Good morning.

Welcome to the Building Standards Board.

My name is Kayla Miranda, and I'm the chair.

It is 9 13 a.m.

on February 12th, 2026.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Kayla Miranda.

Here.

Joel Solis.

Present.

George Grammes Jr.

Present.

Dr.

Arlinda Lopez Rodriguez?

Here.

Yvonne Addison.

Present.

Robert Tapia.

Brett Andes.

Also present in the meeting from the City of San Antonio are Savita Ray from the City Attorney's Office and from Development Services.

Danny Legis, Code Enforcement Administrator.

Melissa Ramírez, Deputy Director, Michael Euresti, Development Services Manager.

Jenny Ramitas, Code Enforcement Manager, Melissa Garza, Administrative Assistant 2, and myself, Estorties Development Services Specialist 1.

Madam Chair, Aquorm is present.

The city in San Antonio provides interpretation services.

Can we please have that statement in Spanish?

Good morning.

The service de traduction of Espanol stand disponible durante este reunion.

The reunion is panel.

Los services de traduction stand disponibles para que ellos que se inscreven para hablar.

Gracias.

Thank you.

As previously stated, a quorum is present.

Please silence your cell phone and any device that may disrupt this public hearing.

No person shall delay or disrupt the proceedings or disobey the order of the chair.

If you wish to speak on a case, you will be allowed three minutes.

However, an owner or owner's representative will have unlimited time.

Please keep all information relevant to the property in question and the code violation.

As advised prior to this public hearing, the city will provide translation services for anyone needing assistance.

It is our understanding that you have made such arrangements as advised in your notice of hearing.

Our expectation is that you have submitted the required documents prior to this public hearing.

Your responsibility as a property owner or lienholder of a dilapidated structure case is to demonstrate the following.

Provide the required work documents.

Discuss your detailed scope of work with the cost for each item outlined in the order to bring the property into compliance to the satisfaction of the code officer.

Submit required proof of financial ability to pay for proposed work and discuss feasibility of repairs dependent upon monies at hand.

Request the amount of time needed to complete the work.

All abatements ordered by the board shall be enforced.

All work proposed must be done within code regulations with required permits prior to commencement of work.

You may obtain all permits from the Department of Development Services located at 1901, South Alamo Street, San Antonio, Texas, 78204.

If in doubt as to the process during this time, please contact the code enforcement officer.

Any owner or lienholder dis dissatisfied with the order of this board may file an appeal in civil district court within 30 days after the date that the order is mailed.

If you have any questions regarding the orders, please contact the code enforcement officer or development services staff member by phone at 210-207-5422.

Please note that it is unlawful for any persons present to solicit or pedal services regarding any property under consideration by this board during the course of this public hearing as per City Code Section 16-236.

Thank you.

So moved.

A second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

The minutes are approved.

Can we have the staff report, please?

Good morning, board members.

My name is Jenny Ramirez, Code Enforcement Manager.

I have a one item to read into the record this morning, if I may proceed.

Yes.

Structure located at 1314 Fulton Avenue was demolished as an emergency on February the 3rd of 2026 due to a fire which occurred on January 21st of 2026.

Pursuant to Chapter 6-175, no further action is needed by the board at this time.

This was in Council District 1, and it was a vacant structure as the main structure that was demolished in their before and after photos.

That does complete my report unless there's any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the first property up today is uh 2781 West Jet Road.

Good morning, board.

Good morning.

For the record, my name is Stephanie Sanchez, Dangerous Premisess Officer for the City of San Antonio Development Services Department.

The structure being presented today is located at 2781 West Jet Road, with a recommendation for demolition in accordance with City Code Article 8, Chapter 6.

This case is the first time being heard before this board.

The legal description is CB four one eight nine, P-1, P-1A, P-1B, ABS 171, parentheses, South Side Study Area 3 annexation, close parentheses.

Located in City Council District 4.

The owner on record is Philip Ross.

Excuse me, I'm sorry.

Philip M.

Ross with a mailing address of one zero zero six Hallbrook Road in San Antonio, Texas, 78218.

All notices of hearing were properly issued as required.

The following individuals are present on behalf of this case.

Contact has been made with the owner, Philip Ross, by in person and by phone.

The Office of Historic Preservation has confirmed on March 12, 2025, that the property is not eligible for historic designation.

The first inspection regarding 2781 West Jet Road was conducted on January 24th, 2025.

Original notice was billed on January 28, 2025, and the certified receipt was returned claimed on January 30th, 2025.

On March 6, 2025, a conference meeting was held with the owner, Philip Rob Ross, who was present.

On January 29, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was posted at 2781 West Jet Road.

On January 29, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was mailed to the owner, and the certified receipt is pending.

On January 20, January 14th, 2026, a warrant was executed to obtain photos that are being presented today.

At this time, no scope of work or financial proof or letter of credit or engineers report has been provided.

The following permits are noted on file, a re-roof permit that was obtained February 12, 2025.

The photos that are being presented today are a combination of dates from January 24, 2025, March 20, 2025, and January 14th of 2026.

Thank you.

So here we do have an aerial view of the property.

That is the view coming from the south, the south side.

This photo was taken on January 14th of 2026 by the SAPD Raven drone unit.

Here we do have a following photo of a drone unit from the SAPD.

This photo was taken on March 20th of 2025.

We are viewing the opposite direction towards the northwest.

From this photo, you can see towards the rear, which looks like a road is actually a trail for the El Camino Trail, as well as there is a river that passes through the Medina River.

You can also see in this photo there is a large accumulation of debris that appears to be towards the left section of the property.

This will be a following photo that was taken on January 14th of 2026.

It was also a Raven unit.

There is a main structure here with a dilapidated roof system.

Here is a following photo that was taken on March 20th of 2025 to show a clearer view of the dilapidated roof system that is present.

You see a large amount of holes in the roof system, as well as some of it starting to sag and cave in, as well as trash and debris on the exterior.

So this is the utmost front elevation that I could obtain for that structure.

You do see there is a peak gable as well as a small window just past the brush system, which you there is also items placed directly in front that I could not obtain a further better photo.

So we here we have going over to the right elevation, which is towards the east.

The exterior walls missing to include the studs and the siding.

So here is a closer view of the foundation system.

Here we have moving towards the rear of the structure.

We do have some of the missing siding as well towards the rear, as well as the wall that is listing.

Here we are going to the left elevation of said structure.

We do see some more missing siding as well as uh water damage, a deteriorated siding, as well as a tree that has split and fallen onto the structure.

This was the only doorway that I was I managed to be able to see on the property, or for this structure.

You can see that the roof system is already caving in and falling.

There is water damage, wood members, as well as some more brush and trees that are there.

Um this is the furthest I went due to the safety concerns.

And here we do have a closer view of the roof system.

You do see again the large amount of holes and the deterioration to the roof covering.

I were, I'm sorry, they were from January of uh 2025.

Um I have not been able to get any up close new updated photos due to a lot of the debris that has been placed around the around the property.

And so this was part of those items that were in the way that I could not access more recently.

So we are we are calling this accessory number one.

It is a four to five story structure.

Excuse me.

So we have the view here of the front and right elevation.

From this photo, if you look closely, the top level does have a hole and lighting that is passing through.

There is no access.

I'm sorry.

You're fine.

There is no access to the ground level floor.

Um, it has been barricaded with items that have been placed around.

So we do have a photo from the left elevation.

This photo was taken in January of last year.

Um you can see the amount of items from the previous photo to this photo that have been added to the structure.

So this is a following photo as to when items started being added, which was in March of last year.

So this is a view towards the rear where there is a lower deck towards the bottom.

This is the only time we were able to view that.

So coming forward, these are from March of last year.

There is some fire damage to the walking surface.

As well.

Towards the top of the rear of the covering above, there is some metal members that are twisting as well as you can see.

There are fire damage utility poles that are present.

There was a fire at the structure several years ago.

So here we do have a closer up towards to show further back onto the walking surfaces that are charred, the post, and then the metal framing that is also damaged.

So towards the rear, where there are the decks, there is a big drop towards the rear, which goes towards the river to Medina River.

Just to show the different levels that are present on the structure.

You can see the framework that is present.

So this photo was taken from my initial inspection.

You do see the severe damage to the walking surface of the ground level floor.

You do see the charring to the utility pose as well.

And that was this was the only time I was able to access the interior.

So here this appears to be what the foundation system is.

Here we do have a photo from an aerial view of the accessory structure that was taken on January 14th of 2024 by the SAPD Raven Drone Unit.

So here we do have the top level where you can see the walking surface.

There are pallets that are being used as flooring for the walking surface support.

As well as there is a vehicle towards uh the bottom left.

So here we do have going into the rear of the of the property of the structure.

You can see a lot where the where the decking does extend.

There is a hole also on the bottom right of the top flooring or lacking flooring.

And this is just a view towards the left elevation of the structure.

So here we do have a direct view from the top.

You can see how close Medina River is to the structure.

We do have further photos down the road that'll show the area.

Um that section is in a floodplain zone.

Here we are calling.

This is accessory number two, which consists of approximately 12 utility posts that are being connected.

Six of the posts have been attached together by metal wooden metal cross members.

Here we do have a close-up.

There is a CPS meter there, as well as some metal debris and a wood pallet adjacent to the meter box.

The panel is currently exposed.

And as of Tuesday on February, February 10th, CP has did confirm there are two active meters on the property.

So here we do have the maps, the mapping system to show that two sections of the rear of the property, a few sections of the rear of the property are within the floodplain.

The single story res the single story residential structure consisting of wood frame construction on post and beam foundation.

Both the wood foundation and wood framing are rotted and deteriorated.

The gable roof has large holes and is deteriorated and has collapsed.

The roof system is currently being supported by the interior contents.

Wood siding is missing, structure is listing and is exposed to the wildlife and elements.

Accessory number one is the four to five-story mold story structure consisting of telephone poles, sheet metal, vent piping, box slides, railroad ties, and staircases.

Foundation appears to be wood utility poles with metal beams.

Framing consists of welded metal members, no roof system and no siding are present at this time.

Evidence of the fire of evidence of a fire to the interior of the structure framing and floor and subfloor.

Several metal members are warped and twisting and show rusts, so show signs of rust.

Structure is exposed to the elements and to wildlife.

Currently, access to the interior ground level floor is restricted with materials.

Accessory number two consists of 12 utility poles, six poles which have been connected by metal cross members with attached CPS energy electrical meter and exposed electrical box with a pile of metal and wood pallet adjacent.

The structure located at 2781 West Jet Road are in violation of City Code Article 8, Chapter 6-156, subsections for the main one, two, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen.

Subsections for accessory number one, one, two, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen.

Subsections for accessory number two, twelve, and fifteen, in which any building or structure which has any or all the conditions or defects herein after described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building and a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare, provided that such conditions of defects of dilapidation, substandardness, or unfitness for human habitation.

Pose a threat or potential threat to life, health, property, or safety.

Staff recommends demolition.

This concludes my presentation of 2781 West Jet Road.

Does the board have any questions?

Madam Chair, this is Fernandis.

I'd like to ask for an executive session.

Okay.

The time is 936 on February 12th, 2026.

The Billy Sanders Board will now convene an open session.

Or no, I'm sorry.

From the open meeting, it could be an executive session to consult with legal counsel to discuss attorney client matters pursuant section 551.

The time is now 1002 a.m.

on February 12th, 2026.

Then the building standards board will now reconvene in open session.

No official action was taken in the executive session.

Questions for the code officer, please.

How it's laid out.

So here we do have the outline of the property, which is shaded in gray.

And towards the rear of that, where it does have the marks of purple is the floodplain zone.

So all the purple floodplain.

Okay.

Correct.

Will you please go to JPEG?

Hold on, I just had it here.

Uh 53.

In reference to that, where does this building sit?

So based on if we can we go to the last JPEG.

The one right after the zony.

So here closely, you know, let me grab the pointer.

I didn't see that JPEG.

I would have brought it up too.

So here we do have the satellite image.

So right here is that that one structure, the four to five story accessory structure.

Here we do have the two linings of two of the floodplain zones.

So here is the edge of the floodplain, and down here is where the end of the structure shows.

So it's kind of hard to see it on here, but where would that river be in that area right there?

So the the river runs right here.

So 30 feet.

According to JPEG 53, it's about 30 or so feet.

Um we weren't really fully able to determine because the ground level does drop directly behind there.

It was hard to set a distance from how close it is to the river.

Can we have JPEG 53?

I see the trail back there.

On the next question right here, where is the property line?

And is this in his property, the creek right there?

The river itself is not.

So um I would not be able to give you an exact line on where his property ends.

But approximately here or so.

And this portion is a floodplain.

A section of it is.

Okay.

So it kind of comes up and around.

Not that exact location, but um based on the mapping system on where it goes, it kind of peaks towards that structure, then it'll go back down towards closer towards the river and then back up again.

I didn't see it in the notes.

Could do you have a timeline of when that floodplain was put in?

I do not.

Can you go back to the floodplain map, please?

That one.

So the floodplain has been established there, um, Madam Chair, and so this is there is a portion that goes onto the property line.

This is the this is the extended floodplain.

So if there were any permits that were pulled, with that would have been a part of the review in this situation, no permits were pulled for this uh project.

But I know you can't speak for the county.

But when this was annexed in, was there a floodplain there?

We don't have anyone from public works uh stormwater here to help answer that question, but the stormwater is in existence and it has been established.

So today, again, if they were to come in and pull any permit, stormwater would be a part of the review and make the requirements applicable for whatever structure is going to be placed in the floodplain.

And to this date, none have been filed?

Not to our knowledge, no, sir.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'll turn it back.

Anyone else have questions?

I do.

This is a drill selece, yeah.

Yeah, I'm looking at uh JPEG 57.

