All right.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If we could please have our Spanish interpretation services statement.

Spanish language interpretation statement.

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

My name is John Bustamante, and I am the chair of the zoning commission of the City of San Antonio, as well as the District 5 zoning commissioner.

The time is 1 o'clock, and I hereby call this regularly noticed meeting of the City of San Antonio Zoning Commission into session.

It's Fiesta, forgive me.

Starting with the Commissioner on my far left.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Rob Sipes.

I represent District 7.

John Calayad represent District 8.

Danny Kellum, District 1.

John Witsett, District 10.

Moses Duval, District 9.

George Innohosa, District 3.

Eddie P.

Urledigus, District 4.

Mojgan Pana, Mayor's Appointee.

All right, staff, is a quorum present.

Yes, the quorum is present.

Very good.

Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

Staff, if you would.

Before I begin, please turn your phones on vibrate or turn them off.

The zoning commission is an 11-member body appointed by the city council to make recommendations on zoning cases.

Upon receiving a recommendation from the Commission, you will have six months from the date of the Commission's recommendation to forward your case to City Council.

If you have any questions regarding this procedure, please contact your case manager.

Staff will begin each case with a short presentation of the request.

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for rezoning and property within 200 feet of the subject property.

Check marks will indicate those property owners in favor of the request, and an X will indicate those property owners in opposition.

Following this presentation and any questions by the commission, the applicant will present their request.

For those who have signed up to speak for or against the proposed rezoning, you will be called in the order that you are signed up to speak.

Those in support and opposition will be allowed a maximum of three minutes per speaker, and you are not obligated to utilize the maximum time limitation.

You will be informed that the three minutes are up.

For those who would like to give their time to a speaker, that speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people giving their time for a total of nine minutes.

Those giving up their time must be present and signed in to speak, and to please announce that when that speaker is going up to the podium that you are yielding your time.

Okay.

If anyone is here for item number four, 125 Stonewall Avenue, that item has been withdrawn.

What that means is they will start the process over again.

So once that process starts, if it does, uh you will get re-noticed and you can come back and talk about it.

Items number 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19.

All right.

Commissioners, any commissioner want to pull any of the items just read for individual consideration.

Looking left, seeing none.

Looking right, seeing none.

If we could please read the combined hearing number one consent agenda into the record.

Screening from public rows and adjacent property required.

All overleaves remain the same.

Sixteen notes is mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Starbright overlooked South Neighborhood Association gave no response.

A request for a change of zoning from C2 to C2 CD with a conditional use for office warehouse flux space outside storage not permitted except in the I2 district located at 6603 North IH 35.

All other releases remain the same.

16 notices mailed out, zero in favor, zero opposed, and there is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item number 14.

A request for a change of zoner from I1 and R4 to C2.

Located at 237 Castro Road and 225 Castroville Road.

All other releases remain.

51 notices mailed.

Zero in favor, zero opposed.

Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association is in support.

El Charro and Brady Gardens Neighborhood Associations gave no response.

Item 15.

A request for a change of zoning from R6 to RM6, located at 1435 and 1439, Cantrill Drive.

All other releases remain the same.

18 notices mailed, zero in favored, zero opposed, and there is no neighborhood association within 200 feet.

Item 16.

A request for a change of zoning from R6 to C2NA, located at 419 Lovett Avenue.

All other overleas to remain.

28 notices mailed, zero in favored, zero opposed.

Cantana Community Neighborhood Association is in favor.

Item 17.

A request for a change of zoning from RM4 C D with a conditional use for tobacco retail to IDZ1 with uses permitted in C1 and two dwelling units located at 4031 South Florida Street.

All other overleas remain.

25 notices mailed, zero in favored, zero opposed.

St.

Leo's Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Item 19.

A request for a change of zoning from R6 and O1 to IDZ2 with uses permitted in C2 and Bar Tavern located at 1103, 1107, and 1111 East Quincy Street and 212 and 216 McLean Street.

All other overleas remain the same.

All right, very good.

Is there any public comment?

There is no public comment for those items.

Very good.

The floor is now open for a motion.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion for approval for items number 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19.

Is there a second?

No second.

Second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

All right.

Any discussion?

Looking left.

Seeing none.

Looking right.

Seeing none.

The motion is for approval of items 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 by Commissioner Kellum, with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Inojosa.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sypes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Wetzett.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

If you are here for any of those items we just discussed, you can go about your day, pray for sun, enjoy Fiesta, and uh get to City Council within six months.

Talk to your case manager.

Have a good one.

Take care.

No.

All right.

We are now going to move on to our continuance hearing to the May 5th, 2026 meeting.

Items requesting a two-weeks continuous to the May 5th meeting are item number 8 and number 11.

All right.

Very good.

Do we have any public comment?

We do have public comment for item number eight.

Very good.

Jane Schaefer.

Ms.

Schaefer, as you walk up, if you would say your name and your address for the record, and you will have three minutes.

I need projector.

You can give whatever you want to project to staff right here, and they will put it up.

Land in this area has been in my family for years.

John Schaefer, my father, and Clifford.

Ms.

Schaefer, I'm sorry, would you give us your address just so we have it?

505 Costano Avenue, San Antonio, 78209.

Thank you, ma'am.

Granting the change in zoning from residential to the highest commercial and industrial type use on this one-acre lot amidst a residential neighborhood is classic spot zoning.

The impacts are immediate and measurable.

Increased traffic, safety risks, noise, decrease in the property values.

If you look at the first picture, they're in order.

They were in order.

That picture.

The first picture.

It needs to go.

Okay.

Is this my timing?

Yeah.

That picture.

I'm sorry.

I thought the projector would be right here.

Now let's take a look at the pictures.

They were in order.

Okay, can you show this one first?

Will you please put it up?

Oh, yeah, just leave it up if you would, Mr.

Tony.

Okay.

This is the way the land looked before Mr.

Morales purchased it.

He purchased it in November 2022.

This picture is taken December 21st, 2023.

He has already cleared the lot and placed trucks in it.

Oversized trucks.

He was cited a UDC violation December 2024 that is still pending.

And now, after that violation, this picture.

After the violation, this is the picture that is November 2024.

He continued to use the land.

The next picture.

This is what it looks like today.

Put that other picture up.

And that's this is what it looks like today.

He has put up corrugated fencing, gating against UDC, even though he had a violation.

This is a case where a use was established in violation of the existing zoning, continues in violation, and is now seeking retroactive approval.

If the zoning can be disregarded, violations allowed to continue and then corrected after the factory rezoning, the integrity of the entire zoning and planning commission and city is undermined.

Industries are typically separated from residential uses for a reason.

This proposal reverses that principle.

It introduces industrial activity into the heart of a residential community.

I'll give her another minute.

Next picture.

Next picture.

This is more of the corrugated fence and what it looks like today.

Next picture.

Next picture.

The corrugated fence, no, no.

You can see right here.

This is the area that contains the oversized trucking and the corrugated fence.

To the right is the residential neighborhood.

Next picture.

This is the residence that is directly across.

It has school children.

It's established.

It has school buses.

Next picture.

This is the area that's directly across the street, which shows that it is an intensely residential community.

For all these reasons, I respectfully request that not only the zoning be declined, but that continuance be declined.

There is no new information that will change the fundamental incompatibility of this use with the surrounding neighborhood.

Continuing this use only prolongs the impact on nearby property owners and delays enforcement of existing regulations.

Approving this request would reward ongoing non-compliance and set a damaging precedent.

I can't imagine how somebody that buys an R6 property residentially owned on a zone, puts in corrugated fencing around it, which is a huge eyesore, stores oversized vehicles, and continues after a UDC zoning violation has been filed.

I shudder to think what he would do with the highest use, commercial use, and industrial use.

Now I also ask why is he asking for a continuance?

I wouldn't trust someone like this.

Is it to get around a statute of limitations?

Will he be grandfathered?

I do not know.

But I do not think a continuance should be granted.

The facts will not change.

He is on his own developed this residential lot in the middle of a residential community and will continue to do so.

And will continue to do so.

This property should be brought in into compliance, not rezoned to testify as violations.

And on a personal note, I will add that my family is owned land in this area for a long, long time.

My father and Cliff Morton were best friends, and they partnered to develop the Lakeside subdivision.

My father continued and developed the Foster Meadows subdivision.

He donated the land and helped create the Schaefer Library in this area to bring more services and to help this underserved area.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Schaefer.

Any further public comment?

That is it for public comment.

Very good.

All right.

The floor is now open for a motion.

Of course.

One thing that caught my attention from the uh the public comment.

Um is there any situation where a continuance could risk giving the applicant rights to the non-conforming use that they otherwise wouldn't have had?

No.

Okay.

So we we could safely continue this to another day and consider it then with the full staff presentation.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

All right, very good.

The floor is now open for a motion.

I'd like to make a motion.

Yes, Commissioner Pontin.

Motion for continuance.

All right.

There is a motion for continuance of items eight and eleven to May 5th, 2026.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Discussion looking left.

Seeing none.

Discussion looking right.

Seeing none.

Motion is for a continuance for items eight and eleven to May 5th, 2026 by Commissioner Pana with a second by Commissioner Hina Josa.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Pana.

Yes.

Commissioner Inojosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

No.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

No.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

We are now going to move on to our second continuance docket to the May 19th, 2026 meeting.

The item requesting a continuance of the May 19th meeting is item number one.

All right.

Any discussion?

Any public comment?

There's no public comment.

I meant public discussion.

Clearly.

All right.

The floor is now open for a motion, Commissioner Kelly, as it's a district eight case.

I move that we agree to the continuance.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Kellum.

Uh the motion is for a continuance to May 19th, 2026 by Commissioner Kelly with a second by Commissioner Kellum.

That's going to get confusing.

Um discussion looking left.

Looking right.

Seeing none.

Again, the motion is for a continuance to May 19th for item number one.

Uh roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Inoza.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

We are now moving on.

If you are here for that item, you will see you again in four weeks approximately.

Um we are moving on to our individual docket.

If we could please have our first case, which I believe is item number two.

And Mr.

Gomez, do you see the applicant?

Okay.

Good afternoon.

New Laredo Highway, requesting going from C2 commercial district and C3 General Commercial District to C3 General Commercial District.

There were 24 notices sent down, zero in favor, zero opposed.

The Cantana Neighborhood Association gave no response.

Staff has found indication of likely adverse effects on the public health safety or welfare based on this request.

The current zone is appropriate for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C3 General Commercial District is not appropriate.

The subject property currently maintains a split zoning of C2 and C3.

The C2 portion serves as a buffer providing a more appropriate transition to the active residential properties to the north.

Then a C3 base district would allow.

Well, C3 zoning does exist along New Laredo Highway.

While C3 zoning does exist along New Laredo Highway, these properties are inconsistent with the Kelly South San Pueblo Community Plan adopted in February 2007, which designates this area as a neighborhood commercial.

Expanding to C3 zoning would permit high intensity commercial uses that could be incompatible and detrimental to the abutting residential neighborhood.

And I do not believe the applicant is here.

Okay, very good.

Is the applicant present for item number two?

Going once.

Going twice.

All right.

This is a district four case.

So Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you.

I'm going to request a continuance so that they can keep working with staff.

Come to an agreement.

May 5th?

Yes, May 5th.

Okay.

There is a motion for continuance to May 5th for item number two.

Is there a second?

A second.

Second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Discussion looking right, seeing none.

Discussion looking left, seeing none.

Motion for continuance of item number two by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Inojosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Wetzap.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

There was no public comment.

We're good.

All right.

