Next ADU meeting: February 7th at 10 a.m. at NHSD at 1400 S. Flores
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or granny flats, mother-in-law-flats, back houses, pool houses, or garage apartments, whether attached or detached, are a big thing right now. ADUs can allow for extra income to homeowners to help with the rising taxes, they can provide for affordable rentals which are much needed, and they provide density that can help area businesses as well as justify better public transportation and other amenities. Most neighborhood residents throughout San Antonio are allowed to build an ADU on their property, but there is an opportunity to refine the Unified Development Code (UDC) that will make building these units easier for homeowners while also providing protection for neighborhoods.
Tobin Hill, however, has been struggling with an ADU that is substantially taller than its principal home, and seems incompatible with the surrounding area (some have likened it to a “tower”). A neighbor challenged the city’s Development Services Department (DSD) over the approval of the permit for this ADU, and took it to the Board of Adjustment in early August. The board voted in favor of the property owner and not the applicant (the neighbor) who was challenging the building. After the meeting it was expressed that many of the board members were confused about what their vote meant (which was not helped by the fact that DSD put up the wrong information on the screen about who was for and against the project). Consequently, the Board of Adjustment has agreed to vote at the September 16 hearing whether to hear the case again.
Tobin Hill’s Towering ADU
I am a Tri-Chair of the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee in which we are tasked, in part, with finding ways to help residents build ADUs more easily, while protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. We are looking for ways to not only make these structures easier to build, but to also ensure they are built in ways that can be embraced by neighborhoods across the city. We are also looking at ways in which it will be easier to rehab existing ADUs. Many of the UDC code amendments that we want to address include design issues, height restrictions, and definitions and interpretations.
For more information on the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee, please click below:
Update: August 22, 2019. City Council, after hours of testimony, approved the project without addressing the citizens except for Councilwoman Sandoval who applauded Councilwoman Gonzales’ efforts on the project and stated that she hoped that NRP/SAHA would work with the neighbors. Westside neighbors worked for weeks preparing and their efforts were not acknowledged.
Alazan Lofts Project ZONING CASE Z-2019-1070005
Representatives from Historic Westside Residents Association (HWRA), Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition (WNAC), Tier One Neighborhood Coalition (T1NC), and the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center are concerned about the development of the Alazan Lofts, a partnership between San Antonio Housing Authority (SAHA) and NRP on lots on Colorado and Guadalupe. There is no opposition to the density nor to affordable housing which is always welcomed, but the neighborhood groups object strongly to the lack of effort to develop in a way that is compliant with the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan design guidelines, guidelines that were developed by community planners to protect its vulnerable neighborhood. There are major concerns about the lack of meaningful neighborhood input at the beginning of the project. Of the seventeen meetings SAHA claims to have had with community, only three have been about this specific project. Only recently has SAHA and NRP worked with the community to find a solution. The neighborhood groups would ideally like to see the community plan be adhered to with development at two stories, but are advocating for a compromise of three stories and have worked with the site plans to show how this is possible. It will be up to City Council to make this compromise binding. The Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, which is next door to the development, understands the efforts to compromise but supports the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan’s limits of two stories.
Tier One Neighborhood Coalition neighborhoods and its suburban partners are concerned about this development setting a precedence of early project development without community input. In order to make affordable housing a reality, it must have meaningful public input as well as comply with the neighborhood or community plan so that not only can we encourage affordable housing, but also preserve the communities that make up resilient neighborhoods.
The City Council hearing on this development will be Thursday, August 22ndat 2 p.m. The issues of neighborhood engagement and respect for the community/neighborhood plan are important issues for all neighborhoods. Please come to show support if you can.
ZONING CASE Z-2019-10700050 (Council District 5): Ordinance amending the Zoning District Boundary from “MF-33 MLOD-2 MLR-2 AHOD” Multi-Family Lackland Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 Airport Hazard Overlay District to “IDZ-3 MLOD-2 MLR-2 AHOD” High Intensity Infill Development Zone Lackland Military Lighting Overlay Military Lighting Region 2 Airport Hazard Overlay District for multi-family uses not to exceed 90 total units and Non-Commercial Parking Lot on 0.355 acres out of NCB 2415, 0.680 acres out of NCB 2416, 0.191 acres out of NCB 2417, 1.226 acres out of NCB 2439, Lot 16, Lot 17, and Lot 18, Block 2, NCB 2440, located at 1013, 1014, 1015, 1018, 1019, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1101, 1102, 1107, 1114, 1121, 1201 El Paso Street, 210, 214, 316, 318, and 322 Torreon Street, and 803 South Colorado Street. Staff and Zoning Commission recommend Approval.
