The Westwood Square Neighborhood Association (D5) & Los Jardines Neighborhood Association (D6), held a community meeting on Saturday, March 12th regarding the YWCA zoning case. The meeting was to inform the community of the process and discuss the zoning change that was approved by the zoning commission on Tuesday, March 15th, and to advise on the choices of what is at stake for the neighborhood including discussion on covenants/deed restrictions, and the site plan. The community/ neighborhoods were advised that the YWCA zoning case is scheduled to go to Council on Thursday, March 17th. The community/neighborhoods voted for more time to continue the conversation and to process what was discussed at the meeting regarding the covenants/deed restrictions and the site plan. District 5 & 6 staff were present at the meeting and are aware of this request. We believe that those who are affected by this decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.Westwood Square NA & Los Jardines NA are submitting this Request to City Council for a Continuance of two weeks ( till March 31st ) to secure solutions that work for the community.We are hopeful that with this reasonable request we can find a resolution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please be advised that on Monday, July 29, 2019, the Historic Westside Resident Association met with representatives from the NRP Group, San Antonio Housing Authority, Brown and Ortiz Associates, and District 5 to discuss the Alazan Loft development.
The following neighborhood associations were in attendance as well: Westside Preservation Alliance, Tier One Neighborhood Coalition, Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition and the Esperanza Peace & Justice Center. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed site plan for Alazan Loft. We want to make clear that the Historic Westside Resident Association supports the development of affordable housing in our historic Westside community. However, the proposed site plan submitted by the NRP Group does not meet with the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan requirements.
The Alazan Loft site plan must be revised to meet the guidelines of the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan.
All buildings on all lots should be a maximum of two (2) stories with 20’ setbacks from sidewalks to adhere to the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan and neighborhood character.
Reduce parking spaces to accommodate the revised site plan for two -story structures.
Add heat sinks such as landscape islands on parking lots.
Introduce green space which would include buffer landscape and street scape to adhere to the neighborhood character.
Elevation drawings (black and white) for the two story structures for the revised site plan.
The following issues were presented, discussed and requested from the development side:
We are also very concerned about our neighborhood residents being uprooted and displaced during and after this major construction process.
Please note that SAHA spokesman, Michael Reyes, expressed in the Rivard Report (July 26, 2019) the importance of gathering “feedback from all neighborhood associations and community leaders to make sure we are building something that reflects the neighborhood”.
Of major concern is the fact that our Historic Westside Resident Association and the organizations listed were informed of only two, not 17, community meetings sponsored by SAHA and the NRP Group. These two meetings in 1st Quarter 2019 offered the associations very limited time for community engagement.
There were no additional notifications or discussions until the Historic Westside Resident Association was informed on July 8, 2019 via U.S. mail of the Zoning Commission hearing scheduled for July 16th, 2019. The hearing was for the NRP Group request in zoning change from MF-33 to IDZ 3.
In summary, we have requested that the NRP Group submit a revised site plan to meet the above listed points under IDZ-3 with conditions. We will meet again on Friday, August 2, 2019, at 4:00pm with the goal of receiving a revised site plan that adheres to the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan and reflective of the character of the neighborhood. We hope for an agreed upon revised site plan before City Council review on August 22, 2019.
Mayor Nirenberg, as you review the needs of the residents of the Westside neighborhoods, please remember your commitment to the Housing Policy Task Force as well as the protection of our historic San Antonio neighborhoods.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amelia Valdez
Chairperson of Historic Westside Resident Association
After the demolitions were approved, and the appeal that Tobin Hill Community Association filed was rejected, the Cole properties were rezoned to Infill Development Zone (IDZ), so that townhouses could be built.
My husband, Rick Schell, is the chair person for Tobin Hill’s Zoning and Development Committee. He attended the zoning hearing on July 17, 2019. It was a very long hearing. He knew by that time that the houses were being demolished, and that the rezoning would most likely be approved, but he waited 7.5 hours in order to read the Committee’s statement into the record.
After the hearing, he sent this email to the District 1 Zoning Commissioner:
Sarah,
I want to take a moment to tell you I appreciate your thoughtful approach to the various cases yesterday. I spent a lot of time last night and this morning thinking about the Evergreen case, and my statement, and your questions. I thought a follow-up email was important, so you understand why I came to Zoning yesterday with what I did.
I know your purview is related strictly to the zoning associated with the case, as staff indicated in response to your question.
We never should have been in front of the Zoning Commission in the first place, looking at the requested change.