Can we go on to our next item?

Item number three.

Item number three is located at 519 B Street, going from R6 residential single family district to R6 C D residential single family district with a condition use for four dwelling units.

There are 20 there were 23 notices mailed out, two in favor, zero posts, outside 200 feet, zero in favor, three opposed.

Government Hill Alliance Neighborhood Association is in support.

Government Hill Tomorrow Community Neighborhood Association is also in support.

Staff has not found indication of likely adverse effects on the public health safety or welfare based on this request.

The current R6 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed R6 C D for four dwelling units is also appropriate.

The subject property is located within an established residential block characterized by existing duplexes.

The requested zoning from change maintains the area's residential character while permitting an increase in density that is consistent with the surrounding multifamily and multifamily uses.

Additionally, the CD conditional use requests requires a submission of a site plan that cannot be changed without further public review.

The proposed zoning is also consistent with the goals of the strategic housing implementation plan, which encourages the development of alternate housing types to accommodate the city's growing population at all income levels.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Alvin Peters 1016 State Highway 46 East, Bernie, Texas.

I've been there before.

Very good.

All right.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment.

All right.

You don't get a rebuttal.

This is a district two case.

Unfortunately, Commissioner Losef is not with us today.

So as a result, Commissioner Pana, the mayor's commissioner will be uh taking over for it.

So Commissioner Pana to you for questions.

Hello, how are you?

Thanks for being here.

Um one question.

Um it was brought to my attention.

The district two offices received over ten complaints or notices of opposition.

Opposition.

So my question for you is what did the neighborhood outreach look like?

What were the conversations?

I knew you were here a few weeks ago.

You went back.

What were those conversations like?

I walked the neighborhood myself.

Um I talked to two people.

Two people came to the door, and I was there for probably a two-hour period, just knocking, knocking, knocking, waiting for people to come out.

Two people answered the door, both of them were renters.

One was a um a missionary, and he was moving to Nickawagua the following week, and he just said, Man, I'd love it, you know.

But you know, I'm unfortunate I'm not a owner.

And the second gentleman I talked to owned a tree trimming service, and he said he loved the neighborhood.

It was inexpensive, it was relatively quiet, and he'd love to see improvement.

Um he lived right across the street from the proposed uh lot uh where this project is at.

And um but he welcomed it, but it he reminded me again.

I'm I'm not an owner.

I rent.

And that was it.

Not nobody else came out.

Um the letters in opposition, I I guess that would be on the forms.

And I I just saw by email um from uh looking for it.

Uh Government Hill Community Association.

Um maybe it was out of that group, and I was talking to a radio earlier, and we questioned whether they lived within the 200-foot um limits of notification.

So there's But I didn't I didn't I did meet with Miss Um Uh Marlene Hodkin.

She was here last time to speak against the project in objection to project Government Hill Community Association.

I met with her at length following the last meeting.

And uh we came up with we discussed now what about one-story buildings, what about ADUs, what about this, you know, get rid of uh a lot of the impervious cover proposed, um, you know, keep it single story, uh what else?

What else?

No garages.

And so we modified the plan, just and I I sent it to my owner, Lucy Liu, uh the investor, um, and I said, hey, this is what the objecture objector wanted, would like to see.

And she says, uh on top of I don't want rentals, Ms.

Uh Marlene said, no rentals.

I don't want to support rentals at all.

And um, you know, just we want units for sale, and that was easy.

My owner goes, okay, if they sell, but I can't put it for sale forever at some point.

Um I gotta make a business decision and probably turn the rentals.

We'll we'll see what happens.

Um Miss Dietrich also said her group would offer to purchase the land and develop them themselves.

And I took this offer to Lucy Lou, and it wasn't enough.

And she says, why should I sell it?

I'm ready to develop it.

And uh how long is it going to take them to get the money?

I have I I own this free and clear.

I got a bank ready to finance the construction of the project that you're working on.

You brought the proposal to the zoning commission.

I'm not interested in selling to this group.

Um we we we sent we submitted the updated plan with uh single story structures, no garage, and ADU for each unit.

And uh that was consequently rejected.

And I guess the main I don't know what all the objections were, but the big objection was we will we cannot support rental units in this neighborhood.

Um we left it at that.

And so we proceeded with a modified original proposal.

I think we we modified the parking, we got rid of a lot of the impervious cover that was originally proposed.

We added trees, tried to sub soften the uh front facades of the building and the back, uh trying to screen um the visual uh I guess big buildings that Fort Sam has in the back, and we're trying to soften it up.

And that's that's what I believe um we've submitted for consideration here today, the latest plan.

Okay.

So two people how many residents are on the street?

There's a lot.

I mean I'd have to look at the plan, a satellite.

I mean, it it took me two hours.

It's a lot.

Was the outreach just done in one day?

It was done in one day, yeah.

No opportunities to go back?

We we did not go back.

No, we left we we left notices everywhere.

Please call us.

And there's three neighborhood um associations.

My understanding.

Well, I I guess uh There are two registered neighborhood associations and there's one organization.

Okay, thank you.

The two registered neighborhood associations are in support.

Thank you.

No further questions.

All right.

Uh before we go to any other commissioner, uh, this is an amended site plan.

That is correct.

Okay.

So my right?

Yes, Commissioner He knows.

Uh maybe a question for staff.

What was the amendment amended?

Or what what was changed?

Mr.

Peters, would you like to take that?

Yeah, um yeah.

We got rid of the impervious cover.

Um no, no, no.

I'm gonna rephrase that.

That was wrong.

We reduced the impervious cover.

We had a large parking lot in the front of the building, more of a commercial lot.

So we it's it's a plan to you to your left if you look to your left.

Um that's the latest uh plan.

So whoops, is this a laser?

How do I use this?

Oh, okay.

I'm I'm sorry.

Uh so we we put the parking head in parking, like you see in traditional homes, and a single uh sidewalk heading towards two separate units, two duplexes here, I mean two units here, um, two units here.

So same configuration with the parking, the parking.

Previously we had a large uh parking lot, so I think we reduced it by 50 percent, 40 to 50 percent.

And that was a major complaint.

We got rid of the garages.

I mean that was uh it seemed to be Ms.

uh Dietrich's uh is a major point for her.

So you know what?

I just told owner, let's get rid of the garage.

She didn't like that, but she goes, I accept that.

And if if that's what will make it a um it wasn't tough for her to do that.

And then I said, let's just uh propose uh plenty of landscaping around this neighborhood, which is lacking there and and can't hurt the neighborhood.

Um and and you know, add more greenery.

Um people complain about a two-story structure.

We're trying to reduce the mass a little bit by having a lot of things.

Yes, and just remind me uh I probably need to bring my glasses next time.

But so behind it, there's is that four or two structures per unit?

It is two separate structures, two buildings, and each building will be two duplexes.

I am sorry to interrupt.

Uh the item on the right was an alternative that has not been before this body, is that correct?

That is correct.

This is the first step.

This one.

Can we get the original submission on the right instead of looking at the packet email?

That's more in line with what he's talking about with the two that nope.

The original submission.

The one on the presentation.

Yeah, the one the presentation is amended.

That's the original?

The one in the applic the one in the presentation is the original.

Um I I don't think so.

No, I don't think so either.

It's not that's not the one from the notice.

No, that is not it.

So this case was continued about two times, and I think we have about three site plans actually.

I I have the original, but it's messy.

It has notes on it.

These are notes when I sat down with Marlene.

Um if that's okay.

Can you send it?

Can you just give it to a staff?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Of course.

Sorry for the confusion, everyone.

Okay.

The proposal is the one that's currently on the right, correct?

That's correct.

The amended.

This is the amended site plan on the right.

Right.

Yeah.

Yes.

So now we're not gonna now we're not gonna see that one, but we'll see the one that was originally submitted.

There.

So there it is.

Um with garages, a large parking lot, um, no trees shown.

Um, but you right, same number of buildings, same number of units.

So these are two buildings, two units, so it's total of four duplexes, two houses, duplexes.

Okay, correct.

So the current or the new uh I'm I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blanket.

The new map or the new site plan.

Side plans, correct.

I can't wait for tonight.

I know.

Uh i what is I showing now?

Because it looks it looks different to me.

It it it's it's very different.

Because we got rid of the garages, number one.

Oh, so behind it is the garages?

No, we don't have any garages in the in the new part.

Can we get the amended site plan now?

So everyone put this in your head.

This one was the original.

Get rid of that one on the left, and just the one on the right.

The proposals.

Just the proposal.

That one.

Yeah, put that one up.

There we go.

Oh, so yeah, the garages are gone.

We've reduced the amount of impervious cover, pavement, parking lot.

Got you.

Um I mean, we greatly reduced it, and we added a lot of vegetables.

And I was getting confused with the other picture.

Uh my last question, why were why were the changes made?

You mentioned a name, but I'm not familiar with that person.

Um last time I was here, uh there was an objection and uh Marlene Hawkins.

Hawkins, and and I can't remember.

She's with the neighborhood association, correct.

Well, the neighborhood association that is not recognized by zoning.

So I don't know how to answer that.

Uh she's an individual, and that came up objected, and I said, okay, no problem.

I know.

So you made changes to help the community or the well, uh I made changes because I'm a I'm a nice guy.

I said, I'll meet with you.

You know, I don't have a problem with that.

And I I spent two hours with her.

Nice lady.

And um we had coffee together at McDonald's, and she says, I'd like to see this, this, and this.

The one thing I can't uh approve is rentals.

And I go, well, I can't.

And for time's sake, sir, I I appreciate thank you very much.

You answered my question.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Uh any further questions, right?

No, we're gonna come back around to you.

Uh questions left.

Yes, Commissioner will go.

What's it in the U.S.?

I guess this is probably for staff.

Uh under the R6 by itself, you can do two units or single unit or a unit in the ADU.

What's the rule?

Correct.

You can do the single unit if and if the uh resident or the owner lives on the property, there can be an additional uh accessory dwelling unit.

Okay.

So this an R6 is 6,000 feet and you have to have 50 feet of frontage, so technically this could be cut into two lots.

Is there enough frontage on that?

I'm just looking, I can't exactly tell if there's 100 feet.

There is always a possibility, yes, if a property is to meet the lot standards to permit for it to be subdivided.

But I will say that the zoning specifically for this subject property.

So we apologize for that other plan that was originally shown.

That would never be allowed because again the zoning, the request is for four units on this subject property.

So the only way you could review is if the site plan shows only four units on that subject property.

It doesn't matter if they were to subdivide it or whatnot, only four units would be permitted on this property.

So even if it's subdivided, you'd do two on each lot.

So technically you could do it two units on each again.

It's how the ever they organize it or design it, but only four units would be permitted total on this subject property.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner.

What's it?

Commissioner Duval?

To staff, maybe you could help clarify for me the uh public public response, because I I kind of got lost in it.

Um how many letters in support from the community?

Look at the presentation here.

We send out 23 notices.

We have two in favor, zero in opposition within 200 feet.

Both of the registered neighborhood associations are in support.

There is a community organization that is not registered that provided some opposition.

We also got I got my sent to me four notices for Marlene from the organization and opposition.

Those four notices were from people within the same property.

So same address, three individuals living in a single unit, the count is one.

So just if I can, just to give the commission a little additional context.

This is a complex neighborhood when it comes to neighborhood associations and community organizations.

So we have multiple registered neighborhood associations with different boundaries, both bearing the name Government Hill, and then we have a community organization that is registered as well.

So it's a little confusing.

