Author: Cynthia Merla Spielman

Posted on

Statement to the SAWS Rate Advisory Committee on February 2, 2020

by Cosima Colvin

Good evening members of the Rate Advisory Committee and thank you for your service to the citizens of San Antonio.

I am the owner of a seven- unit MF property, and I live in one of the units. I have owned the property since April 2006. 

For the period 7/10-8/8/2006, the Meter Water Use was 26,184. The bill for that period was $164.48

For the period 9/5-10/4/19, the Meter Water Use for the same period was 25,435. The bill was $334.20. That’s a cost increase of over 100% with about 700 less gallons used.

My property supports seven households with a total of 13 occupants. My rental income has increased 39% over 14 years and most of the increase has been as a result of tenant turnover.  

Four of my current tenant households have been with me for over four years and the tenant in one unit has lived in the building since 2005. I value my tenants and because I live at the property, it is important to me that we all have a good relationship. All of my tenants are good, hard working people, but almost all are living paycheck to paycheck.  Between the increases in property taxes and the water, I am faced with having to raise their rents by 10% and I’m afraid that not all of them will be able to absorb that. The problem is, they will not find more affordable housing.  And because they aren’t SAWS customers and therefore don’t qualify for subsidies and don’t have a voice in this process, I am here for them as well as for me.

I feel like I am being penalized for providing affordable multi-family housing at a time when there is a housing crisis in our city and our country. Several mayors have put together committees and task forces to find solutions. What about giving small multi-family landlords that are providing good, affordable missing middle housing in neighborhoods credit for the role they are playing and setting rates that reflect their contribution.  

Lastly, I looked into getting a leak detector for my property, but found out that as a commercial customer I do not qualify for the rebate, so once again I am at a disadvantage.

I urge you to consider the damage that increased rates are doing to the ability for the residents of this city to stay in their housing, whether as homeowners or renters. Once the damage has been done, it will be a long road to recovery.

Cosima sits on the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition and is a Co-Chair of Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association’s (BHANA) Zoning and Urban Design (ZUD) Committee. This statement is a modified version of the original which is available on the Rate Advisory website

Posted on

OPINION // COMMENTARY Commentary: Don’t confuse housing density with affordability

By Cynthia Spielman, For the Express-News Jan. 28, 2020

“The more intensely we build in our inner-city neighborhoods, the more affordable the housing.” We hear it from city staff and from our elected officials. It is no wonder this idea has become the rationale for much of the recent developer-driven city policy on infill.

This seems reasonable on the surface. The more housing we build, the more affordable it becomes: supply and demand. The model of supply and demand is an old and simplistic one that belies the reality that affordability is a complex process, particularly when applied to San Antonio’s housing.

Intense development is not producing affordable housing in our inner-city neighborhoods. On the contrary, it is producing market rate (expensive) housing that drives up land values through property valuation and speculation. This practice results in displacement and increases the income segregation in this city. Often affordable “middle” (duplex, triplex, and fourplex) housing has been demolished and its residents displaced to make room for expensive new construction. The density stays the same; the land values rise.

Incompatible and expensive development destabilizes resilient communities and destroys the neighborhoods in which they live. A recent study, “Opportunity at Risk: San Antonio’s Older Affordable Housing Stock,” prepared for the San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) by PlaceEconomics (2019) shows that much of San Antonio’s affordable housing was built before 1960 and that this affordable housing (rental and owner-occupied) is disappearing quickly to make way for market-rate rental and condo units. The most affordable housing is the housing we live in now and it is disappearing quickly.

Manhattan, San Francisco, and Chicago are very dense and very expensive. Density does not necessarily lead to affordability as recent studies have pointed out: It is not how much you build, but what you build.

The argument for density, even if it is market rate, is that eventually, as the new structures age, or as another part of town becomes desirable, those who can will move into newer or more attractive neighborhoods, and their old housing will become available and will cause rents and house prices in their old neighborhood to fall.

Theoretically, this makes sense. But in reality, significant obstacles inhibit the affordable housing this model predicts. For instance, much of the new housing being incentivized and encouraged by the city is infill development — building within our existing neighborhoods. This new development is quite expensive causing surrounding properties to rise in value — thus the dreaded property tax hike that is pushing many of us out of our original neighborhoods (we can afford our mortgages, but not our taxes!). This model assumes that used housing — not unlike used cars — will filter down to lower and lower income families, yet by the time it does, it often requires significant investment to make it livable once again.

