Good evening members of the Rate Advisory Committee and thank you for your service to the citizens of San Antonio.
I am the owner of a seven- unit MF property, and I live in one of the units. I have owned the property since April 2006.
For the period 7/10-8/8/2006, the Meter Water Use was 26,184. The bill for that period was $164.48
For the period 9/5-10/4/19, the Meter Water Use for the same period was 25,435. The bill was $334.20. That’s a cost increase of over 100% with about 700 less gallons used.
My property supports seven households with a total of 13 occupants. My rental income has increased 39% over 14 years and most of the increase has been as a result of tenant turnover.
Four of my current tenant households have been with me for over four years and the tenant in one unit has lived in the building since 2005. I value my tenants and because I live at the property, it is important to me that we all have a good relationship. All of my tenants are good, hard working people, but almost all are living paycheck to paycheck. Between the increases in property taxes and the water, I am faced with having to raise their rents by 10% and I’m afraid that not all of them will be able to absorb that. The problem is, they will not find more affordable housing. And because they aren’t SAWS customers and therefore don’t qualify for subsidies and don’t have a voice in this process, I am here for them as well as for me.
I feel like I am being penalized for providing affordable multi-family housing at a time when there is a housing crisis in our city and our country. Several mayors have put together committees and task forces to find solutions. What about giving small multi-family landlords that are providing good, affordable missing middle housing in neighborhoods credit for the role they are playing and setting rates that reflect their contribution.
Lastly, I looked into getting a leak detector for my property, but found out that as a commercial customer I do not qualify for the rebate, so once again I am at a disadvantage.
I urge you to consider the damage that increased rates are doing to the ability for the residents of this city to stay in their housing, whether as homeowners or renters. Once the damage has been done, it will be a long road to recovery.
Cosima sits on the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition and is a Co-Chair of Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association’s (BHANA) Zoning and Urban Design (ZUD) Committee. This statement is a modified version of the original which is available on the Rate Advisory website
“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
On December 12th, City Council will consider the recommendations made by the MF/RM Task Force, created in response to Councilman Trevino’s CCR to address some incompatible development inside neighborhoods.
We ask you to adopt the MF/RM Task Force Recommendations and that you adopt the following recommended change to Note 11:
“Note (11) – The maximum height of any portion of a commercial, office or multi-family zoning district located within fifty (50) linear feet of the property line of an established single-family residential use shall be limited to the maximum height of the single-family district. The height limit shall not apply where an abutting property is zoned single-family residential but not used for residential purposes, such as a church, school, park, golf course but the height limit shall apply to properties abutting a vacant property.
Why we need to limit height next to residential zoning districts (lots):
How a vacant property can affect an adjacent development and ultimately affect an entire neighborhood’s future.
The Zoning Commission’s addition (and DSD’s interpretation) of the recommendation to limit MF (multi-family) height to 35 feet from 45 feet if it abuts a single-family zoned structure would exempt vacant single-family zoned lots because there is always a chance a school or church could be built on the lot.
The chance of a school or a church being built on a residential lot in the middle of a neighborhood is slim but the 45’ height allowed on a multi-family unit could make a single-family residence development unlikely.
If there are two contiguous vacant lots next to a SF residence and the further lot is zoned MF33 it could be developed up to 45’ height because of the vacant lot next to it. As the Mayor’s Zoning Commissioner Ms. McDaniel said, this could make it harder to develop that middle lot as a single-family and could unintentionally create more commercial encroachment into neighborhoods. On the West Side where you have both a large number of SF lots zoned MF33 and numerous demolitions, the current Zoning Commission language, even with CM Trevino’s amendment could lead to widespread negative impacts in those neighborhoods.
Limiting the height of multifamily structures next to a single family zoned vacant lot can decentivize the demolition of single-family homes within a neighborhood.
If a developer can build a higher structure next to a vacant residential lot, then there is a reward to demolishing a home so that a lot is vacant. Councilman Trevino added the addition to the Zoning Commission proposal which states that if a residential property is demolished, the height on the multi-family structure remains at what it would be if there were a structure in place for three years. To land speculators and developers, three years is not a strong deterrent. Rod Sanchez, Director of DSD asserts that even without the term, “vacant lots,” DSD would interpret the code to include vacant lots regardless.
