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?
See interview with State Representative Bernal on NowCastSA.com about anti SLAPP during the controversy here
Several years ago, my neighborhood association and each one of its members personally were threatened by a local powerful developer with a lawsuit. We were told that not only would we be sued as an association but each one personally would be “tied up for life” in an expensive legal battle. He said he had lawyers on retainer, so it did not matter to him how long he could drag it out.
Our offense? We disagreed about how CoSA interpreted our NCD guidelines for a chain gas station he was developing, raised the $600 filing fee, and filed an appeal to the Board of Adjustment. On the very same day, we were threatened with a law suit. The point for the developer was not winning the suit, but dragging us all through years of litigation.
It was a dark moment when our association board sat at my dining room table with our zoning committee and we decided to pull the appeal. We could not compete with all that money and power.
Soon after, our State Representative Diego Bernal and State Senator Menendez let us know about the Anti-SLAPP law that would protect us as we lawfully advocated or took actions to protect our neighborhoods or communities and they would stand by our side. The anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law, also known as the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), passed in 2011, protects first amendment rights, public participation and the media. The TCPA protects against abusive behavior by allowing for early dismissal of such suits and ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s legal fees. Although it had become too late to file our appeal, we understood that in the future we would be protected.
Until now.
House Bill 2730 by Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, would gut the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a law that protects average citizens from being financially ruined by meritless defamation lawsuits filed by plaintiffs with deep pockets. The past eight years the law has protected common people who dare to speak their minds on matters of public concern.
HB 2730 and SB 2162 threaten the Texas anti-SLAPP law
The bills currently proposed would undermine the Texas Citizen Participation Act (TCPA), which has become the model for similar legislation in other states. The TCPA allows the courts to quickly dismiss meritless defamation and other lawsuits designed to silence everyday people as well as the press. Such meritless claims – so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits — are routinely filed by people with deep pockets not to ultimately succeed in the courts but to run up legal costs in order to intimidate or stop free speech.
For example, House Bill 2730 and SB 2162 would allow the entity accused of filing a meritless lawsuit to drop their case just days before a hearing. This effectively allows an entity to sue a media company for defamation, receive a hearing date, and then drop the lawsuit days before a hearing to avoid a bad ruling and the cost of the defendant’s legal fees.
Where HB 2730 is now:
Currently HB 2730 is being considered by the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence who heard testimony on April 1st.
This is a dangerous bill that would put community leaders in jeopardy as they advocate for their neighborhoods in lawful and exercise their constitutional right to free speech.
CoSA and Neighborhood Protection
Our neighborhood association, and then Tier One Neighborhood Coalition, asked that CoSA make a public statement that they would support any citizens who participated in their lawful rights to advocate for their neighborhoods. Then Mayor Taylor promised to do so, but it never happened though we have asked repeatedly. Now we have submitted this request as part of the implementation of the Public Participation Principles.
What Can You Do?
Contact the following Committee members today to demand that they do not silence our advocacy. Please also write your local state and senate representatives.
One of the basic tenets of the Public Participation Principles is that of inclusion and transparency, of equal access to information. Neighborhoods have worked diligently to insert themselves in the decision-making process (in decisions that affect their neighborhoods and communities) have benefitted from these ideals.
The act of registering neighborhood associations on the Neighborhood and Housing Services Department bestows the associations the privilege of receiving zoning changes and other notifications that are within their boundaries. But other organizations or coalitions who have fulfill the basic requirements and who have an interest in zoning or development issues do not receive these notifications by CoSA.
Privileging one type of organization over another works against the spirit of the Public Participation Principles and are a hindrance to meaningful public engagement. CoSA should recognize and send notices to any community and/or advocacy organization or coalition that meets the standards and makes a request upon registration. Broader communication and inclusion of citizen input is the center of the Public Participation Principles. The inclusion of registered organizations and coalitions in the notification process fulfills the following specific principles:
INCLUSIVE – Engage a broad range of stakeholders, with particular emphasis on those who do not normally take part in City public participation process; make every effort to ensure that stakeholder groups do not feel left out of the process.
CONVENIENT – Make it as easy as possible to engage with the City; provide multiple opportunities for the public to provide input; when possible, meet people where they are instead of only requiring them to show up at a public meeting; utilize the power of digital communications while being mindful of technology gaps.
RESPECTFUL – Consider all input received, including differing viewpoints, while balancing the interests of all stakeholders.
CoSA needs to create a new outreach category to increase access to information to increase engagement.
My name is Gloria Pacheco Hernandez, and I am the President of the Las Palmas Neighborhood Association, which is part of the larger Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition.