The question often asked is how (or why) did our housing stock deteriorate to the point that low-income housing is practically uninhabitable? The two most compelling answers would be, first, the lack of available investment dollars through the mid 20th century due to redlining policies that steered investment capital into the suburbs; and, second, the gradual shift through a house’s life from being owner-occupied to being renter-occupied. When a house becomes renter-occupied, it is an investment. As an investment, it may make better financial sense to defer maintenance— and the house deteriorates.

The solutions that help stabilize our neighborhoods, while producing more affordable housing, include building affordable housing on vacant lots that is compatible not only in design, but also in value to the neighborhood and does not impact the housing market. We need to ensure equity in investment across all of our neighborhoods. The city needs to incentivize and help with the rehabbing of declining housing stock so that vulnerable residents can stay put.

The Task Force for Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing proposes the construction of accessory dwelling units to provide the much needed “middle housing“ that is being demolished in our neighborhoods. Accessory dwelling units can provide rental property to offset rising taxes for the homeowner, and they can provide affordable housing that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

To adequately address the problem of the housing crisis we need to build affordable housing along our transportation corridors and in our regional centers. By building on empty and/or blighted retail space, we would meet the projected need for affordable housing and adhere to the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan. At the same time, we would be building infill that is compatible to our neighborhoods in both design and cost.

San Antonio’s leadership cannot expect to solve the crisis of the affordable housing shortage by making decisions based on business adages such as “supply and demand” that do not correlate to the human element in housing. San Antonio’s inner-city neighborhoods are too fragile and many of its residents too vulnerable to survive if we get this wrong. Those of you elected to represent us must be visionaries who do not lose sight of the needs of your most vulnerable constituents.Cynthia Spielman serves on the Steering Committee of the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition. Email: t1nc.sat@gmail.com

Posted on

T1NC Letter to the Mayor re MF/RM Task Force Recommendations

December 10, 2019

Dear Mayor Nirenberg,, 

On December 12th, City Council will consider the recommendations made by the MF/RM Task Force, created in response to Councilman Trevino’s CCR to address some incompatible development inside neighborhoods. 

We ask you to adopt the MF/RM Task Force Recommendations and that you adopt the following recommended change to Note 11: 

 “Note (11) – The maximum height of any portion of a commercial, office or multi-family zoning district located within fifty (50) linear feet of the property line of an established single-family residential use shall be limited to the maximum height of the single-family district. The height limit shall not apply where an abutting property is zoned single-family residential but not used for residential purposes, such as a church, school, park, golf course but the height limit shall apply to properties abutting a vacant property.

Why we need to limit height next to residential zoning districts (lots): 

  • How a vacant property can affect an adjacent development and ultimately affect an entire neighborhood’s future.

The Zoning Commission’s addition (and DSD’s interpretation) of the recommendation to limit MF (multi-family) height to 35 feet from 45 feet if it abuts a single-family zoned structure would exempt vacant single-family zoned lots because there is always a chance a school or church could be built on the lot. 

The chance of a school or a church being built on a residential lot in the middle of a neighborhood is slim but the 45’ height allowed on a multi-family unit could make a single-family residence development unlikely.

If there are two contiguous vacant lots next to a SF residence and the further lot is zoned MF33 it could be developed up to 45’ height because of the vacant lot next to it. As the Mayor’s Zoning Commissioner Ms. McDaniel said, this could make it harder to develop that middle lot as a single-family and could unintentionally create more commercial encroachment into neighborhoods.  On the West Side where you have both a large number of SF lots zoned MF33 and numerous demolitions, the current Zoning Commission language, even with CM Trevino’s amendment could lead to widespread negative impacts in those neighborhoods.

  • Limiting the height of multifamily structures next to a single family zoned vacant lot can decentivize the demolition of single-family homes within a neighborhood. 

If a developer can build a higher structure next to a vacant residential lot, then there is a reward to demolishing a home so that a lot is vacant. Councilman Trevino added the addition to the Zoning Commission proposal which states that if a residential property is demolished, the height on the multi-family structure remains at what it would be if there were a structure in place for three years.  To land speculators and developers, three years is not a strong deterrent. Rod Sanchez, Director of DSD asserts that even without the term, “vacant lots,” DSD would interpret the code to include vacant lots regardless. 

The new language gives neighborhoods real protection and is in keeping with the intent of the CCR. 

  • The addition of “vacant lot” protection lowers the opportunities for incompatible development and the potential for displacement without public input. 

Our neighborhoods are struggling with issues of displacement as our neighborhoods become speculative investments. We seek to find compatible and responsible ways to meet the challenges of affordability and density. Creating policies that facilitates expensive and incompatible developments inside our communities easier exacerbates the problems of economic segregation and the lack of affordable housing. These developments are almost always market-rate and too expensive for most of the residents living in our inner-city neighborhoods now.  What we ask is a balanced and thoughtful process to address these important issues. If the community wants it, or it is appropriate, developers always have the Board of Adjustment as a recourse. If there are no codified protections, there is no community input. 

