used car lot on the corner. Maybe where they live across the street from. Maybe they don't like the idea that the auto paint and body shop is still around. One would say, well, isn't that an improvement over perhaps an industrial proposal? Well, not necessarily. If it was another used car lot, I think I might relish to having an industrial usage on one of those given properties. No, I'd say, oh, I also noticed there's a candy manufacturing company in that area are being proposed for such. My question is, how close to the auto paint and body shop with all its smells and noises is it going to be? Yeah, I'd say, Ms. Carr, for all the reasons that the other speakers ahead of me mentioned, maybe you'd want to say no to this one. And say no to it today instead of just continuing it like another one of your colleagues has done. Thank you.

That concludes our speakers for item 1 and 2. Item numbers 1 and 2 are in District 1. Councilman Kaur is recognized to speak.

Thanks, Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you all for those that came out to speak today. Many of you have already had a chance to speak with at some of the previous engagements So as was mentioned, this actually came from a resident, Ms. Reyes, whose home was zoned as industrial but needed to be right-sized so that she could be eligible for the major-minor home rehab. And so that is how we started this process. We first, when we put the, oh, sorry. When we filed the CCR, we block walked the entire area. That was the week of February 26th. And most of the residents that we spoke to were either neutral or did not represent any opposition. We block walked just the area that was being affected at the actual specific area that we were going to rezone by obviously went to DCR process. So April 30th city council approved the resolution for the large area rezoning to begin by city council. On May 25th the DSD sent out a letter to all of the residents in the subject area and a 200 foot buffer for the upcoming project. On June 11th we had our first community meeting and June 18th we had the second community meeting. And then June 25th DSD staff actually went out and block walked the areas and then July 13th We also did open office hours. We talked to any residents that had concerns July 16th, we met with some of the folks as well July 22nd was Planning Commission heard it and then the day after my team went out again and block walked and left flyers on properties and And so and on August 3rd we met with a commercial property owner to address questions as well And then it was heard and approved by zoning Commission on August 12th. I'd like to enter this into the record this is the list of all of the residents that we've spoken to 80% of everyone that we've spoken to has expressed support or been neutral for this project. As you know, a lot of the businesses on the corridor were industrial, and so we needed to change them to commercial to right-size what they're actually doing. And then the additional RM4 option was to allow for increased density. So I know that there are some folks that are concerned about that. Right off of Blankel Road, that's a big transit road as well, close to buses. And so just a couple of questions for DSD. Some of the things, and I do want to clarify, anyone who expressed opposition, their home has been removed. And I did also offer, if you don't want your neighbor's house to be included, please tell them to ask us to remove them, and we would remove them. So no one who is in opposition is getting rezoned. Can you talk to us a little bit about RM4? What does that mean in terms of height? What are the setbacks, et cetera, when it comes to heights and things like that for RM4?

RM4 is a district that allows single-family homes. If it is at least 4,000 square feet, you can also build duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes on that property. We have a UDC amendment that restricts the height. It's the same as the single-family districts. We also adopted a UDC.

So just want to clarify it restricts the height. It does. So what is the height restriction?

35 feet.

Okay. And what does that mean for in terms of like the stories next to a single family home that might not be 35?

It would be limited to the height of the single family home districts as well.

Okay. So it is limited. I just want to clarify that RM4 means the height is still limited to what is in the single family home next to them.

That's correct.

So they wouldn't be able to just build a four-story, as expressed, a condominium? No. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Is there anything else that you would like to share about what RM4 means?

The only other thing I think worth adding is our development code was amended in our last UDC amendment cycle. If one does intend to pursue development of multiple units in RM4, they do have to be contained in a single structure. They can't be four individual 35-foot tall structures on the lot.

So you wouldn't be able to build four townhomes on a lot that's over 4,000 feet? And what if the lot is less than 4,000 feet?

If the lot is less than 4,000 square feet, you are not allowed to build more than one. You would actually have to come to development services to go through a separate entitlement process if you don't meet the minimum lot size. Okay.

So I just wanted to convey that, again, this comes back to ensuring we are creating a San Antonio where our kids can live. And all of the homes there, we're not going in and bulldozing the homes the homes will stay they are it's a beautiful neighborhood it'll stay that beautiful neighborhood if someone does decide to change to demolish a home for whatever reason they would still and if you do have to demolish a building can you tell us the process about what that looks like for a single-family home what do you have to do to

If you intend to demolish a home, you have to start with getting a demo permit that's reviewed in every instance by the Office of Historic Preservation so they can confirm that it doesn't have historic significance before you can proceed.