There was a failure to follow the processes the city created by both OHP and by the Councilman. It is true that OHP flat-out failed to present the case to city council. The rest of the council members could only rely on what our D1 councilman told them. It is true that he read from a prepared statement that was factually inaccurate (at best). OHP could have corrected the inaccuracies, but they chose not to do so. It is true the Mayor asked why the council was not briefed by OHP on the case. There was overwhelming community support for this designation to happen, and it was ignored. There was overwhelming evidence to support this designation, and it was ignored.
Here is the deal: Our Councilman was elected by the community to represent us, the community. Developers have an entire department within the city to represent them (Development Services). They have land-use attorneys to represent them. They have money to back them. They have people who are paid to make the time. We have volunteers who take time from their day to come out and speak. They take off work, they find child-care for their kids, they sacrifice personal and family life to come voice their thoughts to the Commissions and the City Council. The only tool we have as a community is the city processes. When those are not followed, or are ignored, or are arbitrarily applied, what recourse does the community have?
I waited for 7.5 hours yesterday so that I could take 2 minutes of time to directly confront the failure of some city departments in following the processes they created for the community. I don’t want you to think that I am just another too-loud voice, arguing the wrong thing in the wrong setting, clamoring to be heard. I realize that I did not address the zoning directly, but we don’t have another forum to address these issues. I would encourage you and the rest of our commissioners to take a more direct approach to listen to the community before the commission meetings. You are appointed as an extension of the council office, whose role is to represent the community at large, and not as an extension of city staff and development services.
I look forward to continuing to work with you, our D1 staff in all the various forms it takes, and the community at large, whether developer or homeowner, to continue to make D1 a great place to live.
Best,
Rick Schell THCA Zoning and Development Committee Chair
Tobin Hill is under fire, y’all. I’ve posted about it before: 14 demolition requests in the last 18 months.
Map courtesy OHP, showing demolition requests within the THCA boundary over the last 18 months.
There are a few ways to stop or slow a demolition.
One way is a large community outcry, such as what happened with 430 and 434 E. Magnolia (OHP stated that they had never received that much community input on a demolition case, that it was unprecedented).
Another way is submitting an application for finding of Historic Significance, and Landmark Designation with the City’s Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). This can often be a more effective way if the property in question has real historic significance.
307 and 311 E. Evergreen had both community support for their preservation, and substantial historic significance.
When Tobin Hill received the notification of a demolition request for these two houses on E. Evergreen, I posted the photos of the house with information provided by OHP to our social media pages, and I forwarded the request to Tobin Hill Community Association’s Historic Preservation Committee. THCA also met with Patrick Christensen, a local land use attorney, representing Imagine Homes who hoped to develop, but did not yet own, the properties.
When I posted the info on 307 and 311 E. Evergreen, now colloquially know as the Cole Houses, there was a huge outcry from the community, even extending beyond the borders of the Tobin Hill.
Let’s take a moment and talk about what I mean when I say, “huge outcry.”
The post was shared 64 times. 13,699 people saw the post. Between the comments on THCA’s Facebook page and other places it was shared, I compiled 75 comments asking for the preservation of these houses. So when OHP says 24 emails is “unprecedented,” and I tell you Evergreen has a “huge outcry,” you understand what I mean.
Many of the comments talk about the houses’ recent history as being used as a live music venue and recording studio. If you know Tobin Hill, you know music is an important part of our neighborhood’s culture. Additionally, one of the houses was the former offices of Mujeres Unidas, an HIV prevention and awareness non-profit.
Among the folks upset about the potential demolition of the Evergreen houses, was an archaeologist and historian that lives in the neighborhood, Stephen Fonzo. He agreed to assist THCA’s Historic Preservation Committee Chair, Ricki Kushner, in researching the houses pro bono. They discovered that in addition to the houses recent musical history, the house at 307 was the only home of Lt. Col. Robert G. Cole, WWII hero and recipient of the Medal of Honor. Robert G. Cole Junior and Senior High School are named for him (thus the nickname of Cole Houses).
Ricki and Stephen compiled a thorough Statement of Significance for each of the houses, and included letters of support from the North Saint Mary’s Business Association, the San Antonio Conservation Society, news clippings, photos, maps, emails, and statements of support from veterans. Together the packets on 307 and 311 E Evergreen are a combined total of 84 pages after review by OHP.
It is with this level of community support AND historically significant evidence that the Cole Houses went before HDRC for recommendation of Landmark designation.
The HDRC recommended approval at the April 17, 2019 hearing. However, because the Landmark designation was filed without the owner’s consent, THCA was told that it would have to go before City Council in June before continuing to the Zoning Commission.