We ask for compatible development within our legacy neighborhoods to protect not only the built environment, but our legacy neighbors as well. To not do so only exacerbates the problems of income segregation and displacement.  We are working to meet the challenges of the future by encouraging compatible development within our neighborhoods, intensity along our corridors and added density through ideas such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and compatible “missing middle” development on our multi-family lots.  

What we work for is the future as outlined in the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan. Keeping to this “roadmap of the future” takes support from our elected officials. 

Today we ask for your help in finding a healthy balance We appeal to you today as we meet the challenges of the future.  Please adopt the recommendations by the MF/RM Task Force with the latest revision today. 

Respectfully, 

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee

Cosima Colvin, Christine Drennon, Liz Franklin, Tony Garcia, Jordan Ghawi,

Mary Johnson, Ricki Kushner, Margaret Leeds, Alan Neff, Velma Pena, Monica Savino, Anisa Schell, Cynthia Spielman, Amelia Valdez, Theresa Ybanez

Posted on

Additional Information: MF/RM UDC Amendments to Help our Neighborhoods

Read: The latest MF/RM UDC Recommendations released from DSD (11/19)

Read: T1NC’s Letter to the Mayor re MF/RM UDC Amendments

Background (excerpt from August 21, 2017 CCR):

Councilman’s CCR – full text

“Over the past two years, there have been a growing number of RM-4 and MF-33 housing developments which have caused much concern throughout our communities. Currently, the UDC designations for these codes allow for construction up to 35 feet in RM-4 and 45 feet in MF-33, with no specifications that the units allowed must be contained within a single structure.

This has caused an influx of developments or proposed developments to build four or more 2- 4 story single units on a single lot within a residential neighborhood, which ultimately is incompatible and highly impactful development.

City staff and the zoning commission have discussed and recommended denial for cases where IDZ infill was not appropriate, but where the base zoning of MF-33 or RM-4 allowed them even more density or development, which caused a conflict of ideas and put impotence [sic] on these decisions.

As a result, the community feels unprotected and the lack of notification and input required for development without a zoning change have led to concerns and fear of developments occurring “overnight” without consideration for the surrounding community. Development in our city is occurring at a rapid rate, and our citizens are turning to Historic Designation and NCDs as they perceive this to be their only option. However, these options ultimately do not regulate use of the property, or density, as designated by the zoning and therefore does not address the real issue at hand.”

The main issues this task force was meant to address were:

1. Height

2. Multiple units contained in a single structure

3. Neighborhood notification and input

Often when multiple structures sold as “single-family homes” are proposed (versus multiple units contained in a single structure), developers say they are encouraging homeownership. However, we have found that the stand-alone units are being used as luxury rental housing, regardless of being sold as a single-family condo.

Below are several examples of both new, incompatible multiple-structure RM-4 developments, and traditional, compatible, single-structure RM-4 properties. As you can see, containing multiple units in a single structure is both common, and architecturally diverse. There is no need to be concerned that this requirement, which is the traditional form for missing-middle housing, would create “monolithic” structures.

Multiple Incompatible Structures on one lot:

W Craig in Beacon Hill, zoned RM-4
Fulton Ave. in Alta Vista, zoned RM-4

Traditional, compatible single structures with multiple units:

Fulton Ave. in Alta Vista, zoned RM-4
Fulton in Alta Vista, zoned RM4
Fulton Ave. in Alta Vista, zoned RM4
E Huisache in Monte Vista, zoned MF-33

“Missing Middle Housing” offers Compatibility with Single-Family Development Pattern

These diagrams from http://missingmiddlehousing.com show yellow missing middle housing mixed
with one- and two-story neighborhood “typical” single-family homes. Above is a typical T3
neighborhood (similar to many in San Antonio) with the missing middle housing and single family
mixed throughout the neighborhood.
This diagram – the white buildings toward the left are the one- and two-story neighborhood “typical”
single-family homes. The Missing Middle Housing buildings, in yellow, are shown to provide a transition
to the more urban “main street” with live-work and commercial buildings and uses. The compatibility
of multifamily buildings that are similarly scaled and massed (i.e.: contained in one structure) to the
single-family is more widely accepted as compatible.

Posted on

T1NC’s Letter to Mayor re MF/RM UDC Amendments

Read Background and Important Additional Information

Read the latest draft from DSD of the MF/RM UDC Recommendations.