Just as a reminder, in the last UDC amendment cycle, the city adopted a policy that would allow community organizations to register, even if they overlapped existing neighborhood associations for the purpose of receiving notice.

That's why you're seeing multiple neighborhood associations plus a community organization weighing in on this item.

And the uh overlapping boundaries, so the community organization, which by the way, is that is that just like a HOA that doesn't get qualified as registered, or what does that mean?

Anyone can register a community organization provided they give the city a boundary and then they can elect into receiving notice for things like change of zoning.

Okay, all right.

The do you guys have any context?

The boundaries of the community organization.

Do they cover this area or they they generally overlap the neighborhood association boundary?

And then so then to the applicant.

Um so the two registered neighborhood associations.

Um you received letters of support from them or just the signed um what was the form of that?

As I mentioned earlier.

Both of the registered neighborhood associations are in support of the request.

And how was that support given?

It was an email saying that you're in support.

We meant we met with them and and garnered support.

We did a presentation and then they followed up with an email.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

That's for me.

All right, thank you so much, Commissioner Doval.

Uh any further questions left.

All right.

Next round, Commissioner Pond, to you.

I have a question.

This might be for staff.

Do we know how many members are in each neighborhood association?

No, that'd be some useful information.

Well, yes.

And this is the third time this is this case is come to us again.

That is correct.

Correct?

Not quite.

We have seen the property before.

I've been here twice.

Twice.

Yeah, I do recall, yes.

Someone else did, I don't know.

Perfect.

Okay.

My own personal opinion is that four units on a property of just over a quarter of an acre is is dense, is overcrowded.

The fact that you've only been able to get make contact with two people on that street.

Knowing that you were here a few weeks ago and that you only went out once is is a little bit concerning for me.

I would have made a little bit more effort.

Um in contacting the residences.

But overall, I think it's it's um it it's a hard one.

Yeah.

Okay.

Very good.

Uh any further questions right?

Yes, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

This is uh question for staff.

Uh you say both uh HOAs are in in favor.

How many uh submitted I guess approval or uh the two that are in favor submitted notice of support on behalf of their respective organizations that are registered?

Nobody individually sent support, just the uh the HOAs as a one hope.

Well, it came from the organizations themselves.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any further questions right?

Questions left.

All right, I do have a question for staff really briefly.

We have seen this property before in the past well since I've been on, but that's a very long time.

But maybe in the past three years, four years.

I'm not aware now.

Yeah, I don't remember this case specifically.

Okay.

I remember this.

I remember this.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Sipes, for proving that I'm not crazy.

Y'all were no help at all.

Um at this point, um public comment is complete.

Thank you, Mr.

Peterson.

You may step back.

Uh Commissioner Pana to you for discussion and potential motion.

I I'd like to go ahead and make a motion right now.

Yes, please.

Uh motion for denial.

All right, there is a motion for denial.

Is there a second?

All right.

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Uh the floor is now open for a motion.

Mr.

Chair, can we can we talk about it first?

Or do we need a motion?

No, the motion, the motion fails.

I'd like to I'd like to make a motion for uh approval.

And I'll second it.

Okay.

There is now a motion for approval by Commissioner Hina Hosa with a second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez of item number where are we?

Three.

Um discussion to my right.

Um the reason why I'm seeking approval is I I I I know this area, there's a lot of renters there.

I believe both the neighborhood associations are in support of this.

Even the third third organization, he me he met with them halfway.

Um you could have gone a little bit more, but I believe at this at this point um the due diligence has been done.

I really do hate seeing empty lots on the east side and southeast side of San Antonio myself personally.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Inoza.

Commissioner P any any other discussion right?

Just a quick comment.

Uh I'm in support of it because of uh you're trying to work with a third H or organization, and you already have two that are in favor of it.

So I think that says a lot.

So any further discussion?

All right, very good.

Discussion left, yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Yeah, I uh glad for the opportunity to to talk it through a little bit.

I really appreciate Commissioner Pana's instinct um around uh uh you know concern about the any opposition uh to the to the change.

It's a neighborhood that looks like is predominantly duplexes.

Um a fourplex is a lot more than a duplex.

Um so I I appreciate that that instinct.

Um I think it it it certainly makes it difficult to make sense of the neighborhood community organizations and HOAs and um if if for example uh there was more public comment, you know, members representatives of those HOAs, we could get a better sense and gauge better whether there was say substantial community opposition to the increased density.

Um to future applicants or uh to future community organizations if you want to oppose something, make sure to show up because just writing a letter saying I oppose it, you know, is is is is difficult to process.

Um but given the fact that nobody you know showed up.

We've got two community organizations or HOAs or whatever in support, one opposed.

It's not clear how involved any of them are.

The applicant claims to have met with two of those organizations.

Um with that, I uh you know I'm I'm I'm I'm comfortable supporting the motion to move forward with it.

Um but again very much appreciate the the instinct uh to you know want to be sensitive to community input.

All right, very good.

Any further discussion left all right um again as Commissioner Sipes confirmed uh this property has been empty for a long time.

Uh I I understand the concerns regarding density.

Um I cannot countenance the concerns regarding rentals versus sales.

Um, you know, I disregard that.

I will be supporting the motion.

The motion is for approval of item number three by Commissioner Hino Hosa with the second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Nohosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

No.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right.

You have six months to go to council.

Good luck.

All right.

Next item, please.

Item number five is located at 2408 El Paso Street, going from R4 residential single family district to IDZ1, limited intensity info development zone with uses permitted in C1 like commercial.

Verse 27 notices mailed out zero in favor, zero post.

The historic West Side Neighborhood Residence Association gave no response.

Staff has found indication of likely adverse effects on the public health safety or welfare based on this request.

The current R4 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed ID Z1, which is permitted in C1 is not appropriate.

The proposed res represent the proposal represents a commercial encroachment into the residential block face.

By placing commercial uses between two active single family homes, a request would sandwich an existing residential use and disrupt the established neighborhood character.

Despite surrounding commercial context to the north and south, north, south, and west, the mid block location makes this specific site fundamentally incompatible for commercial expansion.

The applicant is here to answer any questions.

Alright, thank you so much.

If we could have the applicant, please.

And if you would please give us your name and your address for the record.

Sure.

My name is Joshua Zapata.

I'm at 1214 Torion, San Antonio, Texas, 78207.

Okay.

Tell us a little bit about your project, please.

I have a branding uh agency and I do work for U University Hospital and various other businesses.

So I need a place to meet with clients and also other creative people I work with.

Um I usually uh operate out of my home, but uh bringing clients to the home is not a good idea.

So I'm proposing to have an up a small office space plus a coffee cart.

Um something that place I think needs it.

Um it's a a place for the neighborhood for the neighborhood.

It's by someone from the neighborhood for the neighborhood.

Um and it's gonna be a grab and go um food cart or coffee cart.

Um I met with the uh historic association and they were in favor of it.

Uh and my two neighbors, I have their uh approvals as well.

Um they didn't mail it in, but they just handed it to me.

So I have those approvals from both sides of the of the lot.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Sapata.

Uh and it's gonna be no uh it's uh Monday through Friday, Monday to Sunday Saturday Sunday, 6 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

Um late night um uh activities.

So uh I'm very respectful of my neighbors and my neighborhood, so I I don't want um anything to disrupt that.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Sapata.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment for this item.

All right, there's a district.

This is a district five case, so it is to me for questions.

Um you mentioned hours of operation, which we have discussed in the past.

Um if I could, I'd like to amend those slightly.

6 30 to 7 Monday through Saturday.

Perfect.

Uh and eight to seven Sunday.

Sure.

Okay.

Uh we discussed downward facing lighting as well.

Yes.

Yes.

I'm not trying to, but this is an IDZ, so we can't add conditions.

Why do I keep forgetting this?

Sorry.

Yeah.

Yeah, but but no problem.

Uh the city can't enforce the city can't enforce those.

Correct.

The only thing we could enforce is like uh anything that goes on the site plan.

Well, drawing items, drawn items on the site plan.

We couldn't add like conditions there.

But like if they had the building setbacks or a landscaping or parking.

Yes.

This does include an MLOD overlay, so it would also already be required for the downward facing lighting.

And in fact, the other condition I would want besides our hours of operation would be screened fencing.

And that's already required because of the commercial against residential, correct?

That is correct.

All right.

So I don't get my hours of operation.

Okay.

Be nice to your neighbors.

All right.

Those are all my questions.

Will you be nice to your neighbors?

Yes.

Okay.

Those are all my questions.

To right questions?

All right.

Left questions.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Just to staff, could could you reiterate reiterate the nature of the opposition, the recommended denial?

What if we look at the zoning map really quick?

Currently, there is some commercial present in the area, but the specific lot would be separating a residential use if you see right there to the left of that property, and that would leave it between two commercial uses.

Got it.

Okay.

And then to confirm from the applicant, or one of those, yes, from that property.

So 2412 change.

Yes, yeah.

He's in paper for it.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any further questions left?

All right.

Um again, this is district five case, so it is to me for discussion and potential motion.

Mr.

Sabata, you can sit down.

Also, I think I've been calling you the wrong name.

I apologize.

Um, uh I appreciate staff's recommendation.

Um be very, very concerned about any commercial use uh between two residential uses.

In this case, because it's district five, because there's support from the neighborhood association, uh, because there's support from the closest neighbors, and this is not very intense commercial use.

It is commercial use that is circumscribed by a site plan under the IDZ.

I am making a motion for approval of item number five as submitted.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Duval.

Discussion to my left to my right.

All right.

Motion is for approval of item number five as submitted, because I was prevented from making any conditions by me, and a second by Commissioner Duval.

Roll call vote, please.

Chair Bustamante?

I.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner I know some?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sypes?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Wetzett?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Sapata, good luck.

You have six months to go to council.

All right.

Um next case, please.

Good afternoon, Alexa Ratana, zoning planner with development services.

Item number six is located at 13527, Southwest Loop 410, going from MF25 low density multifamily district to C2C D commercial district with the conditional use for parking andor storage long term with all overlays staying the same.

There were 21 notices sent out, two in favor, zero opposed within 200 feet.

Outside the 200 feet, there are 49 in favor.

The existing MF 25 low density multifamily district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C2CD commercial district with the conditional use for parking andor storage long term is not.

While the introduction of a commercial base zone base zoning district can be beneficial in servicing the growing population in the area.

All right.

If we could have the applicant or applicant's representative, please.

Sir, if you would give us your name and your address and tell us about your project.

It's Mark Elisondo.

I'm at uh 3845 Westjet Road.

And this is Bjorn.

He's our engineer too, so he's here to answer any technical questions once we get there.

Um basically what we're asking for is um our site plan is or we bought this property last year.

It's about 55 acres.

We're actually utilizing the front part of uh 410 to turn it into a commercial part.

We're asking for the storage units in the front that we believe it's gonna will benefit the growing South Side area.

It'll help eliminate the reason for long-term parking is to be able to move vehicles, uh RVs and stuff away from neighborhoods and give them a safe place to be able to park their stuff, uh being there.

However, um our neighbors we've talked to via to um South South Bright also and Methodist Hospital, which is right next to us, and we've uh with Methodist Hospital, we've actually come to an agreement.

We've uh amended our site plan to show a 50-foot buffer between us and Methodist Hospital.

And also we did what else I like.

There's the site plan amendment on there.

Yeah, and we did the 30 foot all the way in the back, which would go from um basically the C2 to the R5 in the back, which we actually own the R5 in the back as well, except where the new construction is being made.

Uh so we are doing uh the 30-foot buffer there as well.

Besides that, I'm here to answer any questions or concerns you guys may have.