It looks like the electrical meter box right there.

It's like very recent recent one.

It's uh radio frequency enabled.

It hasn't shown any time on that meter.

Is uh the power actually being used in this the structure?

I do not see it going anywhere on the property except for that meter.

Um in the accessory to the large structure.

Um there looks like there was a panel in there at one point or another.

Whether it's connected, I'm not sure.

I've never been able to access the interior due to the safety conditions.

But um, the owner is present here, but too, and he could speak to if the electrical box does go anywhere.

Great, because I'm I'm also looking at JPEG 56, and the bonding conductor has been disconnected on the top left.

So this is the service entry in, right?

This is your 200 ampers coming into the meter.

So I'm wondering why it's been exposed for so long, and a lot of corrosion on both of the all the exposed uh meter boxes.

The other thing was gonna ask is is there any sewer service to this property?

I do not have that information with me currently.

And regarding the grounds around the housing structure, was it ever remediated before by the city?

I mean, that's a lot of tall debris, trees.

Look like it was a tree actually built in coming through the floor of the one structure.

We've never, this is Michael, your SD development services manager.

We have not submitted a work order to clean that property.

Okay, thank you.

And to the clarifying the main structure, how many stories is that so the original main structure is the thing the one single story that the roof is dilapidated?

Um the tower or the tower looking structure.

Um I say it's approximately four to five, depending, I don't know what is considered a deck or uh a cover due to the severe deterioratedness and due to a lot of the fire damage as well.

I've not been able to determine an exact number of how many levels is on that structure.

And is there any stairways or any way to access those multiple levels?

There there are stairways with within the structure.

I guess those are metal frames stairways, okay.

And the other is we didn't see any living quarters.

Are there living quarters here?

Not that I could observe during any of my inspections where I would say would be habitable.

So there's no one living inside there now.

To my knowledge, no.

No signs.

And any signs of uh vagrants?

To my knowledge, no.

Every time I've gone to the property, I've have not seen anybody on the property except for the owner.

Okay.

I take it's not close to any other uh built buildings like schools or anything?

No, sir.

Okay, thank you.

There are two other uh neighboring um residents on on that street, as well as the the park and trailhead that is there close by so just to give them run down the park trail head.

How close is that to the structure?

So the the park trail runs behind the structure uh on the opposite side of the river of Medina River.

On the other side of the river, okay.

Thank you.

Uh uh JPEG 27 will help you out on that.

It'll show you exactly the overview.

For reference.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I just have a question.

Um in the notes it says that there was it stated uh engineer had assessed the building two years ago.

Do you have the report that demonstrates that it's a sound build building or structure?

No, ma'am.

We we have not been given anything uh to say that the structure is sound.

Um that was the owner relaying to me that he did get an engineer at one point but did not have the report.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Um our first speaker would be the owner, um Philip Ross.

Oh, you have something to add?

We do have the uh I'm sorry, it's not on my list.

Apologies, board Joshua Martinez, code enforcement supervisor for district four.

I do want to mention to the board that we do have a uh our chief uh fire department here as well to speak on any uh fire concerns that you have, as well as our chief building inspector that can also uh go into further detail regarding the structure because we did have them go out and make their assessment on the structure as well.

Okay, we'll we'll hear from them first, please.

Thank you.

Oh yeah.

Oh, yeah.

There you go.

We speak.

Morning, everyone.

Robert Westbrook, San Antonio Fire Department office of the fire marshal.

Um statement on the conditions uh constituting an unsafe structure during fire or emergency response.

A structure is considered unsafe during a fire or emergency response when conditions at the property create an immediate danger to life health or the safety of occupants and responders.

Under the 2024 International Fire Code and the City of San Antonio adopted fire and building safety standards.

A building may be deemed unsafe if any of the following conditions are present, compromised structural integrity, blocked, locked, or insufficient means of egress, inoperable or missing fire protection systems, hazardous accumulations of combustible materials, flammable liquids or debris that increases fire spread or impede emergency operations, unpermitted alterations or construction, including removed fire-rated assemblies, altered exits or unsafe electrical or mechanical work, lack of required utilities, such as electricity or water, unsafe storage practices, including obstructed access to fire department connections, gas shutoffs, or electrical panels, conditions that create imminent dangers, such as exposed wiring, leaking gas, compromised fuel systems, etc.

Any including hazardous materials.

If any of these conditions are observed during a fire emergency response, uh we generally designate it as unsafe.

We do have an unsafe policy which we are considering at this point in time.

Basically, it'll put up um a sign that would designate the property as unsafe.

And we do plan on basically placing notes in our computer aided dispatch.

So if there ever was an emergency response to that address, basically would it would say is that a um sort of be very careful and that this it does present some unsafe um hazards.

So uh basically you use due caution.

Would we would notify responding personnel?

Any questions?

This is Fred Anders.

As long as uh there was a fire there.

We saw it in the report.

Yes, did you guys ever handle the fire out there?

I do not know.

I do not have a report saying that we responded to that fire.

I'm not saying we didn't, I'm just saying I couldn't find it.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Was there any other report?

Chief.

Oh, I'm sorry, the engineer?

Yeah, chief.

Chief Building Inspector, I'm sorry.

Morning.

Good morning.

Please state your name.

Roll over send us uh chief building inspector.

Um they would did call us out there to uh assess the structure for you know to see if it was unsafe.

Um as it was stated before that the structure we weren't able to get access to the structure, but even going to um to that area, we did find that it was it was fire damaged.

Um the uh what looked like the the poles that the structure was attached to had some charring on there.

Uh there was also uh the metal structure was looked like some of it was bolted, some some of it was welded, some of it looked cracked.

Uh you know, so in that case, we would defer to an engineer.

Um, so that's the only way we would have to uh uh determine if it was safe.

We needed an engineer to to uh inspect the the safety of the of the the structure since it was steel, but um other than that that's what we couldn't really tell, and especially we if we didn't have access to the uh to the whole tower area.

Um so that's that's pretty much all we could could do at that time.

Any questions?

Any questions?

Oh go ahead.

I was just gonna ask about the foundation.

This is Joel Slace.

So look at the the melt structure supports that those are going into the ground.

The metal structures, it seemed like it was, and also the the the poles.

They looked like they were in embedded some at some point.

Like I said, we couldn't go it really up to up to it, especially because of the safety concerns.

Right.

Um, and it looked like metal was uh uh attached to those poles as well.

So you know, we we are with with all the the um debris and everything around, we couldn't really tell.

I couldn't tell how far it went in if it did or or anything like that.

Anything with the egress could you tell how many entryways exits there were it's it no yeah, because with the when we're when we went there was an access to where we were able to go on the side, but uh there was a uh a fence that was put up to stop us from entering that area, so we we couldn't go in there to see.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

This is Fred Anderson.

I'm gonna go back to what uh Mr.

Selease asked earlier on the electrical.

Did you look at the electrical to see where it went?

No, no, we I I don't do anything with the electrical.

Um that would have to be done with uh an electrical inspector.

Yeah.

So uh I had had uh not looked at the electrical.

Other than you noticed at the panel, yeah, or we noticed that the panel was there and and uh I think it was uh there was some poles in the front.

I'm not sure what uh what area that was uh in front of the to the right of the tower uh structure, there was poles and there was an electrical panel on there.

With the uh JPEG 57 had the numbers on there in order to get the numbers on a digital that means it would have to be current going through there, correct?

Uh I believe so.

I I think this at CPS said said it was it was okay, but we don't know where they go to the two other structures or this one.

Yeah, I have it.

We don't know.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Madam Chair, this is Yvonne Addison.

Uh I know they mentioned earlier there were no permits for this uh structure.

Does that include art installation permit?

Just to clarify, the question was art installation.

Is it art installation permit?

Is that something that would apply here?

Um in those situations, if there was something like art, maybe safe um at the intersection of La Soya and Commerce, that statue there, we would be looking for engineer reports to help support staff's understanding of what is being installed.

Um and at this time we don't have any of that data.

Um we have don't know what the foundation is built off of or if it's engineered, we don't know what the structure is either.

Please silence your cell phones.

And I'm sorry, this is Melissa Damita's deputy director.

Any other questions?

Um I I do have a couple questions for for the code officer, please.

So uh I just want to clarify.

I did hear you say that CPS uh confirmed two connections at the property, is that correct?

Correct.

There are two meters.

Okay, and then um were there any permits for electrical work ever?

Like in in your documentation.

The I have found three permits dating back to 2002 to 2003 for additions, windows, and a re-roof permit.

Um most recent there is one active re-roof permit currently as of from 2025.

Um prior other prior permits that I did see that were obtained in 2022, 2023 were also another reroof permit, as well as there was an application for um minor building repair.

But no electrical no.

Okay.

Um also in your notes it said that uh you walked the trails and saw people going on to the property.

It it's the very last note.

No, I believe.

Code enforcement supervisor Josh Martinez.

That was my note that I had put into the case.

Um I did walk the trail on uh this month, and did see uh uh couple people actually walking, running, exercising in the trails as well.

That is just a comment that I had put since I had observe it when I was walking the trails behind the shrub the property, which I was able to see the struck the accessory one structure from that trail.

But did you see people going on the property?

It says here that citizens were walking through and able to find debris, wood material from the property at the rear of the property that was elevated.

Not they were not walking on the property, they were just on the trail.

That's what I want to clarify.

Yes, ma'am.

I have a follow-up.

On JPEG 56 and 57 is one meter.

Where is the second meter in connection with that property?

Because this only shows one meter and a and a fuse box.

So the other meter is actually located towards about the center of the the property.

If you want to go ahead.

Uh JPEG-27 will show you the full overhead.

Can you give us a reference on where this meter is and where the second one would be?

So the first meter that is shown in to in today's presentation is located directly right here, towards the bottom right of the property line.

Okay.

Or close to the property line.

So the other meter is located somewhere amidst over here.

And they're both live, according to GPS.

Correct.

They both have active service.

Thank you.

It only shows one meter, but you talk in two meters.

There are two meters.

And then finally, is there water service?

I I don't have that information right now.

Sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

A quick follow-up for me regarding the permits that were pulled.

Were there ever any follow-up inspections done?

No, sir.

There was no inspections.

So there's just the permits were issued and no one actually inspected any of the work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we now have um the owner uh Philip M.

Ross?

Please approach the podium, state your name and city council district you reside in, or conduct business end for the record, please.

Good morning.

My name is Philip M.

Ross, and I'm the owner of the property at 2781 West Jet Road, San Antonio 78264.

Before I make my comment, uh there's a citizen observer that requested that he speak before I do, because my comment is going to be lengthy, and uh I would request that you allow Paul Burgess to make a statement.

I'll allow that.

Thank you.

Um Paul Burgess, please approach the podium, state your name and city council district you reside in, or conduct business and for the record.

Please remember that comments are limited to three minutes.

Thank you.

Can you all hear me?

Yes, I can.

My name is Paul Burgess.

I'm in District 7.

I'm a civil rights attorney.

I'm here in my individual capacity.

I do not represent Mr.

Ross.

I'm just here as a concerned citizen to address the board.

Congratulations, Kayla, on your appointment.

Thank you.

I believe that many of you are well intended.

I want to be clear on that.

But I've observed this board for about 10 years, and the constitutional violations are atrocious, so much so that a St.

Mary's constitutional law professor has written a letter to the city explaining that he assigns his students the task of watching these videos to identify constitutional violations.

There's too many for me to list out here in three minutes.

But I'm seeing a disturbing trend, and I'm concerned.

Dallas versus Stewart, 10 years ago, over 10 years ago now, the Texas Supreme Court made it very clear that administrative boards such as this does not have the judicial authority to declare a property a public nuisance for purposes of demonstration, uh demolition.

That's clear.

This board issued an order that a homeowner must sell his property within 60 days, or it would be demolished.

And that is beyond the pale.

Now today we're here, and you're going to decide what materials a junk artist is allowed to use.

And we're not that far from 1930s Germany.

Yeah, the Holocaust didn't start with gas chambers and trains.

It started with code compliance.

Jewish shopkeepers were shut down under health and safety.

And then they took their property.

We have to relocate you to your ghetto for your own safety.

Very similar to what you did last week when you ordered a citizen to sell this property.

Now today you're here to decide what material an artist can use, which is the equivalent of book burning.

This this can exist and this cannot exist.

The artist won.

There's federal protections for visual artists.

You might not understand junk art.

Okay, but that doesn't mean you can stop the artist because you don't like it, or all the materials that that become the sculpture are there.

If you went to a painter's uh workshop, you would see a mess of pain.

Well, you see a mess of junk.

I I understand that.

This junk becomes art.

So I I just I guess I'm gonna close with this.

Start thinking for yourselves.

Because the alternative is we see where this is going.

That man should not have been ordered to sell this property.

And this artist shouldn't be told what materials he can use.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Philip Ross, please approach the podium.

And Mr.

Ross, before you get beginning can you please keep your comments to the property and the code violations?

Thank you.

Okay, my name is Philip M.

Ross.

I'm the owner of the property located at 2781 West Jet Road in San Antonio, Texas, Bear County, zip code 78264.

Um moment, please.

Uh can we please remove the cap inside of the room?

Hats.

I'm in City Council District 4.

I repeat, can you remove your cap, sir, please?

I prefer to leave it on.

Legal.

Okay.

The glare in here is go ahead, sir.

Sorry.

I initially, I'm I'm gonna give you a little bit of background about my association with this property.

Uh I moved to San Antonio uh in 1977 after graduating from the University of California at Berkeley with a bachelor's degree in art, social science fields.

I came to Texas because I was drawn by what I perceived to be a much better place that was more conducive to my idea of how I wanted to live my life.

I saw opportunities in Texas that I did not see anymore in California since I was much younger.

