Public Meetings - San Antonio, Texas

The San Antonio Board of Adjustment (BOA) held a regular meeting on April 20, 2026, beginning shortly after 2:00 PM and adjourning at 5:47 PM. A quorum of 11 members was present. The Board heard 13 agenda items concerning variances and special exceptions, with a heavy focus on short-term rental (STR) regulations and residential property development challenges. Postponements - Item 11 (539 Calumet Place): Postponed to May 4, 2026. - Item 16 (330 Mission Street): Postponed to May 4, 2026. - Item 5 (122 Rilla Vista Drive): Postponed to May 4, 2026, to allow the applicant to meet with the opposing Shadow Hills Ridge Neighborhood Association. Short-Term Rental (STR) Cases Item 2: 335 East Park Avenue A special exception request for an additional Type 2 STR unit was denied (7-4). The applicant argued it was necessary due to a massive historic renovation ($201,000) and financial hardship. The Board, however, cited saturation concerns within the block and opposition from the Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association despite the historical restoration arguments. Item 3: 221 Ayr Avenue A special exception for a Type 2 STR was denied (0-11). The applicant, Jim Hendrix, operated the unit without a permit and had code compliance issues. The Maincom Park Neighborhood Association and adjacent residents strongly opposed the application, citing density and negative impacts on the residential character. Item 4: 810 Dakota Street A special exception for a Type 2 STR was approved (10-1). The applicant, Marisa Gámez, a homeowner unable to sell or long-term rent the property, demonstrated significant personal financial hardship. The Mer High Neighborhood Association supported the application as a temporary financial bridge, with the understanding the permit would end upon a future sale of the home. Item 6: 443 North Rail Drive An appeal of a STR permit revocation was approved (10-1). The applicant, Rogelio Peña, argued his permit was revoked due to non-payment of hotel occupancy taxes because of a confusion with the City's new online payment portal and an incorrect email address on file. The Board found the revocation was based on a communication breakdown and granted the appeal. Property Development Cases Item 1: 519 West Kings Highway A variance for a rear yard setback to convert an accessory structure into an ADU was denied (1-10). The Board found the 1-inch separation from the property line posed significant fire safety risks and a hardship for maintenance access. Item 7: 619 Barbie Street A variance for a 4-foot, 11-inch side yard setback for an open carport was approved (9-2). The board found the inclusion of gutters and the open design adequately mitigated drainage and fire spread concerns, even as the King Williams Neighborhood Association opposed setting a precedent. Item 8: 224 Dora Street Multiple variances for a new single-family residence on a constrained lot were approved (11-0). Variances were granted for arterial street frontage, reduced side and rear setbacks, and increased impervious cover. The owner, Ricardo Valdez, demonstrated the lot lost 6 feet to city right-of-way, creating a unique hardship that made standard development unfeasible. Item 10: 155 Holly Street Variances for a fence were approved (11-0). The Board granted a special exception for a privacy fence using corrugated metal on the side and rear, a reduced clear vision area, and wrought iron in the front yard. The applicant successfully argued the materials and height were necessary for security, including containing large dogs and protecting a trailer. Item 12: 21 Country Lane A variance to allow a larger ADU (1,725 sq. ft. vs. 1,500 sq. ft. max) was approved (11-0). The applicant demonstrated the larger size was needed to house a caregiver for an elderly family member, and the property's lot size easily accommodated the structure without impacting neighbors. Item 13: 515 Wendale Street Six variance requests were considered in a series of votes. The Board approved variances for historic accessory structures and a shade structure by the pool. A special exception for a taller fence was also approved. The Board did not bring forward a motion for the variances for the front-yard shade structure and the covered carport encroaching on the property line, effectively denying them. Item 14: 330 Elena Street A variance for an 18-foot rear setback (instead of 20 feet) to add a second story was approved (10-0). The Board accepted that the odd lot configuration and the non-conforming nature of the existing structure justified the minimal encroachment. Item 15: 422 Pereida Street A variance for a rear yard setback (28 feet, 9 inches of 30 feet) for an addition to a commercial building in the King William Historic District was approved (10-0). The Office of Historic Preservation and the neighborhood association supported the project. Item 17: 118 Rich Street A variance for a reduced side setback (1 ft. instead of 5 ft.) for a residential addition in the King William District was approved (10-0). The Board relied on the applicant's plan for gutters to mitigate drainage, the historic nature of the lot, and support from the King William Neighborhood Association. Key Meeting Actions & Outcomes - Minutes: The meeting minutes were unanimously approved. - Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 5:47 PM with a reminder that parts of the city were experiencing flooding.

