Category: Development

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

NFL pioneer’s boyhood home may become historic San Antonio landmark, despite owner’s opposition

Scott Huddleston, Staff writer

San Antonio Express-News

Jan. 28, 2021 Updated: Jan. 28, 2021 7:36 p.m.

A 1921 Craftsman bungalow in the Beacon Hill area north of downtown, the boyhood home of one of San Antonio’s first athletes to play in the National Football League, appears headed for historic landmark designation by the City Council in the spring.

But it’s not a done deal.

There are those who say granting landmark status for the house at 1206 W. Agarita St. seems too much like punishing the owner.

Commissioner Gabriel Velasquez of the city’s Historic Design and Review Commission opposes the designation, saying it would be “an abuse of the intention of the designation to single out a property” whose owner, after initially seeking demolition, now is preserving it.

“It gives the appearance of a consequence, of a penalty, and in this case it’s a consequence and a penalty for doing the right thing,” Velasquez said.

But fellow commissioners disagreed; they voted 7-2 for landmark designation last week. The City Council will have the final say in April.

If landmark status is awarded, the current and future owners would be eligible to receive local tax incentives for structural rehabilitation, but would have to secure approval from the city for exterior work.

On ExpressNews.com: NFL great’s boyhood home may become historic

Rodrigo Velasquez, whose family now owns the house — no relation to the HDRC commissioner — said it’s poorly timed implementation of new regulations occurring after the house and others in the neighborhood already have been altered through window replacements, additions and other changes.

“We just feel it’s a little unfair, that it’s raising our costs, when we have competitors now that are also renovating in that area that don’t have to go through that historic designation,” Rodrigo Velasquez said.

The city’s Office of Historic Preservation and Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association have said the house qualifies as a landmark for its architectural features; its ties to the late Damon Tassos, who played in the NFL in the 1940s, and his family, which was active in the local Greek community; and its significance and contribution to the neighborhood, which the preservation office has determined itself is eligible for historic district status.

Cosima Colvin, co-chair of the neighborhood association’s zoning and urban design committee, said a landmark designation proposed for the house had “overwhelming support” from residents.

The family that now owns the property filed a demolition request in August, with plans to develop town homes on a half-acre tract, but since has withdrawn the demolition application and is returning the house to its original appearance.

“The pressure that our neighborhood is under for development and redevelopment has reopened the conversation of going historic, and we look forward to working with OHP to reintroduce the concept to our membership so that we have a robust conversation of the pros and cons,” Colvin told the commission.

The case tentatively is set for consideration by the Zoning Commission on March 2, with final action by the City Council on April 1.

The council had unanimously passed a resolution in December to start the designation process.

Despite the preservation office’s efforts to engage the public on potentially historic properties and to be more proactive on initiating designations, many houses and building are given landmark status only after an owner has sought demolition.

HDRC Commissioner Curtis Fish spoke in favor of declaring the house a landmark.

“This project isn’t one that’s been singled out,” Fish said. “We see a number of cases that are initiated by demolition requests.”

Rodrigo Velasquez said he will appeal the commission’s decision to the City Council because he believes the landmark decision would be onerous.

He pointed out that instead of tearing down the house and building town homes there, he’s rehabbing the house and developing two single-family residences on the tract.

Tassos memories

Cynthia Tassos Phillips, a daughter of Damon Tassos, has a unique perspective, with memories of her grandparents’ home and stories of her father, aunt and uncle having grown up there on Agarita.

She remembers the rambling porch; a bathroom, the only one in the house at the time, that had black wallpaper covered with pink flamingos; and the tantalizing aromas of olive oil, oregano, garlic, lemon juice and spices used in pastitsio, a baked pasta dish, and other Greek culinary staples.

Her grandfather, Gus Tassos and his brother, Charles Tassos, had come to the United States after World War I, seeking economic opportunity, and built two houses on Agarita in 1921. Charles was a trustee and founding member of St. Sophia’s Greek Orthodox Church, established in 1924.

“They came to America with nothing, like many people did back in those days, and worked hard, made the kids work hard, made the grandkids work hard,” Cynthia Tassos said. “I could tell you exactly where everything is in that house, and I loved every bit of it — and have the best memories.”

Her father, Damon Gus Tassos, played football at Jefferson High School, became a team captain at Texas A&M and went on to the NFL, playing as a guard and linebacker for the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers from 1945 to 1949.

He was known as “The Greek” in sports circles. San Antonio Express-News archives show he had five interceptions, kicked three extra points and played alongside such early NFL Hall of Fame figures as Don Hutson, Sammy Baugh and Sid Luckman.

At Texas A&M, Tassos was in a group of freshmen and sophomore players called the “Kiddie Korps,” since the team’s upperclassmen all had been called away to duty in World War II.

After his NFL career, Tassos owned Damon’s restaurant at Austin Highway and Broadway. His cousin, Bill Tassos, opened the Barn Door in 1953. The well-known steakhouse still operates under the same name but with different ownership.

Damon Tassos died in 2001.