 November 22, 2019

Dear Mayor Ron Nirenberg, 

On December 5, City Council will be considering a proposed Ordinance adopting changes to Chapter 35 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), specifically Section 35-310-01 and Table 310-1 Lot and Building Dimensions Table, relating to Lot and Building Dimensions in “RM” and “MF”. 

The changes proposed by DSD were recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commissions.  We support the clarification added by the Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee (PCTAC) limiting building height to 35’/2.5 stories for MF-33 properties under 1/3rdacre. However, we ask that the amended language recommended by the Zoning Commission regarding vacant lots be stricken. 

The new wording proposed by the Zoning Commission will incentivize further demolitions in our neighborhoods. If a MF-33 lot is on a corner, and the lot next to it is a vacant (undeveloped) lot that is zoned for single family, the MF-33 could be built up to 45-feet high, because the vacant lot is not being used as a single-family home. If someone were to purchase both properties, they could have any structure on the single-family lot demolished in order to gain the additional ten feet in height by-right.If there is a vacant lot, the use should be assumed to be in line with its zoning, not a hypothetical school or church. We should be starting from the most conservative answer, not the most extreme. 

We appreciate the hard work this task force has done on the proposed changes, however we feel the recommendations are not as complete as they could be. The CCR issued in 2017 by Councilman Treviño was created with the intent to address neighborhood compatibility issues. I ask that you read through the CCR. The main issues this task force was intended to address were: 

  1. Height
  2. Multiple units contained in a single structure (massing)
  3. Neighborhood notification and input

With this focus in mind, I ask that you approve the changes being proposed today with the following amendments:

To address height: 

  • Remove the wording proposed by the Zoning Commission regarding vacant properties in Note 11. 
  • Adopt the clarification provided by PCTAC on Note 11. 
  • Amend Table 310-1 to reflect 35’/2.5 storiesallowing exceptions based on PCTAC’s clarification of Note 11. 
  • Table 310-1: the placement of Note 11, which addresses height, should be moved from the header of the table to the first column for each zoning category. This will align the placement of the note to match the rest of the table lending clarity to all who use the table in the future.

To address massing and neighborhood notification and input:

  • 35-310.01(c): Amend language from “must occur within a completely enclosed structure” to read “must occur within a single completely enclosed structure” so that it reads: “Unless expressly permitted as an accessory use, a use permitted in the “RE,” “R-20,” “R-6,” “R-5,” “R-4,” “RM-6,” “RM-5,” “RM-4,” “MF-18,” “MF-25,” “MF-33,” “MF-40,” or “MF-50” districts must occur within a singlecompletely enclosed structure.” This will address the concern over multiple structures.
  • 35-310.06(a)(1)(b): Insert, “which shall be contained in a single structure” at the end of the sentence so that it reads, “The maximum number of dwellings is limited to two (2) units for RM-6, three (3) units for RM-5, and four (4) units for RM-4, which shall be contained in a single structure.” This will further address concerns over multiple units being attached. 

These two changes that address massing will also help address the third concern over neighborhood notification. If a property owner wishes to develop their site with a different massing, they would be allowed to go before the Board of Adjustment (BOA). The BOA process is public and would trigger the public notification.  

Please note that the traditional development pattern for RM-4 and MF-33 has consistently been to have multiple units in one single structure. There are numerous examples of this architecturally rich missing-middle housing throughout our neighborhoods.  Please see second attachment.

These amendments would help address the concerns over compatibility of these zoning categories in our neighborhoods. 

Thank you for serving our community.

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee

Cosima Colvin, Christine Drennon, Liz Franklin,Tony Garcia, Jordan Ghawi, Mary Johnson, Ricki Kushner, Margaret Leeds, Alan Neff, Velma Pena, Monica Savino, Anisa Schell, Cynthia Spielman, Amelia Valdez, Theresa Ybanez

Mayor and City Council Members:

Mayor Ron Nirenberg ron.nirenberg@sanantonio.gov

D1 Roberto Trevinoroberto.trevino@sanantonio.gov

D2 Jada Andrews-Sullivan Jada.andrews-sullivan@sanantonio.gov

D3 Rebecca Viagran Rebecca.Viagran@sanantonio.gov

D4 Dr. Adriana Rocha Garcia Adrianarocha.garcia@sanantonio.gov

D5 Shirley Gonzales Shirley.Gonzales@sanantonio.gov

D6 Melissa Cabello Havrda Melissacabello.havrda@sanantonio.gov

D7 Ana Sandoval Ana.Sandoval@sanantonio.gov

D8 Manny Pelaez Manny.Pelaez@sanantonio.gov

D9 John Courage John.Courage@sanantonio.gov

D10 Clayton Perry  Clayton.perry@sanantonio.gov

Posted on

BHANA’s Letter to Mayor re Development Regulations Review CCR

Read: “The CCR that Prevents Meaningful Citizen Input” , the Development Regulations Review CCR, the UDC Amendment Process and Timeline

Note: This letter is based on the T1NC template letter. We added specific details about our neighborhood in the second to last paragraph. Please feel free to use this as a template by deleting that paragraph or changing it to details about your community.

