Public Meetings - San Antonio, Texas

The San Antonio Zoning Commission met on June 2, 2026, at 1:02 PM to consider multiple rezoning requests, site plan amendments, and continuances. The meeting, chaired by Commissioner John Bustamante, lasted approximately six hours and involved extensive public testimony and deliberation on 11 agenda items. Key outcomes included approvals, denials, continuances, and a recommendation of denial, with several votes reflecting divided opinions among the 11-member commission. Consent Calendar - Items 10, 12, 13, and 14 were approved unanimously without public comment. These included zoning changes from R5 to R5 CD with a conditional use for three dwelling units (811 Hortensia Street), C3NA to C2 (3423 Pleasanton Road), R6 to R6 CD with a conditional use for two dwelling units (609 Ripley Avenue), and I1 to C3 (1798 Austin Highway). All required overlays remained the same. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 1 (15511 Oak Grove) – Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition, citing ongoing code violations, noise, parking congestion, and the property's history of noncompliance. The Hills and Dales Neighborhood Association submitted formal opposition. - Item 11 (9330 NE Loop 410) – Sylvia Alanis, representing the Eastgate Neighborhood Association, opposed the expansion of a truck repair facility, expressing concerns about increased large truck traffic, neighborhood safety, and drainage improvements. - Item 9 (1301 Roosevelt Avenue) – Jeff Hunt (Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association), Jacob Stedham, and other residents opposed the rezoning for a bar/tavern, citing high crime rates, prostitution, drug dealing, and insufficient parking. - Item 2 (1139 New Laredo Highway) – Residents including Larry Garcia, Deborah Ponce, and Cheyenne Rendon opposed a vehicle sales/storage facility, citing proximity to an elementary school, health impacts, and gradual commercial encroachment. - Item 5 (2007 Frio City Road) – Neighbors from the Via de Esperanza subdivision and Kelly Park Neighborhood Association opposed a long-term vehicle storage lot, arguing it would detract from beautification efforts and attract crime. - Item 8 (1802 West French Place) – Support was voiced by a business associate; no opposition speakers appeared. - Item 15 (2635 Woodbury Drive) – One resident spoke against the proposed duplex development, citing historical significance of nearby Pape's Farm homestead and concerns about water wells and building height. Discussion Items - Continuances – Items 3 and 11 were originally set for continuance. After public comment, Item 11 was separated and heard individually later. Item 3 was continued to June 16, 2026; Item 15 was continued to July 7, 2026 after a full presentation and public input. - Item 1 (Food Service Establishment) – Staff recommended denial based on noncompliance and commercial encroachment. The applicant argued the use was a synagogue with no-profit food service. After extensive questioning, the commission voted (9-2) to continue the case to July 7, 2026 for further negotiation. - Item 9 (Bar/Tavern) – Staff recommended approval. The neighborhood association and multiple residents opposed. A motion to deny failed (5-6), and after reconsideration, the commission voted to continue to June 16, 2026. - Item 2 (Auto Sales Full Service) – Staff recommended denial due to inconsistency with the community plan. The applicant requested a C2-CD with conditional use. A motion to approve failed (4-6), then a motion to deny passed (7-3), resulting in a recommendation of denial to City Council. - Item 4 (IDZ3 for Three Dwelling Units) – Staff recommended denial citing excessive density. The commission voted 6-4 to approve the amended request for three units on an undersized lot. - Item 5 (Vehicle Storage) – Staff recommended denial. After discussion about site plan deficiencies, the commission voted to continue to July 7, 2026 for a revised site plan. - Item 6 (RM4 for Duplex) – Staff recommended an alternate R4-CD. The commission voted 8-2 to approve the RM4 request as submitted. - Item 7 (IDZ3 for Lumberyard) – Staff recommended denial due to floodplain issues and prior violations. The commission voted 9-1 to approve, citing the need to resolve existing problems and avoid vacancy. - Item 8 (Rental Equipment Storage) – Staff recommended denial. After the applicant amended the request to include an 8-foot fence, the commission voted 8-0 (with one recusal) to approve. - Item 11 (Major Site Plan Amendment) – Staff recommended approval. The neighborhood association opposed. After questioning, the commission voted to continue to June 16, 2026 to allow further community outreach. Key Outcomes - Approvals (with recommendations to City Council unless noted): - Consent items 10, 12, 13, 14 (unanimous). - Item 4 (IDZ3 for three dwelling units) – 6-4. - Item 6 (RM4) – 8-2. - Item 7 (Lumberyard IDZ3) – 9-1. - Item 8 (Rental equipment with 8-ft fence) – 8-0 (one recusal). - Denial (recommendation to Council): - Item 2 (Auto sales C2-CD) – 7-3. - Continuances: - Item 3 to June 16, 2026. - Item 1 to July 7, 2026. - Item 9 to June 16, 2026. - Item 5 to July 7, 2026. - Item 11 to June 16, 2026. - Minutes – The May 19, 2026 meeting minutes were approved unanimously. - Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 6:51 PM.