On May 28, 2019 the Community Association received an email from Councilman Treviño’s office about the two pending cases in our neighborhood. Included in the communication was Patrick Christensen.
The email stated that Councilman Treviño was not going to support the designation of the Evergreen properties. His reason was that the Cole Houses are “on the commercial corner of the McCullough corridor.” However, the houses are NOT on the corner of McCullough; they are behind the Little Taco Factory and La Morenita Fruit Cups.
Location of 307 and 311 E Evergreen St.
All 84 pages of historical evidence were ignored. Instead, the Councilman focused solely on the location of the houses.
In addition to the blow of this email, when the case came before City Council on June 6, 2019, OHP failed to present the evidence of the Cole Houses historic significance, or give Council a briefing on the houses before the hearing.
At the City Council hearing, the mayor noted that the Council was not briefed on the houses, not once, but twice. Sadly, Council voted against the designation based on Councilman Treviño’s recommendation anyway. He stated that the houses “do not warrant landmark status.”
In the video below, you can hear Ricki Kushner and other citizens speak to City Council about this case. Councilman Treviño’s makes his statement at 15:50. The Mayor states that there was not a staff presentation on this case at 20:30. He repeats that statement at 21:40, where he also asks for more information on these houses, and states his discomfort with the decision being made without a briefing.
Normally that would be the end of things. Without the owner’s consent or Council’s blessing the case can not move forward. But THCA was not ready to give up after so much work.
Several members of THCA attended the June 24th HDRC Hearing and signed up to speak during Citizens To Be Heard. We implored the Commission to intercede, reminding them that although the Landmark Designation had failed, they houses could still be preserved as a Historic District, which only needs a minimum of two properties. We reminded them of the evidence to preserve these houses, and told them about OHP’s failure to present the evidence to Council. HDRC asked that the houses be added to the July 17, 2019 agenda.
Meanwhile, the owner had erected a fence around the properties, preparing to demolish them. THCA was ready with an appeal, in order to get a stop-work order on the demolition if needed. However, on June 25, 2019, the Development Services Department (DSD) confirmed that a hold was placed once again on the addresses due to being on the July 17th agenda.
Late in the afternoon on Friday July 12, OHP called THCA to let them know that they were lifting the hold, and that the demolition requests for the Cole Houses had been approved. THCA searched for permits, but none had been pulled yet. We vigilantly watched the houses over the weekend for any sign of illegal demolition. None occurred.
Tuesday morning, July 16, my husband, Rick, drove by the houses at about 7:50am. Demolition (deconstruction) had begun.
I called DSD at about 9:30 a.m. and they confirmed that there had not been any demolition permits issued for the addresses. We requested a stop-work order.
Rick immediately called the Councilman’s office and was told by Chrissy McCain that demolition permits had been approved. She also said that the structures were completely demolished by this point (about 9:35 a.m.), so if THCA was to file an appeal, it would likely fail because the properties were demolished. Further, she said that the Councilman had approved the salvage plan just that morning.
Alarmed, I drove to the Cole Houses, to find them still standing, though deconstruction of the interior was occurring. I checked DSD’s online permit portal, which now showed a permit for 311 E Evergreen, approved at 9:51am and paid for at 10:23am that morning.
We went to DSD and filed the appeal.
The appeal was received by Zenon (Zeke) Solis, who was really not sure what to do. He stated that they had never received an appeal on a demolition permit before. He went back to the offices several times to ask questions before taking my paperwork. He then took 19 minutes to copy the appeal, which was only 9 pages long. Another stop-work order was issued.
The next day, July 17, we received notice from DSD that our appeal was being withdrawn by DSD and that THCA would receive a refund. View the emails from DSD here:
The stop-work order has again been lifted. Deconstruction has resumed. The Cole Houses are being demolished.
We are left with many questions.
Why did Councilman Treviño state that the Cole Houses were on the corner of McCullough when they are not?
Why did his office include the developer’s attorney, Patrick Christensen, in the email prior to the Council hearing, but not the property owner?
Why didn’t OHP brief the Mayor and the Council on the 84 pages of evidence for Landmarking the houses?
Why did the Council proceed to vote, even after the mayor questioned this?
Why were the Cole Houses removed from the July 17th HDRC agenda, despite the commissioner’s request to evaluate them for a potential Historic District?
Why did the Councilman’s office preemptively discourage us from filing an appeal, even though it is within our rights to do so?
Why was the Councilman’s office giving permission for demolition instead of requiring that a permit be obtained though DSD prior to starting work?