The San Antonio Board of Adjustments convened on April 20, 2026, at 1:03 PM, with 10 commissioners present (Commissioner Bragman joined online later, but left before the end). The meeting adjourned at 5:47 PM. The board heard 14 agenda items including continuances, variances, special exceptions for short-term rentals (STRs), fence height/material variances, and appeals of administrative decisions. A total of 11 cases were decided with votes; several were continued to May 4, 2026. The board also approved the minutes from the previous meeting. Consent Calendar - Item 11 (BOA 261030055): Request to continue to May 4, 2026 – Approved unanimously. - Item 16 (BOA 26103065): Request to continue to May 4, 2026 – Approved unanimously. - Minutes from previous meeting: Approved unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 3 (221 IRA Avenue) – Bruce Martin (former board chair, Mankey Park resident) and Sandra Burge (220 IRA Avenue) spoke in opposition to granting an additional STR. Martin argued no unique circumstances justified doubling the density on a two-block street. Burge cited the loss of a permanent neighbor, garbage can issues, and parking problems caused by short-term renters. - Item 4 (810 Dakota Street) – No public opposition; the neighborhood association (Aubrey Lewis) was in support. - Item 6 (443 North Trail Drive) – No public comments. - Item 13 (5115 Gwendolia Street) – No public comments; six neighbors opposed as per staff notices. - Other items had no public speakers. Discussion Items and Key Outcomes Item 1 – 519 West Kings Highway (Felice De Novo) - Request: 2-foot-11-inch variance for rear setback to allow an ADU addition 1 inch from property line. - Staff recommended denial. Applicant argued the structure was built prior and would not affect neighbors. Commissioners expressed concern about fire risk and maintenance access. Motion to grant failed 1-10. Denied. Item 2 – 335 East Park Avenue (Killing Griffin & Farramon) - Request: Special exception for one additional Type 2 STR in a historic district. Block face currently at 12.1% density; request would bring to 15%. - Staff recommended denial. Applicant cited historic restoration (distressed structure) and financial hardship—property purchased for $520k, $201k renovation, unable to sell or rent profitably. Tobin Hill Neighborhood Association opposed. Motion to grant failed 7-4. Denied. Item 3 – 221 IRA Avenue (Tim Hendricks) - Request: Special exception for an additional STR on a duplex. Current density 11%; request would bring to 22%. - Staff recommended denial due to code violations (operating without permit, right-of-way issues). Mankey Park Neighborhood Association opposed. Motion to grant failed 0-11. Denied. Item 4 – 810 Dakota Street (Marisa Gamez) - Request: Special exception for an additional STR. Current density 12.1%; request would bring to 16.6%. - Staff recommended denial. Applicant explained financial hardship—unable to sell or long-term rent while expecting a baby; neighbors and neighborhood association supported. Motion to grant passed 10-0-1 (Commissioner Dean abstained). Granted. Item 5 – 122 Rio Vista (Enrique Lavinman) - Request: Special exception for an additional STR. Applicant had a previous permit that lapsed; new application triggered opposition. - Staff recommended denial. Applicant requested continuance to meet with neighborhood association (Cherry Hills Ridgeview). Motion to continue to May 4, 2026 passed unanimously. Item 6 – 443 North Trail Drive (Rogelio Peña) - Appeal: Appeal of revocation of STR permit for non-payment of county hotel taxes. Applicant argued he missed emails due to incorrect email address and thought notices were scams. - Staff recommended denial. Board noted miscommunication and that density (5.5%) would remain under cap. Motion to grant appeal passed 10-1 (Commissioner Dean abstained). Granted – permit reinstated. Item 7 – 619 Barb Street (Deborah Raina) - Request: 4-foot-11-inch variance for side setback to allow carport + gutters 1 inch from property line. OHP approved design; King William Neighborhood Association opposed. - Staff recommended denial. Applicant met with neighborhood but they refused to support. Commissioners split: safety concerns vs. minimal impact. Motion to grant passed 9-2. Granted. Item 8 – Withdrawn by applicant. Item 9 – 224 Dora Street (Ricardo Valdez) - Request: Four variances – lot frontage on arterial street, side setback (from 5 ft to 3 ft), rear setback (20 ft to 15 ft), and impervious cover (from 50% to 70%). - Staff recommended approval for frontage, denial for others. Applicant argued lot lost 6 ft to public dedication, limited buildable area. Board compromised on 3 ft side, 70% impervious. Motion to grant all four passed 11-0. Granted. Item 10 – 155 Holly Street (Alberto Garcia) - Request: (1) Fence material variance for corrugated metal, (2) special exception for 6-ft fence in front yard (limited to west side), (3) special exception for 6-ft stone columns, (4) variance for 10-ft driveway clear vision (instead of 15 ft). - Staff recommended denial for fence material and height, approval for clear vision. Applicant has Dobermans, needs tall fence. Board approved in two motions: first (height/columns) unanimous; second (fence material + clear vision) unanimous. Granted. Item 12 – 210 Country Lane (Reed Homes LLC) - Request: 143 sq ft variance to allow ADU of 1,725 sq ft (max 1,582 sq ft). Lot 1.079 acres. - Staff recommended approval. Applicant’s aunt (owner) wants to age in place; lot can accommodate. No opposition. Motion passed 11-0. Granted. Item 13 – 5115 Gwendolia Street (Lydia Cotrell) - Request: Six variances: (1) side setback for shade structure, (2) fence height, (3) front setback for shade structure, (4) additional side setback for shade structure, (5) side setback for existing accessory structure, (6) total accessory structure square footage (increase to 5,000 sq ft). - Staff recommended denial. Some structures existed before applicant purchased. Board split the motion: Items 5 & 6 (existing structures) passed unanimously; Items 4 (shade structure by pool) and 3 (front shade structure) passed 10-0; fence height special exception passed 10-0. Item 1 (side shade structure near neighbor) was not moved and failed by default. Denied for that item. Item 14 – 330 Helena Street (Linda Stone) - Request: 18 ft variance from 20 ft required rear setback to allow second-story addition on existing footprint. - Staff recommended denial. Applicant has small house (880 sq ft) and needs room for family; addition does not change existing 2-ft setback. Motion passed 10-0. Granted. (Findings were later corrected by reopening the item.) Item 15 – 422 Presa Street (Jonathan Smith for Beethoven's) - Request: 28 ft 9 in variance from 30 ft side setback for 313 sq ft addition to commercial property in King William District. - Staff recommended approval. Same application as approved in January 2025 but expired due to project delay. King William Neighborhood Association supported. Motion passed 10-0. Granted. Item 17 – 118 East Rische Street (Blue Line Housing) - Request: 4 ft variance from 5 ft side setback for a 500 sq ft addition to a historic home. - Staff recommended approval. Neighbors and King William Neighborhood Association supported. Fire-rated wall and gutters planned. Motion passed 10-0. Granted. Key Outcomes - Continuances: Items 11, 16, and 5 moved to May 4, 2026. - Denials: Items 1, 2, 3; part of Item 13 (one shade structure). - Grants: Items 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 (partial), 14, 15, 17; Item 4 granted with one abstention. - Appeal granted: Item 6. - Withdrawn: Item 8. - The meeting concluded with a reminder about flooded roadways from recent rain.