The San Antonio Zoning Commission met on June 2, 2026, at 1:02 PM under the chairmanship of John Bustamante. The meeting addressed multiple zoning requests, with the commission voting on consent items, hearing public testimony, and deliberating on several controversial cases. Key actions included approvals, denials, and deferrals. Consent Calendar - Items 10, 12, 13, 14: Approved unanimously without discussion. These included a rezoning at 811 Hortensia Street (R5 to R5C, 12 units), 3423 Place and Road (C2 to C2L), 609 Replay Avenue (R6 to RCCD, two dwelling units), and 1798 Austin Howe (I-1 to C3). All had no opposition or public comments. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 1 (15511 Grove Drive - food establishment): Howard Gem, a veteran and restaurant owner, spoke in opposition, citing multiple code violations, unpermitted operation of a restaurant for two years, and a pattern of non-compliance. He stated that the applicant (Rabbi Shah) had been arrested for trespassing and cutting down 15 trees. Mary Moulton, a 30-year resident, opposed the commercial use, noting it would increase traffic on a road not designed for it. Paul Dodsencott, an adjacent neighbor, opposed due to noise from parties and DJ events, and concern that commercial zoning would reduce his property value. - Item 2 (1139 New Laredo - auto service): Larry Garcia (1442 Fanamin) opposed, saying the area already has many auto service centers. Cheyenne Rendon (Quintana neighborhood) opposed, citing proximity to a primary school, pollution from paint shop, and the neighborhood's history of fighting for zoning compliance. - Item 5 (2007 Frio City Road - vehicle storage): Beatrice Rendon (Via de Esperanza) opposed, presenting 33 signatures, worried about toxic fumes, crime, and negative impact on the neighborhood. Maria Emilia Garcia initially supported cleanup but later opposed due to the industrial nature. Larry Garcia opposed, stating it would create an eyesore at the community entry. - Item 11 (9330 NE Luff - truck repair expansion): A neighbor (Ms. Niz) opposed, stating the operator had been truthful in the past but now wants to expand, and she fears future sale of the property could bring less responsible owners. She noted the council previously helped them stay but she cannot support expansion. Discussion Items - Item 1 (15511 Grove Drive): Applicant Rabbi Shah requested a conditional use for a food establishment within an R20 zone, claiming it is a kosher kitchen for the Jewish community only. Commissioners questioned past violations, online presence (Yelp reviews), and parking issues. Staff reported a determination by the building official that the primary use was a restaurant. The applicant offered to work on parking and noise abatement. After extended debate, the commission decided to defer to July 7 for further negotiations, noting that a second deferral would send the case to city council with a recommendation for denial. - Item 2 (1139 New Laredo): Applicant sought C2 CD for full-service automotive sales and repair. Staff recommended denial due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan (neighborhood commercial vs. community commercial). The planning commission had recommended approval. After hearing opposition from residents and a petition of support, the motion to approve failed 4-6. A motion to reconsider passed, then a motion to deny passed 6-4, sending the case to council with a denial recommendation. - Item 4 (2814 Veracruz - IDZ for three container units): Applicant proposed three tiny homes (320 sq ft containers) on a small lot in a low-density area. Staff recommended denial due to intensity and incompatibility. The commission debated whether IDZ was appropriate; some favored approval as experimental, others opposed density. Motion to approve as amended (R4 with conditional use for three units) passed 6-4. - Item 5 (2007 Frio City Road): Applicant sought C2 CD for vehicle storage (74 spaces). Neighbors objected to the industrial use at the entrance of their subdivision. Chair Bustamante noted lack of a proper site plan with buffers and driveway access. The applicant agreed to a deferral to July 7 to refine the plan. - Item 6 (1311 North Sarsamora - RM4 for duplex): Applicant sought RM4 to build two units on a lot with existing structures. Staff recommended R4 with conditional use for two units, but applicant argued setbacks made it infeasible. The commission approved the RM4 request. - Item 7 (1005 North Sarsamora Street - sawmill/lumber storage): Applicant sought IDZ-3 for a lumber yard in a floodplain with past code violations. Despite concerns about feasibility of flood mitigation and non-permitted construction, the commission approved after the applicant committed to addressing water quality and replacing the access bridge. - Item 8 (1802 West French Place - equipment rental): Applicant sought C2 NA for equipment rental, with an 8-foot fence. Staff recommended denial, but the planning commission recommended approval. After hearing support from a neighbor and noting the business's long history, the commission approved as amended. - Item 11 (9330 NE Luff - truck repair expansion): Applicant requested a major site plan amendment to expand existing truck repair. Staff recommended approval. Opponent Ms. Niz spoke, and commissioner Lose expressed concerns about heavy industrial use next to residential. The case was deferred to June 16 for further community engagement. Key Outcomes - Consent Items: Approved unanimously (Items 10, 12, 13, 14). - Item 1: Deferred to July 7, 2026 (second deferral); will go to city council with a denial recommendation if not resolved. - Item 2: Denied (6-4). Will go to city council with a denial recommendation. - Item 3: Deferred to June 16 (as part of earlier action). - Item 4: Approved (6-4) as amended. - Item 5: Deferred to July 7, 2026. - Item 6: Approved as submitted. - Item 7: Approved (unanimous). - Item 8: Approved as amended (8-foot fence). - Item 11: Deferred to June 16, 2026. - Minutes of May 19, 2026: Approved unanimously.

