Month: January 2022

Posted on

River Road NA Statement Re Sunken Garden

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
River Road Neighborhood Association
January 8, 2022

Sunken Garden Theater Not for Sale

San Antonio, TX – The River Road Neighborhood Association firmly opposes a controversial
and secretive proposal to use city bond funds to demolish San Antonio’s historic Sunken
Garden Theater and convert it into an event space that will overwhelm the infrastructure of the
entire area.
“This is the people’s park. It is not for sale,” says River Road Neighborhood Association Chair
Lucy Wilson. “The Brackenridge Park Conservancy has put forward a proposal to use public
funds in a private development scheme.”
River Road board member Blanquita Sullivan notes that the Conservancy disclosed this project
just weeks before it was listed in the city’s bond package,” Sullivan said. “This was all
intentionally planned in stealth mode, taking advantage of a pandemic to avoid, and to control
the message to the public as much as possible. Most people won’t know about this until it’s too
late.” City councilmembers are set to vote on bond projects on January 20th, 2022.
The Brackenridge Park Conservancy wants to expand the historic Sunken Garden Theater at
Brackenridge Park from an 879-seat venue to a concert stadium to hold upward of 7,000 visitors
per event. Park Conservancy has provided plans for at least two concerts per week, with a
minimum of 60 events per year. Such plan could unleash 7,000 people – along with their
vehicles – into the park two to three times per week for months of every year.
Wilson says the developers sought no public input in the planning of the project. Further, she
says, despite River Road neighborhood requests, developers have failed to provide critical data
regarding congestion, traffic, environmental impacts on the neighboring areas and the zoo
animals.
Sullivan points to another of the neighborhood’ concerns that the proposal will deter city
residents from visiting the park. “The limited parking and traffic will prioritize thousands of ticket
holders above those who for generations have visited and used the park for free, creating deep
inequality in our most treasured centrally located park.”
Sullivan notes that the Real Life Amphitheater opening this Spring in Selma (17 miles from
Brackenridge Park) would negate the developer’s argument that the city needs a large
amphitheater.
“This leads to questions of financial viability. There are similar venues including the Real Life
Amphitheater in Selma and Fiesta Texas. Can the city sustain so many large amphitheaters?”
she asks.
Rather than the proposed overhaul, Wilson and Sullivan say, the neighborhood along with
current Brackenridge Park master plan, would like to see a thoughtful amphitheater restoration

plan. Most importantly, the park should continue to provide greenspace for all San Antonians
including low to moderate income park visitors.
The Brackenridge Park Conservancy has engaged in a project that directly runs counter to its
mission of safeguarding the park’s “natural, historic, educational and recreational resources for
the enjoyment of current and future generations.”

Issues with the plan:
• No traffic, parking, or sound impact studies have been shared with the public
• No business plan or feasibility study has been shared
• There has been no public input in the planning
• Amplification will also destroy quality of life for residents in the surrounding area,
including universities and historic neighborhoods
• The San Antonio Zoo is next door, and such constant amplification creates concern for
animal welfare
• There would be no limit to the number of events or types of events at the venue because
a private company would be in control
• Facing traffic and limited parking, regular park visitors will be forced out
• Traffic along 281, North St. Mary’s, Broadway, Hildebrand, and Mulberry would create a
public safety emergency for the surrounding area

The River Road Neighborhood Association was founded in 1975, and its members are
dedicated to the protection, maintenance and enhancement of the ecological, historical, social
and cultural elements which formed the Neighborhood and endowed the area with its present
character.

Posted on

ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS

by Mary Netherly , King William

January 08, 2022

The OHP Director position would ideally be filled by a registered architect with at least one registered architect on staff. San Antonio did not see the multitude of flaws we’ve all suffered in the last decade+ when a registered architect, with many historic preservation projects on her resume, was director. We didn’t see the high volume of demolition requests nor was San Antonio ranked dismally high in displacements in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Quality outcomes for residents and the historic districts in which they live and the overall success of our inner-city development ought to be top of mind. OHP needs to be audited and reviewed to develop a best practices approach. What we are witnessing in the last decade+ is not best practices. It is sad to see residents who’ve worked so hard to own a home be punished by government flaws that could be readily addressed. OHP is understaffed and outstretched with the rapid expansion of historic districts. There are good programs OHP department has brought forth:  the homeowners fair, window restoration education, the house on Main Avenue, historic certification classes, etc.; however, those expand the core mission of the OHP which is to guide and facilitate new design and additions within the Historic Design Guidelines that were painstakingly developed. The purview of OHP has been expanded greatly while the staff has not grown to meet these needs. Will extracurricular programs and activities have to be cut to focus on core responsibilities if there is no increase in staffing to meet the demands of a fair, equitable, open process?

ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS need to be audited, not expanded. We have all seen the outcomes of cases where inequitable outcomes have resulted. Taking the process behind closed doors will exponentially increase these undesirable outcomes and negate the democratic public process. A fair and defensible process must remain open. All too often Administrative Approvals cause confusion, the perception of inequity, and unresolved neighbor disputes. Community values must include a more open, not a more closed approach. It is already exceedingly difficult to find information, to receive a simple email response, and to reach staff by telephone. Expanding public access to items under review means developing a Culture of Responsiveness: answering phone calls, returning emails, going out to problematic projects, etc. Allowing 15-30 minutes on a case that has typically been taking 2 – 6 hours does not bode well for public trust or faith in the process. Outcomes could be as bad as the worst cases we’ve seen.

We’ve already seen too many cases where projects rejected by historic district architectural advisory committees then go to OHP and HDRC and are bungled by staff. What is worse is the follow-through on cases once construction is underway, leaving neighbors quarreling and unresolved issues. Customer support (site visits, consultations, etc.) is inconsistent at best. Inconsistent outcomes are a function of the lack of registered architects in leadership and staff positions, understaffing, and preferential treatment of applicants. Public trust has been broken. Taking approvals to an administrative level will further erode public trust in the process, deteriorate design and build outcomes, and exacerbate the tension between the general public and developers. By the time the public is aware there is a problematic case that needs a ‘path to HDRC review,’ it is often well-advanced along the approval process.

Another negative outcome of the increased administrative COA is the shifting of compliance to neighborhoods. OHP already claims that neighbors are the eyes and ears for them, and with additional hidden approvals, neighborhoods will have more work dumped on them. Currently, the Explorer Map doesn’t keep up with required supporting documents and increasing the public’s reliance on them for administrative COA’s is not going to produce a successful outcome.

There are very concerning problems in other areas as well: it seems minor variances are being granted administratively without the BOA process that triggers the ability of public input which is an important part of the process especially for those located next to or near the property being granted the variances. In some cases, this is a taking of some property owners’ privacy and thus the value of their homes. Is the only solution to this problem litigation? City staff may be overreaching in these cases and an audit of all the “minor variances” that have been granted would produce valuable information, especially when big changes are being proposed to the UDC by OHP that further muddle the process.

Can Tier 1 members find at least 2-3 cases in our neighborhoods where we know there have been bad outcomes? We can have these ready to present as evidence against this request for Administrative Approvals to send out to City Council and the City Attorney’s office, etc. We all know cases that seem unfair, that placed a burden on neighbors, that defy logic, that go against the Historic Design Guidelines, and that have been poorly communicated to the public. We are amongst a sliver of citizens who get involved in the UDC amendments and must make the best impact with the evidence we’ve all witnessed!!

Contact Mary Nethery at netherydesign@gmail.com