Neighborhood Plans/SA Tomorrow – Neighborhood San Antonio

T1NC chose to work with city staff (DSD and Planning) to modify their proposed 22-21 amendment, seeking to protect existing neighborhood and community plans and to provide for public engagement on future land use. As a result of this work, the Planning Department added language that may help protect neighborhood plans and future land use in neighborhoods as they participate in the sub-area planning process.

Language that may help protect future neighborhood land use:

The Planning Department added a reference to the “important aspect” of previously adopted neighborhood and community plans including their future land use, to the Statement of Purpose in the final version .

Planning also added to Sub-Area Plans: “Goals, objectives and future land use from adopted neighborhood and community plans shall be reviewed and serve as a foundational element…, throughout the development of sub-area plans.” This is important, but neighborhood and community plans and their future land use are to be used as a reference – not as a basis, to develop the larger area sub-area plans.

Planning also commits, in its edited amendment: “…When a proposed sub-area plan includes geographies in a previously adopted neighborhood or community plan, the planning department shall invite …registered neighborhood associations and registered community organizations with boundaries within the previous plan area to review, discuss, and provide input…”

However….

In our Amendment 16-4, which we hoped to incorporate into 22-21, we asked for previously adopted neighborhood and community plans, inclusive of future land use plans, to be incorporated without revision into Sub-Area Plans, thereafter amendable, which was denied because, they stated, incorporation without revision impermissibly restricts City Council performing “legislative” action of plan adoption. We also understood that many neighborhood and community plans have outdated or neighborhood-disliked future land use plans.

Areas of concern with the final version of 22-21 going before PCTAC on May 9:

(3) B, Corridor Plans

The “study areas of a corridor plan should” include areas (1/4) mile, (1,320 feet) of the major arterial, expanding to one-half mile around high traffic stations.

A city block is typically 330’ to 660’, so the corridor plans could potentially infringe higher density development a minimum of 2 blocks into currently residential zoned areas.

(b) (2) Stakeholder Participation

City also added to the final version a section on Stakeholder Participation, (b)(2). – which was not discussed in our meetings.

Besides the involvement of the T1NC UDC Committee, this amendment has been proposed with no “public hearings” and limited public participation process (PPP).

Once sub-area plans get adopted, they will supercede, (a)(5), currently adopted neighborhood and community plans and we’ll have to work within that framework.

(h) Consistency Requirements

Once sub-area plans get adopted, they will supercede, (a)(5), currently adopted neighborhood and community plans and we’ll have to work within that framework. Previous plans won’t be referenced anymore for rezoning applications. The new zoning will be consistent with the new land use.

The larger sub-area plans are too large to address specific individual and smaller neighborhoods needs and objectives which have been removed or been reduced by the new hierarchy of plan types.

Neighborhood Action:

T1NC UDC Committee is not making a recommendation, but urgently request that neighborhoods provide comment.

We should urge everyone – individuals and neighborhoods, to become informed, get involved, and to comment now or at city council if this amendment is supported by PCTAC.

Please contact t1nc.sat@gmail.com for questions.

November 4, 2021

From the Archives: The more things change…

“The New Urbanist Myth of Democratic City Planning: The Politics of Charrettes” La Voz de Esperanza. Vol 21 Issue 3. April 2008.

Although this article was written in 2008, it articulates the continued frustration residents feel with CoSA’s lack of meaningful public engagement on plans that directly affect neighborhoods such as the Corridor Plans and now the SHIP recommendations and Bond process. While there is no doubt there have been many changes for the better, the SHIP public input process has shown us that, if it is in the City’s interest, public participation will be curtailed and/or ignored. What is striking, is that if we vote in council members who voice the concerns of residents, they too, will be marginalized. Like us they are often asked to make decisions on documents with little time to read or they are scolded on the dais for voicing the concerns of their constituents. The City’s desire for engaged and informed citizenry only holds true if that citizenry agrees with the City’s process or interests. City Hall will make the case that the City’s interests are the interests of us all, but we know, from bitter experience, that is often not the case.

January 5, 2021

T1NC Letter to Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee re: Neighborhood Engagement Team

Neighborhoods are the Answer

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition (T1NC) is a group of San Antonio downtown (inside Loop 410) neighborhoods organized to promote communication, cooperation, education, and support among neighborhoods as well as advocate for thoughtful policies. Contact t1nc.sat@gmail.com or visit T1nc.org

January 4, 2021

Good Afternoon Council Members,

We often hear from city staff, particularly in Planning and DSD and sometimes from elected officials that neighborhoods are the problem, but we believe that neighborhoods are the answer.