The San Antonio Board of Adjustments convened on June 1, 2026, at 10:02 AM with nine members present (later rising to ten) to hear ten cases involving variances, special exceptions, and appeals related to zoning and development codes. The meeting included a continuance, approval of previous minutes, and votes on numerous requests for setbacks, fence heights, buffers, and accessory dwelling unit placements. Decisions were based on findings of fact regarding unnecessary hardship and public interest. The meeting adjourned at 4:42 PM after a break and concluding announcements. Consent Calendar - Minutes Approval: The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously (motion by Commissioner Brackman, second by Commissioner Manna). - Continuance (Item 2 – BOA-26-103008): A request by Fernando de Leon for accessory dwelling unit variances at 219 Palo Grande was continued to June 15, 2026, by unanimous consent. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 3 (13649 Forest Rock Drive): Speaker Robert Weimer, the applicant, described structural issues and requested a continuance to hire an architect; the board granted a continuance to July 6, 2026. - Item 4 (929 Rice Road): Two neighbors spoke in favor: Suzanne Martinez (932 Rice Road) praised the gate and its positive impact; Diane Quayar (202 Glen Oak Drive) expressed safety concerns related to the property's future use but clarified she supported the gate itself. The applicant, Carolyn Randall, explained the gate's height (13 ft) was due to budget constraints and a desire to beautify the neighborhood after the property had been abandoned. - Item 5 (1726 Nolan Street): Neighbor Leroy Davila (1730 Nolan Street) spoke about the carport and gutter, confirming he had no issues and that the applicant maintained the fence well. - Item 6 (22315 Roman Forest): Two speakers from the HOA ACC committee, Ken Albrecht and Randall Holt, opposed the side-yard ADU, citing HOA covenants requiring detached garages behind the house and concerns about scale and aesthetics. - Item 10 (8209 Landing Avenue): No public speakers; one written opposition (item 3 only) cited an easement concern. - Item 11 (8042 Pinebrook Drive): No public speakers. Discussion Items - Item 9 (202 Wilkins Avenue – ADU Variance): Applicant Susan Haime (SG Construction) and owner Ramona Montoya Coyot requested a side-yard ADU and a 1-inch side setback for a shed. The property has limited rear yard due to interstate right-of-way. Staff recommended approval; board unanimously granted the variance (10-0). - Item 1 (607 McElvain Street – Fence and Clear Vision Variance): Applicant Adrian Zertuce requested a corrugated metal fence (side/rear) and an 11-ft clear vision area (vs. 15-ft). Staff recommended denial for the fence (material and safety concerns) but approval for the clear vision. The applicant amended to include a cap on the fence. Board granted both variances unanimously (10-0). - Item 3 (13649 Forest Rock Drive – Side Setback Variance): Applicant Robert Weimer requested a variance for a patio/deck addition built without a permit near a zero-lot-line. Staff recommended denial due to fire and water runoff concerns. After discussion, the board granted a continuance to July 6, 2026, for the applicant to obtain a survey and architect. - Item 4 (929 Rice Road – Fence Height Variance): Applicant Carolyn Randall requested an 8-ft variance to allow a 13-ft gate (predominantly open). Staff recommended denial but the board granted the variance (10-0), limiting it to the gate only, citing neighborhood support and improved security. - Item 5 (1726 Nolan Street – Multiple Variances): Applicant Carmina Flores sought variances for a carport, home addition, accessory structure, impervious cover (artificial turf), fence height, and clear vision. Staff recommended denial for most, approval for clear vision. Board voted separately: first, the fence height special exception (6 ft 2 in) was granted unanimously (10-0); second, all remaining variances (setbacks, impervious cover, clear vision) were granted unanimously (10-0) with the condition that the impervious cover remains as currently configured with artificial turf over gravel. - Item 6 (22315 Roman Forest – ADU Side Yard Variance): Applicant Elizabeth Campbell requested a variance to place an ADU in the side yard due to mature trees, slope, and a drainage easement in the rear. Staff recommended approval. Despite opposition from HOA representatives, the board granted the variance (10-0), citing tree preservation and reduced impervious cover. - Item 7 (10903 Lazy Oaks Drive – Carport Variance): Applicant Jose Esquivel Vega requested variances for a carport (front and side setbacks) that had been previously approved but permits expired. Staff recommended denial, but after applicant amended to include gutters, the board granted the variances (10-0), noting other carports in the area and the applicant's willingness to complete inspections. - Item 8 (1730 Nolan Street – Carport and Clear Vision Variance): Applicant Leroy Davila requested variances for a carport (6-in side setback) and an 11-ft 6-in clear vision area. Staff recommended denial for the carport, approval for clear vision. The board granted both (10-0) after applicant agreed to add gutters. - Item 10 (8209 Landing Avenue – Commercial Setback and Buffer Variance): Applicant David Garcia requested a 20-ft rear setback reduction (to 10 ft) and buffer reductions (north to 6 ft, east to 12 ft) for a print shop. Staff recommended approval for the setback, denial for buffers. Board granted all variances (10-0), emphasizing that the property is adjacent to a vacant lot and the buffer requirements would still be met with landscaping. - Item 11 (8042 Pinebrook Drive – Car Wash Buffer Variance): Applicant Emily Weissler requested a 5-ft reduction (from 15 ft to 10 ft) of the Type C landscape buffer for a new express car wash. Staff recommended denial, citing inadequate screening. The board granted the variance (10-0), noting the existing absence of any buffer and the improvement in screening and aesthetics. Key Outcomes - All decisions were unanimous (10-0 or 9-0 when only nine members were present). - Continuances: Item 3 continued to July 6, 2026; Item 2 continued to June 15, 2026. - Variances granted with specific conditions (e.g., gutters on carports, caps on metal fences, artificial turf configuration). - Board discussed a letter from the Short Term Rental Association of San Antonio requesting stricter enforcement, and the upcoming UDC rewrite process expected in 2027. Board members noted vacancies on the board and encouraged applications.