And I left California to find opportunities and ended up here in San Antonio after traveling a lot, probably three-quarters of the way around the globe.

Uh I've been just about everywhere in this hemisphere except South America.

But I've toured the United States, driven all around Canada, the United States, and Mexico when I was in my twenties.

And after I got married, uh my wife and I took uh a road trip.

We got a two-week pass on the Greyhound bus service and went through San Antonio from New York City after going by way of Florida on to California up the West Coast and then back across Canada.

And that was before we took a three-week trip, which covered the entire Soviet Union.

We saw Moscow, Central Asia, Siberia, and then came back and moved to Texas because of all the places in the world that I've been, I decided that San Antonio was going to be our home.

I looked all around for what I considered a suitable site for the dream house that I planned to build.

And I had studied architecture in college, and I also obtained a journeyman plumbing license and also a master plumbing license in Texas after I moved here.

And that was during the time that I was in law school at St.

Mary's University School of Law in the early 1980s.

But can you please keep it to the property and the code violation?

I'm going to be speaking for about an hour if we go this slow.

I will not allow that.

You don't have any choice.

I'm not told by your city attorney that I have as much time as I need to.

You have as much night time as you need as long as you are speaking to the code violation and the structures.

I don't need it.

I don't need a history lesson, sir.

Okay.

And I also need to comment that this is not an evidentiary hearing.

You have not heard any evidence about the conditions on my property.

You've heard comments by code compliance officers, the fire department official and building inspection official, but it was not sworn testimony.

None of what you are hearing would be admissible in a court of law.

Sir, again, to the property.

However, I am prepared to submit to you a sworn statement.

Well, an unsworn statement, but is this under penalty of perjury.

I've got a sir, we have your statement.

Each of us received the copy.

Okay, good.

I've got a 17-page copy of my statement that I have made.

I have signed an unsworn declaration that is true under penalty of perjury.

I submit to you that's the only evidence you're going to hear at this hearing, and to consider in your deliberation with regard to your proposed actions against my property.

That said, when I found my home site, it's about 2.7 acres, including 600 feet of river frontage on the Medina River.

It was outside the city limits of San Antonio, about five miles outside the city limits in Bear County, where there was no zoning at that time, no requirement for building permits or construction permits other than the septic system that I installed personally myself.

It's the only one I've ever installed, and I did not have to have any reinspections for the progressive installation of that septic system.

And he said he could not criticize that because the engineer that designed the system placed it in that location.

So I constructed the septic system in 1995.

I also constructed the uh electric power facilities on the property.

Uh I have two electric meters, two water meters, and I've had those in service continuously since uh the first water and electric meter I had installed was in 1989, about the time that I bought the property.

Uh the second water and electric service were installed in 1995 after I recovered possession of the property, after the city of San Antonio condemned this property in 1990 for the then proposed Apple White Reservoir.

And I was in court for four years with the city and involved in the political process to abandon the Apple White reservoir.

In fact, I drafted the initiative ordinance that people adopted in 1990 to abandon the project.

I got my property back from the city in a settlement when the San Antonio Water System decided they had to dismiss the condemnation case against this tract of land, which was the very first tract that the city condemned for the Apple White Reservoir out of hundreds of properties that the city took.

And I was one of only two people to get my property back because I did not withdraw the award or waive my right to recover my property in the future event that the city would dismiss the case.

I am not speaking just to this board.

This is a public hearing, and I am speaking to a larger process.

You are I am no, sir.

No.

I want them to appreciate my comments to the case at hand, to the property at hand.

I have given you respect.

I asked you to give me the same.

If you're gonna deny me the opportunity to state my case, I am not denying you the opportunity to speak to this case.

I mean you're already denying me due process by even requiring me to be.

No, sir, I'm not.

To propose an ordinance to deny the question.

Please uh keep your comments to the case at hand.

When I first bought this property, there was an existing house, and you saw pictures of its dilapidated condition presently.

I do not have a drone, and I had not seen such good quality aerial photos of the roof and the condition of the structure.

A year ago, after Mr.

Martinez told me that I needed to stabilize the building.

He said if I removed the back wall that was falling down and left the three remaining walls, that that would satisfy the city that the structure was not going to fall down.

I got a permit at that time to repair the roof, but I haven't got around to finishing that job.

But it's not an act of concern of mine because the structure is being held up by the contents, which are mostly metal fixtures that came from the Walmart in New Bromfels, which I put in that building 20 years ago after I purchased those contents at the liquidation sale for the Walmart building in Fredericksburg.

Those materials are not being damaged by the condition of the building.

But I don't know if you are aware that building has value because it is still standing, even if only one wall or one corner of that building is standing, because I can build a new house and attach it to whatever can be salvaged from that building and preserve my home site for that acre parcel, which is not a conforming use to current zoning.

After the city annexed the area around my property, my zoning was established as resource protection, which allows one house for every 10 acres.

And if there had not been two residential structures on the property at that time, I would not have been able to build a house on that property without getting a variance.

So the value of that building is not its dilapidated condition.

It does not need to be torn down.

And if you order it to be demolished, you would be causing me to lose the home site opportunity that that property has that was grandfathered since before the city annexed the area.

So I'm telling you right now that not only do you not have the authority to order the demolition of that structure according to the Texas Supreme Court decision in Dallas versus Stewart in 2012, because you would be taking my property under the police power of the state without due process or just compensation.

I don't know if any of you are trained lawyers or have a jurisdictor degree.

But the appeal of your decision ordering the demolition of that structure would be in district court, and all the judge would have to consider would be whether there was substantial evidence to your decision.

Again, we need you to keep to uh the property at hand, the structure at hand.

Um you were requested several documents.

Have you brought those documents?

Uh means of financial means uh the an engineers report, a scope of work, a plan, any of those things.

If you keep interrupting me, it's gonna prolong my statement because I intend to tell you everything that I think is relevant or material to your decision.

And the legal considerations are the most important considerations.

The only thing that this board has to consider is whether or not your property is a dangerous structure and a public news.

That is all we are here to answer.

Well, and that is probably the main reason why the Texas Supreme Court said that you don't have the jurisdiction or authority of the power to order demolition, but it's not legal.

Legal.

What can I do about this?

Uh Mr.

Ross, as uh Madam Chair has stated, uh this is a board that is considering the potential threat of the structures on your property.

They are asking you, they are providing you the opportunity to provide any evidence or documents showing that the structures do not present a threat to health and safety.

It is now your role to provide legal advice to this board.

So please refrain from that.

And please respond to the board's questions as far as the structures themselves.

Did you introduce yourself?

I was introduced at the beginning, Sabita Rye for the city attorney's office.

Thank you.

I respect your comments, and I didn't interrupt you because you have a right to state your entire make your entire statement.

And thank you for prompting me.

I do have a couple of responses to questions and comments by the city fire department and the city building inspections department.

As you heard from the fire department, there is a warning or an understanding by the fire department that this property does have potential hazards to first responders, about which those responders would be warned that they need to be careful when entering my property if there is an emergency.

No trespassing, do not enter, dangerous premises.

And as a uh landowner, responsible landowner, I warn the public about any known hazards on my property.

And I stipulate that anybody that is recklessly running around or trespassing on my property is likely, although unintentionally, to get hurt because they could trip and fall, they could run into something, something could fall on them.

But as a landowner, my responsibility as a Texas property owner is only to warn trespassers about known hazards.

I don't have to make my property safe.

And I admit that the property is unsafe if the public had access to my property without trespassing or without breaking the law to come in and vandalize or burglarize my property.

And I take responsibility and I've taken action to secure the property.

There's a fence, an eight-foot fence across the entire frontage of the property.

There is fencing all the way down to the river, so and there is signage.

So anybody entering the property has been warned.

And I have not booby trapped the property or created any condition that would intentionally injure a trespasser because that is not legal.

And I'm not going to make myself liable for somebody to get hurt on my watch.

But obviously, the structures on my property, the outside storage, it's not safe for somebody that's not informed and it has no business being there.

And the public does not have access to my property.

Now code compliance got civil warrants last year and this year to enter the property, but you saw where they tested they stated they couldn't get to all parts of the property.

They couldn't inspect my junk art tower.

Because it's inaccessible.

It's set back more than a hundred feet from my property line, and there are a lot of obstacles in the way.

And if there ever was another fire on the property, and there have been a couple, but not in the last 20 years.

And there's been a flood.

But it did not damage the structure.

So I bought an excavator and an auger.

I drilled holes 12 feet deep.

I planted telephone poles that I bought from CPS, and I hung a metal framing initially from those telephone poles.

But then after the flood in 2000, I realized that I needed to uh redesign my whole structural system for that building.

And so I ran the metal all the way down to the ground and anchored it to the underground portions of the foundation, which consisted of telephone poles that are sunk 12 feet into the ground and guardrails that are attached to the base of those poles and then filled in like a terrace going down the bluff.

That building survived the 500-year flood we had in 2000.

Another flood is not going to adversely affect the remaining structure.

Neither is a fire.

After the fire approximately 20 years ago, the city had annexed the area, and I was told by co-compliance that I had 10 days in order to remove the top 20 feet of framing on the structure that they consider to be damaged beyond repair, and to get an engineer's report that I could repair the remaining structure.

I did both of those things within 10 days.

Michael Couch, a licensed professional engineer, inspected the building, looked at all the welds and all the connections and all the framing, and reported that the building was safe for my use and that it could be repaired.

Do you have that report with you, sir?

Because I previously provided to the city.

And I've been asked for another copy, and I've contacted Mike to give me another copy because I don't have the original document that he gave me, but it was filed with the city, and it satisfied the city 20 years ago.

But for some reason, in the last few years, the city has taken an unusual interest in my property.

I'm sorry, sir.

Did you say that just for clarification that the engineer looked at it 20 years ago?

Yes, after the fire that to the last fire on the property.

Okay, so an engineer has not looked at it in the last 20 years.

I didn't say that.

You said it, and you don't know.

I am asking for clarification.

When is it when is the last time that it was inspected by an engineer?

Uh informally, Michael, uh no, uh Nicholas Farroclus, believe that's his name, licensed professional engineer.

Uh inspected the property at my request.

He did not write a report, and he's not representing me, but he told me at the time that the city cannot order me to demolish that building because there's it's structurally sound, and there isn't an engineer that works for the city or could be contracted with the city that would say that that building is not structurally sound.

Uh it's Nick Faroklis, licensed professional engineer.

Um that was about two years ago.

Um I've been given uh building permits on that property in the last three years uh for making minor repairs or or replacing the roof on both structures, but the last time I went uh last year to get a roofing permit, the city told me that they could not process my application because the property had been red flagged.

So I'm not being allowed by the city to repair the issues with the property that you're claiming are grounds for its demolition.

Um I have the materials on the roof of the accessory structure of the junkyard tower, and I have other materials to repair the roof of the house, but I'm not being allowed by the city to uh do those necessary procedures in order to satisfy your requirements because you won't permit it, and I have to get a permit to repair the roof, even though I'm told by the permitting department that there are no inspections for re-roof uh jobs.

Permits required, a payment of a fee, uh, but inspections are not required.

And I haven't finished the job, so and I'm doing the work myself.

So you know it takes time, and I've got other things to do, and I do things when I can when I feel like I need to, not when somebody tells me that they want me to for no good reason.

And I would submit that your jurisdiction, if you have any in this matter, is for the health safety and welfare of the public.

And I'm telling you right now, the public does not have any interest in what I am doing with my property with regard to the allegations that you're considering to demolish the property.

There's no danger to the public that somebody's gonna get hurt by wandering onto the property as a matter of legal activity.

The only people that are on the property are myself and people that I invite to be there, that I tell to be careful and point out any hazards, and uh there haven't been any reports as long as I have owned this property of anybody getting hurt on the property.

Now I've arrested trespassers and vandal vandals and thieves on the property.

Um in fact, I've as a citizen, I've probably arrested more people for trespassing as a citizen and held them until the police showed up to take them to the magistrate than anybody else I know.

About a dozen in the last 10 years, and nobody got hurt.

And some of these burglaries and trespasses were at night in a residence where I live, and I had a gun, but I didn't have to point it at them, and nobody got hurt.

People just calmly waited for the police to show up and they went to jail.

And that's the same with this property.

Nobody has gotten hurt.

There's been no danger or incident on this property that you all need to worry about because it is secure.

About a year ago, I put up a security fence using uh security materials that I bought from Ray Ban at the uh bankruptcy uh auction they had about 10 or 15 years ago.

I bought their whole security system for the inside of the Ray Ban factory, and I erected a security fence around my junk art structure because I wanted to make sure that nobody could get in there and get hurt, including uh your co-compliance inspectors, and they told you that my security system worked, they couldn't get into the structure to inspect it.

They could only look from the outside.

They had to trespass, but they had a civil warrant to inspect.

But I don't believe that civil warrant was valid because the first time a year ago when the city came out to inspect, they brought the entire safe unit, about six officers in uniform in city vehicles with guns to meet me at the property for the purpose of executing a civil uh search warrant.

Uh I told them that I wasn't gonna help them get in the property if they wanted to come on by force that they could find their own way in.

I had a doctor's appointment that morning, and I wasn't gonna hang around.

After that uh incident, the city issued uh code compliance violation notice about the front fence on the front of the property.

They didn't like that it was other violations are not up here today.

Please keep it to this property and these violations.

Do you have any plans to make repairs?

Yes, I do have plans.

What are those plans?

I plan to re-roof both structures, and I have the materials and I have the knowledge and ability to do it.

Uh and I I'll make the time to do it, but it's not going to be accomplished within the next 30 days, and it doesn't need to be accomplished within the next 30 days because I am using all the structures on that property for my purposes, and it has no adverse impact on the public.