His daughter said the family often gathered on weekends at her grandparents’ house on Agarita, sharing tight bonds among siblings and cousins.

Her grandmother, Marguerite Tassos, purchased a donkey that had been housed in a barn in Brackenridge Park and kept it in a lot next to the house.

Phillips remembers learning to ride a bike on Agarita, getting in spear grass fights with her cousins and sprawling out on the floor with her “Papi,” Gus Tassos, when she spent the night with her grandparents.

But her favorite family tales center on her father. Her grandmother didn’t want him to play football, and made sure he attended Greek school before enrolling at Jefferson, she said.

One oft-told story was how her father negotiated his terms of employment with with the NFL over the phone, long before players had agents to handle such matters. Detroit Lions Coach Gus Dorais asked Tassos to “name his price.”

“And Daddy said he took a big gulp of air and said, ‘How about $2,500 for a signing bonus?” Phillips recalled. Dorais “said, ‘We’ll put you on the next plane to Detroit tomorrow.’ And Daddy said it took 24 hours to get to Detroit. But he left 1206 West Agarita, and that was the beginning of his football career.”

Scott Huddleston is a veteran staff writer at the San Antonio Express-News covering Bexar County Commissioners Court and county government.

He has been a reporter at the Express-News since 1985, covering a variety of issues, including public safety, flooding, transportation, military and veterans affairs, history and local government.

Huddleston covered the final construction phase of the SBC Center — now AT&T Center, where the Spurs play — in 2002, and wrote “Then&Now,” a weekly historical feature, for the Sunday Metro section from 2001-2006.

Posted on

Government Hill resident’s comments at City Council re Zoning Change from R-6 to C-2 in a residential neighborhood on why we fight for our communities.

Written by D’Ette Cole of Government Hill

Note: On November 5th City Council (A Session) meeting Government Hill residents gathered with white COVID masks on which were printed, “C-1”.  They were there, after so many postponements to ask City Council to reject a zoning change from R-6 to C-2 in their residential neighborhood and to accept instead a compromise of C-1, a fair compromise that they were struggling to have approved. 

Read about the case at the SA Heron. 

Good morning, 

We hope good prevails today. We have a compromise for C-1 on the property which sits just 24′ across the street from our homes.  We hope that if any motion for higher than C-1 light commercial is introduced that you will not entertain it, you will not support it, and that you will be a protector and a proponent for community compromise and our 200′ neighbors’ compromise for c-1.

This has been a long pursuit which began over a year ago when we first got word that the property at the corner of Reno and Edgar street was going to be sold and that the longtime neighbors would be removed and the six houses  leveled for a twenty-pump mega gas station a zoning change from an almost unheard of R-6 (residential) to C-2 (intense commercial).  It seemed incredible that affordable housing would be demolished and we would be living across the street from a huge gas station. We did not know where to begin to fight.

First the case would have to go through the rezoning process to get rezoned from R-6 to C-2 commercial. Not imagining how this huge project could be plopped down in our tiny neighborhood immediately in front of our homes and so close to an elementary school, the 200′ neighbors banded together to show and tell the city that there must be some mistake.  

Ours is a predominantly Latino, multi-generational, working class neighborhood. Several of the 200′ neighbors who have called this neighborhood home for decades,  said I didn’t understand: No one will care, no one will listen,  and we won’t win because we never win – we don’t matter. Before this process was over, I began to understand why they felt this way. 

With the overwhelming opposition to this encroachment within the 200′ and blocks beyond, we organized and pushed on but there are group members who do not access the internet, that are not computer savvy, or would never be able to stand and speak here. There are those in our group that you have not seen because they cannot come to commissions or hearings due to health issues or because of their essential jobs, especially now with COVID.  

Home. 

This is home. We love our homes and are extremely house proud and though the story of how and when we each came to call this neighborhood our home is different from each of our neighbors – We all have stories of dreams and desires of inherited homes passed down, full of fond childhood memories:

Neighbors like Dora and Martin whose first homes with first mortgages bring the swell and pride of ownership in our community. 

Neighbors like Addie and Caleb who have lived in their well-loved home for decades with adult children who have moved back in to care for ailing elders. 

Roxanne and Aden, starter homeowners with hopes of future kids walking to the elementary school down the street. 

Jazzma and Armando, retirement homeowners looking to downsize. 

Lorenzo and Virgina, purchasing and refurbishing a small house on the top of hill with a million dollar view of the downtown skyline. 

These are some of our neighbors.  

These homes, these neighbors, these streets, our elementary school, and our park are a lot to fight for. 

Our community has been worth every second, every meeting, pow wow, late night group call, every Sunday afternoon driveway meeting, every block walked, every signature collected, every email sent, every phone call, every educating and telling of details, every sign designed and every sign hung, every sleepless night, every tear shed and every new worry wrinkle. 

Everything has been worth it because this fight has been about our homes and our neighborhood. 

This process has been extremely intimidating and consistently disappointing.  Our neighborhood and our homes have been publicly  disparaged in descriptive terms like “derelict, crime ridden, crime stricken, drug and graffiti infested, unsafe and scary” by those who should know better, by a member of the Zoning Commission, by attorneys, by those who want to profit from our neighborhood.  