The San Antonio Zoning Board of Adjustment met on June 1, 2026, at 2:00 PM to hear and decide on ten zoning variance, special exception, and appeal cases. The board, comprised of 11 commissioners (9 present at start, 10 by the end), voted on each case after public testimony and deliberation. Key outcomes include approval of variances for accessory dwelling units, fence materials, carports, and commercial buffers, as well as a postponement. Consent Calendar - Agenda Item 2 (BOA 26-13088) was postponed to June 15, 2026, at the applicant's request. The case involves a variance for accessory structures, fence material, and height at 1215 sq ft. No opposition. - Meeting minutes from the previous session were approved unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Case 3 (13649 Forest 5): Applicant Robert Weiner requested a 4 ft 11 in lateral setback variance for a deck addition. He explained the deck was built without permits due to contractor error. Neighbors did not speak, but the board expressed concerns about fire access and property lines. Weiner requested and was granted a continuance to July 6, 2026, to hire an architect. - Case 4 (929 Rice Rd): Applicant Caroline Randall requested a 13 ft front gate variance. Neighbor Susan Martinez spoke in favor, praising the improvements and increased security. Another neighbor, Diane Cuellar, expressed concerns about homeless individuals but clarified she was only asking about the gate. The board focused solely on the gate variance. - Case 5 (26 Nolan St): Applicant Carmina Flores requested multiple variances for a carport, side additions, and impervious cover. Neighbor Leroy Dávila supported the project, noting it improved the neighborhood. He raised a concern about a downspout that was later addressed. - Case 6 (22315 Ronforest): Applicant Elizabeth Campbell (through designer Angel Ruiz) requested an ADU variance to place the unit in the side yard. Two members of the homeowners association (Ken Albrecht and Randall Hold) spoke in opposition, citing the two-story design, tree preservation, and electrical utility conflicts. The board voted to approve, noting the lot’s size and drainage. - Case 7 (1093 Ley C Ox Dr): Applicant Jose Esquivel Vega requested a variance for a carport that had been built without final inspection after a previous variance expired. No public comments. The board approved after Vega agreed to add gutters. - Case 8 (1730 Nolland St): Applicant Leroy Dávila requested variances for a carport setback and vision clearance. No public comments. - Case 10 (8209 Landing Ave): Applicant David Garcia (representing De Haro) requested a rear setback variance and buffer reductions for a metal printing shop. No public comments. Staff recommended approval of the setback but denial of buffer reductions. Garcia offered to provide landscaping buffer. The board approved with conditions. - Case 11 (8042 Pinebrook Dr): Applicant Lady Wash (representing Griffin in Fairmont) requested a 5 ft buffer reduction for a car wash at an existing site. No public comments. Staff recommended denial due to noise impacts, but the board approved, noting the proposed landscaping was an improvement over the current blighted condition. Discussion Items - Case 1 (BOA 26-103074) – 607 McLean St: Applicant Adrian Sertuche sought an exception for corrugated metal fencing and a 4 ft vision clearance variance. After discussion, the applicant amended the request to include a protective cap on the metal edges. The board found the variance not contrary to public interest given the alley security and open-bar design. Approved 10-0. - Case 9 (BOA 26-103096) – 2021 Wilkins Ave: Applicant Ramona Montoya Cuella requested a variance to allow an ADU in the side yard and a 4 ft 11 in setback for a carport/shed. Staff recommended approval due to limited rear yard and unique lot configuration. No opposition. Approved 10-0. Key Outcomes - Case 1: Approved (10-0). Variance for corrugated metal fence with protective cap and vision clearance. - Case 2: Postponed to June 15, 2026, by unanimous consent. - Case 3: Continued to July 6, 2026, to allow applicant to retain an architect. - Case 4: Approved (10-0). Variance for 13 ft front gate only (not entire fence). - Case 5: Two separate votes: (a) fence height variance approved 10-0; (b) remaining variances (setbacks, impervious cover, vision clearance) approved 10-0 with condition that artificial grass is considered pervious. - Case 6: Approved (10-0). Variance for ADU in side yard, preserving mature trees and accommodating drainage. - Case 7: Approved (10-0). Variance for carport setbacks, with condition to install gutters. - Case 8: Approved (10-0). Variances for carport setback and vision clearance. - Case 9: Approved (10-0). Variance for ADU in side yard and shed setback. - Case 10: Approved (10-0). Variance for rear setback (20 ft to 10 ft) and buffer reductions (15 ft to 6 ft on north, 15 ft to 12 ft on east), with landscaping requirement. - Case 11: Approved (10-0). Variance for buffer reduction from 15 ft to 10 ft along rear and east property lines, with landscaping. The meeting adjourned at 4:42 PM.

The San Antonio Building Standards Board met on May 28, 2026, to approve minutes, receive staff reports on emergency demolitions and code compliance, hear presentations on housing assistance, deconstruction, and vacant property programs, review board processes and statistics, and conduct administrative business. The board acted on a policy amendment and deferred cases to individual panels. Consent Calendar - Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the October 16, 2025 meeting were approved unanimously with no corrections or amendments. The motion passed by voice vote. Discussion Items - Staff Report – Emergency Demolitions (Jenny Ramírez): Five emergency demolitions were reported, all due to fires between April 30 and May 12, 2026. Properties at 3506 Woodland Avenue (District 7), 1608 Menchaca Street (District 1), 325 East Courtland Plaza (District not specified, accessory structure), 3926 West Martin Street (District 5, main structure), and 9248 Toronto Drive (District 2, mobile home) were demolished on May 12–26, 2026. No further board action required. Board members had no questions. - Director’s Report – Code Compliance (Assistant Director Dani Lígues): The director reported on performance metrics for fiscal year 2025-2026. The department is meeting its goal of responding to violations within one to two days. The overall compliance rate is 89%, with 90% of pending investigations current. The department aims to inspect 60,000 properties annually. A reduction in reactive calls (3% drop) was noted, attributed to fewer vacancies, staff turnover, and increased community education. Legal advisor Sarita Wright added that code officers are being pulled to assist with new programs, which may also reduce call volume. - Housing Assistance Programs (Housing Department Manager and Emma Rodríguez): Two programs were presented: Rental Assistance (temporary aid for rent and utilities, up to three months, with a maximum of $3,000, open for applications the second Wednesday of each month from 1–2 PM) and Relocation Assistance (help with security deposits, utility connections, application fees, and moving expenses for households facing eviction or displacement). Eligibility requires income at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) and documented housing instability (e.g., eviction notice). Applications are accepted via an online portal. Board members