San Antonio Zoning Commission Hearing – July 7, 2026

The San Antonio Zoning Commission met on Tuesday, July 7, 2026, at 1:00 PM, chaired by Commissioner John Luce Damonte. The meeting covered a consent agenda of 11 zoning items, a continuance, and a contested conditional use case involving a vehicle storage lot at 2007 Fity Road. The commission approved all consent items, granted a four‑week continuance for item 4, and after extensive public testimony and deliberation approved item 2 with an amendment prohibiting temporary signage.

Consent Calendar

• Item 3 – 314 J Street: Rezone from R‑4 to RM‑5; 23 notices mailed, two in favor, zero opposed; Denver Heights Neighborhood Association gave no response. Approved.
• Item 5 – 1737 San Francisco Street: Rezone from R‑4 to R‑4 CD (conditional use for two dwelling units); 41 notices mailed, zero in favor, two opposed; no response from Los Angeles Heights Neighborhood Association or District 1 Resident Association. Approved.
• Item 6 – 19273 Babcock Road: Rezone from C‑2NA to C‑2; nine notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed; no response from Riot Commons Community Organization. Approved.
• Item 7 – 215 Reedwell Drive: Rezone from R‑5 to R‑5 CD (conditional use for two dwelling units); 21 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed; no response from Eastwood Village Neighborhood Association. Approved.
• Item 8 – 122 Leopold: Rezone from R‑6 to R‑5; 48 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed; no response from Lovaca Neighborhood Association. Approved.
• Item 9 – 12403 Maccadoches Road: Rezone from C‑2 to C‑3; 16 notices mailed, one in favor, zero opposed; no registered neighborhood association within 200 ft. Approved.
• Item 10 – 225 Wilkins Avenue: Rezone from R‑4 to R‑4HL; 30 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed; Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association in favor. Approved.
• Item 11 – 5443 El Paso Street: Rezone from C‑1 to R‑5; 34 notices mailed, one in favor, zero opposed; Los Hardinas Neighborhood Association in favor. Approved.
• Item 12 – 4222 Blinko Road: Rezone from R‑4 to C‑2; 26 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed; no response from North Central Neighborhood Association or District 1 Resident Association. Approved.
• Item 13 – 4810 Eisenhower Road: Rezone from R‑6 and C‑3 to C‑3; 15 notices mailed, one in favor, zero opposed; no response from Park Village or Camilla Lot 1 neighborhood associations. Approved.
• Item 14 – 741 West Ashby Place: Rezone from IDZ‑2 (with uses permitted in C‑1 and 16 dwelling units) to IDZ‑2 HL (same uses); 28 notices mailed, one in favor, zero opposed; Alta Vista Neighborhood Association did not respond. Approved.

Public Comments & Testimony

Item 4 – 2635 Woodbury Drive & 1903‑1915 Farmers Lane: The applicant requested a four‑week continuance to August 4 2026, stating they had met with Councilman White’s office, the developer, and about 30‑35 community members but had not reached an agreement. No opposition was voiced. The commission granted the continuance unanimously.

Item 2 – 2007 Fity Road (C‑2 to C‑2 CD, conditional use for parking/long‑term storage of repossessed vehicles):

• Applicant’s representative (Spanish/English): Described extensive cleanup of the abandoned lot (trash, debris, illegal dumping), installation of a temporary fence, and outreach to neighbors. They stated the business would store vehicles for only 10‑15 days before auction, not long‑term storage. They noted the property is within the JBSA influence area and the military had no objections.
• Tricia Vayat (President, Vecindario Esperanza Neighborhood Association): Opposed the rezoning, arguing that another industrial business at the entrance of the neighborhood would detract from its character and vision. She urged the commission to support development that serves residents and revitalizes the Frio City corridor.
• Ibet Rendón (resident, Vecindario Esperanza): Strongly opposed, stating the applicant had misled the community—initially promising a maximum of 10 vehicles visible at any time, later changing to 50. She alleged that the applicant’s other locations block Frio Street with tow trucks and that they insulted the neighborhood. She provided photos of well‑maintained homes in the area.
• Robert Cruz (resident, directly behind the subject property): Supported the project, welcoming the security and lighting improvements for the corner. He noted that previous efforts (restaurant) failed and that the cleanup eliminated rats and possums. He stated that many neighbors signed petitions in favor.
• Additional public comments: One speaker (Ms. Herrera?) reiterated the applicant’s clean‑up efforts and willingness to work with the neighborhood.

Discussion Items

Item 2 – 2007 Fity Road (continued): Staff presented the request, noting that 7 of 32 property owners within 200 ft favored, 2 opposed; outside 200 ft, 57 favored, 22 opposed. The staff recommendation was denial because the proposed conditional use (parking/long‑term storage) is more intensive than the existing C‑2 zoning and could introduce industrial use at the entrance of a residential neighborhood. The applicant argued the lot was previously abandoned and the new use would improve safety and aesthetics.

Commissioners discussed:

• The discrepancy between the neighborhood association’s opposition (presenting 35 signatures) and the nearby property owners’ support (64 total signatures).
• The property’s location at a neighborhood entrance and the potential for vehicle storage to become a nuisance (traffic, rodents).
• The applicant’s willingness to adhere to a site plan limiting 50 vehicles and providing landscaping (though some neighbors objected to landscaping behind the lot).
• The absence of an associated amendment to the comprehensive plan; the area is designated “urban mixed‑use” but the existing C‑2 zoning allows many uses by right (e.g., liquor stores, auto repair).
• A friendly amendment was offered (and accepted by the motion maker) to prohibit temporary signage (no banderillas) as a condition of approval.

Commissioner Pana noted the conflicting signals but ultimately supported the motion, citing the improvement to a long‑vacant property and the support of the nearest neighbors. The chair observed that the case was difficult because the neighborhood association opposed but the directly abutting property owners favored.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Items (3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14): Approved unanimously, with no public comment. The commission noted that applicants have six months (until August 4, 2026) to file their cases with the city council.
• Item 4 – Continuance: Granted to the August 4, 2026 meeting (unanimous).
• Item 2 – 2007 Fity Road: Approved as amended (motion by Commissioner Duval, seconded by Commissioner Rodríguez). The vote was 11‑0 (Commissioners Aye, Clark, Clemen, Mosa, River, Science, Clinton, Morton, Case, and the chair voted in favor). The amendment prohibits temporary signage. The applicant has six months to finalize the project with the city council.
• Minutes of June 16, 2026: Approved unanimously.