The place where we live is the heart of our communities. Passion, love, dedication, loyalty and identity are what root us in our neighborhoods and why we work so hard for their betterment. Our neighborhoods are places that support elders, local school children, those who are vulnerable to displacement, and those who are experiencing food or housing insecurities. We act as a conduit between the city staff, elected officials, and our residents. “We are in this together” has been a neighborhood mantra throughout 2020 and we found ways to make that sentiment felt.

Neighborhoods are the places where people live, work (particularly now), worship, and learn. We believe the City should make supporting and nurturing San Antonio’s neighborhoods a priority. As with early education, it behooves us as a city to invest in neighborhoods. We have learned that investment in early education results in a better future for our students; we believe that investment in neighborhoods would also provide a better future for San Antonio residents.

In Tier One Neighborhood Coalitions’ early days, we lobbied then Mayor Ivy Taylor and City Manager Sherryl Scully for a Neighborhood Commission in order to address the disenfranchisement that neighborhoods were feeling under the pressure of the SA Tomorrow Plan implementation. We also asked for an additional four city staff positions that would look at planning and development with a neighborhood lens and act as ombudsman or liaisons between neighborhoods and city staff and departments. The letter of request, which was submitted during a meeting with Taylor and Scully, was signed by representatives from 18 Neighborhood Associations and two Community Organizations representing Council Districts 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7.

Although we did not succeed in getting the Neighborhood Commission, City Manager Sculley did create four new positions within the Neighborhood Housing and Services Dept. During the 8-10-2017 “A” Session presentation of the proposed FY 2018 Budget, CM Sculley introduced the four new Neighborhood Engagement Team positions with a budget of $255,000. Tier One was pleased by this announcement and proud of the achievement that we felt would help neighborhoods gain a more even footing, improve relations between the city’s planning and development departments and neighborhoods overall and provide a vital resource to neighborhood associations and community organizations.

Neighborhood leaders were gratified that the City was making a monetary commitment to neighborhood engagement, capacity building and access to an advocate within the city structure. Improved working partnership would lead to less controversy, less staff time spent on citizen discontent at commissions and council meetings, and a better outcome for everyone involved.

We need the promise of the Neighborhood Engagement Team to be honored by the city.

Thank you.

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee

Teri Castillo Monica Savino

Cosima Colvin Cynthia Spielman

Mary Johnson Steve Versteeg

Ricki Kushner Taylor Watson

Margaret Leeds

January 5, 2021November 4, 2021

Letter to T1NC Members re Action at the Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee re Neighborhood Engagement Officers

Read: T1NC Letter to Culture & Neighborhood Services re Neighborhood Engagement Team

Read: Original job posting for Neighborhood Engagement Officer

Update: While this temporarily made a difference, the position was abolished by the end of October 2021

January 4, 2021

Dear T1NC Neighborhoods,

Happy New Year to you and yours! Let’s start the year off with a T1NC bang!

The Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee is reviewing the roles of the Neighborhood Engagement Officers (who are part of the Neighborhood & Housing Services Department (NSHD). Despite a yearly budget of at least $255,000, we have rarely (or never) had contact with these officers. We have attached the original job description and it is clear that they are not doing the job that the City hired them to do which is work with residents for the betterment of our neighborhoods.

We need neighborhood leaders and residents to read statements at the meeting and/or send statements to Council Committee members (instructions at bottom of page.) It is time for neighborhoods to have a voice in decisions made about our communities after months of silence. It is time to engage again. We have attached the T1NC letter to the committee members

Context: District 1 Councilmember Roberto Trevino recently called a meeting with some D1 neighborhood leaders regarding the Neighborhood Association (NA) Registry. During that meeting, we brought to his staff’s attention (Trevino was not on the Zoom) that there would be a lot less strife between neighborhoods and the City if the job of Neighborhood Engagement Officer were being faithfully and competently fulfilled. As a result, the agenda for the upcoming Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee has been changed from a presentation on the Neighborhood Association Registry, to a presentation on the status of the Neighborhood Engagement Officer positions.

History:T1NC worked hard in 2016 to get the attention of then Mayor Taylor and City Manager Sculley to hear our request for a Neighborhood Commission AND for four staff positions to be added to Planning/Development Services Department (DSD) that would represent the neighborhood’s interests. Our letter was signed by 18 neighborhood associations and two Community Organizations. What we got was a restructuring of the Planning Dept into Planning Department and Neighborhood & Housing Services Department (NHSD)… and no Neighborhood Commission.

In FY2018, Sculley did add four positions to NHSD – the Neighborhood Engagement Team, she called it. This team was to be comprised of one administrator and three officers with a budget of $255,000. Barbara Ankamah was appointed as Administrator and now only two officers (because the third, Erika Ragsdale, who admittedly did make a sincere effort, left.)