The new language gives neighborhoods real protection and is in keeping with the intent of the CCR.
The addition of “vacant lot” protection lowers the opportunities for incompatible development and the potential for displacement without public input.
Our neighborhoods are struggling with issues of displacement as our neighborhoods become speculative investments. We seek to find compatible and responsible ways to meet the challenges of affordability and density. Creating policies that facilitates expensive and incompatible developments inside our communities easier exacerbates the problems of economic segregation and the lack of affordable housing. These developments are almost always market-rate and too expensive for most of the residents living in our inner-city neighborhoods now. What we ask is a balanced and thoughtful process to address these important issues. If the community wants it, or it is appropriate, developers always have the Board of Adjustment as a recourse. If there are no codified protections, there is no community input.
We ask for compatible development within our legacy neighborhoods to protect not only the built environment, but our legacy neighbors as well. To not do so only exacerbates the problems of income segregation and displacement. We are working to meet the challenges of the future by encouraging compatible development within our neighborhoods, intensity along our corridors and added density through ideas such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and compatible “missing middle” development on our multi-family lots.
What we work for is the future as outlined in the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan. Keeping to this “roadmap of the future” takes support from our elected officials.
Today we ask for your help in finding a healthy balance We appeal to you today as we meet the challenges of the future. Please adopt the recommendations by the MF/RM Task Force with the latest revision today.
Respectfully,
Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee
Cosima Colvin, Christine Drennon, Liz Franklin, Tony Garcia, Jordan Ghawi,
Mary Johnson, Ricki Kushner, Margaret Leeds, Alan Neff, Velma Pena, Monica Savino, Anisa Schell, Cynthia Spielman, Amelia Valdez, Theresa Ybanez
“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-4Fulton 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 RM4Fulton Ave. in Alta Vista, zoned RM4E 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.
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:
Height
Multiple units contained in a single structure (massing)
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The RM/MF Task Force was created in response to Councilman Treviño’s 2017 CCR regarding the municipal code and zoning for residential multi-family properties, specifically zoning categories RM-4 and MF-33. You can view the CCR here. This CCR was filed in response to community concerns over the way lots with these zoning categories are currently being developed.
These two zoning designations (RM-4 and MF-33) are abundant in our inner core neighborhoods. They are the zoning designations most common for the so-called missing middle housing: duplexes, triplexes, and quadriplexes. They are an important tool for density in our neighborhoods, but in the last four or five years, the way these properties are being developed has changed. Instead of the traditional duplexes or quadriplexes (two to four units in one structure), we are seeing more and more developments with four individual, tower-type structures on one lot, such as the ones at 930 W. Craig Place. These developments are typically sold as market-rate, single-family homes with some kind of condo-scheme in the title; not really the traditional – or needed – missing middle housing.
930 W Craig in Beacon Hill – Zoned RM-4
After Councilman Treviño’s CCR was filed, a task force was created. The task force has been meeting monthly over the summer. While I’m not a member of this task force, I have participated in sub-committee meetings, and attended several of the task force meetings as an observer. DSD is facilitating this task force, with Cat Hernandez as the main staff member conducting the meetings.
At the second meeting of the task force, on April 23rd, only three of the appointed neighborhood representatives attended the meeting. They were told that the third and final task force meeting would be the May 28th meeting, but no meaningful changes had been suggested for the pertinent codes. The neighborhood task force members that had attended felt their concerns were being dismissed. They reached out to Tier One for help, and Cosima Colvin did a huge amount of legwork to reach out to the other listed neighborhood representatives to find out what was going on. Some did not even know the task force existed.
– It is unclear how the original task force members were selected or appointed. It is also unclear how they were notified of the task force itself.
The original task force member list posted on DSD’s website on May 24. You can see that the list currently posted on the DSD website has changed.
There seems to be a lack of transparency happening in DSD, and the updates to RM-4 and MF-33 will have a huge impact on all neighborhoods across the city.