Okay. So there is a process, there's always an over, and there's always an opportunity. We don't expect that developers are going to come demo all of these homes?

No. We don't have any information that would indicate that's the case. Okay.

So that being said, I want to thank DSD for their work on this. They went out and block walked and talked to folks multiple times. I want to thank Cameron on my team who has worked really hard and so they've done a really great job on making sure that we were able to get to and knock on doors at least two to three times throughout this entire process. With that, I motion to approve as amended.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any council discussion on items one and two? There's no discussion on item number one and two, so we will go ahead and vote. Please vote. Motion carries. Staff, please present the next item.

Absolutely. Items 14 and 15 are a plan amendment and change of zoning amending the San Antonio International Airport vicinity land use plan from parks and open space to mixed use and rezoning the property from C3NA to C2 with specific use authorization for a fitness center or health club, gymnasium, natatorium, sport court with outdoor uses permitted at 15234 Claassen Road. staff zoning zoning commission and planning commission recommend approval with the condition that there is downward facing lighting 12 notices were mailed one was returned in favor zero opposed there is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet and finally outside of 200 feet two additional notices were returned in favor and one in opposition thank you madam clerk i see that we have two speakers signed up uh is that correct

All right, the speakers, again, you have three minutes individually, or if you come up as a group, six minutes. Douglas Welch? Will Catherine be donating her time to you? Welch? Catherine here?

Sorry.

My wife has signed up after me. I was going to be long-winded, but she's not needed. I'm going to try to keep it short.

All right.

Okay. Good afternoon, councilwomen and men. My name's Doug Welch, and I reside at 14403 Broward Mall Street in District 10. I represent the Browardwick Neighborhood Association. When the posting for this rezoning appeared, I was surprised that it wasn't another small office-warehouse combo as is prevalent along the adjoining Stahl Park. or more storage units our subdivision lies three hundred feet from the clausen road property separated only by a tree line this type of business brought many concerns the development and rezoning of this property is a special case due to its distinctiveness Carolyn McDonald, the representative for the applicant, and I have been working back and forth since early last month. We have agreed on the language and signed a restrictive government agreement to be attached to the land. This agreement addresses the outdoor play hours, noise levels, neighborhood quiet hours, and downward mod lighting. I am pleased with the agreement. However, there are traffic safety environmental issues that have not and could not be addressed at this stage of the process, not until a plat is submitted. I respectfully request that our organizations stay in the loop through this permit phase and traffic study. The property's frontage is constrained between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and the location of tributary F. Salado Creek. The channel's bridge and guardrails pinch the property to the east. There are also site planning consistencies with its design and the riparian buffer required along the adjoining COSA property. This five-acre parcel was just purchased by COSA and finalized within the last two months. That property is in the floodplain. With that, our association feels that the property's location brings a special set of constraints and design adjustments adhering to the UDC. I would like to take and acknowledge the time and efforts of Samantha Wickwire-Vegara. She is Councilman White's Deputy Chief of Staff. I appreciate her diligence and attentiveness to the members' concerns and keeping the ball rolling through the process. The surrounding terrain contains two nature parks. We ask that the applicants be mindful of their surroundings. The Browardwick Neighborhood Association does support the two-seat down zoning at this time. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Welch. This item is items 14 and 15 are in District 10. Councilman White is recognized to speak.

Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. I want to just begin by thanking the developer and then thanking the Briarwick Neighborhood Association particularly Doug and his wife and everybody that worked with us over the past Couple of months to get to a place where we could move forward and approve this today. So I do have I am gonna make a motion to approve with the following Amendments Doug mentioned some of the conditions but not also so I'm motioning to approve with the following amendments compliance with the city's noise ordinance from 9 p.m. To to 6 a.m. Outdoor music and noise will cease at 9 p.m. Business operations will move indoors at 10 p.m. And then the downward facing lighting. So that's the motion. Thank you again to Doug for the work on these conditions as well as the restrictive covenants.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any council discussions on item 14 and 15? No discussion. So there's a motion and a second to approve with conditions items 14 and 15. Please vote. Motion carries. That concludes today's zoning and land use session. The time is now 2.51 p.m. and the meeting is now adjourned.