asked about the short application window (1 hour per month), explained due to capacity, and questioned outreach effectiveness. Staff noted partnerships with schools, libraries, property managers, and community organizations. Code compliance officers provide information on these programs early in the enforcement process. Board members expressed appreciation but concerns about limited awareness. - Deconstruction Program (Stephanie Phillips and Leticia Sánchez): The program, adopted by city council in September 2022, applies to residential structures ordered for demolition built in 1945 or earlier (or 1960 in conservation districts). It requires deconstruction by approved contractors, with materials reused for affordable housing projects or donated to a Materials Innovation Center (still in pilot). Leticia Sánchez, representing Esperanza Community Land Trust, emphasized the program’s success in recovering 70% of original materials and saving 30% in costs compared to new construction. She invited board members to visit the reuse center at 816 South Colorado. Board members noted the cost is higher than demolition but offset by material reuse and environmental benefits. - Vacant Properties Program (Brittany Williams): The program started as a pilot in 2014 and became permanent, now covering half of the city’s square miles (including historic districts, conservation districts, military bases, and school zones). It requires registration of vacant properties, including owner contact, a six-month action plan, and a transfer form for police access. 60% of owners are individuals, not businesses. Since inception, 1,100 properties have been reoccupied. Staff assists with connecting owners to resources, including help with legal title issues. Board members asked about success rates in complex cases (e.g., multi-generational properties) and property types (mostly single-family homes). - Code Compliance Assistance Fund (Rusty): The fund has collected $1,147,641.50 in fines and owes $1,574,047. A balance of $977,365 was available for grants to property owners for tree removal, vegetation, and debris cleanup. 53 applications were received; 77,995 was spent. Board members questioned why unspent funds do not carry over (funds revert to general fund) and noted difficulties in collecting fines. Staff are working on making the application process easier. - Board Process Overview: Staff presented the detailed timeline from initial inspection, notice, judicial orders, evidence collection, internal reviews, and finally hearings. The board learned that all records must be kept for 10 years due to potential claims. The process includes multiple layers of review and contact with owners. - Organizational Chart Update: A new organizational structure was presented, aligning code compliance, vacant property program, and building standards under Kathy Rodríguez. The board noted growth in staff. - Kathy Rodríguez Report: The board calendar for the rest of 2026 was shared. All nine board seats are filled; five members are newly appointed. Attendance for Panel A was 100%, Panel B 87%. No hearings were rescheduled due to lack of quorum. Rodríguez thanked members for their voluntary service. - Case Statistics (Alice Guajardo): From October 2025 to April 2026, Panel A and Panel B heard a total of 91 cases: 51 dangerous structures, 40 demolitions (30 with penalties, 10 without), and 0 maintenance cases. No emergency demolition hearings were needed (34 emergency demolitions occurred without board action). No appeals were filed. Cases by district: District 1 (17), District 2 (1), District 3 (10), District 4 (5), District 5 (21), District 6 (6), District 7 (6), District 8/9 (0), District 10 (1). Total 91. - Executive Session: The board entered executive session at 11:33 AM and returned at 12:26 PM. No official actions were taken during executive session. Key Outcomes - Deferrals and Ethics Presentation: The board agreed to defer items on the agenda to individual panels. The ethics code presentation will be conducted in individual panels. - Policy Amendment: Board member George Crimes Jr. moved to remove Section M from the board’s Policies and Procedures (specifically Section 8, subsection M). The motion was seconded and passed with a vote of 10–0. The removed item had pertained to property owners’ right to examine materials presented to the board. - Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at approximately 12:30 PM.

The Building Standards Board (BSB) met on 28 May 2026 to receive reports on emergency demolitions, performance metrics, housing assistance programs, deconstruction and vacant building initiatives, and to conduct a vote on policy procedures. The meeting included roll call, approval of minutes, staff reports, and multiple presentations from city departments. Consent Calendar - Approval of minutes from previous meeting: Approved unanimously. Staff Report: Emergency Demolitions - Five emergency demolitions were reported, all due to extensive fires between April 30 and May 12, 2026. Demolitions occurred between May 7 and May 16, 2026. No board action required per City Code 6-175. - 3506 West Woodlawn (accessory structure, District 7) – fire Apr 30, demolished May 7. - 1608 Minchaka Street (main structure, District 1) – fire May 6, demolished May 12. - 325 East Cortland Place (accessory structure, District 1) – fire May 5, demolished May 13. - 3926 West Martin Street (main structure, District 5) – fire May 12, demolished May 16. - 9248 Toronto Drive (mobile home, District 2) – fire May 11, demolished May 15. Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were made. The meeting focused on staff presentations and board discussion. Director's Report: Code Enforcement Performance Measures - Interim Assistant Director Danny Liguez reported year-to-date statistics through April 2026: - Approximately 70,000 property maintenance inspections conducted. - Response time for Tier 1 and Tier 2 violations: within 1-2 days (performance goal met). - Proactive inspection rate: 81% (target 65%). - Compliance rate: 90% overall (struggled earlier in fiscal year but improved since February). - Graffiti abatement: 32,000 sites year-to-date; turnaround time 1 day (target 3 days, goal 2 days). - Vacancies: average 8-11 vacancies citywide, contributing to a slight dip in proactive cases year-over-year. - Legal counsel Sabita Rye noted that code enforcement is being pulled in multiple directions due to new ordinances, which may also affect performance. Presentations Housing Assistance Programs (Neighborhood & Housing Services Department) - Rental Assistance: Applications accepted monthly on second Wednesday from 1-2 p.m. Covers up to 3 months rent or $3,000 (whichever comes first), plus $500 for disabled households. Applicants must be at or below 80% Area Median Income (AMI), show financial hardship and housing instability, and the housing provider must agree to participate. - Relocation Assistance: Available 24/7; covers security deposits, application fees, utility connections, pet deposits, temporary lodging (with pre-approval), mover costs, and storage. Same income and residency requirements. Maximum assistance $3,000 ($3,500 for disabled). Funds paid directly to housing provider after signed lease. - Eviction Court Presence: Senior family support workers at Justice of the Peace courts Monday-Friday, 8-5 p.m., connecting tenants to resources. - Fair Housing Program: HUD-approved agency offering mediation, mortgage counseling, and housing discrimination complaint