And again, technical stuff, Bjorn's here to answer those parts as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Alessandro.

This is a district four case, so Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you for questions.

I have no questions.

All right.

Any questions to my right?

Seeing none, questions to my left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval.

Uh so uh what I uh can we staff can we pull up the uh the zoning map?

Staff report uh the uh the one that's like attached to the agenda that shows the uh adjacent properties.

Oh that it does.

Okay, great.

So the adjacent properties are zone C2, uh not residential.

Is that that's a fair fair assessment, right?

There's there's some NF and R on the south side, but it's it it looks like it's C2 with a C D on one side and with an S on the other side, right?

Yes, so there's residential in the rear, and then there's commercial to the east and west of the property.

Uh now when I look at the Google maps, you know, aerial, it looks like some of the C2 is developed on the uh west side of the property, but it looks like the C2 S lot is not developed on the east side of the property.

Is that correct?

Correct.

That's the that's Methodist property.

Oh, that's the Methodist property.

Correct.

What's the S for?

I believe it's for the hospital over 30.

It's a specific use authorization for a hospital.

Okay, all right.

And uh you know, with the idea that they have the entitlement to expand the hospital facility there.

Is that do we have an action?

Actually, with a specific use authorization, you cannot expand.

They have to comply with what the site plan was submitted when it was rezoned.

So they have a plan to build something and they have a lot of different things.

Correct.

Yes, they have plans to put hospital there.

So that would be the same for these folks.

Uh for the C2 C D, they would only be allowed if they were to go with this conditional use of the long-term parking and storage, they would have to comply with the site plan.

And they could not expand or do any um additions.

Okay, so that that addresses those two lots.

Uh there's immediately to the west of the property.

Um the zoning map shows a C2 C D on the zoning map, but it looks like on the aerial it's it's residential.

Uh can you help me?

Am I seeing that correctly?

The C2 C D to the uh west, Emily.

I belie uh we that was recently rezoned last year, and I believe it was for another automotive or um it was like a it's for an auction auction house that we do uh vehicles and stuff like that for light uh vehicles and um trucks that we we got that rezoned last year.

We own that property to the west and to the north of that property as well.

So that whole corner there.

Um am I looking at it wrong?

So the Hill Country Bakery Distribution.

That's not ours.

From there east is ours.

I see, so the bakery uh is both a C2 and an industrial.

The C2 that you see next to that, that was originally an FM 25.

Uh Methodist, when we tried to do this last year, Methodist had a concern about the detention pond on it.

So we've that's why Bjorn's here.

Uh they've done a lot of work.

We met with Methodists already this year a couple times, and we come to an agreement that their engineer and our engineer and Methodist is okay with what we're doing as far as for the detention ponds and stuff like that.

That's why we're back instead of getting it done last year.

We uh removed it off our agenda, uh, amended that part last year until we were able to do a little bit more research and work on it and be able to do more stuff with Methodists and their engineers, and uh now we've come to an agreement and we're all on the so then back to staff just to confirm here then.

So when I look at the aerial thank you, yeah, this is great.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, we've got it here.

So right, all right.

So the zoning for the CU CD is still still naked, it hasn't actually been developed yet, but it isn't title for uh commercial use.

It's not it's not the it's not a butting the uh the the residential neighborhood further to the west.

Right.

Um the MF 25 uh multifamily also looks undeveloped.

Is there a current plan of is like is there a project that we uh to develop that?

Um it's platted to be developed, so it has a subdivision plot.

Okay.

But MF 25, just as a buffer question here.

What is what is MF25 look like for product?

Uh it's plotted for a single family neighborhood.

So it's zoned to MF25, but they can still develop single family homes.

Are you talking to the part on to the south part of it or which section?

The the street that's platted as largemouth, is what I was looking at.

Okay.

The one to the south, that's actually a smiley subdivision.

They're actually doing residential houses there.

Uh for whatever reason, when they actually planted that or changed the zoning, it never got the FM 25 never came off.

That should have been an R5 for the most part, I guess, because they are building residential houses there.

Okay.

And that's why we have the 30-foot buffer on that side to be able to comply with a 30-foot buffer that's required from going from a C2 to a residential section.

Got it.

Okay, that's it for me.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any further questions left?

Seeing none.

All right.

Any last round questions, right?

No.

Questions left?

We just asked you, so no.

Um, Commissioner Pete Rodriguez to you for discussion and potential motion.

I'm gonna make a motion for approval.

Uh since they do have the support of the of the hospital.

And uh approval with the site plan amendment with a buffer.

Second right.

All right.

There's a motion for approval of item number six uh as amended by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez with a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Discussion right?

Discussion left.

Yes, Commissioner Sipes.

Um I'm not gonna be supporting the motion.

Uh I agree with staff that you know we're bringing in a uh a more intense use than um and we're kind of setting a it seems like on this part of town.

Um, you know, to like, oh well, let's just put another industrial type of use.

Oh, well, let's just do this, let's just do this.

And I think I think commercial would be fine, but I think this kind of crosses to a little bit too much, in my opinion.

All right.

Very good.

Nope, sorry, public comments done.

All right.

Any further discussion left?

Okay.

Motion is for approval of item number six as amended by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, and a second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Inojosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

No.

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Commissioner Duble.

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp.

Yes.

Commissioner Pada?

Yes.

Chair Bustamante.

No.

Motion carries as amended.

Very good.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Okay.

We are now moving on to item number seven, please.

But a number seven is located at 1005 North Sauston Mortar Street, going from R6, residential single family water quality district protection area overlay to IDZ3, high intensity and development zone with uses permitted for lumber yard and building materials.

There were 30 notices mailed, zero in favored, zero post.

West and hope in action and prospect hill community organizations did not provide a response.

Staff has found likely adverse likely adverse effects on the public health safety or welfare based on this request.

The current R6 residential single family district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed IDZ three for uses permitted in lumberyard and building materials is not appropriate.

This property was subject to a large area rezoning in 2023, which transitioned the area from multifamily to single family residential.

This is actually solidified the city's clear intent to maintain low density residential character.

The current request is inconsistent with the in this recent direction and would undermine the 2023 larger rezoning.

Aerial imagery confirms the subject property was vacant and undeveloped as of 2019.

Significant development activity appears as early as 2021 and has continued without the required building permits, site plan approvals or mandatory technical reviews.

The unpermitted nature of the ongoing developments of property has bypassed technical review required to ensure compatibility with the neighboring uses.

Specifically, active single family homes abutting the property to the north have not been appropriately buffered, creating a direct negative impact on the established residential character and the quality of life of the existing residents.

The applicant has engaged in construction without the required permits.

Sorry, without the required permit review essential to the West Side Creeks water quality protection area.

This overlay specifically designed to mitigate the discharge of toxic corrosive or otherwise hazardous pollutants into the ecosystem by bypassing technical review.

The applicant's representative is here to answer any questions.

All right, if we could have the applicant's representative, please.

Good afternoon, Commissioners Emily Weissler with Killing Griffin and Fairmond, 10101 Reunion Place, Suite 250.

While staff getting up a presentation, I do want to note, and I think Auradio, I know he's got a lot on his plate.

Um but we do have two additional responses in support from two of those single family homeowners on the record.

So I can we can clear that up administratively.

Um but I do want to note that two of those single family lots have responded formally in support.

Um the other two, to my understanding, are supportive.

Um we are just waiting on their pieces of paper as well.

Um so uh there's been a lot of discussion in the last two weeks with those residents and property owners as well.

But um I will do you have my presentation.

Sorry, Molly, just a second.

That's okay.

I can just I can just chat with you guys.

Um, and we can get into it.

Um there's a couple sides that I do need to talk to you through, but this is just over half an acre on North Sarzamora.

Um there is a very limited access point on Delgado, um, but that is for emergency exit only.

Um this is an established business that we are actively working on with city staff, um, including public works department on the flood plan violations to remedy to those.

We cannot continue with the full commercial permit application because the property is not zoned commercially.

Um we have tried to submit plans, engineers have tried to submit plans that cannot be fully accepted until zoning is aligned.

Um so it's a bit of a rock and a hard place.

Um we understand that there is a lot of retroactive construction permits that need to be done.

Um, and a lot of discussions have already been had with public works, Sabrina Santiago and her team, um, and a lot of remedy coming in on the floodplain development permit side, um, and that will continue.

Um, but we are kind of in a in a stall out at this point until the zoning is proposed.

The zoning is rectified.

The proposed rezoning, IDZ3 with uses permitted for the lumber yard, um, and building materials is is the best uh zoning option that there is.

This is a retail roofing supply company you can buy and sell.

Um, I can come in off the street and buy supplies for my roofing.

So this is not a major contracting yard um or anything else more intense.

This is a retail use.

Thank you.

Do you have control or do I?

Oh, there it is.

There it is.

It was hiding.

Thank you.

I'll skip ahead, maybe.

No.

If you want to just go here.

So just a real quick historically.

Property was purchased by the current owner in May of 2020.

Um, and that is when construction began due to things like COVID, severe language barrier, not understanding the full process.

I think there were a lot of steps missed.

No no holds part about that.

But it was undeveloped in 2020.

Property purchased in May.

If you go to the next slide, you can see development starting in 2020, late 2020, as property took ownership.

This is from October of 2021.

Next one.

January of 2022, completely finished.

Go to the next one.

In January of 2022 is when the certificate of occupancy was applied for, vetted, and approved.

Completely understand.

Zoning was reviewed under that C of O twice.

Again, with total respect for the argument that this is a commitment to maintain single family character, this property was not single family.

In November of 2022 was when the ordinance passed for the UDC amendments and the adoption of the Westside Creeks water quality protection area.

This property was already fully developed at the time of that ordinance adoption that went into effect January of 2023.

If you go to the next one.

And this is just so you have context.

This is an aerial image at the site of the time when the water quality protection area was adopted and the property was going through the large area zoning.

This is a well-established roofing commercial business.

If you want to scroll through, um just additional context for you.

Property hasn't changed over the last three years, but this has been an operating business since January of 2022.

Um it is now April of 2026.

Um so for the last four years, this property has been in business.

Um, and we do have the support of those adjoining neighbors and continue to be a strong well-supported business in the community and would like to continue to be able to operate and also continue to rectify the permitting for the construction.

Happy to answer any questions, respectfully request your support today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Weisler.

Public comment?

There is no public comment, but we do have a code enforcement representative if you all have any questions on those items.

And I just wanted to kind of so to go back to sorry, Emily, we do have those two responses.

They're the two of the four properties.

Um we do confirm that we got them.

But I also wanted to add into like the C of O item question.

Um I pulled up the map, the application that was submitted.

So this portion, the front portion was I one, but the rest of it was MF-33.

So they did receive a C of O meant for the I-1 section.

And but we would potentially grant um something like a non-conforming because the C of O was applied for and allowed for the I-1 section before it was rezoned part of an LAR to the single family.

But again, they're extended out into the larger area, and that's where the concern happens.

And as a radio mentioned, we do have somebody here from Code Enforcement if you want further questions on that.

Very good.

I think I will take you up on that.

This is a district five case.

Ms.

Weiss will stay there for a second.

Thank you.

Good try.

No scampering.

Um sorry, this is a district five case, so it is to me for questions.

Uh one thing that you mentioned uh was that you know this company has been in business here on this side for four years, right?

Well, that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

It does.

And with all due respect, happy appreciate staff's offer for some sort of non-conforming.

We would just like to make this as clean as possible.

And that is my job is to entitle it to its fullest extent necessary and clean that up despite some bad decisions.