The funds below are limited and qualified residents should apply immediately. Please keep checking the Neighborhood and Housing Services Department (NHSD) for updates. For more information contact: Jennifer Buxton, 210-207-6459, jennifer.buxton@sanantonio.gov
Fee Waiver Program (previously known as CRIP) offers:
Owner Occupied Rehabilitation
Participants in home repair/rehab through NHSD or non-profit organizations will qualify for
Up to 100% waiver of City and SAWS fees
An exemption from $100 application fee.
Historic Rehabilitation (applies to NCDs)
Owners of residential and commercial structures eligible to be designated as historic may receive waivers for 100% of City fees and 100% of SAWs fees, $150,000 maximum per project.
Projects must be eligible for historic designation
Requires a review by Office of Historic Preservation, regardless of designation.
Note: These funds are now available to residents in all council districts.
Owner Occupied Repair and Reconstruction (OOR)
Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation is still accepting applications for districts 8, 9, and 10 for this fiscal year. Staff will start accepting applications on August 12 for the new fiscal year from all districts, and the application period will end on September 13th. The lottery will be held October 1st.this program assists qualified households with substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction
Available city wide with applied equity metrics
Loans are deferred, forgivable and 0% interest
10-20 year restrictive covenant
Up to $80k for rehab and up to $100k for recon
Households must be below 80% AMI
Under One Roof (U1R)
Replaces worn roofs with an energy efficient white roof. It has the following stipulations:
The roof surface must be less than 1700 sq. ft.
The current roof must be at least 10 years old
Available city wide with applied equity metrics
5-year restrictive covenant
Forgivable grant up to $14k
Households must be below 80% AMI OR 62 years or older OR disabled OR veteran
Minor Repair Program
Minor Repair is still to be decided by the City Manager’s office and Council. NHSD has requested at least $275,000 in their budget for this upcoming fiscal year. They should know by September if this has been approved and for how much.
Lead Hazard Reduction & Healthy Homes
Assists homeowners and landlords create healthy, safe and sustainable homes
Available city wide
Addresses lead hazards and minor safety issues
5-year restrictive covenant
Must have child at least 1 yr and up to and including 5 yrs old – in home at least 6 hrs week
Approximately $35k per unit
Households must be below 80% AMI, no back taxes, clear title, no liens or judgments
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?
The Removing Code Related Barriers for Affordable Housing Committee (RBAH)
What it is: This task force will look at the recommendations made by the Mayor’s Housing Task Force and will will focus on minimum lot size, building setbacks, street construction standards, utilities, storm water management, parks and open space requirements, and tree preservation among other recommendations and ideas. One of the important recommendations is how to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs) less expensively and more easily to help homeowners meet the rising costs of taxes, utilities, etc. and to provide affordable housing to seniors, students, and others. Read: A recent study, “Opportunity at Risk: San Antonio’s Older Affordable Housing Stock,” prepared for the San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) by PlaceEconomics (2019) and
Note: Subcommittees have finished their recommendations and they will be reviewed by the entire task force on Friday, February 28th from 10 a.m. – noon. View the full recommendations here
As a non-profit trying to fill in a void, I was hopeful when the San Antonio Fee Wavier Program was passed, but only recently found out that it was used up almost immediately after it was released. So, we will not be able to get any support from the city. Later this year, we will be building single family homes for $100,000 or less for 60% AMI displaced homeowners (homeowners that can’t afford their homes because of property taxes and needed repairs). Without any support from the city, before we break ground, it will cost us roughly $11k – $21k in permits and fees.
~ $7k SAWS fees ~ $2.5 Zoning fees ~ $1k Permits fees ~ $10k if we need to replot
According to SanAntonio.gov, CCHIP and Fee waivers that were paid out, created 6,819 units.
71% went to producing market rate units – $18.8M in fee waived and $4.2M in loans
5% went to units at 80% AMI – $10M in fees waived and $1.5M in loans
13% went to units at 60% AMI – $6M in fees waived and $726K in loans
2% went to units at 30% AMI – $2M in fees waived and no loans
7% went to units at student units – $1.6M in fees waived and $1.1M in loans
It is unfortunate that most of the fee waiver program, that was thought to be used to increase units produced for low income residents, instead went to market rate housing.