review. - Board members questioned the short application window (1 hour/month) and outreach; staff acknowledged capacity constraints but noted partnerships with schools, workforce centers, and community organizations. Deconstruction Program (Office of Historic Preservation) - Ordinance adopted September 2022; applies to residential structures built pre-1945 citywide or pre-1960 in historic/neighborhood conservation districts. - Program includes annual contractor training (next cohort Jan/Feb 2027) and a Material Innovation Center at Port San Antonio where recovered materials are stored and redistributed for affordable housing, trades education, and community impact projects. - Example: Esperanza Peace and Justice Center’s Rinconcito de Esperanza – 70% of materials reused from original structure, 30% from the center. - Board discussed cost: deconstruction is generally more expensive than demolition, but materials have reuse value and environmental benefits. Vacant Building Program (Development Services) - Started as pilot in 2014, made permanent 2015; expanded in 2017 and 2023 (1000-foot buffer around schools). Currently covers about 186 sq miles, less than half of San Antonio, concentrated inside Loop 410. - Program moved from Office of Historic Preservation to Development Services in March 2026. - Approximately 1,000 properties in inventory; 60% owned by individuals (not LLCs), mostly single-family residences. - Registration required with plan of action within 90 days; failure results in citations (Class C, up to $500 per violation, up to 13 violations). - Since inception, over 1,100 successful cases (renovated, occupied, or sold to new owner). - Staff connect owners with wills clinics to address probate issues. Compliance Assistance Fund - As of April 25, 2026: total fines due $977,365; costs due $170,269.50; grand total $1,147,634.50. - Current fund balance: $15,390. City working to make the fund easier to use; may seek ordinance modifications. - Board noted that unspent funds may be lost in budgeting; legal clarified that the fund should carry over but current interpretation treats it as budgeted item. Senior Assistance Fund - $100,000 budgeted for FY26. Received 53 applications; 38 abated, 6 canceled, 3 unfunded (referred to other programs). - Total approved cost: $77,995. Remaining balance: $15,375. - Work types: hazardous vegetation (19), outside placement (8), overgrown weeds (3), trash/debris (8). - Median costs varied by district, with higher costs in District 4 ($2,732) and District 7 ($3,038) likely due to tree removal. - Unfunded cases often involve large, expensive tree removals; one estimate was $30,000. Discussion Items BSB Process Overview - Jenny Ramirez presented a high-level timeline of how cases progress from initial inspection to board hearing, including internal and executive reviews, notice requirements, and post-order monitoring. - Cases typically take 9-18 months before reaching the board due to extensive documentation, owner outreach, and referrals to assistance programs. - Emergency demolitions follow a separate 96-hour process with building official affidavit and coordination with utilities and police. Organizational Chart Update - Code Enforcement Division realigned to include Vacant Building Program. Kathy Rodriguez assumed oversight of BSB staffing. - Vacancy rate has decreased; training programs revamped to retain staff. BSB Orders and Actions (Oct 2025 – Apr 2026) - Total cases presented: 91 (51 dangerous structures, 34 emergency demolitions, 6 reset orders). - Panel A: 4 meetings, 38 items. Panel B: 7 meetings, 51 items. One full board meeting. - Breakdown of dangerous structure orders: 4 repair orders without penalty, 1 remedy without penalty, 1 30-day demo with penalty, 42 30-day demo without penalty, 3 pulled from agenda. - Most cases in Council District 5 (29 total) and District 2 (17 total); none in Districts 8 and 9. Board Attendance and Calendar - Panel A: 100% attendance; Panel B: 87% attendance. No hearings rescheduled due to lack of quorum. - Calendar for rest of 2026 already established; changes notified in advance. - No board vacancies; 9 members reappointed, 5 new appointments (3 in April 2026). Key Outcomes - Vote on Policies and Procedures: Motion to delete item M (right to cross-examine staff) from Section 8 passed 10-0. Item M had allowed persons with legal property interest to cross-examine staff presenters. The board concluded it was not appropriate given panel composition. - No actions taken in executive session; board reconvened at 12:27 p.m. - Two agenda items (ethics code and Robert’s Rules presentation) deferred to individual panel meetings. - Meeting adjourned at approximately 12:30 p.m.

The Public Safety Committee (Comité de Seguridad) met on May 28, 2026, to discuss animal care services (ACS) metrics, dangerous dog enforcement, and a police staffing plan. The meeting included public testimony from a dog attack victim, a presentation from ACS Director John Gary, a presentation from SAPD Chief Raymond Platinum, and extensive council discussion. No formal votes were taken on the main agenda items; the committee agreed to postpone item five to the next meeting. Consent Calendar - Approval of minutes: The committee approved the minutes of the previous Safety Committee meeting by unanimous voice vote (motion and second received, no objections). Public Comments & Testimony - Katy (resident, District 1): Testified about being attacked by a large Great Dane on Good Friday, resulting in severe injuries to her arm and the death of her 9-pound dog. She described the traumatic aftermath, noting that ACS responded well but that the owner never claimed the dog and it was euthanized after a 10-day quarantine. Her specific recommendations included: (1) providing victims with a written explanation of the process and available resources; (2) adding a public safety dashboard on the ACS website by district; (3) requiring city manager reports to council on district-level ACS status at least quarterly; and (4) reinstating a citizen position on the Safety Committee, for which she expressed interest. - Kelly Waltz (former ACS volunteer/advocate): Criticized ACS for failing to hold dangerous dog owners accountable, claiming that fatalities are linked to dogs already known to ACS. He alleged that ACS manipulates response rate statistics, that many dangerous dog cases are dismissed or low-priority, and that the 93% response rate cited is misleading because calls are often closed automatically. He pointed to specific cases where owners repeatedly ignored court orders without consequence. Discussion Items 1. Animal Care Services (ACS) – 2026 Metrics and Dangerous Dog Enforcement - Presentation by John Gary (Director of Animal Care Services): Provided an overview of cruelty investigations, dangerous dog classifications, and citation processes. Key points: - The cruelty team has 5 investigators; they issue violation notices for minor infractions and seek warrants for severe cases. In 2026, 800–900 violation notices were issued. - The dangerous dog investigation team has 4 investigators + 2 supervisors. Currently 348 active dangerous dog cases (93 dogs in 52 homes). 