The Historic Preservation Board of San Antonio met on Friday, April 17, 2026, at an unspecified time. Chair Vázquez presided; members present: Davis, García, Spiller, Fortune, Pollett, and Vázquez. Quorum was established. The board reviewed several certificate of appropriateness (COA) applications for work in historic districts, including consent items and individual cases. Decisions were guided by the Unified Development Code and historic preservation guidelines. Consent Calendar - Consent Items 1–3 (addresses not specified): Approved unanimously (6–0). One item (address 426 Courtland Place, 719 Carson, 615 Evergreen) was initially on consent but later heard separately. The board also approved the minutes of the March 20, 2026 meeting by a 6–0 vote. - Item 4 (430 Smulberry): The applicant, Mr. Kumar, requested a COA for work including replacing a wooden section with a similar structure. The board approved the consent item (including this case) with a 6–0 vote after confirming no public comments. A letter from a neighbor was received but no opposition was expressed. Public Comments & Testimony - Bianca Maldonado (President, Monticello Park Neighborhood Association): Spoke in opposition to the retaining wall proposed at 447 Fer Drive. She argued that the wall does not fit the historic district, that a city bond project had recently reconstructed driveways without retaining walls, and that the applicant's lack of maintenance (not the slope) caused erosion issues. She urged the board to follow staff’s recommendation for denial. Discussion Items - Case 2026-104-15 (1518 West Rosebud): The applicant (not present, but submitted a request for feedback) proposed landscape modifications, concrete steps, and a brick wall. Staff recommended approval of points 1 and 2 (landscaping and brick wall) with stipulations, but did not recommend point 3 (concrete steps) because existing concrete elements should be repaired consistent with guidelines. After a brief delay due to lost quorum (resolved after a break), the board approved staff recommendations via motion and 5–0 vote (Vázquez absent? Actually roll call: Davis, García, Spiller, Pollock, Vázquez – all yes. Note: Fortune? Not in roll call. But passed). - Case 2026-083 (118 East Ridge): Applicant Chris (name not fully given) sought a COA for a driveway gate and a skirt (faldón) on the front façade. The board discussed design details: placement of the gate (strip driveway with grass or stone between strips), the skirt proportions, and a vent (ventilador). The applicant agreed to use permeable materials and a 9-foot-wide strip driveway, and to adjust the skirt to align with the front porch columns. Staff recommended approval of points 1 and 2 with stipulations but not point 3 (façade modification). After debate, a motion to support staff recommendations (points 1, 2, and 3 as modified by discussions) passed 6–0. The board also encouraged using native drought-tolerant grass for the driveway strip. - Case 2026-068 (447 Fer Drive, Monticello Park): Applicant Wenbert requested a COA for a retaining wall along the front slope. He described erosion and safety issues due to lack of shade and soil runoff. Staff did not recommend approval, suggesting a lower-profile wall that could be approved administratively. The Monticello Park Neighborhood Association opposed the wall, citing historic character and recent bond project improvements. The board denied the request, voting 6–0 to support staff’s recommendation. The applicant was directed to work with the preservation office on an alternative design. - Case 2026-160 (70 Alamo): Applicant William Camela requested a COA for a 6-foot privacy fence on the southeast side and a 4-foot transparent fence in front, with a driveway gate positioned at the front porch line (not set back as staff recommended). The applicant cited trespassing, vandalism, and parking issues from a neighboring short-term rental and a birria food truck during First Friday events. Staff recommended the gate be set back to the main wall of the house (not the porch) and that the privacy fence be limited to 4 feet. The board acknowledged safety concerns but emphasized historic guidelines. A motion to support staff recommendations passed 6–0. Key Outcomes - Minutes: Approved unanimously. - Consent Calendar Items 1–3: Approved; Item 4 (430 Smulberry) also approved as part of consent. - Case 2026-104-15 (1518 West Rosebud): Approved with staff conditions (landscaping and brick wall allowed; concrete steps denied). Vote: 5–0 (Vázquez not counted? but passed). - Case 2026-083 (118 East Ridge): Approved with modifications to the driveway strip and skirt design. Vote: 6–0. - Case 2026-068 (447 Fer Drive): Denied per staff recommendation. Vote: 6–0. - Case 2026-160 (70 Alamo): Approved as recommended by staff (gate set back, 4-foot transparent fence, no 6-foot privacy fence in front). Vote: 6–0. - Lost Quorum: Briefly lost quorum during the discussion of case 1518 West Rosebud; a five-minute break was taken, and the meeting resumed at 10:40 AM to complete the vote. - Next Steps: Applicants were instructed to work with the Historic Preservation Office on final details and to obtain proper permits before starting any work. Certificate of appropriateness will be issued within 10 days.