What I am suggesting to this UDC committee is language that differs from non-profit development and for-profit development. When looking at covenants, adjustments, less restraints and more restraints, remember that not all development is for profit, but truly is for the benefit of the community.
As for covenants, consider homeownership vs rentals. When putting these covenants on development for homeownership, though the point may be to allow more low-income residents to become homeowners, know that it is through the sale of a home that can increase the wealth of a low-income person and bring them out of poverty. Restricting what someone can make in a sale of a home, could be making them a glorified renter and still not allow them to move up from the home that they needed the support to obtain to begin with. Perhaps ensuring the city funds that were used are paid back upon sale and have a regressive lien that is incrementally forgiven every few years until completely forgiven. If no other tool other than covenants can be used, know that the average time a homeowner lives in a home is 8-10 years.
My City Is My Home aims to educate and support homeowners and renters to increase their housing choices, please in your work, don’t increase their choices only to later restrict them from obtaining higher opportunities.
We sat in our first session, a form-based code “boot camp” in anticipation and some trepidation. When we were to introduce ourselves to a roomful of developers, land use attorneys, elected officials, planning staff, and consultants, I whispered to my seat partner, “Don’t tell them we are neighborhood and housing advocates.” I suddenly felt like we were strangers in a strange land. As one of the few community advocates attending Congress of New Urbanism, we were.
New Urbanism “is a planning and development approach based on the principles of how cities and towns had been built for the last several centuries: walkable blocks and streets, housing and shopping in close proximity, and accessible public spaces. In other words: New Urbanism focuses on human-scaled urban design…” It promotes ideas such as sustainability, transportation, walkability, density, mixed housing. As its founder, Andres Duany states: “The sum of human happiness increases because of New Urbanism”
Beneath the surface of idealism are complexities and problems that must be addressed. In its implementation, New Urbanist ideals are often played out as development deals. What can result is a commodification of our neighborhoods in which development is valued over community. Its aims may be noble, but the reality, unless there is thoughtful intervention, is that New Urbanist development ideas can cause displacement of community and destruction of neighborhoods. The worst cases are the promotion of market rate development couched in social justice language such as the case with the “density at all costs” proponents. If you have roots or live in the Eastside or Westside of San Antonio, you will recognize the concept: destruction of our history, our communities, and our neighborhoods all for the sake of the “public, greater good” which translates into real estate transactions and seldom fulfills its promise.
We need a way to intervene so that our neighborhoods are nurtured while they change to meet the challenges of the future and that intervention is through the people who live in our neighborhoods.
It was with this in this in mind, that several neighborhood advocates attended the 27th Congress of New Urbanism conference in Louisville in June. It is an influential conference that hosts city staff and developers from all over the country. New Urbanist principles drive city planning policies. We paid for our travel, food, and lodging, as well as some of the workshops at considerable personal expense although we were fortunate to receive a scholarship for most of the classes (thanks to letters written by Mayor Nirenberg and Erika Ragsdale formally of NHSD) so that we could better understand New Urbanist ideas, most specifically, form-based codes. We felt like this was an opportunity to listen and learn, and I did learn a great deal. We brought back useful tools and good ideas to share with community. We cannot move forward, however, until our biggest impediment is addressed: The lack of respect towards community and citizen concerns.
What I found at the conference is that our voices were not welcomed.
This was clear from that first form-based boot camp, when the presenter asked participants to raise their hands if they were city planners, consultants, land use attorneys, or developers. It did not occur to her that there would be community advocates present. That overlook would not be important in itself except that it embodied an attitude we encountered repeatedly.
During the conference, in the workshops I attended (which were mostly on zoning and codes, as well as on equity, housing, and public participation), there was a common thread of hostility towards the public. We were the ones that “killed” their plans, their attempt to “build places people love.” Repeatedly I heard stories of how a project was doing great only to be blocked at the last minute by the public or an elected official “bowing” to public pressure. There were those who admitted that they hadn’t done enough effective public engagement and seemed sincere in their wanting to do a better job. Others barely contained their disgust for the public process.