82% of dangerous dog classifications meet the target (goal 80%). - Dangerous = attacks a person; aggressive = attacks an animal. There are 88 dangerous and 68 aggressive cases; 22 SBI (serious bite incidents) go directly to court. - The process: after an incident, the dog is quarantined (10 days), evidence collected, owner has 15 days to appeal a dangerous dog declaration. Non-compliance leads to potential euthanasia after an 11-day grace period. - Citations: In 2024, most citations were criminal rather than civil. A single incident can generate 4–5 citations. The director noted that 2024–2025 data shows some cases were dropped or administratively closed. - City Manager David Rodriguez (Assistant City Manager): Added that ACS is working on a public dashboard (expected in 90 days) to allow tracking of calls by district, priority, and outcome. He acknowledged the need for better communication with the community and for modernizing the citation process, which remains largely manual. - Councilmember Maki Rodríguez: Expressed concern that despite two new spay/neuter and vaccination points, ACS is not removing dangerous animals proactively. She noted that ACS’s budget dropped from $5 million to $3 million and that response rates for critical calls are still only 92%. She called for more officers, an east-side facility, and better coordination with the municipal court and city attorney’s office. She disputed the claim that ACS does not need more money. - Councilmember White: Noted that criminal citations doubled from 2024 to 2025 and asked why. He wanted data on average time from incident to prosecutor decision, and recommended a satellite facility on the east side. He also supported better victim resources (notaries, help with sworn affidavits). - Councilmember Spears: Expressed frustration with lack of progress despite significant funding. She suggested a public registry of dangerous dogs (similar to sex offender registry), mandatory liability insurance for owners of dangerous dogs, and stronger enforcement. She stressed the need for collaboration with the county and suburban cities. - Councilmember Castillo: Emphasized making the online dangerous dog map more user-friendly and adding filters for multiple attacks. She requested a clear timeline of what a victim can expect after a bite (reporting, court process, outcomes). - Municipal Court representative: Explained that citations are hand-written, delivered to prosecutor’s office, then to court; the process takes about a week. Defendants get 30 days to appear; if they fail, an arrest warrant is issued. The court is working with ACS on electronic citation submission. 2. Police Staffing Plan – Presentation by SAPD Chief Raymond Platinum - Background: On March 11, 2026, Councilmembers Alderete, Gabito, and Spears submitted a resolution supporting a 2023 staffing study; on March 12, another memo from Councilmembers Maki Rodríguez, Villa Gran, Munguía, Castillo, and Galván recommended prioritizing staffing within the FY2026 budget process. - Methodology: The 2023 study used workload-based analysis (calls for service, response time, shift patterns, proactive time) and recommended adding 360 officers to achieve a 60/40 split between call response and proactive time. The department later moved to a 50/50 split and added 200 officers, resulting in a 13% reduction in homicides and 43% reduction in auto thefts from July 2023 to July 2024. - Current request: Chief Platinum presented updated data showing that San Antonio is the fastest-growing US city (added 24,000 residents in 2023-24, 14,000 in 2024-25). To maintain current service levels and improve proactive policing, additional officers are needed. The chief noted that the department now offers 8- and 10-hour shifts for flexibility and is exploring online reporting for non-emergency calls (minor accidents, lost property, noise complaints) to free up officer time. - Councilmember White: Strongly supported adding officers, stating that the city must follow through on the 2023 study. He noted that the 50/50 split has reduced crime and that more officers would further improve safety and officer mental health. He called for funding additional officers in the next 3–4 months. - Councilmember Spears: Echoed White’s sentiments, emphasizing that public safety is the city’s core function. She asked for data showing how increased staffing at substations has improved response times. She also stressed the importance of officer well-being and community perception of safety. - Councilmember Maki Rodríguez: Cautioned against assuming causation from correlation. She noted that other cities like Houston and Nashville have more officers per capita but still higher crime rates, and that social media trends (e.g., TikTok challenges) can artificially inflate certain crimes. She urged careful analysis of demographic and economic factors that affect crime. - Councilmember Castillo: Requested that future discussions include trade-offs (tax increases vs. cuts to other programs) to justify budget increases. Key Outcomes - Minutes approved unanimously. - Item 5 (unclear) postponed to the next meeting (scheduled for June at a domestic violence shelter). - No formal votes were taken on the ACS metrics or police staffing plan; these were discussion-only items. The committee directed staff to: - Develop a user-friendly online dashboard for dangerous dog tracking and public education (within 90 days). - Explore electronic citation submission from ACS to municipal court. - Provide councilmembers with a clear timeline and outcome tracking for dangerous dog cases. - Continue analyzing police staffing needs with cross-city comparisons and budget implications for the next fiscal year.

The Public Safety Committee convened on May 28, 2026, at 2:08 PM, with Chair Corps presiding and a quorum present. The agenda included approval of prior minutes, a briefing on Animal Care Services (ACS) performance metrics and dangerous dog/cruelty case processes, and a briefing on the San Antonio Police Department (SAPD) patrol staffing plan. Public comments highlighted gaps in victim support and enforcement. The meeting adjourned at 3:55 PM. Consent Calendar - Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the April 21, 2026 Public Safety Committee meeting were approved unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Kathy Vale (District 1 resident): Described a traumatic dog attack on Good Friday 2026 that resulted in her dog's death and her injuries. She praised initial emergency response but criticized the lack of a victim information sheet, insufficient public safety focus on the ACS website, and the absence of a monthly/quarterly district-level report for council members. She requested reinstatement of a public citizen position on the committee. - Kelly Laporte: Asserted that ACS misrepresents data (e.g., 93% critical call response rate is manipulated) and fails to enforce dangerous dog laws, citing repeated court failures and a recent increase in serious bite injuries (over 50%). She called for better accountability and warned of continued fatalities. Discussion Items Animal Care Services (ACS) Performance & Dangerous Dog Process - Presentation by John Gary (ACS Director) and Municipal Court Representative: Covered cruelty investigations (5 investigators), dangerous dog investigations (4 investigators), and the citation/court process. Year-to-date statistics (FY26, 7 months) included 898 notice of violations, 336 civil citations, 401 criminal citations, and 36 cruelty cases filed with the DA's office (surpassing prior year totals). Dangerous dog compliance rate was 82% (goal 80%), with 348 cases handled, 88 deemed dangerous, 68 aggressive, and 22 serious bodily injury (SBI) cases. The registry is available online by district. - Councilmember McKee-Rodriguez pressed for resources: asked if ACS needs