November 14, 2019

Re: CM Pelaez CCR “Developmental Regulations Review” 

Dear Mayor Nirenberg, 

We are writing to respectfully request that you vote against to the “Development Regulations Review” CCR that would require an economic impact analysis to accompany any proposed amendments for the 202 UDC review. It will come before City Council for adoption in December 2019 for a vote.  

If passed, this ordinance would put an undue burden on residents and community groups wishing to submit any code amendments or participate in the 2020 UDC updates. It is important to include the input from community and advocates to create a balance between developer interests and community and neighborhoods. This balance is necessary in moving forward to meet the challenges of the future. 

Groups “outside of DSD” do not have the resources to provide an economic impact assessment, particularly groups that have been (and can be argued still are) marginalized in the past. This is an unreasonable burden to place on your engaged and concerned constituents. The UDC review process should be inclusive and accessible by all of our citizens as well as adhere to the Public Participation Principles that Council adopted last year. 

The expectation that San Antonio’s UDC recommendations should be limited to only those that would make development more profitable is a very narrow lens by which to view our City’s progress.  Development and its effects, both positive and negative, is a complex issue and needs input from all stakeholders in order to make informed decisions. Costs to developers is already a factor that is considered when adopting amendments; codifying it would serve no purpose except to severely limit public input. 

Our neighborhood of Beacon Hill has been one of the downtown neighborhoods that has changed. We have witnessed displacement, demolition of homes, incompatible development, and skyrocketing property taxes. We have also enjoyed the revitalization of the Blanco Road shopping corridor (and hope to repeat on Fredericksburg Road), the welcoming of new and engaged neighbors, and the repair to neglected properties. We understand that in order to meet the challenges of the future, we must perform a balancing act. We promote compatible, affordable, and sustainable housing and the revitalization of our commercial corridors; we promote the preservation of our unique and historic housing stock; and we seek to protect our legacy neighbors, particularly the most vulnerable, from displacement. In order to achieve these goals, Beacon Hill, along with the other neighborhoods, needs to have a part in the decision-making process. We need to be able to advocate for sensible and fair UDC amendments. 

Please stand up for public citizen participation and support your constituents’ voices by voting against the Development Regulations Review CCR.  

Thank you, 

Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association

Posted on

The CCR that Prevents Meaningful Citizen Input

Read: Op-Ed in the Express-News

Update: D8 Councilman Pelaez met with T1NC members and then issued a formal memo to Department of Development Services (DSD) that states, in effect, that anyone submitting an external UDC amendment will not have to to the cost analysis.

Read Councilman Pelaez’s CCR Memo to DSD address the issues here.

What are the Unified Development Codes (UDC)?

The Unified Development Code (UDC) is extremely important to the residents of San Antonio as  these codes guide development in our city and neighborhoods. These codes determine such things as how high a building can be constructed in the middle of a one and two story residential street to storm water reviews that are triggered when projects are built. The UDC deals with issues of parking, short term rentals, zoning and permitted uses. These codes are now being reviewed with requests for amendments due by May 1, 2020: UDC Amendment process and timeline available here.

The people who live in San Antonio are directly affected by these codes and how they are amended. 

What is the CCR?

In November 14, 2018, Councilman Pelaez submitted a Council Consideration Request (CCR) which is the first step in creating an ordinance. It was signed by councilmembers from Districts 1, 3, 5, and 10.  The CCR, “The Development Regulations Review,” requires that amendments to the UDC must have an “economic impact analysis” to determine if the request costs developers more money, less money, or has no monetary impact at all. The “economic impact analysis”  must then be approved by the Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) and the Planning Commission.  As part of the impact, the following items must be considered and documented: initial and long‐term maintenance costs; city cost (i.e. personnel costs and costs to enforce); Indicate and be able to rationalize the baseline (current costs) and the cost projections associated with the request.

Why this CCR restricts input from residents and advocates:

This requirement for an “economic impact analysis” is a barrier to public participation in that it places an onerous burden on citizens recommending code amendments. This requirement, which could soon be adopted by City Council in December 2019 as ordinance, violates the principles of inclusiveness and transparency as promoted by the Public Participation Principles adopted by City Council last year.