Cosima was able to reach Gloria Castillo for D8, and get a representative from D7 (Jorge dela Garza) added to the list of neighborhood task force members. With these additions, the neighborhood task force members were able to start coming up with some recommendations.
Around the same time, I approached Councilman Treviño about a “Slot Home” ordinance that I had heard of in Denver, CO. The Councilman thought this would dovetail with the RM/MF Task Force and issued a memo that it should be incorporated. This was discussed during the May 28th task force meeting, with the neighborhood showing specific examples of why and how they thought Denver’s ordinance could apply to San Antonio. Due to this memo, additional meetings were added to the task force schedule.
Between the May 28th meeting and the June 25 meeting, community members discovered that in a previous version of the Unified Development Code, there was a restriction on the number of structures allowed on a lot. There is a math formula used to determine the number of units per acre (11), found on the Table in Section 35-310 of the UDC. When applied to a 4000 SF lot, the maximum number of units allowed for RM-4 is one. However, since at least 2015 DSD has been allowing up to four units each in an individual structure on a RM-4 lot.
I attended the June 25th task force meeting. The neighborhood representatives inquired about the previous version of the UDC regarding number of structures allowed on a lot. This and other concerns brought up at the meeting were dismissed by Cat Hernandez as typos in the UDC that were fixed in 2015. She did not offer any proof of the typos, or any other specifics. It seems many of the development standards that neighborhoods would support to protect character were removed from the UDC during the 2015 update.
Additionally, during the June 25th meeting, Denver’s Slot Home ordinance was generally dismissed because “Denver has a form-based code,” despite the fact that San Antonio has several form based codes currently in use.
615 Fulton Ave. in Alta Vista, Zoned RM-4
As the neighborhood task force members discussed some of their more specific concerns during the meeting, the task force members from the development community quickly started accusing the neighborhood members of making decisions for areas where they don’t live, specifically citing the west side and Denver Heights, which has a large concentration of RM-4 properties. A lot of time was spent discussing Denver Heights.
Please note that the notes posted by DSD do not reflect my impression of the citizen comments made at the June 25, 2019 meeting.
After the meeting, I sent a request to DSD staff asking that Alan Neff from Denver Heights be added to the task force immediately. Cynthia Spielman reached out to them as well asking that Richard Garcia from Memorial Heights Neighborhood Association and member of the Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition also be added. DSD refused to add either of them.
At the July meeting there was a struggle to reach consensus on the many issues this task force is dealing with. Mike Shannon, the Director of Development Services, suggested they isses be tabled until the 2020 UDC review.
Two Tier One members in attendance at this meeting had their comments recorded by DSD:
Tami Kegley: Inappropriate zoning current exists and should be addressed. Perhaps look at a replat requirement when building a multifamily project, regardless if already platted.
Gemma Kennedy: A conceptual site design review should be required as this will save money in the long run.
Unfortunately these comments were not addressed or taken into account at the subsequent meetings, despite design review being one of the issues brought up n Councilman Treviño’s original CCR.
DSD’s August and September Task Force meeting notes can be viewed here:
Mary Johnson, President of Monte Vista Terrace Neighborhood Association and T1NC Steering Committee Member, has taken the lead in representing neighborhoods at the Task Force meetings. She has stated that there are still several items that don’t seem to be resolved, including heights, the number of individual structures allowed per lot, under-tuck parking, and orientation to the street.
Mary was not alone in this assessment. Cynthia Spielman, another Tier One Neighborhood Coaltion member that attended the September 24th meeting, commented that the developers were still pushing for eliminating the requirement for houses to face the street, and in showing examples of projects built without this orientation, seemed to prove to the community members the need for orientation to be explicitly spelled out in the code.
Despite this continued lack of resolution, DSD has moved forward with issuing a draft of the proposed changes to the pertinent sections of code.
“General Community Meeting(s) will also be held to gather more input from the public. Comments and recommendations made either through meetings or submitted through email will be posted here. Please be clear on each recommendation and its’ basis. Email comments to Kristie Flores, Planning Manager at kristie.flores@sanantonio.gov; her contact number is 210-207-5889.”