So I am defending and arguing for the defense of my civil rights, my property rights, and my rights to due process when I say that if you issue an order for demolition, you would be doing so unlawfully, according to the Texas Supreme Court decision in Dallas versus Stewart.

And I don't have to prove subjective intent that you are condemning.

Okay, Mr.

Ross, um according to the case.

We don't we're not gonna we're not here to discuss that.

Um is there any other plans for any of the other violations?

What other violations?

Um there were cyber code violations read into the record.

You should have received that information.

I intend to keep the uh residential structure, which is not currently being used as a residence, it's being used as a storage shed that's in the middle of my property.

Nobody can even see it from the road, and it's in a condition that is satisfactory to my purpose, which is to hold it whatever part of it is salvageable to maintain my right to build a new house on that location or to sell it to somebody and preserve the right to use that one acre that surrounds that part of that building as a residence.

That property, if you check the values of riverfront property in and around Bear County, it costs a half a million to a million dollars to buy an acre of riverfront property, and I have two potential home sites fronting 600 feet of river frontage on the Medina River, which is a navigable stream under federal law, and that's why there had to be a federal permit for the city to contemplate building the Apple White Reservoir.

That permit was lost, but the Medina River is in my view, and I've been all over the county and seen all the waterways and watersheds in the county.

It's the best home site in all of Bear County.

And unfortunately, now it's in the city limits, on the very edge of the city limits, and the city is attempting to interfere with my use and enjoyment of the property.

Mr.

Ross, I I appreciate your love for your property.

I I really do and I am the person that wants to hear public comments at all times.

But I do have to tell you again, multiple times, that it needs to be to answer the questions to the code violations, what your plan is.

And do you have an engineer's report?

You've already responded no to multiple things and have explained what your plans are.

Do you have anything to add to those questions?

Well, first of all, I submit that this is not the time when I am required to provide the requested information.

If this proceeding evolves into an action by this board that requires me to file a petition in district court, and if I don't win the case in district court and I'm back here some years and some hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense at the taxpayers expense to justify my property rights and to respond to your code compliance notices of violation, then I will re I will uh submit any proof that is necessary to show that.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Ross.

Madam Chair fixed the things that you could could we take a brief recess.

Uh yes, yes, we can.

Um you may have a seat.

Thank you.

Uh the time is now 1101 a.m.

on uh February 12, 2026.

We are going to take a five-minute recess and be back.

Okay.

All right, the time is 1106 on February 12th, 2026, and the Building Standards Board is now back in session.

Um, unless you have something to add to the scope of work or the violations or financial means, then that will be the end of your comment.

Well, if that's your decision, um I do have some further comments that will address your issues, but as a courtesy to you as individuals, trying to give you an idea of what potential uh liability you have for your decision here today.

Um as a former lawyer, I always pride myself in being fair and not trying to blindside people.

Mr.

Ross, we have legal representation, and she's already asked you not to give us legal advice.

Please, if you have a comment on the scope of work, the cost, how much time you need, or your financial means, you may comment now.

If not, please have a seat.

Well, I'm not gonna have a seat.

I'm gonna finish my statement.

No, so you weren't it's relevant to your comment is done.

Your comment is done, sir.

Beg your pardon?

Your comment is done.

Please have a seat.

Um I'm submitting my unspeakable.

We I'll have a copy of your your evidence.

Okay, and that's fine.

We all have the copy right here.

Every single one of us has a copy.

Comments that are intended to save you all a lot of personal grief.

Uh I'm sure none of you want to break the law because you're all sworn.

Uh sir, I am the chair, and I'm saying that you are done with your comment.

You may have a seat.

That is my right in a public meeting.

And I also put on the remote.

That I'm speaking as a rich junk artist, probably the most important.

Please have a seat, sir.

Junk artist in Texas.

Please have a seat, sir.

Mr.

Ross, both documents have been entered in on the record.

So those two documents as requested will be part of the record.

The chair has asked you to please have a seat.

She didn't ask me please to have a seat.

She told me that I was finished speaking and my comment was ended.

Mr.

Ross, as I stated earlier, the board has asked several times quite for you to provide information as to your scope of work, the time you need to repair.

Any evidence of financial proof to complete repairs several times at this point.

The chair has stated that the board has heard enough unless other board members have questions of you.

Otherwise, please you've been directed by the chair to take a seat unless the other board members have questions of you.

Or if you have any additional information as to the structures before the board.

Thank you for your comment.

As a junk artist, that life is a journey, it's not just a destination.

And the improvements on my property are suitable for my use.

They do not affect the public safety, health, or welfare.

And no action is required on the part of this board to interfere with my property rights or my rights to due process.

If you're looking to for a legal battle, you've come to the right place.

You're picking on the wrong person.

And what I'm doing in this hearing and what I will do for the rest of my life in court if necessary is going to be in the public interest.

That I consider to be my public service.

Is to defend the rights and liberties, which I did throughout my entire legal career to the extent that I was allowed to by the Texas Bar Association and the Texas Supreme Court.

Mr.

Us, you may do so outside of this room.

We are only here to consider the violations before us in the case before us.

Thank you for your comment.

Please have a seat.

I'm not gonna talk over you, but I will see you in court.

Are there any other witnesses?

Okay.

I I don't have you on a list.

Did you sign in?

Yes, it's okay.

Um can you come up to the podium and state your name and the city council district you reside in or conduct business in?

And you have three minutes.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rosa Johnston.

I'm here to support Mr.

Ross.

Um, as far as his property, I have gone there myself.

I just I was intrigued to find out what this was, who he was, um, Swan House, all these other properties, and I find it very intriguing.

And as a part-time, well, actually full-time um substitute teacher and also um a STEM full-time teacher as well.

Um, I believe that it's a form of creativity.

I think that it doesn't matter what really how you think art looks, it really is a creativity that one comes up with.

It's in his property, it's in his land.

I think that everybody has a landowner deserves a right to do whatever you want.

As long as you're not hurting what he is doing everything possible to make sure that nobody goes into his property.

I went there with my children.

They were in awe, brought back things, his flooring, the walls, it's just inspiring, it's creativity.

Um, if you don't know art, by all means go look at some art because honestly, this is profound, this is what everybody wants to see, and it's not for everybody, it's not open to the public.

There's enough space between the water, between the river, you know, to be protected.

I don't see why.

Why go out there and buy land?

Why go out there in 1990?

He's done this for decades, decades.

He goes out there and clean.

I go out there to help, to assist, I volunteer.

I mean, if we need time to, if it's about safety, let's make it about safety, if that is what you're concerned about.

But if you want to recognize what is art and what is safe, I mean, that's two different things.

Way too different.

I don't think with all due respect, I don't think that this is an art panel for you to decide what to do with his property.

You know, this is decades and decades of his money.

I don't think you're gonna provide the money for him to demolish this, and this hearing here is just ripping our rights.

It really is.

It's a disgrace.

It's sad.

Everybody is seeing this, and a lot of people are gonna know about this too, because this is not San Antonio.

We are San Antonio.

This is about culture, this is about creativity, this is about art.

It doesn't mean that you have to be well sophisticated and dressed up to sh present your art.

It doesn't have to be a structure.

Um this is his land.

He can build it however he pleases.

Point and simple.

And you know, I mean, what can I say?

All I'm saying is I support him and whatever he's doing.

I don't think it's wrong.

I don't think it's hurting anybody.

It has never been reported of any incidents as far as safety, because that's a concern here.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other comments?

Okay.

So uh who has a motion?

Uh Madam Chair, I have a motion.

Can you make sure John, please?

Madam Chair, I have a motion.

Okay.

I move that the property located at 2781 Westjet Road is a public nuisance, which is not feasible to re be repaired at this time as and is in violation of chapter six, Article 8, Section 156, subsections as follows.

The main one, two, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen, accessory structure number one, one, two, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen, and accessory structure number two, subsections twelve and fifteen.

I move that the property be demolished when within 30 days from the issuance of this order, uh, and uh utilities be uh terminated.

So the motion is that the property at 2781 West Road is a public nuisance, which is not feasible to be repaired, and is in violation of chapter six, Article 8, Section 156 subsections for the main one, two, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen.

The accessory structure, subsections one, two, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen, and accessory structure number two, twelve and and fifteen, and it's to be demolished in 30 days with utilities cut.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Do we have a second?

Madam Judas Fernandes, I second.

Is there any discussion?

Just a quick question.

Is there a need to have a vacate order issued on this property as well?

Um not necessarily.

But if there is somebody that does live on the property, you can't put a vacate on it.

I suggest that we do put a vacate notice on the property.

So if we could do a friendly amendment, that if if that's an amendment uh to my motion, I agree.

I second.

Okay.

So add a vacate order.

Any other discussion?

Can we have a roll call vote?

Kayla Miranda.

No.

Joel Solis.

Yes.

George Grimes Jr.

Yes.

Dr.

Linda Lopez Rodriguez?

No.

Evon Addison?

No.

Fred Andes?

Yes.

The motion is tied three to three.

Okay, so we need a new motion.

We need a new motion.

Please keep conversations on the mic.

Right now.

That's fine.

Take your time.

I guess I have a question for LIGO.

The concern is safety.

However, the resident did not provide any evidence to support that it is a sound structure.

Is there a way we can permit the time to produce an engineer's report that allows for us to determine if it's sound or reinspection from the city to assess the stability of the structure to ensure that it is safe?

I'm taking that as a two-part question.

The first is uh does the board have the ability to require an engineer's report to confirm if the structure is that the integrity is present.

So number one, yes, the board does have the ability to require an engineer's report from the owner to prove uh offer that up.

Uh the second part of your question is would the city go out to conduct an inspection to determine whether the three structures pose a threat to health and safety.

Uh that question, uh they the code enforcement officers have already been to the structure, they have inspected it, they have provided uh their inspection results to the board.

So the answer to the second is it's already been done.

And I I do want to advise the board, uh, what is before you is whether or not the three structures, the main and the two accessory structures, uh pose a threat or a potential threat to persons or property.

It is not limited to the public, it is to any persons or property on the property as well.

Which is why I asked.

I mean, so the concern is also for the property their safety for anybody that he welcomed onto this property.

So I I guess maybe I just missed the fact that the city did assess I uh maybe I just misheard it.

To me, it sounded like they could not get to the property to fully assess because of the debris, so they couldn't really tell how far the beams went and or the integrity of the structure because of limited access.

So if I misunderstood that, then I apologize.

I would uh recommend if you do have a question about the dangerous premise investigators uh inspection that uh the board does have the ability to recall that witness and answer any questions you may have as to their inspection.

Okay, then yes, please.

Uh the other guy.

Yeah, uh counsel, may I ask a question first before we go there?

Since that motion is done, we can now legally recall based off the charter, correct?

Uh under Robert's rules, the motion was tied, therefore it failed.

So if a uh board member still has uh additional questions to assist in the making of a new motion, then yes, you can ask for uh you can ask specific questions to assist the board in making its decision.

Okay, yeah, it was uh supervisor martinez.

Sir, the board is asking questions, sir.

I'm sorry, the board is asking questions to the staff at some point in time if they have a question for you, they will call you to the podium.

At this point, they're asking staff.

If you don't have can you please have a seat?

We're gonna continue with the we're gonna continue with the meeting, sir.

Go ahead and have a seat.

And I'm observing Mr.

Andes.

Sir, that wasn't that wasn't me.

If you can please have a seat, sir.

I would appreciate it.

Thank you, Ms.

Russ.

Um you do not have the ability to uh request a point of order that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board.

Um please have a seat while the officer uh answers the questions.

And for the record, she was asking the supervisor's name.

That's what I was telling her.

Uh just members, please keep your conversations and questions on the mic.

That way there is no confusion.

Thank you.

I apologize.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Officer Martinez, were you able to assess the stability of the structure?

Joshua Martinez Code Enforcement Supervisor for District 4.

I did go out there on the initial inspection and walk the entire property when I was where I was able to.

It was very difficult due to the amount of debris on the property.

The main structure, the item, the structure that we're identifying as the main structure was also very difficult to get go into or get super close to it to really look at everything, but from the photos that Officer Sanchez did take, it does show that the structure is is a dilapidated roof systems also um has collapsed in certain areas, deteriorated, rotted, as well as uh the walls where there's some parts of the structure where it's missing walls, and you can see items inside of the main structure where it appears to be holding what remains of the roof system for that main.

The accessory number two, we weren't able, my concern walking into that structure was I wasn't sure how safe it was.

So we only stayed from the outside.

As the we went on further for multiple other inspections, um the owner, Mr.

Ross did put up some walls to prevent us from going into the structure.

So when we had our chief building inspector go make the assessment as well, we weren't able to really go further into it, but again, due to the safety, we were staying at um on the outside of the structure as well, because we were unsure because of some of the items that we saw where we saw some welding, that appeared there's some bolts missing, there's some twisting in the metal frames, which again we were unsure on the the safety of that structure.

And then accessory number two will their utility polls, so we're able just to get as close as we were.

Again, there was some debris near it to get the photos for that as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I don't know on the mic madam chair.

Uh just to remind the board uh motion needs to be on the table before there's any discussion to be had some willing to make a motion.

Can we put up um the main number one image of the main so we know which one we're talking about?

What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna break this apart into three is that the picture you're looking for, sir.

Is that the picture you're looking for, sir?

Yes, this is the main structure.

Thank you.

So in regards to the main structure, I move that the property located at 2781 West Jet Road is the public nuisance for City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6-157, which is not feasible to be repaired at this time and is in violation of City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6156 specifically, sections one, two, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen.

Also be provided, and to cut off both water and electricity services.

So the motion is that the property at one uh two seven eight one West Jet Road, main structure only, is a public nuisance and not feasible for repair, and is in violation of chapter six, Article 8, Section 156, uh, subsections one, two, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen, and it's to be demolished within thirty days.