The Historic and Design Review Commission’s Compliance and Technical Advisory Board (CTAB) met on Friday, April 17, 2026, starting at approximately 9:00 AM. Acting Chair Jason Vasquez presided. The board considered four consent items, one pulled consent case, two contested certificate of appropriateness (COA) cases, and a violation case. All votes were unanimous unless noted. Consent Calendar - Items 1, 2, and 3 (426 East Courtland Place, 719 East Carson, 615 East Evergreen): Approved without discussion. - Item 4 (430 East Mulberry) – pulled for discussion then approved: Owner Kumar requested a COA to rebuild a rear porch similar to the original structure, which had been removed. The applicant stated the new structure is similar in size and roofline and that a variance had been obtained. No public speakers. Motion to approve carried 6–0. Public Comments & Testimony - Item 6 (447 Fur Drive): Bianca Maldonado, President of the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association, opposed the retaining wall. She argued that the front yard earth and berms are character-defining features of the district and that the proposed CMU wall would be incongruent. She noted that city engineers did not recommend new retaining walls during a recent bond project on Fur Drive. She urged the board to affirm staff’s recommendation. Discussion Items - Item 5 (1518 West Rosewood) – First Consideration (Applicant Present): Applicant Chris Coker sought a COA for landscaping beds, a brick patio, a gable vent, and cedar shake siding on the front gable. Staff recommended approval of landscaping and patio (items 1 and 2) with stipulations, but did not recommend replacing the original concrete steps and walkway (item 3) or altering the original siding. Coker agreed to retain the original siding and instead paint alternating colors on the gable. He requested a gable vent with a simplified design and a ribbon driveway with permeable materials (turf or native grass). Commissioners discussed vent proportions and driveway materials. A motion to support staff’s recommendations (items 1, 2, and 3) carried 6–0. - Item 5 (1518 West Rosewood) – Second Consideration (Applicant Absent): Later in the meeting, the board revisited the same case after noting the applicant was not present but had requested feedback. Staff reiterated the recommendation. Commissioners again voted unanimously to support staff’s recommendations. - Item 6 (447 Fur Drive) – Violation Case: Applicant (virtual) requested a COA for an 18-inch CMU retaining wall installed without prior approval. He cited erosion, safety hazards (slippery mud), and precedent of similar walls in the neighborhood. Staff did not recommend approval, stating CMU is inappropriate and that a low stone or steel edging would be more suitable. The applicant acknowledged that the wall was finished without proper COA due to miscommunication with his contractor. Public testimony opposed the wall. A motion to support staff’s recommendation carried 6–0. - Item 7 (1211 South Alamo Street): Applicants William Canela and his wife requested a COA for a vehicular sliding gate at the front of the porch, a six-foot fence at the southeast corner, and a four-foot picket fence in the front yard. They cited security concerns (trespassing, theft, graffiti) and traffic safety. Staff recommended placing the gate and taller fence behind the front wall plane to comply with guidelines. Commissioners discussed alternative gate types and the four-foot height limit. A motion to support staff’s recommendations carried 6–0. Key Outcomes - All votes were unanimous (6–0). - Consent items 1–4 approved, with item 4 individually confirmed. - Item 5 (1518 West Rosewood) approved with staff stipulations; applicant to submit final gable vent design and explore permeable driveway options. - Item 6 (447 Fur Drive) denied; applicant directed to submit a revised proposal using appropriate materials (e.g., stone edging) for administrative review. - Item 7 (1211 South Alamo Street) approved subject to gate/fence placement behind the front wall plane; four-foot height limit applies in front yard. - Meeting adjourned after approximately 1 hour 40 minutes.