Why did the Councilman’s office state that the houses had already been demolished before the demolition permits had been either filed or paid for?
Why did DSD refund THCA’s appeal and decide that it was not valid? – Is it not the role of the Board of Adjustment to decide if an appeal has merit?
My name is Gloria Pacheco Hernandez, and I am the President of the Las Palmas Neighborhood Association, which is part of the larger Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition.
I come before you to advocate the need for a sensible and mutually agreeable plan to save the Cattle Egrets birds, who were near extinction at one time, as well as other bird species of Bird Island in Elmendorf Lake Park.
The Egrets and other birds love to roost at Elmendorf Lake, especially on Bird Island, adjacent to the Our Lady of the Lake campus. They also like to eat at the Covel Gardens Landfill, because there are a lot of insects there. They are constantly flying back and forth between the two locations. But flying between the two locations causes problems when the birds interfere with aircraft. Therefore, many local officials and area military officials see the birds as a problem, threatening aviation in the area. What to do about the birds has become a combative issue, especially for bird advocates and those of us who live in the area and do not see the birds as a major problem. Right now, the birds are contained in their natural habitat, and they are not causing any great damage.
The park, lake, birds, and other natural wildlife, add to the beauty of the neighborhood as well as affords researches and students an opportunity to study this unique inner-city area, the birds and other wildlife. Elmendorf has become a hot spot for area residents and bird watchers, who have a chance to see and study as many as 40 varieties of birds. Destroying the birds present habitat could result in them moving onto other public property and causing thousands and even millions of dollars in damage. It could also put the Egrets once again at danger of becoming extinct. We want to be a bird-friendly community. Birds like and deserve healthy living environments, just as we as humans like and deserve healthy environments.
Presently, the community/public has not been provided with sufficient documented information and data to support the birds are a severe threat to the airspace near Lackland AFB and Port San Antonio. Which leads me to believe there has not been an actual, in depth study of the situation. Therefore, I am requesting that the military and local officials and agencies involved work together to find an alternate solution to this matter and not relocate the birds from their natural habitat.
Written by the Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association Board of Directors: Joanie Brooks, President; Stephen Amberg, Vice President; Homer “Butch” Hayes, Treasurer; Camis Milam, Secretary; Jennifer Norton, Estrada Polly, and Noel Matthew Shaddock
A Call for Action by the Housing Commission to Protect and Preserve Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods San Antonio’s debate about how to secure affordable housing close to the city core is urgent. As a fast growing city with an anticipated additional one million people expected in the next 25 years, we are a prime target for developers. New people who desire urban living need affordable housing close to downtown to live and work at the same time that existing affordable housing in those areas is being demolished in favor of upper middle-class housing, which is displacing current residents. Our city government must address this growing crisis with a broader set of goals and tools than currently in use. The City should develop policies to sustain current affordable workers’ housing and to prevent displacement as it encourages infill development in the Downtown and Midtown areas.
The City has stated that it is committed to increase affordable housing and preserve existing central city neighborhoods. At the first meeting of the Housing Commission to Protect and Preserve Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods, on September 24, 2015, John Dugan, director of the Department of Planning and Community Development stated, “The Housing Commission will have a key role in developing new policies and programs to increase the supply of affordable and workforce housing.” The Housing Commission plans to develop policies and programs to protect and preserve existing central city neighborhoods. It also shares our concerns about affordability and preservation of existing communities. “We are seeing significant reinvestment in many of the neighborhoods located inside Loop 410,” Dugan said. “As new residents move in, we want to ensure that existing residents are not pushed out and the qualities that make these neighborhoods dynamic and diverse are not lost.” The City should now undertake to specify parameters for increased density in and around established Midtown residential neighborhoods, which are already dynamic and diverse, but whose qualities are threatened by inappropriate new development.
Recent developments in Mahncke Park illustrate where stable working class neighborhoods are in direct conflict with developers’ plans for inner tier development and profit. Mahncke Park (MP) is a residential neighborhood in the Midtown Regional Center, which is currently in Year 1 of the SA2020 Comprehensive Plan process, which is projected to gain 1,000 new families by 2040 as well as new businesses and jobs. Because MP has diverse and affordable housing of good quality that is proximate to the Downtown – located south of Alamo Heights between Brackenridge Park and Fort Sam – it has become a magnet for investors who seek to capitalize on rising interest and values. MP is struggling to maintain its identity as a vibrant community of people, who are diverse by income, age, ethnicity, occupation and talents and who share a common interest in maintaining this vibrancy. However, the City’s current housing development policies do not allow MP to protect the values of stability with change, affordable housing stock, and the historic residential fabric of the built environment and community life.