Uh utilities cut and a notice to be key uh issued.

Do we have a second?

Point of order.

Council, can we divide that like that without making it on the other two pieces too, since it all came to us in one case?

Yes, we can.

It is up to uh Mr.

Solis who made the motion.

So are you also going to be adding orders related to accessory one and accessory two?

Yes, I will be.

So just taking this one structure at a time.

And just make sure that we know which structure we're talking about.

Yes, that's fine.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Okay, discussion.

No discussion.

Let's do roll call vote.

Okay, Lamaranda.

Yes.

Joelle Solis?

Yes.

George Grimes Jr.

Yes.

Dr.

Linda Lopez Rodriguez?

Yes.

Yvonne Addison?

Yes.

Fred Andis?

Yes.

Motion passes with a vote of six to zero.

Our next motion.

And just for clarity, can we pull up uh the accessory structures?

Okay.

Uh this is Joel Sleeza.

I have a motion.

Okay.

I move that the property located at 2781 West Jet Road regarding the accessory.

Residential building, which is being shown.

Is the public nuisance for City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Adam Chair?

I'm sorry, is that you identify uh which access do you mean accessory one or accessory two?

I'm looking at the report and it only clarifies as accessory, the multi-story tower.

Stephanie, can you clarify?

Mr.

Solis, this is the accessory one that is on the screen.

Yes, that's the one we're talking about.

I'm just looking at the paperwork.

The report calls it accessory multi-story tower, which we're calling accessory one.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

So I move that the property located at 2781 West Jet Road.

Accessory structure number one is the public nuisance for City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6-157, which is not feasible to be repaired at this time and is in violation of City Code Chapter 6, Section 8, I mean Article 8, Section 6-156 specifically.

I mean Article 8, Section 6-156 specifically.

Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18.

I move that the property be demolished within 30 days from the issuance of this order.

Okay.

So the motion is uh for the property at 20 uh 278 West Jet Road Accessory Number 1.

Uh is a public nuisance and is not feasible to repair.

Um in violation of Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 156, subsections 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18.

Uh, and to be demolished in 30 days.

Uh I'm sorry, did you say utilities as well?

We've already done that in the first motion.

Okay.

All right.

So and to be demolished within 30 days.

Is there a second?

Madam Chair, I second, and I have a friendly since it was been stated earlier that that is powered by a separate source.

Would you accept uh cut utilities as well?

Yes, I would.

So I'll be happy to amend the motion to include since I second it.

Disconnect utilities.

Okay, so uh we have added this uh disconnecting the utilities on the accessory number one.

Is there any discussion?

I would just like to say that this is one of the structures I would like to see an engineer's report on.

Um I really feel that that information is lacking, and it's something that I need per as an individual.

I would echo that.

Well, this is uh Joel Sleece.

I would just add that we had the fire marshal's report saying that the structure has been deemed dangerous.

We heard from one of the witnesses that they've allowed children to go onto that structure and look at the flooring.

This actually poses uh eminent danger, and I think that's one of our main responsibilities here is to address danger, and this is a dangerous structure.

My understanding from um Supervisor Martinez was he couldn't get close enough.

He deemed it, and that's observ that's by observation, not necessarily assessing the stability of the structure.

So I would like to see an engineer's report as well.

My understanding is when the chief engineer, is that his title?

No.

No.

The chief inspector, when he was out there, the one from the city had looked at it and did deem it the same thing as a as a bad structure.

But he didn't um provide any testing on the materials.

He was not able to get close enough and or is just by observing the building.

There's been no incidences on the property.

So I would like to see an engineer's report that just clarifies or verifies the city's um claim on the unsafe for accessory number one.

I I also agree with that, and I also agree that art is in the eye of the beholder.

You know, I'm district five.

We have some very interesting pieces in yards, and they would also fall under the category of not beautiful to some people.

So I I just I I want to know the level of danger if this structure is going to come down, uh, if it's repairable, like I I would like that information, and I have not received that information.

Let's do a roll call vote.

Kayla Miranda.

No.

Joel Solis?

Yes.

George Grimes Jr.

Yes.

Dr.

Arlenda Lopez Rodriguez?

No.

Yvonne Addison?

No.

Fred Andes?

Yes.

Motion is tied three to three.

Okay, so do we have another motion?

Council, can we go to the third, or do we have to resolve this one?

Since this one is a at a stalemate, can we go to the uh accessory two, or do we have to wait on this one?

Since this is uh Mr.

Solisa's motion, it's up to him if he wants to move to accessory two or uh stay on this, but the entire motion needs to be addressed before uh any other motion is presented.

Certainly, let's go ahead and go on to the accessory number two.

Can we see that on the screen, please?

Thank you for putting that back up.

This is Joel Slace.

I moved to the property located at 2781 West Jet Road, accessory number two as a public nuisance for City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6-157, which is not feasible to repair at this time and is in violation of City Code Chapter 6.

Article 8, Section 6-156, specifically sections 12 and 15.

I recommend that the property be demolished within 30 days and the electrical utilities be disconnected.

Okay, the motion is uh for it the property at twenty two seven eight one west jet uh accessory number two.

Um that the property is a public nuisance and not feasible for repair, and is in violation of chapter six, article eight, section one five six, subsections twelve and fifteen, and it's to be demolished in thirty days and utilities cut.

Is there a second?

I second.

Okay.

We are talking about the property or the structure we're looking at.

I said accessory two accessories.

Right.

Well no, the property located at 2781 West Jet Accessory Number Two.

Yes, thank you.

So our second uh was Erlinda?

Okay.

Any discussion.

Let's have a roll call vote.

Kayla Miranda?

Yes.

Joelle Solis?

Yes.

George Grimes Jr.

Yes.

Dr.

Linda Lopez Rodriguez?

Yes.

Evon Addison?

Yes.

Fred Andis?

Yes.

Motion passes with a vote of six to zero.

Okay, let's go back to accessory number two.

I'm sorry, the accessory number one, that's correct.

And if we can put the picture back to accessory number one, please.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, uh, may I ask for an executive session to discuss attorney uh yes legal matters?

Yeah, my little script here.

Um the time is now uh 1142 a.m.

on February twelfth, twenty twenty-six.

The building standards board will recess from open meeting and convene in an executive session to consult with uh legal counsel to discuss attorney client matters pursuant section five five one dot zero seven one and of the Texas government code code.

The time is twelve oh six p.m.

on uh February twelfth, twenty twenty-six the building standards board will now reconvene in open session.

No official action was taken in executive session, Madam Chair.

This is Fred Andis.

Uh can I recall two witnesses?

Yes.

Uh I'd like the first witness to be the uh chief inspector for the city or for uh DSD please.

Sir, I'm gonna ask you a few questions if uh we can go to JPEG 45.

Will they look at the groundwork?

On your assessment, you would not able to get on the structure, is that correct?

No, sir.

Do you need to be on a structure to make a visual assessment?

Um we can make a visual assessment, uh, but to get on the structure, I mean that we would have to make a visual assessment to even want to get on the structure to see if it was safe enough to even have anybody go to do an assessment right uh on that property or on that on that level.

Um at that time we couldn't tell, you know, if it was safe to get on it or where access was uh on that on that building or tower.

Now you made plenty of other inspections where you uh particularly houses and stuff where you could not make in the premises but still made an assessment, is that correct?

We'll keep it to this property.

Keep it to this property, please.

Okay.

On this structure here, viewing what you have here, these would you please describe what these are right here?

It would seem like it's some sort of uh metal.

I uh I don't know, it wouldn't be considered joist or or uh floor joys.

It's it's some some type of metal.

Uh I couldn't.

How about guardrail from a road side?

Is that what that is?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I see what you're saying now.

Now is that a legal structure feature in a building?

No, sir.

Was it made designed to go straight up and down for guardrail purposes, correct?

On highways?

Right.

If if they wanted to uh repurpose uh another sort of material as a different type of construction uh component, uh like I said before, that would require an engineer to approve that uh that that uh application.

Engineer support would probably be necessary for that, correct?

Yes, sir.

Based off the bottom of that, that's a metal sheet, if I'm not mistaken, correct?

A metal sheet on the if you look right here, there's an opening right there, and that's uh piece of metal.

And then it looks like wood on top or another decking.

Yeah.

Yes, it's like rusted metal.

It's not uh weather coated?

I don't believe so.

Uh what would I can tell from the picture?

So most of the structure that you could observe from standing on the ground, as that one looks like it's welded at that joint, no bolts.

Uh there were some areas that were welded, some some areas that were bolted.

Um we couldn't again uh when we go do the inspection if it's welded or bolted or anything, we defer to the engineer.

Um especially because we don't we don't know this the the um how it was welded, the uh the amount of you know it was connected.

Uh there's no way to tell from from the ground.

So that's why we said hey, we uh if we if we're gonna assess this, we really need engineers letter because there's there's no way to do it from that just visual.

Now this would be considered a deck, is that correct?

Um depends.

I mean it it could be considered a deck if it there was access, if it was stairs and they could you know get up there, but we didn't we we weren't able to get up there to look.

And this right here is a railing.

That's not city code railing for exterior, correct?

No, sir.

Thank you.

Um at this time.

You wanted to call another witness?

Yes, I'd like to recall uh Robert Westbook.

You are yes, sir.

You are let me ask you straight out.

You don't need to be on a structure to do a visual inspection.

Is that correct?

For safety purposes?

For safety purposes.

For safety purposes, our determination that this was an unsafe structure was based upon the photos one and the uh Raven video.

That's how we determine it.

Um we did ask the question if this was in any way um built according to any code or any standard, and DSD said to their knowledge there was no standard that it was built to for that perspective, from our perspective, San Antonio Fire Department.

We were like, we cannot put our guys in harm's way, knowing that it was just built in sort of a in a manner that was inconsistent or maybe or you know it wasn't it didn't meet any standards, right?

That we were aware of.

So how then we put our guys you know in the line of yeah?

You put and you probably yourself has gone on structures that have adequate roofing supports?

Yes.

And decking supports?

Yes.

Would you consider those adequate decking supports?

That's guardrail from a road that you would see on the highway.

If I can reframe the question, would I, as a division chief, put my uh seeing seeing as that, would you allow you?

Let me put it to you, not your people.

Would you it is safety concern climb on that to put a fire out if it was a park?

No.

Thank you.

In your current position, what would you be looking for in an engineering report in order to be able to declare there's a safe structure?

From an engineer, I would just prefer that an engineer's his stamp of approval on it.

I wouldn't from my standpoint.

I'm a firefighter.

Um I have credentials as an inspector.

Um, but I just need an engineer or someone to say that this is solid structure.

That's what I'm looking for.

If somebody else can verify that one and put their name and I guess, you know, stamp of approval on it, that's perfectly fine with me.

But we don't have that right now.

So it would be just to clarify it.

Either come up with the determination that it's a solid structure or that it's feasible to be repaired.

Would we add that?

Is the solid structure?

Make sure that it is a solid structure or get it or get it back to being a solid structure since it's not built to any standard.

Yeah, that's just a clarification.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, I'm ready to take a motion.

Uh provide a motion.

Okay.

I move that the property located at 2781 West Jet Road is a public nuisance which is feasible to be repaired at this time and is in violation of Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 156, number one, two, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, eighteen.

I move that uh engineers report be obtained within 30 days of the issuance of this order.

Okay.

Uh I'm going to repeat that uh just for clarity purposes.

Um the motion is to reset uh the property at 2781 West Jet Road Accessory 1.

Correct.

To reset it uh and to obtain an engineers report within 30 days.

Obtain an engineer's report within 30 days.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Madam Chair, yes.

Could you clarify obtain is vague?

Do you want the report presented?

I was going to add a friendly amendment and then that once we had a second.

Is there a second?

I'll go ahead and second.

This is Joel Sleece.

Okay.

So we have a second.

And my friendly amendment, uh, as legal said, um, what I would like to see is a current sealed stamped engineer's report.

For accessory number one.

And I would like to see a repair plan to ensure that the property is up to code.

I second.

Well, that it's your motion.

So I'll be happy to second as well.

Okay.

So it's accepted.

Correct.

Yes.

All right.

Let's do a real call vote.

Uh oh.

Well, we usually saw I wanted to ask Council, since this a we're not sure where that one power goes from the uh accessory two in the area of where this is at, and I'm not sure if it does look like it has electrical pipes in it.

Can we order the cutting of utilities or since we're resetting or no?

Uh that is up to the board.

Uh you can choose to add that to the motion or leave it as is since it is being reset, if that is uh what the ultimate order will be.

Then I uh add a friendly amendment to cut power if it does go to that.

I'm sorry, if if if what?

If if the we're not nobody knows where that power goes, and there is pipes in there of electrical, so I want to make sure since we cut it at you uh accessory two that we cut it here too.

Okay.

As a friendly amendment.

So you're friendly and then I'd cut utilities.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh and do you accept that?

I will accept it as well.

Okay.

Okay.

So just for clarity, one more time.

We are resetting.

Uh the or the order is to reset um to the next available date.

Uh the accessory building at 2781 West Jet Road Accessory Number One.

And for the owner to be required to provide the code officer with a current engineer's report that is stamped.

And uh a repair plan or a scope of work to get it up to code.

And we are cutting utilities.

That is correct.

Yes.

Okay.

Now can we do a roll call?

Kayla Miranda.

Yes.

Joelle Solis?

Yes.

George Grimes Jr.

No.

Dr.

Arlinda Lopez Rodriguez?

Yes.

Evan Addison?

Yes.

Fred Andis?

Yes.

Motion passes with the vote of 521.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Um get with the code officer uh for instructions.

Our next property is going to be uh 315.

I'm gonna butcher that name.

How do we say that name?

Coyo.

Coyle.

Coyle Street.