The San Antonio City Council Zoning and Land Use Committee met on April 16, 2026, at 2:09 PM, with Mayor Pro Tem McKee Rodriguez presiding. Roll call was taken, and one item (Item 4) was continued to the June 18, 2026 meeting. The committee addressed the consent agenda and then considered several individual zoning items. Public comments were heard, and a series of votes were taken. Consent Calendar - The consent agenda included items not listed for individual consideration. Two items were pulled for public comment: Item 7 (cell phone tower in District 3) and Item 11 (speaker declined to speak). The remaining consent items were approved by a motion and second, with Councilmember Corr highlighting Item 2 – a new office for the nonprofit Beat AIDS – and expressing support. The status of Items 7 and 11 after public comment is unclear from the transcript; they were not voted on individually during the session. Public Comments & Testimony - Jack Finger (speaking on multiple items): Opposed Item 7 (a cell phone tower at South White Road, calling it a "monstrosity"), Items 5 & 6 (a used car lot on Rigsby Avenue, citing commercial encroachment and staff denial), Item 8 (a construction contractor facility on Hewerman Road, arguing it harms residential character), and Items 9 & 10 (a change from electrical to construction contractor facility on Western Oak Drive, criticizing commercial encroachment and urging the council to deny). He asked the council to prove their commitment to quality of life by voting no. - Laura Momsi Vais was signed up to speak on Item 11, but declined to comment. Discussion Items - Items 5 & 6 (Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 1514 Rigsby Avenue): Staff recommended denial; Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. The property would be rezoned from R4 to C2NA C D with conditional use for motor vehicle sales. Councilmember Via Gran (District 3) made a motion to approve, noting that Rigsby Avenue is a major thoroughfare with existing commercial uses and that the C2NA restriction would allow neighborhood input on future uses. The motion passed. - Item 8 (Rezoning – 7095 Hewerman Road): Staff recommended denial; Zoning Commission recommended approval. The property would change from R20 C D (assisted living) to C2 NA C D with conditional use for a construction contractor facility. Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez (District 8) made a motion to approve. The motion passed. - Items 9 & 10 (Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 13406 Western Oak Drive): Staff recommended denial; Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with a condition that all installed lighting be downward facing. The property would be rezoned from C3 NAS (electrical contractor) to C3 NAS with specific use authorization for a construction contractor facility (fencing). Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez made a motion to approve with the stated condition. The motion passed. Key Outcomes - Motion to Continue Item 4: Approved unanimously to continue to June 18, 2026. - Consent Agenda (balance): Approved; exact items not specified, but included Item 2 and excluded Items 7 and 11. - Items 5 & 6: Approved (motion by Councilmember Via Gran, seconded, carried). - Item 8: Approved (motion by Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez, seconded, carried). - Items 9 & 10: Approved with condition of downward-facing lighting (motion by Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez, seconded, carried). - Items 7 and 11: After public comment, the transcript does not record a subsequent vote on these items. Their final disposition is not indicated in the available record. The meeting adjourned at 2:24 PM.

The San Antonio City Council met on April 16, 2026, at 9:13 AM, with Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones presiding and all council members present. The meeting opened with an invocation, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a moment of silence for Dr. Manuel Berriozábal. Proclamations honored Texas Biomedical Research Institute's 85th anniversary, National Library Week (April 19–25), and Second Chance Month. Points of privilege recognized Donate Life Month, Autism Awareness Month, and outstanding District 6 students. The council approved the consent agenda (items 5–28) with item 19 pulled for individual consideration. After debate, the council approved item 19, amending city codes to regulate detention facilities, over a 10–1 zoning commission denial and opposition from some members. Ceremonial Recognitions - Texas Biomedical Research Institute 85th Anniversary: Mayor Jones read a proclamation celebrating 85 years of infectious disease research, including contributions to COVID-19, Ebola, and hepatitis C, and educational programs reaching 16,000 STEM students annually. Dr. Schlesinger, CEO, accepted and highlighted the institute's economic impact. - National Library Week: Proclamation declared April 19–25, 2026, as National Library Week. Library Director Sukhrid Goswami and Board Chair Jaspreet Kaur noted the library system's 180+ free programs that week and its role as a community anchor. Multiple council members praised libraries and advocated for bond funding. - Second Chance Month: Councilwoman Castillo introduced a proclamation designating April 2026 as Second Chance Month. Speakers from Unity Recovery, the Bexar County Reentry Center, Toyotetsu Texas, and Chrysalis Ministries shared their work. Toyotetsu reported hiring over 300 justice-impacted individuals since 2018. The proclamation calls for removing barriers to employment and housing. - Donate Life Month: Councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez recognized South Texas Blood and Tissue. James Murphy and Emmanuel Casasola spoke about the impact of organ, eye, and tissue