more officers, higher pay, or a second campus to address stray dog calls and kennel capacity. Director Gary acknowledged additional officers and adoption/medical staff would help. - Councilmember Spears suggested a more prominent registry, higher mandatory insurance (e.g., $100,000) for dangerous dog owners, and collaboration with county and suburban cities. Gary noted $100,000 insurance is already required. - Councilmember Castillo called for digitizing ACS citations (currently manual) and a strategic framework refresh for animal care services. Assistant City Manager David McCarey committed to developing a dashboard within 90 days and improving outcome alignment between ACS and municipal court. - Councilmember Casillo asked for a flow chart tracking case lifecycle to better communicate with residents, and requested data on appeal rates and DA acceptance. Judge confirmed manual process and 30-day appearance timeline. SAPD Patrol Staffing Plan - Presentation by Assistant Chief Robert Blanton: Reviewed the 2023 workload study recommending 360 new patrol officers to achieve a 40% reactive / 60% proactive time split. Since then, 205 officers added, achieving a 50/50 split. Data shows a 13% drop in total crime, 37% drop in homicides, and 43% drop in car thefts. Benefits include enhanced crime prevention, targeted enforcement, and officer well-being. Staffing plan is data-driven using workload model; Houston and Albuquerque use similar models. - Councilmember White: Expressed support for fully funding the remaining 155 officers, arguing that increased presence causes crime reduction and citing officer mental health benefits. - Councilmember Spears: Supported the plan and requested substation-level response time data. - Councilmember McKee-Rodriguez: Cautioned against assuming causation from correlation, noting other cities with more officers per capita have higher crime. She advocated for holistic crime prevention (e.g., environmental design, social services) and alternative response solutions to reduce officer workload. - Councilmember Castillo: Asked for clarity on budget trade-offs (e.g., property tax increases or cuts to other departments) to fund additional officers. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Minutes approved. - ACS Briefing: No action taken. Council directed ACS and municipal court to improve data tracking, develop a dashboard (within 90 days), digitize citations, and provide a case flow analysis for residents. A strategic framework refresh will be explored. - SAPD Staffing Briefing: No action taken. Discussion will inform FY27 budget decisions. A follow-up on substation response times and peer city comparisons was requested. - Next Meeting: Scheduled for June 2026 at the Family Violence Prevention Center shelter, with a shortened agenda including deferred item 5 and subcommittee reports.

The Community Health Committee met on May 28, 2026, at 10:01 a.m. to discuss maternal health programs, reproductive justice funding, and the Medicaid 1115 waiver update. Public comment was heard and the minutes were approved. Consent Calendar - The committee approved the meeting minutes with no changes or adjustments. Motion carried unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Jamie Gonzalez (Food Policy Council, River City Produce, Chicho Boys) spoke in support of the Healthy Neighborhoods program and other Metro Health programs facing budget cuts. She highlighted the essential role of community health workers, the success of programs like Healthy Corner Store and Double Up Food Bucks, and urged the city to look at inefficiencies in the RFP process and marketing department rather than cutting direct services. Written comments from Nadia, Emma, and Gracie were entered into the record. Discussion Items Maternal Health Programs (Item 2) - Marjorie White (Assistant Director, Community Health and Safety Division) presented on the Women, Infant and Child (WIC) program, the San Antonio Lactation Support Center, and the Healthy Start program. WIC serves over 17,000 clients, with 10 clinics in San Antonio. In fiscal year 2025, WIC provided $7 million in food benefits, with an increase in per-client cost due to rising food costs. Healthy Start serves 11 high-risk zip codes and is federally funded, currently vulnerable to cuts. Councilmembers asked about income guidelines, food types (eggs, milk, formula, produce, etc.), funding sources, and best practices. Councilmember Alderete-Gavito requested a demographic breakdown. Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez inquired about advocacy efforts for federal funding. Chair Govan emphasized the holistic impact of maternal health programs. Reproductive Justice (Item 3) - Dr. Wu reported on the $500,000 in one-time funding from CPS off-system sales (approved September 2023). The funds were awarded to four vendors through an RFP, covering upstream (sex education for 5,000+ youths in SAISD and Northside ISD), midstream (30 trained doulas, 189 navigations to STI care, 25 to benefits, 50 IUDs at no charge), and downstream (240 receiving direct maternity support, 800 STI tests, 113 infections treated). Total 12,509 people served at approximately $40 per person. Councilmember White asked about legal risk if reinstated; city attorney said initial analysis shows no problem but would need further review. Councilmember Aldrete-Gavito noted the funding was always intended as one-time and cautioned against using general fund due to potential state penalties. Councilmember Ruger-Stell expressed support for reinstating funding. Chair Govan requested zip code data of those served. Medicaid 1115 Waiver Update (Item 4) - Dr. Jacob (Assistant City Manager) presented an update on the $20 million in reserves identified from the Medicaid 1115 waiver, which will allow a glide path for certain programs. The presentation focused on four most-impacted programs: Oral Health (serves 17,000 children annually, $2.5 million budget, 40 staff), Stand Up SA (violence prevention, 1.5 million budget, 24 staff, 500 altercations interrupted), STI Control and Prevention (9.5 million budget, 58 staff, includes mobile outreach and congenital syphilis investigations), and Diabetes Prevention (12 staff, 62% risk reduction for participants). Recommendations include fully funding Oral Health and Stand Up SA from reserves, and funding mandated components of STI control and diabetes education. Non-mandated components (e.g., mobile STI outreach, some diabetes programming) would be sunset. Councilmembers asked about potential service absorption by other entities (Bear County, nonprofits) and requested a crosswalk of delegate agency funding. Several councilmembers expressed strong support for preserving these programs and staff (80+ positions). Key Outcomes - The committee approved the minutes unanimously. - Staff were directed to provide: demographic breakdown for maternal health programs, zip code data for reproductive justice services, and a crosswalk of delegate agency funding related to the 1115 waiver programs. - The committee generally supported continuing funding for oral health, Stand Up SA, STI clinical services, and diabetes education through the 1115 reserves. - Committee members noted that reproductive justice funding was a one-time allocation and should not be reinstated from the general fund, but encouraged private support and continued advocacy for federal funding. - The FY27 budget proposal, incorporating feedback from this meeting, will be presented to full council later in summer 2026.