Yeah.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I'm uh I'm talking it.

We're debating whether what it sounds like.

Um do you actually know the street name?

Uh good afternoon, board.

Uh for the record, my name is Jaime Hassel, Dangerous Premise Officer for the City of San Antonio's Development Services.

Uh the street is Coyol.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um again, for the record, my name is Hyman Hasso, Dangerous Premise Officer for the City of San Antonio Development Services Department.

The structure being presented today is located at 315 Coyol Street with a recommendation for demolition in accordance with City Code Article 8, Chapter 6.

This is the first time this property is being heard before this board.

The legal description is NCB 8321, Block 11, lot 96 and 97 located in City Council District 5.

The owner on record is Foster Elizabeth with a mailing address of 4472 Klein Meadows, New Brownfolds, Texas, 78130.

All notices of hearing were properly issued as required.

And the following individual is present, Miss Elizabeth Foster.

Does the board wish to proceed?

Yes.

The Office of Historic Preservation has confirmed on January 21st, 2025, that the property is not eligible for historic designation.

The following is a timeline of events regarding the notification process.

The first inspection regarding uh 315 Coyle Street was conducted on May 15th, 2024.

The original notice was mailed on May 20th, 2024, and the certified receipt was returned undelivered.

On September 22nd, 2025, ownership per the Bear County appraisal district did change.

Notice was mailed to the new owner on September 24th, 2025, and a certified receipt has not been returned.

On January 20th, 2026, a pre-board conference was held in 1901 South Alamo.

No owner or interested party attended.

On January 29th, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was mailed to the owner.

And on January 29, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was posted at 315 Coyle Street.

As of February 12, 2026, no scope of work or financial proof or letter of credit or engineers report has been provided, and there are no active permits on file and no repair applications submitted.

It has been verified with CPS and SAUS that there are no active services on the property.

The photos that are being provided for today's presentation were taken on January 14th and February 9th, 2026.

I don't have the record of it.

There is fire damage to the front entrance, and the also the steps that are leading up to that front entrance are detaching from the structure and will be more visible in another photo.

Here in this photo, you can see the right elevation of the structure.

This is a pier and beam foundation.

Here you can see that there is uh exposed uh wood members on the roof line that are weather damaged.

This is a rear elevation of the structure.

Again, you can see that there is no uh roof covering.

Uh the exposed wood members are uh damaged uh from the fire and from the weather exposure, and the property is uh does have some debris in the rear.

This is the left elevation of the structure as seen from the rear.

Here you can see that there is some small uh fire damage that's visible from the attic vent, of course, from the lack of a roof.

Uh that area is also uh weather damaged.

Uh make an entry from the right-hand side uh from the right elevation of the door.

Here you can see that the uh steps are or that deck is uh weather damage, lacking weather protection.

Uh there is debris in the interior visible in this photo.

Uh going inside, you can see natural light that is entering from the structure.

Uh there is debris uh and some uh dry wall that is plastered on the front on the ground.

Looking towards the rear of the structure, you can see that there are is a hole present that'll be more visible in another photo.

There is a damage to the wood members and the exposed studs.

Uh here is that hole that was mentioned on um in the previous photo.

Uh you can see that there is uh debris that is falling in.

There is grade visible, uh, the floor covering is damaged, and there's more uh weather damage to the exposed wood members.

Uh looking further into the structure on the towards the left elevation.

Uh, here you can see that there is some uh listing of the wood members towards the right of that photo.

Here looking at the roof structure, you can see some charring to the roof rafters and joists.

Uh, there is some sagging visible.

Uh looking towards the front entrance.

Here you can see the majority of the fire damage.

There is some decking that remains.

Uh it's also holes present and fire damage.

There is some um sagging to those ceiling joists.

Uh moving further into the structure, I can see more damage to the floor covering and more debris that is present.

Again, looking up into the roof structure, more uh charred met wood members and more sagging that is visible to those ceiling joists.

Uh, this is an attached accessory room uh appears to be like a laundry room.

Here you can see that some of this deck is detaching from the structure.

Uh looking into the interior, there is debris from the decking that has collapsed to into the interior, and there is natural light that is entering.

Uh looking up into the roof structure, you can see the exposed electrical lines and the weather damage to the ceiling joists.

Uh to recap, the structure located at 315 Goyle Street is in violation of City Code Article 8, Chapter 6, 156, subsections 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 for the main, in which any building or structure which has any or all of the conditions or defects here and after described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building and a hazard public health, safety, and welfare, provided that such conditions of defects of dilapidation, substandardness, or unfitness for human habitation post a threat or potential threat to live health property or human safety.

Staff recommends demolition.

That concludes my presentation of 315 Goyle Street.

Okay.

I didn't see in your nose.

About the power is off because it was a fire.

Is it because it has a meter?

Did they disconnect at the road or is the power still on?

Uh from my communication with CPS, there are no active services to that property.

So I couldn't tell you if they cut it during the fire, but there are no services.

No permits were ever pulled.

Originally they did have repair permits for the structure.

Repair, but not demo.

Not for demo, no, sir.

And we're not sure when the fire started.

Or what when it was no, we don't have a date for the fire.

And the permits were pulled way before I'm assuming the 515-24.

Yes, sir.

When I did when I found the structure uh when it was brought to my attention, uh record search showed that there were active repair permits at the time.

24.

Yes, of 24.

So they were doing the demo on a remote on a repair permit.

Uh originally that roof structure did have um a for uh roof covering.

There were there was decking, there were shingles, uh there were damage, but then throughout the history of the case as it progressed, uh there was some demolition that was done where the damaged members were removed.

Using the remodel permit.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh we do have uh public comments uh from the owner.

Um please pro approach the podium and state your name and city council district.

My name's Elizabeth Foster, and what was the second part?

I think City Council District.

I don't know.

You can say your address.

Uh uh 315 Coyle Street, San Antonio, Texas, 78237.

Okay, feel free to move the mic around that way.

It's it's close to you.

Yeah.

You can bring it with it.

There.

Yeah, thank you.

So the fire happened March 9th, 2023.

Um ex-husband uh owned the house together.

Sorry, I'm nervous.

Um we owned the house together and we got a divorce in 2024, so the house was supposed to go to him.

He was in charge of everything.

It was in the divorce decree.

I didn't bring any documentation with me because it because it it's a newly inherited problem for me.

So um yeah.

I'm learning stuff just like y'all are.

Okay, so what would you like to do with the property?

I would like to see if I could reset this just so that I can get some more information because I don't have like an engineer report or anything like that.

Um I'm trying to figure out what I need to do.

Are you wanting to repair it?

There is insurance money with our mortgage company, so there's a lot of moving parts.

Okay.

Is there anything else you wanted to add?

Any questions from the board?

This is Fred Anderson.

Um did you have the property in two, three, twenty-five February?

Yes.

You had it.

Not me, but my example.

So you would have never got a notice it of No, my ex-husband would have.

He was he was doing all the work, and I from my understanding there was problems with the guy that he hired to help.

He brought the materials they got stolen, and then they didn't want to recoup.

So physically when you got this, when did you get this?

It would have been it was accidental, but August of 2025.

Because I filed for a um what is it called?

I had to get a lawyer to file for the foreclosure to stop the foreclosure.

And then he filed the deed with my ex-husband, but we weren't even in agreement with it all the way yet.

But here we are.

When was that finalized?

I think it was I don't remember the exact day.

I just know August 2025 2025.

Okay.

And you just now got wind of this how long ago?

I've been kinda hearing from Hasso, for example.

Um, but I didn't know like the full, it wasn't my responsibility, it was his.

Um, so yeah, the full wind of it was getting the notice on the gate.

Uh it wasn't even from me.

It was from my ex-husband telling me to save the property.

Because he still registered at that time.

No.

You were I was.

But that's the last contact they had with you.

Okay.

Yeah.

And you would like to reset.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Have a seat.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, uh before you proceed to motion.

Uh I would like a minute to look at the uh title search.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Is there any concerns?

Uh just wanted to uh I was lost in there a little bit about the property was to be transferred in the divorce decree.

Uh so I was just confirming uh property is vested in Elizabeth Foster.

Okay.

Does anyone have a motion?

Uh Madam Chair, I have a motion.

I move that the property at 315 Coil Street.

Sir, can you speak in your microphone?

I'm sorry, this is Melissa Damitas right here.

I'm sorry, we can barely hear you.

Can you speak in your microphone?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, I move that to property at 315 Coil Street be reset for a future hearing.

Is there a second?

I second.

Any discussion?

Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Kayla Miranda.

Yes.

Joel Solis?

Yes.

George Grimes Jr.

Yes.

Dr.

Arnenda Lopez Rodriguez?

Yes.

Evan Addison?

Yes.

Fred Andes.

Motion passes with a vote of six to zero.

Okay, please get with your code officer.

The next case.

Um is going to be one uh fourteen forty-two East.

Chavan Chavanaugh Road.

I'm sorry if I butchered that.

Okay.

Good afternoon, board.

For the record, my name is Crystal Town, dangerous premise officer for the City of San Antonio Development Services Department.

The structures being presented today are located at 1442 East Chauvinal Road with a recommendation for demolition in accordance with City Code Article 8, Chapter 6.

This is the first time 1442 East Chavano Road is being presented before the board.

Excuse me, board.

I'm sorry to step in.

I wanted you to reconfirm.

Do we have um translator services for the owner?

Are you translating?

You'll be translating for the officer as well.

To the owner.

Excuse me.

I mean I just want to confirm if we need to slow down.

I need to explain what the service is going to be.

She understands English.

But what she speaks.

So that I'm here just before she has slipped into the Spanish.

I will tell you what it was.

Okay.

I am so sorry to interrupt.

I just wanted to make sure if we needed to slow down or to what extent uh the translation would be provided.

Okay, just for the recording.

Um what was said is that the individual that needed the interpretation services understands English, uh, but sometimes slips into Spanish when uh speaking, and the interpreter is available uh for those times.

Madam Chair, would she need a mic for that or no?

We have it right there.

If she needs a mic when she translate, can I use your mic there for no?

I mean we can give it to her if she needs it.

Thank you, sir.

Go ahead, madam chair.

Okay, go ahead.

Sorry.

The legal description is NCB 11046, block one, lot twenty one, located in City Council District Three.

The owner on record is Rodriguez Lily G with a mailing address of 730 West Harding Boulevard, San Antonio, Texas, 78221.

The property owner, Lily Rodriguez is here to speak on behalf of the property.

The property is not eligible for historic designation.

The first inspection regarding 1442 East Chauvinal Road is conduct was conducted on November 8th of 2024.

The original notice was mailed on November 13th, 2024, and the certified receipt has not been returned.

On May 12th of 2025, a conference was held with the property owner at the property.

A BSB conference packet was provided to the property owner.

On July 21st of 2025, another conference was held with the property owner at development services.

On January 30th of 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was posted at 1442 Chavanau Road.

On January 30th, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was mailed to Lily G.

Rodriguez, and the certified receipt has not been returned.

On October 7th, 2025, and February 6th, 2026, an administrative warrant was executed to obtain photographs of the structure to present before BSB.

No scope of work or financial proof or letter of credit or engineers report has been provided.

No permits have been obtained.

This is the plot plan of the property.

The main structure located is located in the center of the property.

Accessory one is located in the rear right portion of the property, and accessory two is in the front left portion of the property.

This is the front elevation of the main structure.

The roof system consists of different shingle types.

The facial board does lack weather protection.

The front left portion of the structure is an addition.

There are some exposed wooden stud members on that front left portion as well.

Here is a view of the foundation system.

They do have some cinder blocks underneath the foundation to support the structure.

This is going to be the right elevation of the structure.

The facial boards do lack some of us do lack some weather protection.

This is going to be the rear left portion of the main structure.

There has been additions added to the main structure on the front and the rear.

So there are multiple angles of the elevations.

On the left portion of this photo, there is an addition added where it was going to be a laundry room potentially.

And then on the right portion with the green siding, that is also an addition that's being used as storage.

So this is that left addition where they do have a washing machine.

There are blankets laid down on the ground showing there are signs that someone has been sleeping there.

And there's exposed wiring and some spliced wiring as well.

This is going into the right addition portion that had the green siding.

Again, this is just being used for storage, but there is new ceiling joists and decking added onto this the structure.

So this is going to be the rear right portion of the main structure.

This is going to be a bathroom added onto the structure.

So this is going into that bathroom.

There is a stand-up shower, a toilet, and new electrical wiring.

So here is some exposed wiring and new decking and ceiling joists.

This is going to be the left elevation of the structure, but from the rear portion of the property.

So on October 7th, the dresser that is placed in the middle of the room, it's actually sinking into the floor system.

So we are back now on February 6th of 2026.

So these two doorways are blocked with a large amount of trash and items, so it is not accessible.

There's a large amount of cat feces on the floor, along with the extension cords being ran underneath all of that feces and trash.

So this is going into the left portion of the main structure.

This is going to be the addition that was done without permits.

There is a temporary shoring place there.

There's new roof system, the new ceiling joist rafters, decking, along with a large amount of trash, new uh wall framing as well.

So this is going towards another portion of the addition.

I was not able to make my way any closer due to the large amount of trash and debris.

I could not get any further.

However, that doorway that is visible, it is the doorway into the kitchen that is blocked by all the trash and debris.

So this is the front elevation of the accessory one.

This shed is occupied currently at this time.

This is going to be the left elevation of the structure.

This is the right elevation of the structure.

The uh fascia boards do lack weather protection, and electricity is being ran from the main to the the accessory.

It does have a meter box connected in the underground line that brings the electricity to it.

This is the rear elevation of the structure.

Again, the facial boards do lack weather protection.

And this is going into the accessory structure.

Again, this is occupied.