Right.

And so uninformed decisions.

Let's let's accept for the purpose of this next question.

Good intentions on everyone's behalf.

Mistakes happen.

Perhaps there was some miscommunication because of language barrier regarding the industrial use and the bounds of the multifamily that was previously there.

Tell me a little bit more about exactly how this happened.

Who, like, for example, was this construction solely done by the owner of the property?

Were there contractors involved?

What what happened?

If you know.

I do not know.

I do not know.

Should have given you a heads up.

Um but okay, but you know.

With respect to the COO.

Um, can you tell me anything else about that?

What would you like to know?

So it was applied for.

Um, it goes through the technical review.

Um, and as staff noted, you know, there the zoning that we are requesting, the lumber yard and building materials, closest use, but there's a family of uses, construction trades contractor, there's a variety of uses that kind of all say the same thing but do a little bit differently.

Um and so that was reviewed twice as part of the technical review that also would have gone through inspections.

Um I was not the applicant on that C of O, so there's only a certain amount of information that I can see on the application for that, but I can see those technical reviews, any comments from staff as well as the inspections that were occurred in past.

Um everything that I can see and from everything that I've been shared by the engineer and the property owner, it went through that process.

Should that have been permitted on the front end?

Certainly.

Um and working on that, but we cannot go too far without the zoning rectified.

Okay.

So what is the plan to try to rectify that, assuming zoning occurs?

So plans have been already drawn up, established building plans for the enclosure of those canopies, um, and then a flood study and all of things that I are well outside my realm of qualifications as far as floodplain development permitting.

Um but those conversations have been had with the engineer from Leak Group, um, Juan Rodriguez and his team and Sabrina Santiago and her team.

Um so all of those plans are created and prepared and ready.

Several of them have already been submitted, but rejected until the because the city cannot understandably accept commercial permits and commercial plans for a property that is zoned residentially.

Okay.

So we are ready to move forward with all of those things and continue that work with city staff as necessary.

Thank you, Ms.

Weissler.

You may step back for a second.

Staff, so tell me, like that representation is correct as far as you all know, the regarding you know, the fact that right now we have an ongoing business, and we're gonna get to code enforcement in a second.

Uh we have an ongoing business on this site that is seeking zoning, and that improper zoning is preventing sort of the correction of other issues.

Is that a fairly yes?

Again, as Emily stated, they did get a C of O, I found the application from 2021.

The front portion was I won, and that was what happened.

Um I will state just for everybody's sake that we do do a technical zoning review by my staff, my team now for every C of O application, which was not done at this time.

Um, because again, this was a split zoned situation.

And um but I belie so they had the C of O, but again, the concern is all the building that happened after the fact that most of them I do not believe have permits.

Okay.

All right.

If we could have the code enforcement officer, please.

Ma'am, if you would introduce yourself.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michelle Velasquez.

I'm a senior code enforcement officer with development services.

Okay.

I am the assigned officer on this case.

There's currently five outstanding code violations uh working outside the scope of the current C of O.

The occupant load is currently two.

So that occupant load has not been corrected.

There's also a building permit for lack of building permit for the construction of the car ports and the garages, no building permit for the construction of the perimeter fence.

And also there's two UDC cases, one for the unapproved fence materials, which the perimeter fence is constructed of corrugated metal, and another UDC violation for unapproved fence materials for the razor wire.

There is razor wire, the uh the full length of the perimeter fence.

And those have uh those are still outstanding, they're still at municipal courts pending.

Okay.

If you could give me a little when you say occupant load as a violation, what do you mean?

How many uh persons are approved to be um inside the structure based on how large the structure is?

So at the time it was uh and the aerials like the history, uh it was a small structure that was approved for that C of O.

Now it's expanded.

And during my investigations, the times I've been on the property, I've seen more than two people, more than two employees and the public inside those structures.

Okay.

All right.

Well, let me ask this.

Um so originally it was approved for two as an occupant load.

Yes, sir.

Um and how was the occupant load calculated, if you know?

Uh by the uh building inspector through development services.

And and based on on the square footage of that, yes, absolutely.

So, you know, presumably if they had done it properly, they had gotten the building permits, they had expanded.

Right.

Along with that, the occupant load would expand as well, right?

Then it would have triggered right their certificate of occupancy.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Ms.

Weissler, back to you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Ms.

Velasquez.

Officer Velasquez?

What's the appropriate title?

Officer Velasquez.

Excuse me.

And the enclosure of that building will those canopy structures will trigger that review of the certificate of occupancy and expanded occupancy load because we can't have any outdoor storage because of the For a permit that can't be gotten right now.

Correct.

Okay.

Talk to me about the fence.

Yes.

That needs to be it is there.

That was not a question.

That was not a question.

Would you tell me what is the plan for the fence given the core code enforcement issues?

Yes, that has to be remedy.

There is no way around it.

Um razor wire specifically is prohibited by code.

Um I don't even think you can go to Board of Adjustment for razor wire.

And there are corrugated metal.

The corrugated metal they can go to BOA.

The there is permission for barbed wire, not razor wire.

But the barbed wire has to be brought into like the building foot or um the setbacks, basically.

So if they want it along the perimeter, that is another item that would be requested by the BOA.

For the BOA.

And for the Commission's understanding, this case also has to go before these the setbacks, um, the existing setbacks.

Although IDZ is the closest we can get to remedying those existing setbacks, we still have to go to Board of Adjustment to address those setbacks.

So there are there are a lot of steps involved here in in this process.

Um with respect to, I cannot speak on behalf of the property owner with respect to if the um barbed wire would be something that we would pursue a board of adjustment, but we are already anticipating having to go to Board of Adjustment for setback consideration as well on the northern side and eastern.

All right.

I think those are all my questions.

Uh we're going to start on my right.

Questions?

Yes, Commissioner Hino Halsa.

Uh question for probably staff or maybe code.

Um I see that there's some school zones like signage, like right close to that building further down to the across that bridge.

Is that for I know the area, I mean, is it Irving?

Is it Crockett's?

There's some SASD schools, or is there another church school?

I just wanted to see if you guys knew what that's for, what is zone for?

I know that Rhodes Middle School is probably about maybe a block down.

You mean Irving Middle School?

I sorry, I believe I thought it was Rhodes Middle School.

But it could be.

Okay, I just didn't know if there was a specific or how would you find that, right?

But okay, thank that's all my questions.

All right.

Any further questions right?

All right, questions left.

Uh let's go.

Commissioner Kelly.

I have a question, I guess um by the applicant's representative about the floodplain issue.

How um are we talking about the fact that the property needs to be raised?

And how would that be accomplished or what what is the floodplain issue and what's the mitigation that's needed?

So the entire property is inside the 100-year floodplain.

Um so we cannot shouldn't make any improvements um inside the 100-year floodplain.

Um that is still under discussion um with Sabrina Public Works and her team on what mitigation that involves, because the property as it stands today has a hundred percent impervious cover.

Um so that is part of the discussion, part of the review is determining what those mitigations, what that mitigation looks like.

Um is it deconstruction?

Um is it new pervious cover?

What does that mean?

Is that fill, is that grading um I that has not been finalized yet.

Well, it just seems to me that's gonna be a real difficult challenge because typically you don't want to add in uh fill inside of floodplain.

It is quite a challenge.

Lots of challenges here.

All right.

Questions left?

Uh we'll go doval and then what's it?

Uh for staff.

Um terms of uh procedural history, I just want to like lock it down because I think it does matter um where where who made what mistakes.

So um original uh CF CFO was issued for land use the request was for roofing materials sales, housing and selling roofing materials.

Okay, so the applicant originally applied for roofing user sales.

That's correct.

They I'm not on the mic.

And they uh they obtained the CFO.

At that time, yes.

The C of O application has it called out for the I-1 portion.

So the split zoning.

Okay, because let's can we can we see a map again just so I can see where what was where it was?

So that front per portion in purple would have been the industrial side, which is what the CFO was for.

Can you show me compared with the what how much of it wasn't?

You see that structure with the reddish orange roof?

I'm sorry, I'm not actually following.

Could you so if you follow this, this is gonna be really rough.

The property can there's a I see there's that roof back, so it is this rear yard.

Do you have another just regular site plan?

Oh, yeah, why why don't we do it on the site plan?

If uh I think roughly um this probably the line.

So all of this with those materials, that existing building, um that is the only uh fully enclosed building, so all of that would have been in the original I-1, this outdoor storage area um and drive is was not as part of the original I-1.

Does that make sense?

But just draw around.

And it it was zoned MF.

MF33.

Okay.

So those two uh canopy structures?

Those are canopy structures for outdoor storage.

Yeah.

All right.

Okay.

So the enclosed structure was the one that had the CFO to staff.

So the enclosed was the one with the CFO or not.

So the C of O was for a structure that was existed already in an industrial property, the C of O'S for non-construction.

That means that no one ever looked at the construction plans for this type of use.

It was an existing building, so the inspector would have gone on site.

I'm sorry, can you explain that?

What part?

So I I just think that's a good question.

So to summarize, they applied for a C of O at the time when it was split zoned for this portion of the property that was zone industrial.

So at the time, this type of application goes through the permit counter, which doesn't didn't then take a actual zoning review from a zoning staff member.

It was done by the permit counter staff.

It was split zoned back then.

The CO4 was no construction, meaning they were using an existing building.

So there was less scrutiny there at that time based on the request.

I see.

Okay, that's important.

All right, thank you.

So then, and then to to you know, move forward, then additional work was done without revisiting the permit.

Structures were built.

That is correct.

Okay.

All right.

Uh let me think.

How did it um how did it come up?

How was it figured out that this was uh a a problem?

Can you so and this has been something that we've been trying to, and I think Chair Vistamonte can speak to this as well, trying to remedy for quite some time.

Um I think with the large area rezoning, um, there was discussion, and I think there was a uh a misunderstanding on behalf of the property owner on what those zoning options were.

He knew he had industrial, he wanted industrial, didn't know that there were other options and a way to figure out what that looks like at that time when it was going through the large area rezoning in 2023.

I think that is that a fair characterization to an extent.

Um you don't get to ask me questions.

I know.

Just throwing it out there for fun.

Um just changing things up a bit here.

Um so we have been working on this for quite some time on discussions with the council office, um, community on what the best zoning request is to avoid asking for an I-1, not wanting to ask for an I-1, not wanting to put a large industrial zoning on this property.

Um this is really retail in nature.

Um again, this is not major construction contracting yard.

Um, but what is that best use?

There's really not one, but we've got the closest one, and how do we get it in a way that triggered a site plan and has those parameters in place, requires us to eliminate and prohibit outdoor storage so we can put that on the site plan.

Um just the way to ask for the least intense and most specific option for what is existing um and what is intended there, um, which is nothing more than what is existing.

Um so and we've been working on this for several months.

Okay.

And then last question to staff.

Um retail roofing materials.

What what would be the uh required zoning if we were outside the context of IDZ?

Can you do that in a C or is is that I?

What would it be if it wasn't IDC?

Are you talking about the use designation?

Yes.

So the lumber yard and building materials is uh permitted with a specific use authorization in a C3, or it's permitted by right in L I1 I2.

Okay.

Uh there is a C3 adjacent to it.

Um so hypothetically, I'm I'm just trying to uh judge appropriate.

Hypothetically, that C3 could apply for an S to also have a lumber yard.

That is correct.

They would still have to go through this whole process of rezoning to add that S.

Right.

With different setbacks that are not aligned with what is existing, which is why the request instead of going for a C3S went for an IDZ was to try and address the setbacks to the extent possible.