donation. - Autism Awareness Month: Councilwoman Core recognized Autism Community Network and Any Baby Can. Emerson Quigley, an autistic self-advocate, and staff highlighted services for 3,100 individuals and the importance of early diagnosis (average age 38 months at ACN, vs. national average of 4.5–5 years). - District 6 Student Achievements: Councilman Galvan honored Adrian Jimenez (2nd year Fiesta Medal designer), Jacob Bujosa (River Parade cover contest winner), and Evelina Algiji (runner-up), all from Rob Elementary. City Manager's Report - Public Art Ordinance 30th Anniversary: San Antonio was one of the first Texas cities with a comprehensive public art program (1996). A commemorative Fiesta Medal is available. - Animal Care Services (ACS): Over the weekend, ACS held "Paw Changaa" adoption fiesta, resulting in 213 adoptions with 200+ volunteers. ACS appreciation week noted a 94.3% critical call response rate and an 89.5% live release rate. Consent Calendar Items 5–28 were considered as a group. Councilwoman White pulled item 19 for individual consideration. Item 20 was corrected to note Nick Cannon's withdrawal. The balance of the consent agenda was approved on a motion. Highlights noted: - Item 10: Peggy Drive drainage project in District 2. - Items 20A and 20B: Appointments to the Airport Advisory Commission. - Item 9: Culebra Park area street repairs in District 7. - Item 28: Affordable housing awards, including 47 Habitat for Humanity homes (Rancho Verano) and Esperanza Community Land Trust’s historic West Side projects. - Item 7: Cassiano Park improvements with a $1.5 million Texas Parks and Wildlife grant. - Items 6 and 8: Drainage projects in District 9 (Oakhaven/Kentwood and Evans Road). - Item 15: Airport lease with Texas Air Museum. Public Comments & Testimony - On Consent Agenda (Item 28): Antonio Diaz expressed concerns about affordable housing funds and called for more transparency. He also opposed the detention facility ordinance (item 19). Diana Flores Uriegas ceded time. Renée Gonzalez, General Manager of Esperanza Community Land Trust, supported the NHSD recommendation for funding, emphasizing the need for housing for those at 30% AMI and preserving the historic West Side. Michael Taylor, CEO of Habitat for Humanity, requested approval for 47 affordable homes in Rancho Verano, noting the city’s funds leverage millions in donations. Jack Finger criticized campaign contributions from contractors and labeled affordable housing "welfare housing." - On Item 19 (Detention Facilities Ordinance): Sarah Cruz (ACLU of Texas) urged support, citing unsafe conditions at the East Montana facility. Antonio Diaz and Diana Flores Uriegas supported the ordinance as a minimal step to protect detainees. Jack Finger opposed, calling it a political maneuver to block the federal detention center and accusing the council of hiding intentions behind building codes. Discussion Items Item 19: Amendments to Building, Fire, and Development Codes to Regulate Detention Facilities - Staff Presentation: Liz (City Attorney) clarified the ordinance recognizes federal supremacy and is within the city’s purview. It requires notification for private detention facilities, creates specific use authorization, and prohibits facilities within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, churches, and residential areas. - Council Debate: - Councilman White opposed, arguing the ordinance is a political statement with no effect on the existing federal facility, a waste of taxpayer resources, and an overreach. He noted the zoning commission voted 10–1 to deny, and academics journals cited are not evidence of economic harm. - Councilwoman Spears echoed concerns about legal unsoundness, potential state retaliation (citing Houston), and inconsistency. She said the ordinance misrepresents local authority. - Councilman McKee Rodriguez (lead sponsor) defended the ordinance, stating it is a simple zoning update to require notification and standards. He cited the potential for private detention operators to target San Antonio (e.g., Vision Quest in 2019). - Councilwoman Viagran supported, emphasizing that land use and zoning are core city responsibilities. She said the ordinance aligns with community feedback and protects neighborhoods from inappropriate facilities. - Councilwoman Mungia noted that the federal facility will house 500–1,500 people and that her constituents are more concerned about safety than immigration. She argued the ordinance does no harm and gives council the option to deny rezoning. - Councilwoman Alderete Gavito supported, citing that 12.7% of San Antonio’s population is immigrant, and detention facilities harm communities. - Councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez supported as a proactive step for accountability and transparency. - Councilwoman Castillo supported, noting the city owns the lane on building and zoning codes. - Councilwoman Core urged focusing on merits, not city staff time. - Councilman Galvan supported and questioned the dismissal of academic research. - Mayor Jones noted letters of support from Brooks (Leo Gomez) and SAGE (James Norty) and emphasized the ordinance protects property tax values. Key Outcomes - Consent Agenda Approved (items 5–28 except item 19) on a motion with a second. No vote tally recorded. - Item 19 (Detention Facilities Ordinance) Approved on a motion with a second. The motion carried; specific vote tally not provided in transcript. The ordinance amends Chapters 6, 10, 11, and 35 of the City Code to regulate construction or operation of detention facilities, including notification, specific use authorization, and setback requirements. - City Manager’s Report noted for information; no action required. - Proclamations and Recognitions adopted by acclamation. - Points of Privilege acknowledged; no formal votes.