Walking space is limited, and there are extension cords being ran throughout all of these items.

So this is going to be that back wall next to the front door walking in.

Again, large amount of items.

There's the power strip with all the extension cords being ran.

So this is going to be an aerial view of the property from 2019 to show the original condition of the structure.

It was a single story structure with a gable roof system.

There has been multiple additions added.

There's multiple areas of patchwork in the roof system.

The structures located at 1442 Chavanel Road are in violation of City Code Article 8, Chapter 6, 156, subsections 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15 for the main structure.

Subsections 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 15 for accessory one, and subsections 8, 12, and 17, which any building or structure which has any or all of the conditions or defects here and after described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building and a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare, provided that such conditions of defects of dilapidation, substandardness, or unfitness for human habitation pose a threat or potential threat to life, health, property, or human safety.

Staff recommends demolition for main accessory one and accessory two for the property to be vacated.

That concludes my presentation of 1442 Chavanel Road.

This is Fred Anderson.

Occupant Laura.

Do we know why it was not accessible?

At that time I can't answer for that.

That was a previous dangerous premise officer why the restroom was not available, but looking at the current condition of the property, I can see that there is a large amount of debris.

There's been plumbing work done without without um permits, so that could be the reason why it was not accessible.

So is this a different individual from the owner?

So Laura Rodriguez is the daughter-in-law of the property owner.

She is married to the son of the property owner.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

So for public comments, um, my list shows Laura Rodriguez as the daughter-in-law, and it says that she left.

And we have the owner.

Uh Lily Rodriguez.

Okay, so please approach the podium and state your name and your city council district.

If you don't know your city council district, you can use your address.

Okay.

My name is Lele Rodriguez.

Yes.

She doesn't know her district.

She's just keeping the street.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

Uh your mic is not working.

For interpretation, the mic is not working.

She was she doesn't know her district and she gave her address.

Um be working in the pueblo.

That's uh the herd residence.

But I don't even know.

But she doesn't live here.

Where do you live?

I uh I got the address.

Let me see.

Okay, she has a showing me her driver's license.

It says 717125 Pleasanton Road lot number three, San Antonio, Texas, 7821.

This is her residence.

You want to hear her testimony for her?

Yes.

So it will be that bike.

Okay.

I just say give me a chance to see I have something to fix.

Give me a chance to fix it.

Uh I don't know if you were able to hear her clearly.

She just wants to have chance to be able to to fix it.

She's having a hard time formulating.

Maybe if you had questions, direct questions to ask her so she can give her an orientation.

Okay, so you have a plan to do the repairs.

I'll fix it.

They want to say um plan preparado but look decided size.

But no, not I don't think what she doesn't have a prepared plan or a scope of uh she says she'll do whatever you ask her to do.

Okay.

Do you have financial means to make the repairs?

No, but uh the moment I check it for mess.

All she has is her check that comes in.

Uh security social security check is all she has.

Do any of the other board members have a question?

Uh I have a question.

Uh madam chair.

Uh make sure your mic's close.

Your microphone.

Does she currently occupy the property?

She has said earlier that she did does not live there.

Does anybody else live there and if so who?

The gentleman with her, her ex-husband, he lives there.

Was he offered relocation services?

No.

No, he has not been given those services.

Oh great.

This is dangerous premise officer town.

Yes, every occupant that resides at that property has been offered relocation services multiple times and they have been denied multiple times.

There's multiple people living there.

There currently was her son was residing there.

He is now in prison and now only her daughter-in-law resides at the property.

But at the time of offering services, he was there and he was offered services.

Any other questions?

So just to clarify, uh only the ex-husband occupies the property currently.

It has not been confirmed if he stays there to all the time.

Sometimes he stays to do work, sometimes he does not stay there.

So it's not a living space for him all the time.

However, the daughter-in-law claims that she lives there all the time.

But again, everyone has been offered relocation services by Department of Human Services and Neighborhood of Housing Services Department multiple times.

Thank you.

And when you say do work, do you mean work on the house?

Correct.

And clean the property.

And I'm sorry, were were there permits?

No, there have not been any permits obtained for this property for any work done on the on any of the structures.

Okay.

Any other questions?

This is Fred Endes.

Can you ask?

Well, let me clarify this first.

You stated in here that the husband lives in accessory structure, but you didn't specify which one.

Accessory one is his living space, but again, it's not confirmed.

He stated that he doesn't live there all the time.

But again, all services have been offered.

721 25.

Yes, she re she uh says she went to fix it.

So to be able to fix it.

Donde fue la reunion.

I in Mina Casa.

No.

No, she did not.

She's talking about meeting with other people who claim they could help her fix her house.

Not business people, but people who might be able to find sources for her resources for her, but um nothing has come of it.

Aquivastian report that ustedes asistió on a reunion uh antes de esto de esta audiencia con el personal.

Was it in her house?

She's saying she had a meeting in her house.

And they specifically in the meeting asked for a scope of work, financial proof, any timeline with her.

She said that she did meet with someone here, and that she didn't go any further after that meeting because she didn't have any money to do the rep to do the repairs.

So that goes back to the same question before.

If she was offered those services, did you ask how is she going to ask us for time now?

She's explained that she got she she's explaining that she had someone that she was going to get contract to do the repairs, but he does not is not licensed.

So they told her he couldn't do the repairs.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And I'll look for a motion.

I have a motion.

Okay.

I move that the property located on 1442 East Chavanau Road is a public nuisance which is not feasible to repaired at this time and is in violation of Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 156.

Okay, so the motion is for the property located at 1442 East Road.

And is in violation of Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 156, subsections for the main one to 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15 for accessory structure number one, one to eight, eleven, twelve, and fifteen, and for accessory structure number two, eight, twelve, fifteen, and seventeen.

And that the property is to be demolished within thirty days.

Did you say vacated?

Yes.

Okay, vacated.

Um secured uh kept kept free of trash and debris.

And did you say utilities or no?

Oh, I did not.

And um utility service, cut utility service.

Okay, so you you will okay, all right.

Sorry.

Is there a second?

This is Joel Slay's all second.

Okay, is there any discussion?

All right, Alexia will call vote.

Kayla Miranda.

Yes.

Joel Solis?

Yes.

George Grimes Jr.

Yes.

Dr.

Orlando Lopez Rodriguez?

Yes.

Evan Addison?

Yes.

Fred Andes.

Motion passes with a vote of six to zero.

Okay, please get with your code officer.

If you have any questions.

All right, the next property is uh 1239 Kaleba Road.

Good morning, board.

Or good afternoon, board.

For the record, my name is Ryan Garza, dangerous premise officer for the City of San Antonio Development Services Department.

The structure and accessory structure being presented today is located at 1239 Kulebra Road with a recommendation for demolition in accordance with City Code Article 8, Chapter 6.

This is the first time or the second time this case is being presented before the board.

Does the board wish to continue?

Yes.

The legal description is NCB 2071 block 11, Lot 10.

The owner on record is Garza Juan Renaldo Estate of the mailing address of 9236 Toronto Drive Converse, Texas, 78109.

All notices of hearing were properly issued as required.

The following end of individuals are present to speak on the case.

The following is the timeline events regarding the notification process.

The initial inspection regarding 1239 Kleber Road was conducted on March 21st, 2022.

The original notice was mailed on April 12th, 2022, and the certified receipt was returned unclaimed on May 2nd, 2022.

On May 13, 2025, I sent a new notice of violation, and on May 16, 2025, the notice was returned, stated moved, left no address return to center.

On September 22, 2025, deconstruction is required.

The BSB posting notice was posted on September 22nd, 2025.

A consent to access form was signed on July 21st, 2025.

No scope of work or financial proof or letter of credit or engineers report has been provided, and there is no active permits on file.

Actually, it's a daycare within a thousand feet.

Pauline Nelson Early Childhood Education Center.

And the wooden frame is gutted along with the second accessory.

This is the front elevation.

The entire structure is listing.

I place the level, which you'll see in the second photo showing the porch column leaning.

Oh, sorry.

Portions of the siding have detached and are rotted due to the lack of weathering.

You can see.

This is the wooden decking, uh close-up of the wooden decking in the back area.

You can see the wooden floorboards, and you can see one of the um the posts have fallen.

And this is the left side elevation.

You can see that uh the photo was taken due at this angle due to the other structure being too close.

Um, the wooden siding is deteriorated, lacking weather protection, and you can see exposed um electrical wires.

This photo was taken of the interior of the structure.

Uh this photo is dark just to show like the natural light coming in from the front elevation.

Uh, the whole interior is gutted, uh lacking weather protection.

Um evidence of uh house this individuals going in.

Graffiti is also painted on the um wooden framing, and the drywall is missing.

This is the same photo taken from the taken from the rear by the kitchen.

Uh shows the same damage.

You can see a lot of the wooden framing has detached.

Um, no drywalls present.

Uh, the floors um are peeling off of the tile that's there, and um it's also exposed to the outside elements.

This photo is the kitchen.

You can see the wooden ceiling is deteriorated due to the water damage.

The flooring is not leveled on the rear of the structure.

This is a close-up of the floor.

Um has severe water damage.

Some of the laminate tile has peeled up.

Uh some of the floorboarding is rotted and have become detached, and natural light is also coming through the right top corner.

This is just a close-up of where the living room meets the kitchen.

Uh, you can see like the the grade through that through that hole where the structure has sunk in due to the foundation sinking, and you can see the water damaged uh wooden members.

This is a close-up of the wall, um the interior wall to the uh restroom.

Um the drywall is detaching, uh, severe water damage, and it appears it looks like mold is growing on the back walls from the water.

Um the next photo will show the flooring has been covered in debris.

It's just a close-up of all the trash and debris.

Uh again, more evidence of houses individuals went in and out of the structure, and the plumbing is not um hooked up or nothing to this to this uh room.

This is the large hole in the ceiling right outside of the restroom.

You can see the wooden members, uh broken uh wall boards, and you can see some of the rafters that are rotted.

This is the rear to the main structure, but I took this photo to show the front elevation to the accessory structure.

You can see a large hole in the roof system, the gable roof system, facial boards are rotted and missing, uh, wooden members have become detached.

This is the right elevation, siding is missing, facial boards have detached and are rotted.

This is the rear elevation showing the detached wooden siding, exposed wooden framing, and window glazing is also present.

This is the interior of the accessory structure.

The sheetrock is damaged, um, holes are in the siding.

Um the structure is also listing, and the walkway is compromised.

This is a close-up of the damaged drywall.

Graffiti is also present in this room, and the flooring is a walking hazard.

It's soft and spongy due to all the water damage.

This is a photo of the roof system.

Uh shows the water damage lacking weather protection to the wooden members and Joyce Seatland Joyce.

The main accessory structure located at 1239 Culebra is in violation of City Code.

Article 8, Chapter 6-156, subsections 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18.

Accessory structure, subsections 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18, in which any building or structure which has any oral conditions of defects here and after described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building and a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare, provided that such conditions or defects of dilapidation, subcentrus or unfit for human habitation, pose a threat or potential threat to life, health, property, or human safety staff recommends demolition.

That concludes my presentation of 1239 Club Road.

Okay.

Okay, go ahead, Craig.

The first one is because it's attached to the main structure, roof and all, are you considering it a separate structure because it has an independent door because you can't come in from the main?

Correct.

So it's not a main, it's considered the main structure, the accessory structure.

You can see where it's butting up again, but it's not technically detached.

You can't enter the the accessory structure.

So you're because you can't enter from the main, you're considering it separate even though the roofs are attached.

Correct.

Okay.

And the second one you said this is the second on a not the same what we're looking at here is a separate case.

This is the same case.

This is the second time this book this has uh come to the board.

Did we reset?

Because it doesn't indicate that we did.

There's nothing that says we reset, so that's why it kind of confused me if there was another case attached to this.

I thought it was pulled from the agenda at one point.

That's right.

Sorry, it was pulled from the agenda.

Well, okay.

So normally they pulled the or uh in our notes, they normally have reset or something like that.

So we know it's a second case or a second hearing.

But that didn't indicate it, that's why I asked.

I thought maybe it was something else.

Correct.

And the chimney you said was detached, and it's clearly detached here.

This had a fire in it before.

It does not have a fire report.

I checked and I couldn't find it.

I don't have that information.

Um the one that you said was mold here 106.

That's smoke damage.

So somewhere somebody has put a fire in there before.

And on the next picture you'll see on the sink is uh ash and smoke debris.

And we have no report that there was a fire, but I don't have that information with me right now.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um we have a public speaker.

Mr.

Vasquez, you want to come up?

Uh please approach the podium, state your name and your city council district.

If you do not know the district, state your address.

Yes, my name is Elisa Vasquez.

Um the owner of this property.

And for some reasons, uh still is under Mr.

Garza.

He is this is the same thing like his wife and one of his kids.

So the property was sold by her daughter, uh, his daughter and and his son, the only survivors.

And I haven't received any notice from you, so thanks.

Fortunately, I've been working since uh 2023 to demolish this property, but for somehow it is being hard.

So I got the uh help or the proposal from Inspector Ramiro Morales, and he disappeared after two years.

So then Mr.

Garza came in, Inspector Garce has been working with me.

And uh I I'm willing to to demolish the property.

I'm not against to actually I appreciate your help.

If the city can help me, because that's a lot of uh uh traffic with uh homeless people that uh is becoming more dangerous.

So it's just uh try to do it on my own, but it's been hard to all the process.

So with Mr.

Garza help, I I've been going through this process, and hopefully we can do the demolition.

Okay.

Any questions?

Madam Chair, yes.

Uh I just want to ask Mr.

Vasquez what is your uh property interest in the property?

Uh I I do not see you listed anywhere in the deed records.

Yeah, I think I was a misplaced.

I I was I purchased this property back in 19, I mean in 2020, 2017.