But just you know, that there are adjacent use there there are adjacent properties that could fathomably have this use with their um at least with the C3 zoning is important.

And then those but those C2s would not allow a lumber yard with an S, right?

That's correct.

Okay, all right.

That's it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Duval.

Commissioner Witsett.

I hope I'm not rehashing the same thing, but the existing building that's in the corner back there, uh that was zoned I-1 originally, and that was there prior to the down zoning.

That's correct.

So at the time of application, it was zoned for industrial.

And do you know how old that building is approximately five years.

Let me check real quick.

I see it there from 20 let's see.

About July, nope, I'm sorry, October 2019.

Okay.

Yeah, beakhead does not have any data, unfortunately.

All right.

So it was there 2019, and then prior to the downzoning, this was being utilized as the retail industrial thing.

So the violations really are on the expansion into the MF part, not the original part.

But it went through the entire property went through the large area zoning.

But what I'm saying is the part two, half of this would be complying if they didn't downzone them.

And the other is the problem.

Which could be, as Kelly mentioned, like debatably non-conforming on that I one.

I'm just like, why did they down zone them when they knew the use it was there?

Um I here heard your message.

So that's what I was trying to understand.

Thank you.

The building may have been there.

Uh I will say large area rezonings.

We're going off of what the district office is requesting.

And they wanted residential in this area.

They were trying to remove a lot of industrial, and I get it that there may have there was an existing use there, but that C of O was submitted at the time after they had done their initial review, our staff.

Because we do do an initial review.

Forrest, could you tell me how many lots were in there?

For this pro this LAR?

This was on the team that worked on this, but this was I think about five or six thousand properties that were reviewed.

So we reviewed five or six thousand properties, and yes, it is a difficult process to check every single one.

And it and it was an item missed.

But again, we would permit an NCU in this situation.

So just the area that it was permitted.

I guess one last clear you talk about the C of O.

Is that for the buildings that were added, or is the C of O for the buildings that were that would only be for the building that was for no construction C of O.

Anything any new buildings would have required the planned review process, which would have assigned them an occupant and ultimately C of O.

So the existing building had already had a building permit and they were already occupying at the time.

Not a building permit, but a certificate of occupancy and occupancy.

And they were occupying that at the time.

Based on the certificate, yes.

Okay.

Any further questions left?

All right.

Good questions to me then.

But that COO only had an occupant load of two people.

Right.

So anything so anything beyond that was beyond the bounds of the certificate of occupancy.

All right.

I do not believe I'm going to have any further questions because I do not believe that it would give any clarification.

But I will nonetheless ask if anyone else has any questions left.

Any questions right?

Seeing none.

All right.

So it is to me for discussion and potential motion.

This is beyond a difficult case.

This is a rat's nest of mistakes, well-intentioned, ill-intentioned.

I'm not going to make any of those judgments.

But they have left us with a problem.

And the problem is, to be honest, I don't know if it is something that can be solved.

You know, given the the various issues, whether it's the floodplain, whether it's going back in time and hoping that someone would get the appropriate building permits so that we could have resolved this question prior to the investment of, you know, presumably thousands upon thousands of dollars.

My biggest concern because of and despite of the existing uses.

Because on the one hand, they they've been there.

On the other hand, they have been completely without permits.

So, you know, I don't want to reward anyone for just ignoring the permit process and then coming in here and begging for some kind of but my biggest concern remains the water quality district.

Um this would, as proposed, resolve that issue.

Uh I don't think it resolves a lot of the other issues.

I have questions as to why the corrugated material is the still there on the fence line, why the razor wire is still there on the fence line, when you know, certainly with respect to the razor wire, that's an easy solution.

Take it down.

Um ultimately, again, I don't think this is solvable, personally.

Um that being said, I'm willing to give the applicant the opportunity.

Um, you know.

I'm not at all pleased about the way this is played out.

I I think you know, if we are to assign blame, it is the applicant's fault that there were no building permits sought.

We could have avoided a lot of this.

But that's not where we are.

So as a result, and you know, I hate this case.

Uh, but I am going to move for approval and do so move for approval of item number seven in the hopes and the expectation that the applicant, should it pass, fixes all of this.

All right.

So there is a motion for approval of item number seven.

Okay.

Second.

Second by Commissioner, Kellum.

All right.

Discussion right.

Saying none.

Discussion left.

Yes, Commissioner Duval and then Sipes.

Uh I want to note notices mailed out, zero in favor, zero opposed.

This is kind of a technical issue.

Uh if there had been members of the public out here in opposition saying, tear it out, we don't like it, uh, it might be a really different case for me.

Um, but I mean it's it's more of a technical issue.

Um I when I look at Google Street View at the project site, my first reactions were, oh, that ugly razor wire on top of the fence.

Oh, you know.

Um as proposed, the you know uh compliance with the different you know regulations would make the project better.

And I think that that's you know, when there's not community opposition, that's an important kind of load star for us on cases that get complicated is is this going to make it better?

Um and I think clearly it will make it better.

Um so you know, best of luck on working out the other issues.

Uh but that's not really our problem.

That's their problem to figure out.

Uh so with that I'll be uh supporting the motion.

Yes, Commissioner Sipes.

Man, I feel like I'm like the negative person this this week, but um I I can't I can't support the motion.

I I I I respect uh applicants representative, I respect the the chair's, you know motion and recognize that man, I'm glad this is not in my district.

But um you know, I it there for me I just kept you know, it was like uh well there's this, and then there's a fence, and then it's in the floodplain, and then it there just seemed to be just too many things that went wrong um to even attempt to fix.

Um if it if the if the motion passes and if something is fixed, I'll I'll I'll celebrate that.

But um I I can't support the the motion right now.

Yes, Commissioner Kelly.

Uh I'll just be short and sweet.

I'll just associate my thoughts with Commissioner Sipes.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further discussion left?

All right.

Um, I know exactly where Commissioner Sipes and Commissioner Kelly are coming from.

Um we'll see.

All right.

Uh the motion is for approval of item number seven by me with a second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote, please.

Chair Wisdom on them?

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum.

Yes.

Commissioner I know them.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

No.

Commissioner Sipes.

No.

Commissioner Kelly.

No.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Wetzett.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

No.

Motion fails.

All right.

Uh the floor is now open for a motion for reconsideration by someone who voted against the previous motion.

In the alternative, uh, if there is no motion for reconsideration, this will be continued for the second time, which means after the next time they can go on with a deemed denial from City Council.

Is that to city council, correct?

That is correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

So if no one makes a motion, it's an automatic continuance.

We can come back.

But if you make a motion, we can do denial.

I have a question for staff real quick.

If we do a continuance, how far can we extend it?

Oh, you can move for a continuance too.

Sorry.

If you move for reconsideration and move for continuance.

Typically, we wouldn't want a continuance to go beyond like a month or two.

I would like to give them enough time to fix the issues, correct the issues that they have before they come back.

But the problem they can't fix the issues until the zoning is resolved.

Maybe they make an effort with the razor wire and show good faith.

Uh and maybe we can think about it.

So you're saying to tear down the razor wire, correct?

Razor wire, maybe start working on the can they work on the fence?

The correlated fence?

If they want to keep a corrugated fence, they would have to go to BOA and they cannot go to the BOA will not hear this out until this is resolved.

Zoning is resolved.

So they would have to take down the corrugated metal fence as well.

That's what I'm recommending.

Yeah.

I mean, show good faith and start working on some of these issues.

All right.

Well, would you like to make a mo you you are entitled to make a motion for reconsideration?

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Can I ask a question real quick to just to see how much time they would need to correct these issues?

Sure.

What would be an appropriate time for them to correct these issues?

Well, why don't we why don't we say one month?

I mean, but actually, why don't we, if you want to move for reconsideration, you can do that now, and then we can talk about a motion afterwards.

I would move for a reconsideration on this item.

Okay, there's a motion for reconsideration.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Second by Commissioner Pana.

Hesitated.

I understand why you hesitated, I think.

Uh all right.

So uh discussion looking right.

Discussion left.

Seeing none.

Uh motion is for reconsideration of item number seven by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez, second by Commissioner Pana.

Roll call vote.

Sorry.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Commissioner Cullum.

Yes.

Commissioner Nohosa?

Sure.

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

I just need to vote no.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Gomez, do you have something you wanted to say?

Yeah.

Just as a reminder to Commissioners, the only way that a lot of these items are going to be accounted for and actually reviewed technically is to be permitted to apply for permitting to actually account for all the issues and have them formally address them through technical review.

But the one thing that can be addressed between now and a month from now, or even two months from now, is the removal of the thing that is banned under the UDC, correct?

That is correct.

All right.

Um in light of that, uh I'm going to make a motion for a continuance of one month.

Second.

Uh all right.

So there's a motion for a continuance to May 19th of item number seven by me with a second by Commissioner Duval.

Uh discussion left.

Discussion right.

Seeing none.

Motion is for continuance to May 19th of item number seven by me, second by Commissioner Duval.

Roll call vote.

Chair Bustamante?

Aye.

Commissioner Nuval?

Aye.

Commissioner Cullum.

Yes.

Commissioner Noosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner WhatsApp?

Yes.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Um.

Before we take a break, is the applicant for item number nine present.

No.

For the nogalitos.

Nogolitos.

Nogolitos?

Anyone?

All right.

Let's do that case really quickly.

Thank you, Officer Velasquez, for being here.

We appreciate your time.

Uh let's read item number nine into the record, please.

And then we will take a seven minute break approximately.

Good afternoon.

My name is Samantha Benavides, zoning planner with development services.

Item number nine is located at 1904 Nogalito Street, going from C3R, General Commercial Restrictive Alcoholic Sales District to C3RS, General Commercial Restrictive Alcoholic Sales District with the specific use authorization for tobacco store, retail, hookah lounge, smoking room, vape shop, or consumable hemp products, retailer within a thousand feet of a public or private school daycare or institution of higher learning with all overlays staying the same.

There were 47 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

Palm Heights Neighborhood Association gave no response.

The existing C3R district is not an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

The proposed C3RS district is also not appropriate.

The proposed request would permit the encroachment of a vape shop within a thousand feet of Collins Garden Elementary School located at 167 Harryman Place.

This directly conflicts with Section 35-398.02 of the Unified Development Code, which expressly prohibits tobacco and vape-related businesses from operating within a specific distance of sensitive land uses, including schools.

Additionally, while there are similar zoning districts in the surrounding area, those districts are already exceed the intensity outlined under the future land use section of the Nogalito South Samurai Community Plan.

The introduction of an additional use of this nature would further deviate from the plan's intended land use pattern and undermine its vision for compatible community oriented development.

Staff recommends denial.

Planning commission recommendation is pending the April 22nd, 2026 hearing, and the applicant is not here.

All right, very good.

Stay there, please.

Any public comment?

There is no public comment.

Did you contact the applicant to remind them about the hearing today?

Yes.

All right.

Very good.

I don't have any questions.

Questions left.

Questions, right?

All right.

Uh normally I would give a two-week continuance in this case.

I am not doing that.

Okay.

Uh this is a so discussion to me because this is district five.

This is a vape shop within a thousand feet of an elementary school.

This is entirely uh discretionary on our part.

I think the entire point of the ordinance was to prohibit this.

I see no reason at this point uh to go away from that.

I move for denial of item number nine.

Second, second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Discussion left.

Discussion right.

All right.

There is a motion for denial of item number nine by me, second by Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Roll call vote.

Chair Bustamantham.

Aye.