Mahncke Park (MP) is undergoing rapid change as affordable housing is demolished and replaced by upper middle income and luxury homes. MP has roughly 5,000 thousand residents who now live mostly in modest single-family homes, duplexes and quadraplex apartment buildings, and some larger multiunit low-rise apartment buildings, which were built from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. In the new environment, businesses have been allowed to encroach on residential streets and, on the southern side of the neighborhood, homes and apartment buildings that have fallen into various levels of neglect are 2 being snapped up by developers. They are then demolished and replaced with blocks of cookie-cutter “town” homes and condos.
The Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) wants to protect affordable housing and MP’s historic fabric as it supports the SA Comprehensive Plan for greater density in Midtown where it is appropriate. Some developers have worked well with MPNA to make modifications to their plans to accommodate historic values, but others reject community input.
One egregious case where the historic fabric of the MP community is being lost is the Imagine Homes projects. This case also demonstrates the limits of the City’s current policies for appropriate and sustainable development. Imagine Homes (IH) has already demolished homes and apartment buildings and replaced them with upper middle class town homes; it has applied for approval to demolish six more buildings. Claremont Street is being systematically transformed from its heterogeneous residential character to a monoculture of gentrification. IH’s signature project is a single-family house on a 25-foot lot with a front-loaded garage, which is specifically not allowed by the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) guidelines. The City adopted the MP Neighborhood Plan in 2004 and the NCD was approved in 2008. The NCD design overlay states that lots greater than 45 feet wide will have garages behind the plane of the house façade. There were no extant lots less than 50 feet wide over the past 50 years. Imagine Homes has made the case to the Development Services Department that the original 1928 platting of the Natalen Terrace area with 25-foot lots should have prior legal authority over later zoning and design guidelines. Imagine Homes is purchasing extant lots with buildings that encompass two or more plats and dividing them up into 25-foot single-family home lots. DSD states that the NCD guidelines do not apply and that zoning regulations do not prohibit what IM is doing. (See the satellite photo of Claremont.)
The Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) has requested a Change Request (CCR) to revise its NCD with the hope of blocking this practice. City Council approved the CCR, but DSD has reiterated the stance that the new NCD will not supersede the 1928 platting. This may well be a correct reading of zoning rules, but the resultant situation is unworkable for the neighborhood and the City. This case calls out for a new policy to govern development to be swiftly considered and acted on.
Debate has gelled on the need for a broader appreciation of our residential fabric than only physical assets. The September 5, 2017 edition of the Rivard Report included an article from Next City reporter Johnny Magdaleño that suggests the proper perspective from which to consider change. It notes that “Part of the value of the UNESCO World Heritage designation includes the ‘intangible heritage’ of people. It’s not the restaurant, it’s the chef,” says William Dupont, director of the Center for Cultural Sustainability at University of Texas at San Antonio. “So, as the city is looking at that, they’re concurrently taking a look at all of their policies citywide, [recognizing] displacement of the people can now cause loss of economic potential.” We urge the Housing Commission to not only look, but to adapt the City’s “equity lens” budget analysis for a new policy to sustain residential equity by protecting the existing community diversity of people and housing stock.
The Mayor and Council must act in a timely way to broaden the policy discussion about affordable housing and city development in ways that address preservation of our neighborhoods’ diversity, culture and heritage. The housing we are living in now is affordable housing. However, it is being torn down and replaced by housing that is not affordable for current residents and/or replaced by affordable housing that is subsidized by the taxpayers.
We recommend the following action items to our City officials.
1. We need a moratorium on the demolition of existing affordable housing until a new housing policy is enacted.
2. The City needs to address historical platting that is antagonistic to the context of current usage and design guidelines in order to maintain the historic diversity of neighborhoods.
3. The Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force should develop strategies and policies to preserve and rehabilitate existing residential structures.
4. The Task Force should conduct a survey of rents in the sub-area neighborhoods of Midtown.
5. The new policies to preserve existing affordable housing should include support for individuals who own properties, but cannot afford to maintain them, in the form of grants and low cost loans.
6. The new policies should also support long-term residents with appropriate assistance to be able to age in place.
7. The Midtown Regional Planning Task Force should not abandon neighborhood plans, but use them as directives for new zoning maps.
8. There must be neighborhood membership in all decision-making bodies that formulate policies for residential neighborhoods that is at least equal to the representation of development interests.
9. Transportation Corridor planning boundaries for development must be re-scaled from a half-mile to the actual abutting properties while the traffic study boundaries remain in place.