And uh it seems like it it wasn't recorded as I I went to the court to do the recording to the city, and I still have the paperwork.

So I'm the the owner of this property, but I put it on the Ferrelli Motors.

I was the doing business as Farrelly Motors.

So and uh well that's something that I have to put aside, right?

Or I mean that to work aside this uh uh this court.

So but it's I'm the owner.

So you're the owner of Farrelly Autos.

That was really.

Yeah, I'm the owner of the lot that is is a car dealer next to this property, and I purchased the same property from uh that property from the same owners.

So are you the owner of the business?

The car lot that is on the next next to this property.

But Farelli Auto.

I was going through up here for Ellie Motors, yes.

Ferelli Motors, okay.

Yes, thank you.

You're very welcome.

Okay.

Any other questions?

You may have a seat.

Thank you so much.

Um I'll go ahead and entertain a motion.

Sure, this is Joel Salais.

I'm gonna go ahead and move that the property located at the 1239 Kalabra Road is a public instance for City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6157, which is not feasible to be repaired at this time.

And is a violation of City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6-156, uh specifically for the main, one, two, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen.

And for the accessory structure, it's one, two, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen.

I move that the property be demolished within both the main and accessory be demolished within thirty days, issuance of this order, and that it'd be free of debris and trash, and that it be secured.

Okay, so the motion is that the property located at uh 1239 Collabor Road.

Um is a public nuisance, which is not feasible for repair, and in violation of chapter six, Article 8, Section 156, subcodes for the main one to five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen.

And for the accessory structure number one, one to five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen.

And it's to be demolished in thirty days, and the properties to be secured and free of trash and debris.

Correct.

Okay.

Do we have a second?

Okay, we have a second.

Uh let's do uh sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry, yeah, that's right.

He's reminding me.

Um discussion.

Is there any discussion?

No, okay.

Um let's do uh recall vote.

Kayla Miranda.

Yes.

Joel Solis?

Yes.

George Grimes Jr.

Yes.

Dr.

Linda Lopez Rodriguez?

Yes.

Evan Addison?

Yes.

Fernandez?

Motion passes with a vote of six to zero.

Okay, thank you.

Uh please get with the code officer.

Uh for any questions.

And I believe this is our final property uh for today.

102 Sweet Buyer Avenue.

Good afternoon, board.

Good afternoon.

Uh for the record, my name is Jaime Hassel, dangerous premises officer for the City of San Antonio Development Services Department.

The structures are being presented today are located at 102 Sweet Briar Avenue with a recommendation for repair for the main structure and demolition for the accessory in accordance with City Code Article 8, Chapter 6.

This is the first time this property is being heard before this board.

The legal description is NCB 9204, block 4, lot southwest IRR 35.89 feet of 21, located in City Council District 7.

The owner on record is Garza Ridger V and Nancy Q and Ida Hernandez with a mailing address of 102 Sweet Briar Avenue, San Antonio, Texas, 7228.

All notices of hearing were properly issued as required.

The owner on record is not present today.

Does the board wish to continue?

Yes.

Uh as of January 12, 2026, contact was made with uh one of the owners with Sir Richard Garza.

The Office of Historic Preservation has confirmed on February 17, 2025 that the property is not eligible for historic designation.

The following is a timeline of events regarding the notification process.

The first inspection regarding 102 Sweet Bar Avenue was conducted on December 8, 2023.

The original notice was mailed on December 19, 2023, and the certified receipt was returned vacant.

On August 25th, 2025, an updated notice was mailed to the owner and has not been returned.

On August 22nd, 2025, a red placard was posted on the property notifying the owner of violations and abatement requirements.

On October 30th, 2025, a conference letter was mailed to the owner.

And on November 4th, 2025, a conference was held at 1901 South Alamo, and no owner or interested party attended.

On January 29, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was mailed to the owner.

And on January 29th, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was posted at 102 Sweetbrier Avenue.

As of February 12, 2026, no scope of work or financial proof or letter of credit or engineers report has been provided.

There are no active permits on file and no repair applications have been submitted.

It has been verified with CPS that there are no active services to the property.

The photos that are being provided for today's presentation were taken on January 14th and February 9th, 2026.

This first photo is the front elevation of the main structure.

Here you can see that the siding is worn.

There is deterioration to the shingles.

This is a right elevation of the structure.

Here you can see some of the siding that is attaching, exposing the interior wood members.

The skirting is damaged, and this exposing the foundation wood members as well that have weather damage.

This is the left elevation of the structure.

Here you can see that there is damage to the siding.

It is deteriorated, lacking weather protection.

The window framing is detaching from the structure.

The burglar bars are also damaged and rusted.

There is damage to the skirting and there is exposed wood members for the foundation and interior studs.

This is a rear uh elevation of the structure.

Here you can see more damage to the structure to the skirting, more exposed wood members, and there is a large hole that is present on the left hand side of the photo, which will get a close-up on the next photo.

This photo shows that hole that is present.

There is it does allow access into the structure.

There is damaged wood members and exposed interior wooden studs.

Going inside the structure here, there is this is the front uh entryway.

There is a large hole that was present on the property on the interior.

Uh it has since been boarded up.

Uh this is the front room on the left hand side.

Uh here you can see that there is evidence that somebody is coming into the structure and they are leaving items inside.

Uh here's another contextual view of that room.

Uh you can see that the windows have been covered with uh some cloth and that there's still items inside.

This is a photo that was taken in December 22nd during our first abatement.

This is what the interior room looked like before.

Um here you can see that there is evidence that vagrants have used the structure.

Uh this is the rear room on the rear of the of the property on the right hand side.

Here you can see that there is natural light that is coming in through that window.

Um, that lap that rear window is uh unsecured and was boarded up by the city during an abatement.

And here there is more evidence that vagrants have used this uh property.

This is a room on the far right-hand side where that hole is present on the rear.

Uh here you can see that a couch has been set up, more evidence of vagrants uh using this property.

And here's a close-up of that area where the sleeping area has been set up.

And here's a photo of uh the first abatement back in December of 22nd of what that room looked like uh prior to uh individuals going inside.

This is the front elevation of the excess detached accessory structure.

Here you can see that there is deterioration to the siding, there is missing siding exposing interior studs.

Uh, the structure is resting and sinking into grade.

Um, that front door is uh rotted and um lacking weather protection.

This is the right elevation.

There is a large hole that was present um on the beneath that uh wood that was uh left on the siding.

The siding is uh lacking weather protection and it is deteriorated and detaching.

This is the front and left elevation.

Here you can see that there is large separation.

Those doors uh are separating from the structure, and that walls are uh starting to list towards the left.

This is the rear elevation.

There is missing siding exposing interior wood members.

It is sinking into grade, and there are large holes present.

Uh going into the interior, there's a large amounts of trash and debris uh that does post egress concerns, uh, especially knowing that the property is being used by vagrants.

Uh looking towards the front entrance, here you can see that the structure is listing towards the right hand side.

Uh a lot of those support wood members are listing.

And here is another view of the trash and debris and items that are in t inside this structure.

Uh to recap, the structures located at 102 Street Bar Avenue are in violation of City Code Article 8, Chapter 6, 156.

Subsections 57, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 for the main, and subsections 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 for the accessory, in which any building or structure which has any or all other conditions or defects hereinafter described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building and a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare, provided that such conditions of defects of dilapidation, substandardness, or unfitness for human habitation pose a threat or potential threat to life health property or human safety.

Staff recommends repair for the main and demolition for the accessory.

That concludes my presentation of 102 Street Briar Avenue.

Does anyone have any questions?

Uh madam chair.

Uh were you able ever able to contact the owners with regard to this property?

I did get uh contact information from uh the San Antonio Police Department.

I made contact with Mr.

Richard Garza, who at the time mentioned he is not the owner.

He was only bequeathed the property, but that he would make contact with the person who is in control.

Uh, since that time, he has not returned my calls and I have not not had any further contact with him.

And uh for Savita, do we have any record of who owns this property?

Who has the title of this property?

Um can I see the red file, please?

Uh I believe it's still listed.

Um, Richard Garza.

Um, if you give me a moment uh per the title records, uh ownership is vested in Richard Garza and wife Nancy Garza.

And uh per the officer's statement, uh he had said the property was bequeathed to him.

He's the owner.

So he's uh he's responsible for the property.

Is there any other questions?

Uh just one other question on the uh property abatement.

Was that just the the yard or did that include securing the home as well?

Uh we've conducted two abatements on the property.

Uh one was conducted on July of 2025, and it was for a securing.

The one on December 2025 was also for securing.

Uh so it's been multiple instances of securing that structure, and it is currently there is a pending work order to go back and resecure the property.

That also includes that one new hole?

Yes.

By that door.

Yes, sir.

And in the shed or the garage as well.

Yes, we're gonna uh secure both structures.

Uh any opening that would allow access to the interior, we're gonna secure.

Okay, thank you.

And just to for me, um, did you say it's close to a school?

It is right outside the thousand foot, but it is on a large it's another major thoroughfare, uh and it is a corner property with large foot traffic.

Any other questions?

Any police reports to that address?

Uh I can't speak on any police reports.

I know I did receive a lot of complaints from neighbors saying that they've had a lot of uh issues, and I have made the location with uh San Antonio Police Department previous to uh to those reports.

Questions?

No.

All right, I'll take a motion.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we did receive one public comment that we will be reading into the record.

Oh, I'm sorry.

You you told me about that.

Yes, go ahead.

From Jarowski, email sent on Wednesday, February 11, 2026 at 6.05 a.m.

Ms.

Kroom, I apologize for writing again, but I found some grammatic mistakes.

If it's not too late, I have the revived statement.

Thank you for your time.

To who it may concern, on behalf of most residents of Sweet Briar Avenue, we address the board.

The property at 102 Sweet Brewer has been on ongoing problem for many years.

The house, the garage, the fences, and yard are an eyesore.

The biggest problem is that the structures have become dangerous, harboring drug addicts and prostitutes.

We do not feel safe after numerous calls to 31911 in District 7.

We hope the board decides to tear down the structures.

The residents of Sweetborough uh work hard and pay taxes in general generally keep their houses and yards clean.

We deserve better.

Thank you.

We appreciate your time with this matter.

Okay, thank you.

The motion.

Okay.

I move the property at 102 sweet bar Street Briar Avenue is a public nuisance, which is not feasible for repair at this time and is in violation of Chapter 6, Article 8, uh, subsections for the main 578, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18, and for the accessory 12578, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18, I move that both the main and the accessory be demolished within 30 days of the issuance of this order that the property be uh vacated, secured utilities and utilities removed.

Okay.

So the motion is that the property at 102 Sweetwire Avenue is a public nuisance and not feasible to be repaired, and is in violation of Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 156, uh for the main uh 57811, 12, 15, 17, and 18, and for the accessory one to five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen, and it's to be demolished within 30 days or in 30 days and um secured and free of trash.

And did you say utilities?

I'm sorry.

Did you say utilities?

Okay, and cut utilities.

That was it.

Okay.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay.

Any discussion.

Okay, can we have a roll call vote, please?

Kayla Miranda?

Yes.

Joel Solis?

Yes.

George Grimes Jr.

Yes.

Dr.

Arnenda Lopez Rodriguez?

Yes.

Evon Addison?

Yes.

Fred Andes?

Motion passes with the vote of 6 to 0.

Okay.

That was the last property.

Uh for administrative items.

Uh thank you.

I do have a few uh little comments here, especially after today.

Um first of all, uh, so on my panels at least at the very least, uh B panels.

Um, I would please ask that uh people will be asked to remove the hats before they come in here rather than trying to do it during the meeting.

That was a little more difficult.

Um and then uh the question is what do we do with with with people that are being extremely difficult?

Um if I've issued an order many many times, what happens?

Let's discuss that after the public hearing is concluded.

Okay.

So uh I have a question, I guess it's an administrative question.

In the meeting minutes, it says that starting on April the 1st of 2026, voicemails will no longer be accepted for public comment.

And I understand this is a citywide order for all boards and commissions that have public hearings.

How how common it is it for this board to receive voicemails?

You you kind of did steal our thunder.

Um Dani was gonna speak on that in general, just to put it as part of the record.

But to answer specifically your question, sir.

Um Jenny Ramirez uh code enforcement manager.

Um it is not it is not very common.

Um typically what we will get are typically emails, um, or we will have residents come and sign up to speak, or we will have neighborhood um associations that will send us uh written notification that they would like to have read into the record.

Um I believe that specific item that is uh and and I'll let Danny speak to that so I don't steal his thunder on it, but um it is not um as typical as some of the other boards that we do have um that do conduct business here.

Yes, Mr.

Grimes, thank you, Dan Lee is coded for some administrator.

So we must be on the same wavelength today, right?

So uh yes to Jenny's point exactly that.

So effective April 1st, uh voicemails will no longer be accepted for public comments.

Uh we'll continue to receive public comments through writing as we do today, and then of course, if they sign up in person to speak, that's to be consistent with call all boards and commissions citywide.

Uh we are gonna put signage outside the board to notify residents.

We're also gonna be updating our notice of hearings that go out to residents to let them know uh that voicemails would no longer be accepted.

Furthermore, we're gonna disable that feature in on our uh our IT site, if you will, so that will no longer be a feature uh when somebody calls in to leave a voice message.

Uh but to answer your question, no, it doesn't happen often.

Um we started this on a row about COVID time period, right?

That's when calls were coming in because we couldn't meet in public and what have you.

A lot of those live stream were meeting virtually.

Uh, but since that, you know, we have not received many voicemails, if you will, for this board.

Thank you.

Anyone have anything else they want to discuss okay?

So I need an amount unanimous consent.

Uh the meeting is adjured.

It's one forty PM February 12th, 2026.

Thank you.