While much of NHSD’s resources have gone to COVID-19 and housing help since last March, members of the T1 Steering Committee met with Lori Houston last December (2019) about this issue and there was no follow-up.

NOW:

None of us in the Steering Committee (whose members cover the downtown districts) know who our Neighborhood Engagement Officer is nor have we had any contact from or assistance from the Neighborhood Engagement Team.

Do any of you know who your engagement officer is? Have you received any help?

If this program and these positions had been properly administered and carried out over the last three years, instead of making it all about the NA Registry and a few token efforts, we wouldn’t be where we are today. Not only has the Neighborhood Engagement Team been allowed to squander the $255,000 annual budget (the money from FY2018, not subsequent years), but they have squandered other COSA staff time and the opportunity to help us make our neighborhoods more stable and resilient.

We appreciate that Councilman Trevino is asking NHSD staff to present on the status of this position/program in response to our input. The Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee is comprised of Council members from D1 (Chair), D2, D3, D9 & D10 (their email addresses are below.)

What you can do: This is a chance for us to make the City fulfill its promise to neighborhoods. This is a chance for neighborhood voices to be heard!

Please mark your calendars for January 7th @ 2:00 pm and consider making a statement at that meeting about how much help or interaction your neighborhood has had with your Neighborhood Engagement Officer, your disappointment with the process, and your desire to see change. If you or someone from your neighborhood can’t make a statement at the meeting, please send a copy of your remarks (it does not have to be long, just a short statement) to each of the council members on the committee (we have attached addresses). If you send to the T1 Steering Committee, we can find someone to read your statement. A last resort is to send to Councilman Trevino to read into the record at the meeting. Each speaker is allotted three minutes.

An example of a statement might be as simple as

“My name is _____. I live in (or serve as) the __________neighborhood in District _____. We have had little or no contact with the Neighborhood Engagement Team.

We don’t understand how our tax dollars that are paying the salaries of the engagement team and the administrator (whose only responsibility, until recently, was to oversee this team) have been used or what have these engagement officers been doing (before COVID-19). Our community/neighborhood wants change in the future and for the City to fulfill its commitment to our neighborhoods.

Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee members:

Chair: D1 Roberto Trevino roberto.trevino@sanantonio.gov

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

D3 Rebecca Viagran Rebecca.Viagran@sanantonio.gov

D9 John Courage John.Courage@sanantonio.gov

D10 Clayton Perry Clayton.perry@sanantonio.gov

Instructions to watch or to speak:

Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee members:

Chair: D1 Roberto Trevino roberto.trevino@sanantonio.gov

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

D3 Rebecca Viagran Rebecca.Viagran@sanantonio.gov

D9 John Courage John.Courage@sanantonio.gov

D10 Clayton Perry Clayton.perry@sanantonio.gov

Instructions to watch or to speak:

The meeting will be available to the public at AT&T channel 99, Grande channel 20, Spectrum channel 21, digital antenna 16, and www.sanantonio.gov/TVSA. The meeting will also be available by calling (210) 207-5555 (English and Spanish available).

Members of the public can comment or speak on items on the agenda. To submit comments or sign up to speak, please go to www.sanantonio.gov/agenda and click on the eComment link associated with the agenda for instructions. Questions relating to the rules on addressing the Committee may be directed to the Office of the City Clerk at (210) 207-7253.

Or go to legistar at https://sanantonio.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx and click “ecomments” at the end of the Culture & Neighborhood Committee Meeting

November 27, 2019December 2, 2019

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:

Traditional, compatible single structures with multiple units:

“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.

November 13, 2019November 27, 2019

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:

November 13, 2019January 29, 2020

The UDC Amendment Process

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

What is the Unified Development Code (UDC)?

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

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

The UDC Amendment Process:

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

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

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

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

The Path to Approval

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

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

Public Participation

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

Timeline:

January 1, 2020 Amendment submittals begin

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

May 1, 2020 All amendment submittals must be completed

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

Mid-May, 2020 PCTAC begins meeting

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

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

November, 2020 Boards and commissions review amendments and make recommendations

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

December, 2020 City Council considers amendments

January 1, 2021 All passed UDC Amendments go into effect

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

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

UDC Changes since 2015

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

· Zoning Sign and Courtesy Notice Changes

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

· Modifications the demolition procedures for historic structures

· Military Lighting Overlay District (MLOD) update

· Comprehensive Land use Category Updates

· Short Term Rental regulations

· Infill Development Zone (IDZ) update

· Atlas 14 (storm water) update

· Habitat Compliance Form update

Source:

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

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

August 1, 2019August 4, 2019

Historic Westside Residents Association’s (HWRA) letter to Mayor Nirenberg re Alazan Lofts

Note: This issue centers around early meaningful public input, compliance with community plan, and design (intensity), not density and affordability.