Commissioner Noosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Cullum.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Sypes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duble.

Aye.

Commissioner Panna.

Commissioner Panna?

Yes.

And Commissioner What's at left at 2 49 p.m.

Very good.

I was just about to say that.

Motion Carries.

Carries.

Thank you so much.

All right.

At this point, we will take approximately a seven-minute break till about three.

Um, and we will then reconvene.

We are in recess at this time.

And this meeting of the zoning commission of the city of San Antonio is back in session.

If we could have the next case, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Samantha Benavidas, zoning planner with development services.

Item number 12 is located at 2007 Frio City Road, going from C2 Commercial District to C2 CD commercial district with a conditional use for parking and or storage long term, with all overlays staying the same.

There were 32 notices mailed, one in favor, zero opposed.

Via de Esparza, Kelly Park, and a neighborhood association gave no response.

Outside 200 feet, zero in favor, two or opposed.

The existing C2 district is an appropriate zoning for the property and the surrounding area.

The proposed C2 CD district is not appropriate.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning permit to permit vehicle storage associated with the record service.

The property is located at the entrance of an established single-family residential neighborhood.

If approved, they would introduce an industrial use into an area predominantly designated for medium intensity commercial and low density residential development, making it inconsistent with the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial, and the applicant is present to answer any questions.

Good afternoon.

My name is Janie Aretta, and I represent SA Toin and a Recovery.

Proposal zoning change proposal for 2007 Frio City Road.

Um to change the uh proposal from the umbout at part.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and we will also provide 24-hour remote surveillance, hours of operation, 7 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

Monday through Friday and Saturday as well.

Closed Sunday.

Tow vehicles not equipped with reverse alarms, so there will be minimal noise.

And our trucks are serviced frequently, so there is no smoke, there is no uh oil leakage, there's no um the smog of any kind, and uh we currently we currently have a location at 1603 Frio City Road in the same locate.

We've been in the same location for 20 years plus, and our family actually have lived in the neighborhood since 1954.

Um this property 2007 Frio City Road is about a thousand feet from our current um business community approval and benefit.

We gathered signatures from surrounding neighbors and via Esperanza at Via Esperanza Development will bring added safety to surrounding community by providing immediate 24 hour surveillance and lighting, planned license plate reader in the future, adding additional safety to the Frio City Road corridor.

Commercial traffic remains the same.

TOW vehicles travel the street now.

Allow us to maintain our proximity to community partners who benefit from abandoned property, which is re redistributed through the 78207 area, such as donations to Catholic charities and bread and blankets, mutual aid.

Um since we've uh taken interest in this property, uh the the backdoor neighbors, they've reached out to her to us to share that they are just so excited and grateful that the rat infestation is no longer there, and the the uh transients that were building their home there, uh they are no longer there because even though it was not our property yet, we went we took the initiative and cleaned it and removed all the debris, and as soon as we uh turned our back, there was more debris.

So I personally was out there one day cleaning, and uh my brother says, No, no, no, no, sis.

What are you doing?

I said, I can do it, I can do it.

But they were they were uh frequently just um using that as a dump site pretty much, and ever since we've uh taken over, and so now the property is uh actually ours now.

We've gotten approval for that, and uh so it and uh the neighbor was sharing with us.

It's no longer a rat's nest, um, and it's no longer used as dump sites.

So we're in the process of clearing these two big piles of dirt, debris, and and just trash that have been accumulated, and uh along the fence line there's a lot of trash and debris, and that we were planning on doing it this week, but of course the rain uh hindered um but yes, we look forward to uh beautifying this area and and just making it uh nice and and quiet, and it will not be hindered to any of the residents because where we're parking, we're actually next to uh uh a garage, an existing garage.

So we're not going to be parking the cars like right by the our backdoor neighbor uh or on this side.

There's a garage and then there's several garages down the street as well.

And uh, of course, there's uh the main street and then Frio.

Um but we do take pride of our community and we take the best care, and uh uh we we just we know we will have a positive impact thank you, Ms.

Uh any public comment?

Tarsia Fighter voice now.

Oh, so we no longer play voicemails.

So if you want to address us, you can yeah, just come up, tell us your name, tell us your address, tell us if you are in favor or opposed, or me with that.

Whatever you want, but your name and address first and then how you feel.

Okay.

About this, please.

I've got health issues should not be discussed.

Ask Dr.

Kell.

Hello, everybody.

Uh my name is Trisha Fayad, and I reside in the Vila's Esperanza neighborhood, which is right next to this property, and I'm surprised they're not showing a picture of our entrance to our neighborhood.

So it's left out.

Um I was in favor, but I um in opposition because we need less industrial coming into our corridor for City Road and right at our entrance and exit of our neighborhood.

Our neighborhood was established in 1997.

Um, and our goal, our some of the residents' goal, is to beautify that corridor Frill City Road, which has been neglected decades by the city of San Antonio and our city council staff.

Uh it's an old Kelly Air Force Base corridor where it used to be bars where the employees from Kelda Force Base will go have a coal one after work, and some of the buildings are still vacant up to now.

Um it's an ISOR, and the the last thing I want, and some of my residents want is more uh industrial coming into that area, even though it is predominantly industrial area.

Uh there is uh potential to beautify it, uh bring something that is lacking in that community.

And we just believe that or I believe that bringing another industrial business, I I'm for small businesses, but I would like to see something different.

It was a former restaurant, and I would love to see maybe if another restaurant can come through or a different type of business, such as a creative workspaces, uh offices, uh community center, and versus another industrial business.

So I would have to say I am opposing.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

That is it for public comment.

I thought I had more time.

Um brief rebuttal, if you would, if you'd like it.

Yes, this uh this building has been vacant for several years, and uh there has been no kind of beautifying to it.

And uh now that there will be building that the bridge on Sarzamora and uh Frio, uh folks are going to be headed that direction, and over here it's like the uh it it it's not going to be so I want to go shopping here, or there's gonna be a mall here, or it's going to be uh something exciting because they're they're all there's maybe about uh five, six, seven different uh mechanic shops in that area.

So we're we're not the first one.

And uh like I said, uh that we we took initiative to clean it up, and nobody, even the people that live around there, they didn't pick up trash, and we took initiative to collect all the trash and take it to the appropriate place.

And uh we we just and actually that the property uh belongs to us already.

So a restaurant is not going to we're not gonna have a restaurant and we're not gonna have a mall or offices because that's not in our uh that's not in our vision.

Okay.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, this is a district five case, so it's questions to me.

Um looking at the permit history on this property uh staff or Ms.

Edetta, I'm happy to talk about to either one of you about this.

Can you tell me a little bit about the fence permitting?

Miss Benavidas So the fence permit was originally requested as a six-foot fence.

Um they also had to correct, I guess, a clear vision um indent that needs to go out that corner of the neighborhood, um, which will have to be fixed as well.

Um and so ultimately they built outside of that scope that they requested.

Um so that's where we're at with this um eight-foot-ish fence that we have now.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um I don't think I have any further questions.

Um I uh will open it to my fellow commissioners to my left questions?

Yes, Commissioner Duble.

Uh to staff current zoning is C2.

Um just big picture.

What what is C2 meant to what's the feel for C2?

What is it supposed to be?

So normally you're looking at retail, uh some retail restaurants.

Um you have some car uses, uh like tire, oil, lube, that sort of things, but nothing intense, nothing past that, no mechanic work or anything like that.

So with those auto uses, because it's it's relevant here.

What what specifically would a uh owner be allowed to do on the existing zoning auto-related uses?

Where's where's the line?

So again, they'll be able to do oil and lube, um, like minor changes.

Uh I think they have uh what else tire shop as well.

Auto parts retail, auto parts, vehicle inspections, leave limousine services, gas station.

Yeah, but a gas station also has a distance requirement that has to be reviewed.

So yes, but not really.

Anything that goes into mechanical work or storage of the vehicles, that goes more into the higher intense commercial or industrial uses.

And that's what the commissional use authorization here is.

Correct.

All right.

Uh the I guess a question for the uh representative from or the from the the neighbor.

Um I'm sorry, I missed your name, but if you could come up.

Ms.

come up, please.

Yes, sir.

I uh you you would um mention that you would prefer to see uh uh uh service use like a restaurant or co-working space or something creative.

We can't always be beggars and choosers.

Um the applicant owns the property already, they would already be entitled to have oil and lube, auto glass tinting, tire repair.

Um would you prefer those uses to the proposed use?

No.

Um are we gonna know for sure there's not going to be any oil leaks from those vehicles there?

So that's what I'm getting at.

Is it's just the the applicant's already entitled.

They don't need to come to us to go and build a lube and tune-up.

And you know, if the commission were to deny their request for the C D, they could very well go and get permitting for lube and tune-up for oil change.

Um so just I I wanted to check to make sure like you you there's some uses that they would be allowed to have that might be worse than the proposed use.

Right.

Um that's it for me.

Thank you, Commissioner Duble.

Questions to my left?

Seeing none?

Questions to my right?

Yes, Commissioner Pana.

Surprise I have a question.

Yeah.

Uh this is for you.

Yes.

You said you're going to be storing the vehicles there, correct?

Yes.

And transporting to the auction?

Correct.

Yes.

And they're being transported with individual tow trucks, large tow trucks, individual.

The cars themselves are going to be driven there by drivers.

Individual tow trucks.

Okay.

Yes.

And the existing structure will stay as is and be utilized how?

I'm sorry?

The existing structure that's there, the building?

How are you going to utilize it?

Is that existing structure?

Because it's all so broken and and and it's going to be um demolished in time.

And then of course, before then, we will uh request a permit to have a demolished that's in time.

Okay.

I missed that.

Thank you.

And dip at a time.

No retail or sales activity is planned to take place.

No, ma'am.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No further questions.

All right.

Any questions to my right?

All right.

Um I don't have any questions.

One more go round.

Yes, Commissioner Sipes.

Oh, I knew I was going to regret that.

I know you you're gonna re-regret this.

I No, no, I'm just kidding.

Um I do have a question for staff.

Um there a mention of the fence.

The permit originally sought was for a six-foot fence and eight-foot-ish fence appears to be what is currently installed or um in the process of installation.

Um in order to get the eight-foot fence, would that be a BOA?

No, they actually have the request associated uh for the eight-foot fence with this zoning request.

In this case, they can request it through the rezoning process, which they're attempting to do.

Okay.

Gotcha.

And so, but usually an eight-foot fence would not be allowed.

Correct?

Well, to be fair, um, it is a commercial business, and it looks like they're abutting a residential.

I'm is this a residential use right behind them?

Because any uh commercial use that is a butting like a res single family residential is permitted to do an eight-foot fence along the rear side.

At the rear, but not around the side in the front.

Well, along the rear inside where wherever it's abutting.

So yeah, it would be along the rear for this property.

They would be permitted to do that right now.

Right now.

But but the side where the then and then the front is usually would not normally unless granted the zoning request.

That is correct.

Okay.

Yeah, I just wanted to confirm too, because sometimes an eight-foot fence if you are abutting a certain type of right-of-way, but not in this case.

Got it.

Right.

Thank you.

That's all my questions.

All right.

Very good.

Um left questions.

Right questions?

All right, seeing none.

Public hearing is closed.

This is a district five case, so for me for discussion.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Duval.

Um, I think there are a couple of issues that we need to address here.

Um, you know, Commissioner Duval pointed out that right now, as of right, these C2 uses can do a lot.

Uh a lot of things that you may not want as a neighborhood.

Um the benefit of the C D that they're asking for is that we have a site plan, which is now gonna have to be fixed.