I heard the public likened to members of the Flat Earth Society, or as the “usual suspect”: bored, alienated, privileged people who are against everything without reason. We were described as ignorant, misinformed busy-bodies who don’t care about the facts, who fear anything new, who don’t know what they want, and don’t represent anyone. This attitude of disrespect seem pervasive in the sessions I attended.
“Positive” remarks about public participation and engagement by many of the speakers were usually patronizing: they would “educate” us, they would help us understand what is good for us. When I suggested the possibility of being educated by us, there was silence.
Most grievous, were ways we heard how city governments and consultants could manipulate or cut us out of the process altogether. It was suggested at one session that politicians find the “courage” to vote for contentious changes by hiring a consultant and allowing the consultant to take the political heat. We were told that city governments should be built for the future unimpeded by those residents who live in them now whatever the consequences. I thought it odd that he thought of city government as something separate from the people it represents.
The most insidious plans came from a presenter who had worked on codes in South Bend, Indiana who described his process. His slide read: “First Rule of Zoning Reform: Fight Club.”
“What happens in Fight Club,” he stated, “stays in Fight Club.” He explained how planners should avoid talking to the public about projects. He cited an example of a change in which the city government created a dense and difficult-to-decipher ordinance which was brought in to the dais quietly, using a low monotone to announce it (he actually modeled the voice) and took a vote quickly. “Nothing to see here” he announced to the audience with a laugh. He explained his “quick fix” method, advocating that cities tell the public that every change they make is a quick fix, no big deal, and by the time there is profound change, “the public won’t know what hit them,” he said. His slide which actually outlined the process read:
Initial Steps: Framed as
“Quick Fixes”
Make Technical Changes in Small Increments
Nothing to See Here.
We sat shocked at the unethical disregard for transparency and public discourse, so elemental to good government and the democratic process. As I looked around, however, people were nodding and smiling, taking notes.
There were also brighter moments:
The next speaker at this particular session, a city planner from Michigan, stood up at the podium and said quietly, “Fight Club would never fly in Kalamazoo” and went on to describe how engagement takes time and how they are struggling. She showed a willingness to try. What struck me was that many of the speakers who were sincere, did not know how to engage. There were workshops on charrettes and bureaucratic processes (run by consultants mostly), but not how to actually partner with community.
We heard challenges and questions: One elected official questioned the notion of unbridled market-rate development as a means of generating affordable housing and pointed out the rise of land values and the real possibility of displacement. Her question was dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders and the stock comment about now the displaced will be richer because their house will be worth more. She just shook her head. We connected afterwards and spoke about our cities and communities sharing our concerns.
What was rarely acknowledged were the concerns of residents (particularly those from marginalized neighborhoods or those vulnerable communities of color), those who see the effects of policies on a micro level and who want to prevent the “unintended consequences” and “collateral effects” of seemingly good intentions. We see how good policy is exploited for short term profit. It takes three years, we were told recently by a land use attorney, to get around any ordinances that stand in the way of developers. It is in this winner take all climate that we are forced to fight exploitation instead of the more useful process of working together to find solutions help our communities as we face future challenges.
Can you imagine if it were different? What would it look like to live in a city in which decisions about our neighborhoods and community were made by a partnership of community and our government when we are directly affected? A city in which the implementation stage of good policy would not be corrupted by monied interests? Can you imagine the opportunities to confront the economic divide, the inequities caused by displacement and lack of affordable housing? As it stands, the City seems to operate on the notion that if change can’t be implemented by for –profit developers, then it has no merit. This approach is killing our communities and neighborhoods, making the problems of economic segregation more severe and severely eroding public trust in their city departments and elected officials.
Much of what I describe above would be bad enough on its own, but what hit home, is that advocates have felt the use of these attitudes and tactics in San Antonio. There are bridges being built between neighborhoods and city staff and the inclusion in technical working groups, task forces, and committees has moved us forward. We have the newly adopted Public Participation Principles, but these principles are only a start as we strive to move towards transparency and trust. Already we have felt resistance to meaningful implementation.
