by Mary Netherly , King William
January 08, 2022
The OHP Director position would ideally be filled by a registered architect with at least one registered architect on staff. San Antonio did not see the multitude of flaws we’ve all suffered in the last decade+ when a registered architect, with many historic preservation projects on her resume, was director. We didn’t see the high volume of demolition requests nor was San Antonio ranked dismally high in displacements in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Quality outcomes for residents and the historic districts in which they live and the overall success of our inner-city development ought to be top of mind. OHP needs to be audited and reviewed to develop a best practices approach. What we are witnessing in the last decade+ is not best practices. It is sad to see residents who’ve worked so hard to own a home be punished by government flaws that could be readily addressed. OHP is understaffed and outstretched with the rapid expansion of historic districts. There are good programs OHP department has brought forth: the homeowners fair, window restoration education, the house on Main Avenue, historic certification classes, etc.; however, those expand the core mission of the OHP which is to guide and facilitate new design and additions within the Historic Design Guidelines that were painstakingly developed. The purview of OHP has been expanded greatly while the staff has not grown to meet these needs. Will extracurricular programs and activities have to be cut to focus on core responsibilities if there is no increase in staffing to meet the demands of a fair, equitable, open process?
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS need to be audited, not expanded. We have all seen the outcomes of cases where inequitable outcomes have resulted. Taking the process behind closed doors will exponentially increase these undesirable outcomes and negate the democratic public process. A fair and defensible process must remain open. All too often Administrative Approvals cause confusion, the perception of inequity, and unresolved neighbor disputes. Community values must include a more open, not a more closed approach. It is already exceedingly difficult to find information, to receive a simple email response, and to reach staff by telephone. Expanding public access to items under review means developing a Culture of Responsiveness: answering phone calls, returning emails, going out to problematic projects, etc. Allowing 15-30 minutes on a case that has typically been taking 2 – 6 hours does not bode well for public trust or faith in the process. Outcomes could be as bad as the worst cases we’ve seen.
We’ve already seen too many cases where projects rejected by historic district architectural advisory committees then go to OHP and HDRC and are bungled by staff. What is worse is the follow-through on cases once construction is underway, leaving neighbors quarreling and unresolved issues. Customer support (site visits, consultations, etc.) is inconsistent at best. Inconsistent outcomes are a function of the lack of registered architects in leadership and staff positions, understaffing, and preferential treatment of applicants. Public trust has been broken. Taking approvals to an administrative level will further erode public trust in the process, deteriorate design and build outcomes, and exacerbate the tension between the general public and developers. By the time the public is aware there is a problematic case that needs a ‘path to HDRC review,’ it is often well-advanced along the approval process.
Another negative outcome of the increased administrative COA is the shifting of compliance to neighborhoods. OHP already claims that neighbors are the eyes and ears for them, and with additional hidden approvals, neighborhoods will have more work dumped on them. Currently, the Explorer Map doesn’t keep up with required supporting documents and increasing the public’s reliance on them for administrative COA’s is not going to produce a successful outcome.
There are very concerning problems in other areas as well: it seems minor variances are being granted administratively without the BOA process that triggers the ability of public input which is an important part of the process especially for those located next to or near the property being granted the variances. In some cases, this is a taking of some property owners’ privacy and thus the value of their homes. Is the only solution to this problem litigation? City staff may be overreaching in these cases and an audit of all the “minor variances” that have been granted would produce valuable information, especially when big changes are being proposed to the UDC by OHP that further muddle the process.
Can Tier 1 members find at least 2-3 cases in our neighborhoods where we know there have been bad outcomes? We can have these ready to present as evidence against this request for Administrative Approvals to send out to City Council and the City Attorney’s office, etc. We all know cases that seem unfair, that placed a burden on neighbors, that defy logic, that go against the Historic Design Guidelines, and that have been poorly communicated to the public. We are amongst a sliver of citizens who get involved in the UDC amendments and must make the best impact with the evidence we’ve all witnessed!!
Contact Mary Nethery at netherydesign@gmail.com