San Antonio Planning Commission Meeting - May 27, 2026

The San Antonio Planning Commission met on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, at 2:03 PM. The meeting included a combined consent agenda for routine plats and an individual hearing agenda for four items (12, 13, 14, 16). The commission voted on plan amendments, zoning requests, and continuances.

Consent Calendar

• Items 1-7 (Plats): The commission approved the consent agenda (moved by Commissioner Profit, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez) with a unanimous roll call vote (all present voting yes). Prior to the vote, public speakers expressed opposition to replats in rural areas (Trumbull Trail and Huntress Lane), citing concerns about septic system adequacy, loss of trees, wildlife habitat, gas pipeline safety, and increased density.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Eugene Vega (1161 Trumbull Trail): Opposed to replat of a 5-acre lot into 8 parcels, citing insufficient septic drain fields, loss of trees, and incompatibility with the retirement community's rural character. He noted deed restrictions and a previous 100-foot setback requirement.
• Mary Lou Vega (161 Trumbull Trail): Opposed, emphasizing septic pollution risks, gas pipeline dangers in an all-electric area, and negative impact on wildlife. Requested at least 1-acre lots.
• Renee Foley (7717 Triple Acres): Representing parents' acreage across from the replat; concerned about future construction density, drainage, septic issues, and loss of rural character. Asked about deed restrictions.
• Richard Castillo (9660 Huntress Lane): Opposed to subdivision of neighbor's 6-acre lot into a 2-acre parcel, concerned about the trend of increasing density in the area and lack of limits on number of homes. He stated he liked the neighboring family but opposed the subdivision.

Discussion Items

Item 13 - 2814 Vera Cruz Street (Plan Amendment Request)

• Request: Dwight Howard sought to amend the Guadalupe West Side Community Plan from low-density residential to high-density mixed use to allow an IDZ-3 infill development zone for three dwelling units (down from four) using metal shipping containers (640 sq ft total).
• Staff Report (Kelly Sanders): Staff recommended denial, noting the 1,875 sq ft lot is too small for high-density mixed use, inconsistent with surrounding single-family homes, and not aligned with stable neighborhood growth. The Brady Gardens neighborhood association opposed; no response from El Charro Neighborhood Association. 50 notices mailed, zero in favor.
• Applicant (Mark Guerra): Argued that the units are small (160–320 sq ft), will only house up to three people, and will be designed with green space and patios. The applicant stated that neighboring property owners (except one) supported the project. He noted they are already constructing similar units at another location.
• Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Wallerstein asked about exterior treatment; applicant said they may use paint, patios, or siding. Commissioner Sanchez confirmed single-story. Commissioner Bustamante (Chair) asked staff about minimum dwelling size – none exists. Commissioner Profit asked if a lower density land use classification (e.g., low-density mixed use) could allow the project without a plan amendment; staff confirmed that R-1 zoning would not require the amendment.
• Votes: Motion to approve (Bustamante/DeSucci) failed 3-4 (Ayes: Bustamante, DeSucci, Sanchez; Nays: Cooper, Wallerstein, Profit, Chair Peck). Motion to deny (Wallerstein/Profit) failed 4-4 (Ayes: Wallerstein, Profit, Cooper, Chair Peck; Nays: Sanchez, DeSucci, Lopez, Bustamante). Motion for a two-week continuance to June 10 (Bustamante/Sanchez) passed 6-1 (Ayes: Bustamante, Sanchez, DeSucci, Lopez, Cooper, Wallerstein; Nay: Profit; Chair Peck abstaining? Actually vote recorded as Bustamante? Wait - roll call: Bustamante (noted as Chair? Actually Chair Peck voted yes) - final: 6-1? Let's recount: Bustamante yes, Sanchez yes, DeSucci yes, Lopez yes, Cooper yes, Wallerstein yes, Profit no, Chair Peck yes. That's 7 yes? Actually there are 7 commissioners including Chair? Let's check transcript: "Commissioner Bustamante? Commissioner Sanchez? Yes. Commissioner DeSucci? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Cooper? Yes. Commissioner Wallerstead? Yes. Commissioner Prophet? No. Chair Peck. Yes." That's 6 yes, 1 no (Profit). So passes. (Note: Commissioner Bustamante re-entered after consent agenda.)

Item 14 - Continuance Request

• Request: Applicant requested a four-week continuance to the June 24, 2026 meeting. One speaker (Ruby Ramos) was present but chose not to speak.
• Motion: Approval (Profit/DeSucci) passed unanimously on roll call.