How this CCR is built on assumptions that are not accurate:

The CCR itself is built on the false premise that the City of San Antonio (COSA) has made project development difficult for developers through “recommendations that pertain to regulations on new construction of residences and commercial properties” by the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan, the Housing Commission, and The Mayors Housing Policy Task Force (MHPTF). 

In fact, the Housing Commission goals reflect the goals of production and investment in affordable housing. The SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan and the MHPTF actually make building cheaper and easier through land use recommendations, corridor development plans and by building code recommendations. Through the implementation of the Mayors Housing Policy Task Force, code barriers to affordable housing are being addressed.  In addition, CoSA’s tax incentive and rebate programs, as well as their Fee Waiver Program help reduce the cost of development and make this CCR’s concerns seem disingenuous. 

What this CCR is really about:

What is most telling is the CCR accuses those “outside of DSD” as “placing additional pressures on the current review process.” This CCR seeks to relieve those “pressures” by silencing the voices of residents who live in neighborhoods. We are those “outside of DSD.” There are very few advocates outside of DSD that have the money or the staffing to do a cost analysis. For the good of our city, cost to developers should not be the only lens in which we view our UDC amendments. 

Why we can’t look at the UDC amendments through the lens of developer costs:

Development issues affect more than the financial bottom line for development. It also affects  community safety, equitability, and quality of life.  Developer demands, which have been the focus of City policy in the past, have resulted in suburban sprawl, one of the highest instances of income segregation in the country, and have endangered our water sources. Recently, our inner-city neighborhoods have experienced incompatible and expensive housing which has caused displacement, destruction of legacy homes which has destabilized our neighborhoods and communities, and severe flooding. Balance is needed as we move to meet the challenges of the future before we suffer more “unintended” consequences. 

Additionally, CoSA needs to consider, what Jessica O. Guerrero, community advocate and member of the Housing Commission, calls the “social cost impact fees,” which are the “costs related to displacement on the social services and taxes side.”

Developers have the Department of Developmental Services (who is overseeing the amendment process) and CoSA to advocate for their needs.  Who do we have to advocate for preserving our neighborhoods and protecting vulnerable communities except ourselves?  

 Tier One Neighborhood Coalition and others who are concerned about their neighborhoods advocate for compatible development and affordable housing that seeks to stabilize and maintain resilient and culturally-rich neighborhoods and communities.  There will be no balanced and thoughtful approach to the UDC amendment process if Councilman Pelaez’s CCR is adopted by City Council and a prohibitive burden is placed on residents and community groups advocating for the care of San Antonio residents.  This balance is important to a thriving and healthy city as well as to an inclusive and transparent UDC amendment process. 

This CCR will go to Council to be adopted in December. Please write or call your council member and the mayor to request that they do not adopt this CCR as ordinance.

DSD Academy is holding a workshop on the UDC amendment process on Saturday, November 16th at 9 a.m. at One Stop (1901 S. Alamo).

Sources:

Section 35-11(a) of the UDC – the Updated UDC Amendment Request Form with Cost Impact Statements.

Agenda Memorandum File Number: 19-7814 by DSD (Michael Shannon), October 21, 2019 as part of materials for the presentation to PCTAC.

Please attend for more information:

Posted on

The UDC Amendment Process

For more information and to sign up for updates. DSD will present on the UDC amendment process for neighborhood groups and organization. Contact Tony Felts, Policy Administrator (210) 207-0153 and Monique Mercado, Senior Planner (210)207-5016 for more information.

What is the Unified Development Code (UDC)?

The Unified Development Code (UDC) is extremely important to the residents of San Antonio because these codes guide development in our city and neighborhoods. These codes determine such things as “subdivision platting, zoning, street and drainage design standards, historic preservation, and protection of natural resources – trees, aquifer, etc.” The UDC deals with issues of parking, short term rentals, zoning and permitted uses. The UDC is updated every five years. 

The people who live in San Antonio are directly affected by these codes and how they are amended. 

The UDC Amendment Process:

These codes are now being reviewed with requests for amendments due by May 1, 2020.  According to the Department of Developmental Services (DSD) which facilitates the process, the amendments are to “modify procedures and standards for workability and administrative efficiency, eliminate unnecessary development costs, and to update the procedures and standards to reflect changes in the law or the state of land use planning and urban design….”

Amendments submitted from outside the city staff, “external” amendments, cannot submit changes unless those changes clarify a provision or edit for grammar or punctuation. The Planning Commission must sponsor any external submission that creates change.  