Read: – —Maria Anglin’s column, “Gentrification Fears are Very Real” about the Alazan project. -The SA Heron’s article on development and gentrification on the Westside and “SAHA board gives nod to build St. Mary’s Tower with Dallas developer JMJ” which explains the Alazan project and SAHA’s partnership with market rate developers

Dear Mayor Nirenberg,

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

May 5, 2018March 13, 2019

SA Tomorrow Replaces Neighborhood Plans and the Democratic Process

By Cynthia Spielman and Cosima Colvin

Printed originally in NOWCastSA.com

Neighborhood Plans are civic engagement and grassroots democracy at its most local level.

They were created by ordinary people who care about their community and were willing to work, to participate and to engage with their neighbors in a real partnership with the city under the 1998 Community Building and Neighborhood Planning Program.

We spent hundreds of hours planning, facilitating and attending meetings. We talked to one another, and sometimes struggled with ideas until we finally came to a consensus.

As a result, for the first time in San Antonio’s long history, residents in neighborhoods were able to define what was valuable about their community’s past, and articulate their dream for the future. Fifty-five plans were adopted by San Antonio City Council as ordinance and incorporated into the Comprehensive Master Plan.

We celebrated not only our plans, but a process that we trusted.

The City told us to own our plans, to advocate, and to work for their realization. We did. We do.

But now it seems the engaged citizenry of people who care about the future of their neighborhoods has become an inconvenient impediment to the City’s new vision for our community.

If the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan has its way, our neighborhoods, instead of being of unique identities, will simply be part of a larger Sub-Area Plan, subject to the development vision of others.

We formed Tier One Neighborhood Coalition because, from the outset, the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan has not included meaningful representation from neighborhoods and has repeatedly vowed to eliminate existing Neighborhood Plans.

When the SA Tomorrow planning process began in 2015, the city selected 200 people to serve on the nine Plan Element Working Groups. Just five individuals were chosen to represent neighborhoods, and they were all in one group: Historic Preservation and Cultural Heritage.

Planning staff did not incorporate neighborhood concerns from public meetings even though neighborhood stakeholders asked specific questions and shared concerns regarding the status of their plans within the Comprehensive Plan.

Planning staff insisted at these public meetings, during which consultants took copious notes and placed feedback on wall-mounted white butcher paper, that Neighborhood and Community Plans would be reviewed and included in the new plan.

Instead, language in the May 2, 2016 draft of the SA Tomorrow Plan stated that existing Neighborhood Plans would be eliminated, and contained very few protections for neighborhoods while promoting focused infill growth in the urban core.

The newly formed Tier One Neighborhood Coalition scrambled to come up with revised language to keep our Neighborhood Plans intact, add provisions that would prioritize and protect neighborhood stability and sustainability, and assure that neighborhoods would be included in the implementation process.

As a result, the July 20, 2016 “final” draft SA Tomorrow Plan addressed concerns regarding incompatible development and inclusion in the decision-making process during the implementation stage, but there was no assurance that the neighborhood and community plans would remain intact.

Responding to our concerns, Councilman Roberto Treviño intervened and offered an amendment from the dais as City Council was about to pass the plan on Aug. 11, 2016.

His amendment: 1) “On page 17.10, include “Neighborhood and community plans should be respected, as appropriate, as they are integrated into the Sub-Area Plans.” 2) On page 17.14, include additional language related to neighborhood plans that strikes “replace” and adds “incorporate” so that the whole text reads, “The Community Plans should integrate and will eventually incorporate.”

Section 1.3: of the adopted Comprehensive Plan states: “While the Comprehensive Plan is an umbrella policy and planning document with city wide implications, it does not alter or negate our existing neighborhood plans, community plans, sector plans or any other land use plans.”

Then-Councilman Ron Nirenberg underscored that later in 2016 by telling neighborhood leaders: “Existing neighborhood plans will be respected and built upon, not replaced.”

Unfortunately, despite the assurances of Treviño and Nirenberg and the plan’s own directive, the SA Tomorrow Sub-Area Plan process is about to eliminate and replace our existing Neighborhood and Community plans.

The explanation given by the Planning Department when challenged on the status of neighborhood plans is a lot like when a loved one dies, and people tell you that they aren’t really dead as long as you keep them alive in another form in your heart.

Comforting, perhaps for consoling a family member, but less so when we hear it from City government regarding our neighborhoods and the democratic process.

Category: Neighborhood Plans/SA Tomorrow

Neighborhood Plans, Future Land Use, & UDC Amendment 22-21: Issues