Item 16 - 1802 West Front Place (Plan Amendment Request)

• Request: Amendment from neighborhood commercial to community commercial to rezone to C-2 NAC (non-alcoholic sales) with conditional use for rental tool equipment and event specialties (fenced outdoor storage).
• Staff Report (Samantha Benavides): Staff recommended denial, citing scale of outdoor storage and proximity to single-family residences. 30 notices mailed: 8 in favor, 1 opposed within 200 feet; outside 200 feet: 16 in favor, 0 opposed. Woodlawn Lake, West End Hope in Action, Martinez Creek, and District 1 associations gave no response.
• Applicant (business owner): The business has operated for 25 years in the neighborhood. The lot was purchased 7 years ago, fenced, and used for parking. The applicant argued they are a community pillar, donating to local schools and churches. They moved large carnival rides to a second location outside 1604 to address a neighbor's concerns. Only one neighbor (behind, moved in a year ago) opposed. The applicant offered to install an 8-foot fence and use a different driveway to minimize traffic impact. The business already holds a certificate of occupancy for the front building.
• Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Bustamante asked about the neighbor's zoning (C-2). Commissioner Cooper asked about current storage – applicant confirmed large rides removed, now storing trucks/trailers and small rides under 6 feet. Applicant explained code compliance violations were minor and corrected.
• Votes: Motion to approve (Profit/Cooper) passed 6-1 (Ayes: Profit, Cooper, Sanchez, DeSucci, Lopez, Wallerstein; Nay: Bustamante; Chair Peck yes). (Note: Chair Peck voted yes, so 7 yes? Actually roll call: Profit yes, Cooper yes, Sanchez yes, DeSucci yes, Lopez yes, Wallerstein yes, Bustamante no, Chair Peck yes. That's 7 yes and 1 no? But there are 8 voting? Actually including Chair Peck there are 8 commissioners present? Let's check initial roll: Commissioner Sanchez, De Succi, Lopez, Cooper, Wallerstein, Vistamonte (Bustamante later?), Profit, Chair Peck. At start 8 members? Then Bustamante recused and re-entered. So 8 voters. Final vote: 7 yes, 1 no (Bustamante). So motion passes.)

Item 12 - 1139 New Laredo Highway (Plan Amendment Request)

• Request: Amendment from neighborhood commercial to regional commercial to allow C-3 zoning for the entire property. Applicant later amended request to community commercial with C-2 CD (conditional use) for the back portion (L-shaped lot).
• Staff Report (Kelly Sanders): Staff recommended denial of original request (regional commercial). 24 notices mailed: 4 in favor, 0 opposed within 200 feet; outside: 24 in favor. Quintana Neighborhood Association no response.
• Applicant (Carlos Aldava for Carlos Jimenez): Property has front portion already C-3 with vehicle sales and repair use (valid CO for front). Request to extend use to back portion through C-2 CD. Applicant counted 11 similar uses along corridor.
• Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Cooper asked if amended request applies to entire lot – applicant clarified it would be for the entire property but with C-2 CD zone. Commissioner Wallerstein asked about existing CO – staff clarified CO is only for the C-3 portion, not the entire property. Commissioner Peck confirmed no change of use.
• Vote: Motion to accept the amended request to community commercial (Sanchez/Lopez) passed 7-1 (Ayes: Sanchez, Lopez, DeSucci, Cooper, Profit, Chair Peck; Nay: Wallerstein; Bustamante not recorded? Roll call: Sanchez yes, Lopez yes, DeSucci yes, Cooper yes, Wallerstein no, Bustamante? (not called), Profit yes, Chair Peck yes. That's 6 yes? Wait: transcript says "Commissioner Sanchez? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner De Succi? Yes. Commissioner Cooper? Yes. Commissioner Wallerstead? No. Commissioner Bustamante? Commissioner Profit? Yes. Chair Peck? Yes." So 6 yes, 1 no (Wallerstein). Bustamante apparently did not vote? Possibly recused? The transcript does not show his vote. So passes.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Agenda (Plats 1-7): Approved unanimously.
• Item 13 (Vera Cruz): Continued to June 10, 2026 (motion passed 6-1). Planning commission to revisit after two weeks.
• Item 14: Continued to June 24, 2026 (unanimous).
• Item 16 (West Front Place): Approved (plan amendment to community commercial, associated zoning) on a 7-1 vote.
• Item 12 (New Laredo Highway): Approved as amended to community commercial and C-2 CD on a 6-1 vote.
• Next Meeting: June 10, 2026 (for Item 13) and June 24, 2026 (for Item 14 and other pending items).