The San Antonio City Council held a zoning meeting on April 16, 2026, starting at 2:09 PM. Interim Mayor Maki Rodríguez presided. All council members were present: Cor, Villagran, Mungía, Castillo, Calván, Alderete Gavito, Genza González, Spears, White, and Mayor Jones. Item 4 was postponed to the April 18 meeting. The consent agenda was approved, and individual public hearings were held for items 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Public speaker Jack Finger opposed several zoning changes. Consent Calendar - The consent agenda was approved by motion. Councilor Core highlighted item 2, a zoning change for a new nonprofit office near Crockett, expressing support. - Jack Finger spoke against consent items 7 and 11. Item 7 was a proposed cell tower at 2747 SW White Road in District 3, which he called a "monstrosity" and urged the council to deny. Public Comments - Jack Finger, a resident, spoke against all zoning items heard individually. He argued that commercial encroachment into residential areas would harm neighborhood character and quality of life. He noted that planning staff recommended denial on several items and urged the council to reject the changes. Discussion Items - Items 5 & 6 (1514 Brixby Avenue, District 3): Ordinance amendment to change land use classification for a used car lot. Staff recommended denial; Planning Commission recommended approval. 38 notifications sent: 4 in favor, 0 opposed within 200 feet; 6 in favor outside. Councilor Villagran moved to approve, citing existing commercial use and resident protections. Motion passed. - Item 8 (7095 Human Man Road, District 8): Zoning change from R-12D to O-2 NA CD. Staff recommended denial; Planning Commission recommended approval. 12 notifications: 0 in favor, 0 opposed. Councilor González moved to approve. Motion passed. - Items 9 & 10 (13406 Western Oak, District 8): Zoning change from suburban to regional center with a special use permit for electrical contracting and fencing. Staff recommended denial; Planning Commission recommended approval with a condition that all installations be downward. 32 notifications: 0 in favor, 0 opposed within 200 feet; 6 in favor outside. Councilor González moved to approve with conditions. Motion passed. Key Outcomes - Item 4 postponed to the April 18 meeting. - Consent agenda approved. - Items 5 & 6 approved. - Item 8 approved. - Items 9 & 10 approved with conditions. - Meeting adjourned at 2:24 PM.

The San Antonio City Council met on Thursday, April 16, 2026, starting at 9:13 AM and concluding at 11:56 AM. The meeting included several proclamations, approval of a consent agenda (with one item pulled for separate discussion), public comments, and lengthy debate on an ordinance regulating detention centers. Key decisions included approval of the detention center zoning changes and allocation of affordable housing funds. Proclamations & Recognitions - Texas Biomed 85th Anniversary: Recognized for contributions to biomedical research, including COVID-19, Ebola, and neonatal ventilators. Council members praised the institution's economic impact and educational programs reaching 16,000 students annually. - National Library Week: Proclaimed April 12-18, 2026 as National Library Week in San Antonio. Library Director Mr. Swami noted over 185 programs during the week. Council members highlighted library services, including digital lending and drive-through pickup. - Second Chance Month: Proclaimed April 2026 as Second Chance Month. Multiple speakers, including individuals from Unity Recovery and Toyota Texas, spoke about reentry programs. Councilwoman Castillo emphasized that 60% of San Antonio's population has been impacted by the justice system. - Blood Donation Month: Recognized April as Donate Life Month, with building illumination in blue and green. Speakers shared personal stories about the impact of tissue donation. - Autism Awareness Month: Honored Autism Community Network and Any Baby Can. A young ambassador, Emerson, spoke about his diagnosis and the support he receives. Early diagnosis average in San Antonio is 38 months vs. national average of 4.5–5 years. - Student Art Winners: Recognized students from Edgewood Fine Arts Academy for winning Fiesta parade design contests. Adrian Jiménez won for the second consecutive year; Evelyn Al Gigi also honored. Their school received $10,000 from Texas Cavaliers. Consent Calendar All items on the consent agenda were approved unanimously except Item 19, which was pulled for individual consideration. Notable consent items highlighted by council members: - Item 9: $8.5 million in street repairs on Culebra Road (District 7). - Item 10: Drainage project benefiting the neighborhood of Silvia Laniz (District 1). - Item 7: Improvements to Cassiano Park, including playground and pool house, with $1.5 million added from Parks & Recreation. - Item 6: Drainage project in recharge area (District 9) with coordination from CPS. - Item 8: Evans Road drainage project (District 9) for safety and drainage. - Item 15: Texas Air Music performance recognizing military aviation history. - Item 20: Appointments to the Airport Advisory Commission, including Eli, Dr. Fry, and others. Thanks to outgoing member Mark Fresler. - Item 28: Allocation of affordable housing funds to support development, rehabilitation, and land trusts. Speakers from Habitat for Humanity and Esperanza Land Trust testified in support. Public Comments & Testimony - Antonio Díaz: Expressed concern about how affordable housing funds would be used, and about detention center conditions. Called for protection of constitutional rights for detainees. - Diana Flores Uriegas: Spoke on the difficulty of finding employment and housing for formerly incarcerated individuals, noting that 60% of the population has been impacted by the justice system. - René González (Esperanza Land Trust): Described the trust's focus on preserving affordable housing for those earning 30% or less of area median income. Emphasized the need to preserve existing housing rather than build new. - Michael Taylor (Habitat for Humanity): Supported Item 28, citing the Rancho de Verano development (47 homes) with monthly payments around $900. Noted Habitat's 50th anniversary and a planned 50-hour home build. - Jack Finger: Raised conflict-of-interest concerns about campaign contributions from contract holders. Opposed the detention center ordinance, arguing it was a political statement without jurisdiction. - Sara Cruz: Supported the detention center ordinance, urging the council to adopt it as a first step to protect community and detainees. - Additional public comments on Item 19: Antonio Díaz, Diana Flores Uriegas, and Jack Finger spoke in opposition to the ordinance; Jack Finger claimed the zoning commission's 10-1 denial was correct. Discussion Items - Item 19 – Ordinance to