We’ve been ignored, we’ve been dismissed, we’ve been excluded, we’ve been insulted, disparaged, berated and basically told to be quiet.  We would not stay quiet.

We love our neighbors, we love our neighborhood, we love our city so we cannot be blamed for fighting so hard for the best outcome for this block that impacts us all so significantly.  Despite it taking such a long time to get here, we look forward to a true C-1 compromise.   A C-1 light commercial project that will be an appropriate buffer between the C2-NA Frost property on the access road and our dense residential front yards.  A neighborhood friendly C-1 development that will be the appropriate scale and setting to meet our residential and school zone streets.

Council representatives: I couldn’t and I wouldn’t do the job that each of you has signed up for and run and won to do.  I thank you for having the will and for wanting to make a difference, to make things better, do better, and do good.  Please never underestimate the power of listening and understanding,  conversation and collaboration and compromise – this fight would have been more civil, more fair, less hurtful, less marginalizing, and better for it.

Please support the 200′ neighbors C-1 compromise for this case.

City Council OKs zoning compromise in contentious Government Hill case
Posted on

Letter to Elected Representatives from Gardendale NA re: illegal dumping and issues of homelessness with additional comments by West End Hope and Action NA

Written by Maricela Garza and Rafael Garza

This letter is being written to bring to light some of the issues the Gardendale Neighborhood Community is experiencing.  Gardendale Neighborhood Association is asking for assistance, direction and the ability to proactively work together to address the mentioned concerns affecting our neighborhood areas.  

The Gardendale Neighborhood Community has been seeing a continued increase in homeless foot traffic in our residential streets and more recently an increase in illegal dumping in our living areas.  The illegal dumping is exacerbating the homeless traffic as they sift through the dumped items and scatter the mess on to streets and properties.  It is as if businesses, surrounding non-profit agencies and even some of the community residents have become numb about reporting leaving the issue to become the norm for our living area. 

As leaders of this community, we cannot turn a blind eye on this issues at hand as the matter will only worsen if left unattended.  With the new development planned for Houston St & Frio with The Alamo Construction Community, the Cattleman Square  area and Scobey’s, buildings, Gardendale Neighborhood Association is requesting we all be proactive to address these concerns.  

Gardendale Neighborhood Association is requesting a meeting be set up with all those involved with regards to these concerns and also requesting to be included in any discussions that may inadvertently affect our community.  The Gardendale Neighborhood Association is on board for growth and progress as long as it keeps the best interest and safety of the community in mind.  As project developers request letters of endorsement and support, us leaders representing the community need to have a voice in the safety measures that need to be put in place as we are the affected community.    As mentioned prior to developers interested in our community areas, while the new development areas are protected and cleaned out for the upcoming project areas to look presentable for their marketing, the communities are being overlooked and over-run with the homeless going deeper into the community areas and and residential homes.   

We are looking for progress in the community area/ district that can be a benefit to all;  not just the new projects.  A prime example is that of a sign that was just captured in the McDonalds property on Houston St. The sign reads:  NO SOLICITATION, NO LOITERING, NO TRESPASSING…..Persons found to be soliciting on McDonalds Property will be subjected to arrest.    This is the kind of action the community would like to see in the community property areas particularly surrounding the Haven for Hope, GI Forum area and around the non-profit agencies not collaborating with the community and not complying with city guidelines.  

Please also see additional attached attached pictures that depict some of what Gardendale Neighborhood Association and the community are living / seeing.  Please remember, as leaders of this community, Gardendale Neighborhood Association serves as your eyes and ears for what is happening in the community areas you represent.  Gardendale asks that you respond timely with a meeting set up to have our concerns heard so that our community does not become part of the forgotten as new development comes in to our areas.  

Thank you,

Maricela Garza and Rafael Garza

Gardendale Neighborhood Association 


WEHA Response to Gardendale’s concerns. Written by Carlos Gonzalez

Thank you Gardendale for being the eyes and conscience of city leadership and politics. Homelessness is a city and county wide issue and the Mayor and County Judge should call a HAVEN Summit to assess the operations of Haven for Hope and find out why they are unwilling and unable to effectively communicate with the surrounding neighborhoods. Senator Menendez also represents this area, as does too State Rep. Diego Bernal- where are they in this fight? Where is Justin Rodriguez who heads up the Haven Community Affairs Dept? is the UTSA urban serving effort? What happened to the early promises that Haven would be monitored and ADJUST to obvious challenges? There has been no adjustment as dozens of mostly men, daily wander and hang out in our neighborhood because Haven offers no free transportation back to their own neighborhood.

Every single city council candidate should be held accountable regarding the homelessness situation in San Antonio and in particular their views on how to make Haven more accountable, accessible, transparent- and either greatly improved or RE-LOCATED.

Carlos Gonzalez

Cochair

West End Hope in Action

An example of illegal dumping in Gardendale
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

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

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.