The truth is we cannot solve problems and protect vulnerable communities without a partnership with CoSA. Neighborhoods, social justice, and environmental groups simply cannot do it without cooperation with our city, county, and state governments. On the other hand, the City will continue to face mounting resistance if they do not include us in the decision-making process. Elected officials have already felt a backlash from voters as we make neighborhood issues, voting issues. We are seeing more inclusion of neighborhood residents in the process, but we still have a ways to go. How do we better understand the role of the development in making our city a better place to live, not only for tourists, or for those moving or are born here in the future, but for those of us that have invested our lives in this city and are contributing to it, sustaining it, and living here now? Creating and preserving sustainable, affordable, compatible, and attainable housing and an equitable city now insures a better city for future residents.
Unified Development Codes (UDC) Changes Happening Now
The UDC changes are happening now and it is important for neighborhoods to be involved. There are neighborhood leaders sitting on those committees, but we all need to be attending and supporting those leaders with input and help. Several committees and technical working groups (TWG) are meeting now:
The Removing Code Related Barriers for Affordable Housing Committee (RBAH)
What it is: This committee will look at the recommendations made by the Mayor’s Housing Task Force and will will focus on minimum lot size, building setbacks, street construction standards, utilities, storm water management, parks and open space requirements, and tree preservation among other recommendations and idea
Why it is important: The kind of “by right” incentives for mixed-unit projects may be controversial. There is an effort to focus on non-profit affordable housing producers instead of giving more incentives to pro-profit developers for market rate housing. Read Rich Acosta’s (My City is My Home) remarks at the first meeting about the problems non-profit developers of affordable housing face.
Meetings: Meetings will be the second Monday of the month until December at 11:30 p.m. at One Stop (1901 S. Alamo) Board Room. RBAH meetings will be suspended while the subcommittees meet (see below).
Next Meeting: The task force has been divided into subcommittees: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), Public Outreach, and Regulatory Cost Burdens. The regular task force will not meet for a while to give time for the committees to complete their work.
Subcommittee Meetings held at NHSD at 1400 S. Flores
Removing Barriers to Affordable HousingPublic Engagement & Outreach • Wednesday, October 30th from 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm • Wednesday, November 20th from 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm • Wednesday, December 11th from 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Accessory Dwelling Units • Friday, November 1st from 10 am – 11:30 am • Friday, November 22nd from 10 am – 11:30 am • Friday, December 13th from 10 am – 11:30 am Regulatory Cost Burden • Wednesday, November 6th from 2 pm – 3 pm • Tuesday, November 26th from 2 pm – 3 pm • Wednesday, December 18th from 2 pm – 3 pm
The UDC Task Force – Historic/OHP/HDRC
What it is: The Historic UDC Task Force is working on UDC for historic districts and the process for designation. Read update from Monica Savino.
Why is important: This task force is not only important for historic districts: Design codes could be the model for any form-based codes that they City may consider in the future for compatible infill. Meetings will take place every two weeks from 3 – 5 p.m. on Thursdays from July 11 to September 12, 2019 at One Stop (1901 S. Alamo).
Next Meeting: This committee has adjourned. Its recommendations will presented in other committees and boards. Schedule TBA
What it is: MF/RM Committee is working through issues about those lots zoned MF-33/RM-4 in our neighborhoods. This committee is a result of a CCR by D1 Councilman Trevino. Read MF/RM Task Force Issues and MF/RM Task Force Update
They are also working on, at his request, Denver’s ordinance restricting or banning “slot homes” condos or apartments crowded into a lot that face one another which have been the model for developers in the downtown neighborhoods. There has been an effort to include a representative from the Westside and Denver Heights because they will be directly affected but DSD has denied the requests for inclusion.
Why it is important: Cosima Colvin explains how important this issue is on Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Face Book page: “Several of the T1NC Neighborhoods are on the Task Force and have worked with other T1NC members on an ad hoc committee to develop language that will address the concerns that many of our neighborhoods have regarding these two zoning categories and how to balance developers’ “by right” development choices with neighborhood preservation. We strongly urge neighborhoods to check DSD’s Zoning Map webpage to see where you may have RM4 and/or MF33 Zoning in your neighborhoods and understand what those zoning districts/categories will allow. More info is available here: https://www.sanantonio.gov/DSD/Resources/Codes#233873531-rm-4–mf-33-ccr
So far neighborhood representatives are facing stiff opposition from the development community on the committee and need support. See Mary Johnson’s (Committee member and President of Monte Vista Terrace) interview here .
Next Meeting: This committee has adjourned. Recommendations will be reviewed by PCTAC on Monday, October 21st at 9 a.m. at Board Room at Development Services, 1901 S Alamo St.