RM and MF developments on lots less than one-third of an acre shall be one (1) structure with the appropriate number of units, (i.e. four (4) units in one dwelling on an RM-4 lot).
Under-tuck parking shall not be allowed on RM and MF zoned properties under one-third of an acre. Parking shall be in the rear of the dwelling.
All developments in RM and MF zoned properties on less than one-third of an acre shall be oriented so that the primary entrance of the structure (front door) shall face the street and shall have a visible porch, patio or canopy.
The height of RM and MF zoned developments be limited to 35′ or 2.5 stories when measured to the top of the gable.
On lots with more than one structure and less than 1 acre in size, a preliminary site plan shall be submitted for a preliminary site plan review with the COSA Building Department, and notification shall be sent to the registered neighborhood association and property owners within 200 feet of the property. The building permit number assigned at that time shall be used throughout the building process.
Update (October 15, 2019): The proposed changes will go to the PCTAC on October 21, followed by the Planning Commission on October 23. It will then head to the Zoning Commission in November, followed by the Planning and Community Development Committee and then finally City Council in December or January.
We encourage you to submit comments about the proposed changes in writing to Planning Manager, Kristie Flores and to copy your City Council representative on the email.
Updated to clarify the following terms: “unit,” “dwelling,” and “structure.”
The following update is from Monica Savino of the Dignowity Hill Historic District:
Hey All-
I want to bring to your attention a very important project going on right now that will effect all of us living in Historic, RIO, and Downtown, Neighborhood Conservation Districts, and those who own designated Landmarks. AND those who are interested in designating their neighborhood, portion of as part of any of the above cited districts or a landmark.
OHP has been working with various stakeholders and DSD as a task force in the process to update those UDC ordinances that effect their purview. The draft will be available to the public soon before it goes on the road to City Council and I would urge each of you to make a point to review it when that copy is made public. Again, I don’t have a date but want to get you in the loop now. In the meantime, I can give you a synopsis of what’s being addressed. If any of you want more specific info, please feel free to reply to me directly.
OVERVIEW
Streamline review process and optimize public participation
Improve consistency, predictability, and effectiveness of review
Shorten length of public meetings, reduce commission burnout
Align with 2020 UDC Update Cycle or other process (CCR, policy change, etc.)
STEPS TAKEN
Worked with task force to recommend policy changes
Public input will also inform the recommendations prior to any proposed amendments (me: and this is where you come in!)
Subcommittees formed to review the following issues:
HDRC and administrative review process
Non-owner landmark designation process
Neighborhood-level infill design standards
Downtown and RIO
Other clarifying amendments and minor process improvements.
____________________
To give you an example of subjects we’re discussing for HDRC/Admin topic, there’s talk of increasing the size and configuration of HDRC. Maybe larger with alternates, maybe creating a separate review group for smaller projects, non-conforming work, or other criteria. Also, there’s discussion about expanding the Administrative Review authority (staff approval) that would increase the range of work able to be processed through an Administrative CoA and how to effectively include public comments.
Non-owner landmark designations might have different method for “petitioning” a neighborhood for a building or place landmark along with higher standards of significance.
The Neighborhood Infill topic is very involved as you can guess. There’s talk of application worksheets that will address design criteria such as massing, scale, and context areas, and a new process that will address the problem of infill that requires rezoning. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? What might happen is some sort of hybrid chicken-egg that puts OHP in the driver seat for design related criteria before zoning approvals are given. This isn’t the same as HDRC review but something geared for the zoning process. It’s still in the works and for that reason the Neighborhood Infill group will continue to meet in the coming months to hopefully have a robust yet efficient process in place for next year.
Same with Downtown and RIO – lots of details and work need to be done. And there are other items and concerns we’ve been discussing with the intention of making the submittal processes in OHP more responsive to neighborhoods, consistent, and efficient for all participants.
So . . . If you have a specific topic interest or general interest, have questions or want to keep up with the process, please let me know so that I can keep you in the loop. This UDC revision is a very important activity that happens only once every 5 years and the revisions will effect all of us. I encourage you to get involved.