Regulate Detention Centers: The council considered amendments to building, fire, and unified development codes to regulate construction and operation of detention centers within city limits. - Councilman White questioned the ordinance's impact (it would not affect existing federal facilities or private operations under federal lease), and criticized it as a political statement wasting taxpayer resources. He noted the Zoning Commission voted 10-1 to deny the changes. - Councilwoman Spears expressed concerns about legal authority, potential state preemption, and false expectations. She voted no. - Councilman M. Rodríguez supported the ordinance, citing abuses in private detention facilities and the need to regulate zoning to protect communities. - Councilwoman Villagran argued it was about zoning and community input, not immigration. She noted that similar facilities target Districts 2 and 3, and the ordinance requires notification and special authorization, with a 1,000-foot buffer from schools and residences. - Councilman Munguía supported the ordinance, stating he heard from residents who fear the facilities. He noted letters of support from Brooks and Northside. - Councilwoman Alderete Gavito noted that 12.7% of San Antonio's population is immigrant, and 24% are entrepreneurs. She supported the ordinance as a step to protect the community. - Councilwoman Mesa González supported the ordinance as a proactive framework for safety and accountability. - Councilwoman Castillo supported the ordinance, noting it follows proper process and addresses potential privatization of detention. - Councilman Korr supported the ordinance on its merits, rejecting the argument that it wastes staff time. - Councilman Galván supported the ordinance, adding it protects property values and tax base. - The mayor noted two letters of support from business leaders (Leo Gómez of Brooks and James Northy) and clarified that the Zoning Commission voted to deny as a political decision rather than on merits. - The ordinance passed. Key Outcomes - Approved consent agenda (all items except pulled Item 19). - Approved Item 19 (detention center ordinance) after separate discussion and vote. - Approved allocations for affordable housing (Item 28) and other infrastructure projects. - Appointed new members to the Airport Advisory Commission and other boards. - Acknowledged the death of Dr. Mario Verde Cebral, a community pillar in math and engineering education, with a moment of silence. - Noted upcoming budget conversations and the need for continued investment in second-chance programs and library funding.

The San Antonio City Council convened on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, at 2:00 PM for a session focused on the proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budgets for the Pre-K for SA and Ready to Work programs. Presentations were given by Dr. Sarah Barrier (Pre-K for SA) and Mike (Ready to Work), followed by extensive council discussion. The meeting highlighted program achievements, financial projections, and future considerations for reauthorization. Discussion Items - Pre-K for SA Overview: Dr. Barrier reported that the program, first authorized in 2012, created 5,000 free pre-K seats and achieved 70% quality ratings. Since 2021, enrollment for 3-year-olds increased 30%. The program has served 4,888 children through its community alliance and provided 18,000 hours of learning. The FY2027 proposed operating budget is $62,289,638, with the largest investment in workforce (39%) and contractual services (17%). Sales tax revenue is projected to grow modestly, but the tax collection ends March 31, 2029, requiring reauthorization by November 2028 to continue for up to 20 years. - Ready to Work Overview: Mike presented that the program has served 11,000 participants, with 4,358 job placements and a 62% completion rate within 62 months. The return on investment is $125 per dollar spent. The proposed FY2027 budget allocates 50% for education, 21% for case management and support, 5% for administration, and 2% for child care. Total remaining funds are approximately $120 million, expected to be fully spent by FY2030. - Council Concerns and Questions: Several council members raised issues: - Veteran participation: Council member asked whether the city should fund training for veterans who may have access to GI Bill benefits, suggesting exploring reimbursement models to free up funds for other residents. - Employer engagement: Concerns were expressed about the disparity between the $6 million budgeted for employer incentives (to hire graduates) and only $1 million spent, indicating difficulty placing graduates. The program is not included in the FY2027 proposed budget. - Focus on high-demand occupations: Multiple council members urged concentrating on skilled trades (electricians, plumbers) and healthcare to meet employer needs and improve job placement rates. - Child care access: Council members highlighted the need for expanded child care slots, especially for non-traditional hours, and linked this to workforce participation. Pre-K for SA is exploring pilot programs for extended hours and second-shift care. - Data and metrics: Council requested more granular data on cost per child (Pre-K for SA) and job placement by occupation for Ready to Work, as well as tracking participants who find jobs not in approved occupations. - Future Planning: The mayor and council emphasized the need for a strategic conversation about what happens after 2030, when Ready to Work funds are depleted. They discussed starting planning now for the transition and potential reauthorization of Pre-K for SA. Key Outcomes - The council received the budget presentations for information; formal adoption is scheduled for the Pre-K for SA board on April 28, 2026, and the city council session A on May 7, 2026. - Council members expressed strong support for both programs but called for improved focus on high-demand skills, better coordination with employers (e.g., BEXA, construction associations), and more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. - The mayor directed staff to provide follow-up information on: cost per child breakdown for Pre-K for SA; number of graduates placed in approved vs. non-approved jobs for Ready to Work; and analysis of potential reimbursement from GI Bill for veteran participants. - Council member Mesa González proposed exploring an early reauthorization of Pre-K for SA (before the November 2028 deadline) to provide long-term stability and allow program expansion, including more infant/toddler services. Other members agreed on the importance of early action. - The council acknowledged the need to align workforce training with economic development incentives to ensure that new employers contribute to solving existing labor shortages rather than exacerbating them.