The Development Services Department (DSD) begins receiving submittals for proposed amendments on January 1, 2020. This year, the DSD has set up a dedicated email address for correspondence related to the UDC Amendment Process as well as UDC Amendment Submittals. That email address is UDCAmendments@sanantonio.gov      

You may also contact Tony Felts, Policy Administrator (210) 207-0153 and Monique Mercado, Senior Planner (210)207-5016

The Path to Approval

 DSD will take submissions, request additional information, conduct “small scale focus groups consisting of industry experts, applicable agencies, and neighborhood leaders, and the development community. (January – May 2020) For applications and instructions go to Sanantonio.gov/DSD

  • Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee (PCTAC) which advises the Planning Commission will review each UDC amendment that is submitted and make a recommendation. (May – October 2020)
  • From PCTAC, the recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission, Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment (BoA), Historic and Design Review Commission (HDRC), Housing Commission, Parks and Recreation Board.
  • Referrals by these boards and commissions are sent to City Council by December 1, 2020. 

Public Participation

According to DSD, “Throughout the UDC Amendment process, DSD will conduct an extensive community and stakeholder outreach program utilizing the SA Speak Up process, community meetings, social media, constant contact, and the DSD website. DSD will also conduct a comprehensive educational outreach campaign in 2021 after the UDC Amendment process ends in order to educate the community about the new changes to the code, and how those changes may affect  them and their development process. This outreach will be done primarily utilizing SA Speak Up and DSD Academy sessions. We will also utilize social media and constant conduct to advertise the training opportunities.”

Timeline:

January 1, 2020 Amendment submittals begin 

January, 2020 First SA Speak Up Survey gathering input about the UDC Amendment process and providing information on submitting amendments and the amendment process

May 1, 2020 All amendment submittals must be completed

May, 2020 Second SA Speak Up Survey gathering input about the major themes of the UDC Amendments that have been submitted, having the citizens identify their priorities based on the UDC submittals provided, and providing information about the submitted amendments

Mid-May, 2020 PCTAC begins meeting

October, 2020 Third SA Speak Up Survey gathering input about the major themes of the UDC Amendments after PCTAC review, having the citizens identify their priorities based on the UDC amendments and PCTAC process, and providing information about the submitted amendments

October 30, 2020 Amendments forwarded to boards and commissions with PCTAC recommendations for review

November, 2020 Boards and commissions review amendments and make recommendations

December 1, 2020 Boards and commissions recommendations forwarded to City Council

December, 2020 City Council considers amendments

January 1, 2021 All passed UDC Amendments go into effect

January, 2021 Fourth and final SA Speak Up Survey gathering input about the UDC training

January through March, 2021 DSD conducts internal and external trainings and works with Municode to codify amendments. 

UDC Changes since 2015

Since the 2015 UDC Update process, several changes have been made to the UDC as a result of CCRs or Stakeholder Groups. These changes have included:

· Zoning Sign and Courtesy Notice Changes

· Creating the RIO-7 Overlay in the vicinity of San Pedro Creek

· Modifications the demolition procedures for historic structures

· Military Lighting Overlay District (MLOD) update

· Comprehensive Land use Category Updates

· Short Term Rental regulations

· Infill Development Zone (IDZ) update

· Atlas 14 (storm water) update

· Habitat Compliance Form update

Source:

Agenda Memorandum File Number: 19-7814 by DSD (Michael Shannon), October 21, 2019

DSD Academy: UDC 2020. Presentation by Tony Felts, Policy Adminstrator. November 16, 2019 and January 15, 2020.

Posted on

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

Read: A recent study, “Opportunity at Risk: San Antonio’s Older Affordable Housing Stock,” prepared for the San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) by PlaceEconomics (2019)

Next ADU meeting: February 7th at 10 a.m. at NHSD at 1400 S. Flores

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or granny flats, mother-in-law-flats, back houses, pool houses, or garage apartments, whether attached or detached, are a big thing right now. ADUs can allow for extra income to homeowners to help with the rising taxes, they can provide for affordable rentals which are much needed, and they provide density that can help area businesses as well as justify better public transportation and other amenities. Most neighborhood residents throughout San Antonio are allowed to build an ADU on their property, but there is an opportunity to refine the Unified Development Code (UDC) that will make building these units easier for homeowners while also providing protection for neighborhoods. 

Tobin Hill, however, has been struggling with an ADU that is substantially taller than its principal home, and seems incompatible with the surrounding area (some have likened it to a “tower”). A neighbor challenged the city’s Development Services Department (DSD) over the approval of the permit for this ADU, and took it to the Board of Adjustment in early August. The board voted in favor of the property owner and not the applicant (the neighbor) who was challenging the building. After the meeting it was expressed that many of the board members were confused about what their vote meant (which was not helped by the fact that DSD put up the wrong information on the screen about who was for and against the project). Consequently, the Board of Adjustment has agreed to vote at the September 16 hearing whether to hear the case again. 