If you're if you're gonna get rid of that building for this site plan, we want to start planning for that now, correct, staff?

It honestly could be done as a minor site plan amendment to remove uh square footage, yes.

Um again, we would be looking at the amount of parking spaces.

If she wanted to add additional parking spaces, that would be an issue.

Right.

And so right now the site plan, you know.

I believe you have mentioned that the number of slump spots is like 40 cars or so.

That's not represented here.

You would be bound to the site plan for that number of spots.

So but we can do things like landscape buffers.

We can do things to make this more attractive.

And you can add conditions to this one.

Like hours of operation.

I don't appreciate your time.

Sorry.

I'm sorry, I didn't need to steal your thunder.

Um here's what I'm going to recommend.

At the end of the day, I I would like to get a continuance in this case.

I think we can meet, we can talk uh involving me, all of y'all.

Let's talk about what we can possibly do, see if we can come to a solution.

So at this point, I'm going to move uh for a four-week continuance to May 19th.

Uh during that time, you can get my number from Miss Benavides and we will talk.

But right now I move for a continuance of item number 12 to May 19th for a continuance.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Kellum.

Um discussion left.

Seeing none.

Discussion right, seeing none.

Again, motion for continuance to May 19th of item number twelve by me, second by Commissioner Kellum.

Roll call vote, please.

Chair Wisdomantham?

Aye.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Noasa.

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Sipes.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval?

Aye.

Commissioner Padma?

Yes.

Motion carries.

So we'll see each other hopefully before four weeks, May 19th.

Uh, but again, you can get my information, my number from Ms.

Benavidos.

And then we'll we'll chat and see what we can do.

All right.

All right, thank you.

Um please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joel Polima, zoning planner with development services.

Item number 18 is located at 6543 Callahan Road.

It's going from C2 commercial district to C2S commercial district with a specific use authorization for gasoline fill and station or use with gasoline having 50,000 gallons or less total tank capacity within 100 feet of multifamily residences with all overlays remaining the same.

Twelve notices were sent out, zero received in favors, you're opposed within the 200 feet, and there is no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

The existing C2 commercial district is an appropriate zoning for the property and surrounding area.

In contrast, the proposed C2S commercial district is not appropriate.

While the base zone remains the same, the requested specific use authorization would allow the development of a gasoline fuel and station or use with gasoline hub in 50,000 gallons or less total tank capacity within 100 feet of multifamily residences, which is located to the north into the side.

The applicant has indicated that the property operated in the past as a corner convenience store with an associated gas station.

Historical imagery also suggests that the property function as a convenience store and gas station until approximately 2019.

The previous owner subsequently removed the fuel pump, fuel pumps, and the current owner is now seeking to re-establish the gas station use.

However, per section 35-397.01.

Reestabling this gas re-establishing this gas station in the same location is not permitted by right due to the tank capacity and its proximity to the multifamily residences.

As a result, the applicant is seeking a specific use.

Regardless of the prior gas station use, staff does find that a 100-foot separation from the adjacent multifamily development is insufficient as it may reintroduce potential fire hazards, fuel storage, and negative negatively impact the air quality.

Therefore, the proposed C2SON is not considered appropriate for the property or the area.

Staff recommends denial and the applicant is here to answer any questions.

Alright, if we could have the applicant's representative, please.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Patrick Christensen 315 East Commerce Suite 304.

Yes, as staff said, we're here today for an existing gas station.

And let me tell you, we're we're here uh at your mercy, begging for your help for this problem that we did not cause.

Um can you kind of make it full screen?

Are we?

Well, can you go back to the previous slide, please?

Or I guess I don't have any control over that.

Um, so this is the property.

I mean existing convenience store.

My client buys it in December of 2025 or 24 and starts pulling permits immediately.

You can see there used to be some sort of gas pump or apparatus here.

Next slide, please.

Um I'll get into the permitting, but basically, just to make make it short, um they buy the property, they say, look, we want to put in gas pumps.

They apply for all the permits, all the permits are approved.

They go for the final certificate of occupancy, and staff say, or city staff say, not this staff, city staff say, well, wait a minute, you don't have the correct zoning for a gas station.

And what's confusing to me in the staff's recommendation for denial is they say that you know, in spite of the prior gas station use staff finds that the 100 foot separation is not enough.

Well, why did City Council create a zoning district or specific use permit to allow us to ask for your permission to have a gas station within 100 feet of a residential?

Next slide, please.

So these are the four permits.

Next slide.

Um first permit was for the convenience store rehab.

That's allowed in C2.

The next permit was for a canopy.

The next slide.

A second canopy permit, I'm not sure why there's two.

And then finally, this is the gas tanks permit.

The fire department comes out, checks the tanks, checks the pumps, makes sure they're safe.

Everything is approved.

So they go in for their next slide.

They go in for their certificate of occupancy and are told they don't have the correct zoning and they can't get a certificate of occupancy.

That's why we're here today.

So as you can see, nice shiny new gas pumps.

Next slide.

And that's where we are.

So we we beg for your help to solve this problem.

They've spent a lot of time and money to try to install these gas pumps and gas tanks.

And we're just trying to move forward with this business.

So we would respectfully request your help.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Christensen.

Uh any public comment?

There is no public comment.

No public comment.

All right.

Uh this is a district seven case.

Commissioner Sipes, to you for questions.

What does staff have to do?

I have little chippy down there.

Let's keep it together.

Um, I actually don't have questions.

Okay.

Any questions uh to my left?

Yes, Commissioner Duble.

The uh do we have any context is sorry if you already said this.

What why were the tanks taken out?

Why why are we it's really valuable?

Why why take out a gas station?

Uh we don't know.

That was a previous owner back in 2019, and we don't know why they did that.

Yeah, it does look like they were moved in 2019.

Um they were not there until now.

Uh and then actually one more question for you.

Uh neighborhood association or there is no registered neighborhood associated.

So let's talk about the public outreach.

Did you speak with the apartment complex or you know, usually there are out of state owners.

I mean, I did not.

I figured they would receive the city notice.

The pro cross the street is uh auto painting body.

Um pretty the other side of some sort of a fleet truck business.

I mean, there's a lot of trucks there.

I didn't reach out.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further questions left?

Questions right?

Yes, Commissioner Hina Hosa.

Uh question for staff.

So this was a a gas station prior to 2019.

Correct.

Uh do you know how far back?

Oh.

I could not say, to be fair, looking at maps and uh street views, obviously was there from 2000, maybe even earlier.

Um hold on, actually.

Okay.

Let me see if I can look at BCAD.

And so honestly, to uh Patrick's question about you know the code now asking, I believe I would compare it to similar of that of a vape shop now.

You you can request for zoning to permit a certain use, not straight out prohibit it.

So they're not trying to do a taking and remove the use completely.

They're allowed no, not gonna say that, but uh again, allow the potential use of that.

And it does look like the it's been there since like 1979.

Did you go Google maps all the way back to the case?

I went to I went to BCAD, and it says here that the neighborhood shopping center was built in 1979.

And I I'm assuming that these tanks were built possibly around the same time.

Yeah.

Glory had to get our DeLorean to figure this out.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any further questions, right?

All right, questions left, seeing none, questions right.

Last time seeing none.

All right, Commissioner Sipes, to you for discussion and potential motion.

I did not use BCAD, but I used some old aerial photographs that went back to 83.

So I can confirm based on older aerials that the gas station was there in 83.

Um but you went farther back, so yay.

Thank you.

Um I understand staff's recommendation.

I understand um uh and I am glad uh that the last UDC round, we actually added the S, you know, to add the extra check.

And and for me that that's what I look upon this as the S requires an extra check.

Um the extra check is well, what was it historically used as?

Um uh how long has it been since it's been a gas station?

And so it's only it was you know within the last six years it's been a gas station.

Um the apartments have been there, they've coexisted for decades.

Um in this case, I I think that it if this was a brand new greenfield site, I would not approve for the S.

Um, but since it had historically been a gas station, in this case I'm going to make a motion for approval.

All right, there's a motion for approval.

Is there a second?

Not a second.

Second by Commissioner.

Second by Commissioner Hinojosa.

Um discussion looking left.

Seeing none.

Discussion looking right, seeing none.

Again, the motion is for approval of item number 18 by Commissioner Sipes with a second by Commissioner Hinojosa.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Sipes?

Yes.

Commissioner Hinojosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Kellum?

Yes.

Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Duval.

Aye.

Commissioner Pana?

Yes.

Chair Busamant there?

Uh motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Okay.

Our last item on the agenda is consideration and approval of the April 7th, 2026 zoning commission minutes.

Are there any uh changes, amendments, etcetera, to these minutes?

Yes, Chair.

Uh Commissioner Duval.

Yes, the last item.

Should have pulled this up beforehand.

Uh last item on the agenda, or sorry, on the minutes.

Uh the oh goodness.

I'm sorry.

Could staff maybe could you help me out the the the item, the the ordinance, the proposed ordinance.

What item was that?

Item 29.

Yeah, on that last item, it was amended.

So it will be reflected on the on the minutes that are approved by the chair and the secretary.

Okay.

Well anyway, so I my my request would be to strike the language describing the ordinance.

Um it said something to the effect of this ordinance is to protect public safety.

I uh would maintain that we didn't adopt that finding as a commission.

Uh we voted to recommend to not uh we voted to not recommend the ordinance.

Um so I didn't think it was proper to have that language um either way.

So my re I mean my recommendation would be to strike the language uh descriptive language.

Um sorry I I don't have it in front of me, but I can look for it real fast.

Give me a second, I can get that.

Got it.

Minutes 37.

Right, okay.

So my uh uh I would strike the uh language, the proposed amendments help to safeguard public safety by requiring notice to the city if an operator wishes to build convert or operate a detachment facility within city limits and proposed zoning standards and regulations related to their use.

Just to strike that and not to replace it with anything else.

That whole okay, so after Logan gives his his uh introduction or his presentation.

So that is part of Log correct me if I'm wrong, but that is part of Logan's presentation, correct?

That second paragraph.

Yeah, exactly.

My understanding that that's actually reflected.

Yes, so exactly.

That's my understanding that that's actually referencing the presentation that was made because it's under Logan's name.

So it's not really saying it's a finding of the uh zoning commission.

It's just referencing that that was part of the presentation he made.

But if if the zoning commission wants wants to strike it, you if you all agree, you can strike it.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with it being attributed to Logan.

How about how about a change just to uh backspace that tab there to have it in the same paragraph that starts with the words Logan Sparrow so that there's no ambiguity because when I read it I didn't read it that way.

We'll do, yes.

Okay.

We will do that.

So uh the motion is oh, sorry.

There is a request for a change to the minutes as specified on the record to combine the two paragraphs uh immediately following uh the text Logan Sparrow undersigned.

All right, is there a motion?

Yes, so there's a motion to approve the amendment.

There's a motion to approve the amendments as amended.

Sorry, the minutes as amended.

Oh my gosh.

I'm gonna start again.

Talking is hard.

Okay.

I hope you're getting your jollies out during Fiesta, because this is gonna stop next meeting.

Um the motion is to approve the minutes as amended on the record to combine those two paragraphs by Commissioner Duval.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Second by Commissioner Pete Rodriguez.

Uh this can be done by acclamation.

All those in favor of the emotion say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, same sign.

Motion carries.

Minutes are approved as amended.

Is there a director's report?

We need to get out of here.

Um no director's report, just please be safe with all the rain.

Thank you so much.

The time is 3 36.

This meeting of the City of San Antonio Zoning Commission is adjourned.