Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Demolitions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

San Antonio code board orders demolitions and allows repair time for one hazardous property

City of San Antonio Code Enforcement Board · March 12, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of San Antonio Code Enforcement Board on March 12, 2026, ordered demolition within 30 days for four properties and allowed the main structure at 212 Goford Drive limited time for repairs pending staff verification; votes were recorded for each property and staff cited structural decay, trespass and public-safety risks.

The City of San Antonio Code Enforcement Board on March 12 ordered demolition within 30 days for several dangerously deteriorated properties and granted one site a limited opportunity to submit repair documents and financial assurances.

During the hearing, city code officers presented inspection photos, notice timelines and staff recommendations under Chapter 6, Article 8. Crystal Town, the city’s dangerous‑premises officer, recommended demolition for the first property at 115 Alsoft Street after describing rotten framing, open exposures and debris that made the building uninhabitable. Anthony Peña of the San Antonio Police Department told the board that officers had arrested six people at the address during a November enforcement action and that Child Protective Services removed a child from the home that day.

The board moved quickly in most cases. A member proposed that 115 Alsoft Street be vacated, secured, cleared of debris and demolished within 30 days; the motion passed by voice vote, 5–0. Jerry Collins, a dangerous‑structures officer, recommended demolition for 172 North San Felipe Avenue after documenting collapsed roof members, missing cladding and a history of unreturned certified notices; the board approved that order 5–0.

At 212 Goford Drive, officers described interior water damage, missing utilities and extensive debris. Owner representatives and heirs told the board they intend to repair the main structure and asked for time to provide a scope of work and financial documentation. One owner estimated costs of roughly $7,000–$12,000 to demolish an accessory building and $15,000–$30,000 to repair the main house. The board voted 4–1 to allow the principal structure to be repaired under specified sections of the code, leave demolition of the accessory building to occur within 30 days, and direct staff to set a deadline and verify the required documents.

Cynthia Santega, another code officer, presented 839 Potomac and described missing windows, failing cladding and years without utilities; staff advised demolition and the board adopted that order, 5–0. Jaime Jasso presented 4238 Nogales Street, noting interior collapse, exposed framing and evidence of trespass; following public comment about neighborhood safety, the board ordered demolition within 30 days, 5–0.

Votes at a glance — key outcomes from the March 12 hearing: 115 Alsoft Street: demolition ordered, vote 5–0. 172 North San Felipe Avenue: demolition ordered, vote 5–0. 212 Goford Drive: main structure allowed to be repaired pending staff approval of a scope of work and financial proof; accessory structure to be demolished, vote 4–1. 839 Potomac: demolition ordered, vote 5–0. 4238 Nogales Street: demolition ordered, vote 5–0.

Public speakers included family members and heirs who said they intend to repair or take control of certain properties. Richard González, who identified himself as the property owner’s grandson and said he is a licensed contractor, told the board, “Yo voy a arreglar los servicios” and asked for time to complete permits and transfer of title. Elisa Bustos, who identified herself as an heir for 212 Goford Drive, said she was working with a contractor and requested roughly 90 to 120 days to gather paperwork and financing.

Board members and staff emphasized that required materials include a detailed scope of work, a timeline and financial documentation; staff will validate those items before removing the case from the enforcement docket. The board recessed into an executive session to consult on legal matters under state law; no actions were taken during the closed session. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Next steps: staff will meet with property representatives as directed, validate submitted documents where allowed, and proceed with demolitions or repairs consistent with the board’s orders and code requirements.