I come before you to advocate the need for a sensible and mutually agreeable plan to save the Cattle Egrets birds, who were near extinction at one time, as well as other bird species of Bird Island in Elmendorf Lake Park.
The Egrets and other birds love to roost at Elmendorf Lake, especially on Bird Island, adjacent to the Our Lady of the Lake campus. They also like to eat at the Covel Gardens Landfill, because there are a lot of insects there. They are constantly flying back and forth between the two locations. But flying between the two locations causes problems when the birds interfere with aircraft. Therefore, many local officials and area military officials see the birds as a problem, threatening aviation in the area. What to do about the birds has become a combative issue, especially for bird advocates and those of us who live in the area and do not see the birds as a major problem. Right now, the birds are contained in their natural habitat, and they are not causing any great damage.
The park, lake, birds, and other natural wildlife, add to the beauty of the neighborhood as well as affords researches and students an opportunity to study this unique inner-city area, the birds and other wildlife. Elmendorf has become a hot spot for area residents and bird watchers, who have a chance to see and study as many as 40 varieties of birds. Destroying the birds present habitat could result in them moving onto other public property and causing thousands and even millions of dollars in damage. It could also put the Egrets once again at danger of becoming extinct. We want to be a bird-friendly community. Birds like and deserve healthy living environments, just as we as humans like and deserve healthy environments.
Presently, the community/public has not been provided with sufficient documented information and data to support the birds are a severe threat to the airspace near Lackland AFB and Port San Antonio. Which leads me to believe there has not been an actual, in depth study of the situation. Therefore, I am requesting that the military and local officials and agencies involved work together to find an alternate solution to this matter and not relocate the birds from their natural habitat.
Written by the Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association Board of Directors: Joanie Brooks, President; Stephen Amberg, Vice President; Homer “Butch” Hayes, Treasurer; Camis Milam, Secretary; Jennifer Norton, Estrada Polly, and Noel Matthew Shaddock
A Call for Action by the Housing Commission to Protect and Preserve Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods San Antonio’s debate about how to secure affordable housing close to the city core is urgent. As a fast growing city with an anticipated additional one million people expected in the next 25 years, we are a prime target for developers. New people who desire urban living need affordable housing close to downtown to live and work at the same time that existing affordable housing in those areas is being demolished in favor of upper middle-class housing, which is displacing current residents. Our city government must address this growing crisis with a broader set of goals and tools than currently in use. The City should develop policies to sustain current affordable workers’ housing and to prevent displacement as it encourages infill development in the Downtown and Midtown areas.
The City has stated that it is committed to increase affordable housing and preserve existing central city neighborhoods. At the first meeting of the Housing Commission to Protect and Preserve Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods, on September 24, 2015, John Dugan, director of the Department of Planning and Community Development stated, “The Housing Commission will have a key role in developing new policies and programs to increase the supply of affordable and workforce housing.” The Housing Commission plans to develop policies and programs to protect and preserve existing central city neighborhoods. It also shares our concerns about affordability and preservation of existing communities. “We are seeing significant reinvestment in many of the neighborhoods located inside Loop 410,” Dugan said. “As new residents move in, we want to ensure that existing residents are not pushed out and the qualities that make these neighborhoods dynamic and diverse are not lost.” The City should now undertake to specify parameters for increased density in and around established Midtown residential neighborhoods, which are already dynamic and diverse, but whose qualities are threatened by inappropriate new development.
Recent developments in Mahncke Park illustrate where stable working class neighborhoods are in direct conflict with developers’ plans for inner tier development and profit. Mahncke Park (MP) is a residential neighborhood in the Midtown Regional Center, which is currently in Year 1 of the SA2020 Comprehensive Plan process, which is projected to gain 1,000 new families by 2040 as well as new businesses and jobs. Because MP has diverse and affordable housing of good quality that is proximate to the Downtown – located south of Alamo Heights between Brackenridge Park and Fort Sam – it has become a magnet for investors who seek to capitalize on rising interest and values. MP is struggling to maintain its identity as a vibrant community of people, who are diverse by income, age, ethnicity, occupation and talents and who share a common interest in maintaining this vibrancy. However, the City’s current housing development policies do not allow MP to protect the values of stability with change, affordable housing stock, and the historic residential fabric of the built environment and community life.
Mahncke Park (MP) is undergoing rapid change as affordable housing is demolished and replaced by upper middle income and luxury homes. MP has roughly 5,000 thousand residents who now live mostly in modest single-family homes, duplexes and quadraplex apartment buildings, and some larger multiunit low-rise apartment buildings, which were built from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. In the new environment, businesses have been allowed to encroach on residential streets and, on the southern side of the neighborhood, homes and apartment buildings that have fallen into various levels of neglect are 2 being snapped up by developers. They are then demolished and replaced with blocks of cookie-cutter “town” homes and condos.
The Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) wants to protect affordable housing and MP’s historic fabric as it supports the SA Comprehensive Plan for greater density in Midtown where it is appropriate. Some developers have worked well with MPNA to make modifications to their plans to accommodate historic values, but others reject community input.
One egregious case where the historic fabric of the MP community is being lost is the Imagine Homes projects. This case also demonstrates the limits of the City’s current policies for appropriate and sustainable development. Imagine Homes (IH) has already demolished homes and apartment buildings and replaced them with upper middle class town homes; it has applied for approval to demolish six more buildings. Claremont Street is being systematically transformed from its heterogeneous residential character to a monoculture of gentrification. IH’s signature project is a single-family house on a 25-foot lot with a front-loaded garage, which is specifically not allowed by the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) guidelines. The City adopted the MP Neighborhood Plan in 2004 and the NCD was approved in 2008. The NCD design overlay states that lots greater than 45 feet wide will have garages behind the plane of the house façade. There were no extant lots less than 50 feet wide over the past 50 years. Imagine Homes has made the case to the Development Services Department that the original 1928 platting of the Natalen Terrace area with 25-foot lots should have prior legal authority over later zoning and design guidelines. Imagine Homes is purchasing extant lots with buildings that encompass two or more plats and dividing them up into 25-foot single-family home lots. DSD states that the NCD guidelines do not apply and that zoning regulations do not prohibit what IM is doing. (See the satellite photo of Claremont.)
The Mahncke Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) has requested a Change Request (CCR) to revise its NCD with the hope of blocking this practice. City Council approved the CCR, but DSD has reiterated the stance that the new NCD will not supersede the 1928 platting. This may well be a correct reading of zoning rules, but the resultant situation is unworkable for the neighborhood and the City. This case calls out for a new policy to govern development to be swiftly considered and acted on.
Debate has gelled on the need for a broader appreciation of our residential fabric than only physical assets. The September 5, 2017 edition of the Rivard Report included an article from Next City reporter Johnny Magdaleño that suggests the proper perspective from which to consider change. It notes that “Part of the value of the UNESCO World Heritage designation includes the ‘intangible heritage’ of people. It’s not the restaurant, it’s the chef,” says William Dupont, director of the Center for Cultural Sustainability at University of Texas at San Antonio. “So, as the city is looking at that, they’re concurrently taking a look at all of their policies citywide, [recognizing] displacement of the people can now cause loss of economic potential.” We urge the Housing Commission to not only look, but to adapt the City’s “equity lens” budget analysis for a new policy to sustain residential equity by protecting the existing community diversity of people and housing stock.
The Mayor and Council must act in a timely way to broaden the policy discussion about affordable housing and city development in ways that address preservation of our neighborhoods’ diversity, culture and heritage. The housing we are living in now is affordable housing. However, it is being torn down and replaced by housing that is not affordable for current residents and/or replaced by affordable housing that is subsidized by the taxpayers.
We recommend the following action items to our City officials.
1. We need a moratorium on the demolition of existing affordable housing until a new housing policy is enacted.
2. The City needs to address historical platting that is antagonistic to the context of current usage and design guidelines in order to maintain the historic diversity of neighborhoods.
3. The Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force should develop strategies and policies to preserve and rehabilitate existing residential structures.
4. The Task Force should conduct a survey of rents in the sub-area neighborhoods of Midtown.
5. The new policies to preserve existing affordable housing should include support for individuals who own properties, but cannot afford to maintain them, in the form of grants and low cost loans.
6. The new policies should also support long-term residents with appropriate assistance to be able to age in place.
7. The Midtown Regional Planning Task Force should not abandon neighborhood plans, but use them as directives for new zoning maps.
8. There must be neighborhood membership in all decision-making bodies that formulate policies for residential neighborhoods that is at least equal to the representation of development interests.
9. Transportation Corridor planning boundaries for development must be re-scaled from a half-mile to the actual abutting properties while the traffic study boundaries remain in place.
Changes can create tension and alienation and ultimately, displacement.
Change can create safer neighborhoods, pedestrian oriented streetscapes which improves the health of its community, and can revitalize local businesses. Change can be a catalyst to solve problems.
The next decade will be about what kind of change we want in our neighborhoods and communities. It will be about educating ourselves and coming together and making our voices heard. These are exciting, as well as frustrating, times. Neighborhoods San Antonio is about exploring issues and concerns, coming up with solutions and ideas, and hearing from the people in our neighborhoods who are making a difference.