Tobin Hill's Tower ADU
Tobin Hill’s Towering ADU

I am a Tri-Chair of the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee in which we are tasked, in part, with finding ways to help residents build ADUs more easily, while protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. We are looking for ways to not only make these structures easier to build, but to also ensure they are built in ways that can be embraced by neighborhoods across the city. We are also looking at ways in which it will be easier to rehab existing ADUs. Many of the UDC code amendments that we want to address include design issues, height restrictions, and definitions and interpretations.

For more information on the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee, please click below:

UDC Committees: What You Need to Know.

Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing (includes ADU sub-committee)

The following are some of the UDC codes that exist now:

CONDITIONS FOR DETACHED ADUs

  1. Building footprint shall not exceed 40% the building footprint of the primary structure
  2. Total Floor Area shall not exceed 800 sq ft
  3. No more than one bedroom
  4. Parking for the ADU shall be located behind the front yard
  5. Architectural design, style, appearance, and character shall match the primary dwelling;
  6. Same roof pitch and window proportions as the primary dwelling
  7. ADU shall have at least a five-foot side and rear setback

CONDITIONS FOR ATTACHED ADUs

  1. Gross Floor Area shall not exceed 35% of the total living area of the primary dwelling
  2. Occupancy of the attached ADU shall not exceed 1 person per 200 square feet of GFA
  3. Attached ADU’s shall comply with the required setbacks for the primary structure

For more information, questions, comments please comment below and I will promptly reply.

Posted on

Request from HWRA re Alazan Loft Project

By Cynthia Spielman and Tony Garcia

Update: August 22, 2019. City Council, after hours of testimony, approved the project without addressing the citizens except for Councilwoman Sandoval who applauded Councilwoman Gonzales’ efforts on the project and stated that she hoped that NRP/SAHA would work with the neighbors. Westside neighbors worked for weeks preparing and their efforts were not acknowledged.

Alazan Lofts Project
ZONING CASE Z-2019-1070005

Representatives from Historic Westside Residents Association (HWRA), Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition (WNAC), Tier One Neighborhood Coalition (T1NC), and the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center are concerned about the development of the Alazan Lofts, a partnership between San Antonio Housing Authority (SAHA) and NRP on lots on Colorado and Guadalupe. There is no opposition to the density nor to affordable housing which is always welcomed, but the neighborhood groups object strongly to the lack of effort to develop in a way that is compliant with the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan design guidelines, guidelines that were developed by community planners to protect its vulnerable neighborhood. There are major concerns about the lack of meaningful neighborhood input at the beginning of the project.  Of the seventeen meetings SAHA claims to have had with community, only three have been about this specific project. Only recently has SAHA and NRP worked with the community to find a solution.  The neighborhood groups would ideally like to see the community plan be adhered to with development at two stories, but are advocating for a compromise of three stories and have worked with the site plans to show how this is possible. It will be up to City Council to make this compromise binding. The Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, which is next door to the development, understands the efforts to compromise but supports the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan’s limits of two stories.   


Tier One Neighborhood Coalition neighborhoods and its suburban partners are concerned about this development setting a precedence of early project development without community input.  In order to make affordable housing a reality, it must have meaningful public input as well as comply with the neighborhood or community plan so that not only can we encourage affordable housing, but also preserve the communities that make up resilient neighborhoods.

The City Council hearing on this development will be Thursday, August 22ndat 2 p.m.
The issues of neighborhood engagement and respect for the community/neighborhood plan are important issues for all neighborhoods. Please come to show support if you can. 

 Read  Amelia Valdez’s Letter to Mayor Nirenberg regarding the Alazan 

Together we stand strong!

ZONING CASE Z-2019-10700050 (Council District 5): Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from “MF-33 MLOD-2 MLR-2 AHOD” Multi-Family Lackland Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 Airport Hazard Overlay District to “IDZ-3 MLOD-2 MLR-2 AHOD” High Intensity Infill Development Zone Lackland Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 Airport Hazard Overlay District for multi-family uses not to exceed 90 total units and Non-Commercial Parking Lot on 0.355 acres out of NCB 2415, 0.680 acres out of NCB 2416, 0.191 acres out of NCB 2417, 1.226 acres out of NCB 2439, Lot 16, Lot 17, and Lot 18, Block 2, NCB 2440, located at 1013, 1014, 1015, 1018, 1019, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1101, 1102, 1107, 1114, 1121, 1201 El Paso Street, 210, 214, 316, 318, and 322 Torreon Street, and 803 South Colorado Street. Staff and Zoning Commission recommend Approval.