A trend towards helping legacy downtown neighborhoods is gaining momentum as neighborhoods organize and advocate for their survival. We have turned the narrative to one of development (exploitation) of neighborhoods to one of protection and compatible development. It has taken education, organizing, attending meetings. and speaking out. This victory is not just for a few neighborhoods in District 1, but all neighborhoods who seek this kind of protection.
A giant step was taken to provide for relief for downtown neighborhoods when District 1 Councilman Roberto Trevino filed and passed an important CCR (City Council Consideration Request), the “Request for Large Area Rezoning of Properties” which was filed on October 5, 2017 and passed City Council unanimously November 9th at A Session. The Councilman’s office was flooded with letters of support from the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition and area neighborhoods such as West End Hope in Action, Alta Vista, Beacon Hill, River Road as well as others. Monte Vista produced 210 signatures on a petition as well as emails (113 were from the targeted areas specifically). Representatives from Monte Vista and River Road spoke in favor of the CCR. and others, such as Alta Vista and Beacon Hill spoke at the Citizen’s to be Heard on November 4th. Monte Vista should be especially lauded as an example of community organizing for this CCR. Councilman Trevino should be commended for protecting the neighborhoods in his district.
The CCR seeks to correct incompatible zoning (the result of error) of relatively large tracts in Monte Vista, River Road, Alta Vista and Beacon Hill, as well as the West End Hope in Action neighborhoods.
Mike Shannon, Planning, presented the history of zoning in SA and how the errors occurred. The original zoning was enacted in 1938, and in 1965 COSA adopted categorical zoning districts. In 2001 COSA adopted the UDC conversions. Often errors occurred in which “properties not zoned for what they have right now.”
The City staff will do field research and meet with neighborhoods and with specific property owners. No zoning of a property will be done without consent of the property owners. However, owners of homes will find that their taxes will be lowered by down zoning and there may be other incentives for change such as neighborhood stability.
The fiscal impact of examining a total of 1,231 acres will be about $24,380 of application fees absorbed by DSD. Process will begin after the rezoning of Eastern Triangle and World Heritage which will be around the summer of 2018.
The lone person who spoke in opposition called the change “reactionary and arbitrary” and that “exclusionary” zoning will discourage future workforce housing in already expensive neighborhoods. But as Councilman Trevino pointed out, these MF-33 properties have single-family, often historic homes, on them; they are not empty lots. There are other multifamily designations that allow for multifamily structures such as RM 4-6 and MF-18 that are more compatible. Some of these erroneous zonings are for industrial uses, not housing. The reality is that in D1 downtown neighborhoods, no developers are proposing affordable work-force housing. As one land use attorney put it, it is economically unfeasible. Affordable housing is being built, he stated, is going to be on inexpensive and large tracts of land with City incentives. Those conditions do not exist in downtown now.
In West End, the zoning corrections will stabilize land use in an area that has historically been the target of inequity in planning. Many buildings sit vacant and many properties violate codes but it is difficult to target when the zoning is incompatible (an example was made of someone is operating an auto repair shop out of a church structure.)
Councilman Trevino stated that this CCR would correct a “multitude of zoning errors…correcting a legacy of incompatible zoning” in District 1 and was in response to neighborhoods’ concern over incompatible infill for density in their communities.
The vote to approve was unanimous, with D5 Councilwoman Gonzalez absent. D7 Councilwoman Sandoval inquired about the process for other districts to correct these kinds of large tract zoning errors. Mike Shannon told her that each district would complete the same process. The Council members who signed off on Trevino’s CCR were from Districts 2,9,4, and 6.
The specific areas targeted for rezoning: Maps on CCR
Areas of Monte Vista as indicated in the adjacent map
- South of West Mulberry Ave, and areas adjacent to East Mulberry Ave
- South of Hildebrand and East of McCullough
- Areas in the northern portion of River Road NA, and areas inside of District 2 just north of
their boundary along Mulberry as indicated in the adjacent map
- Areas of Beacon Hill and Alta Vista: South of Gramercy, North of Ashby, West to
Fredericksburg, and east to San Pedro as indicated on adjacent map
- The District 1 Portion of WEHA south of Culebra, north of Leal St., East to Colorado St. and
following the western boundary of the district as indicated on adjacent map
“These four areas have been identified as those neighborhoods in District 1 with the largest sections of these code conversion errors, and therefore present themselves as candidates for large area re-zonings to correct these inaccuracies. This will improve the quality of life for these areas, especially those which have industrial zoning in residential areas, and help implement the land use plans as intended for these areas. One of the four areas mentioned would include the Midtown area.” (CCR)
There are several more CCRs coming up that need support: Councilman Trevino’s CCR addressing incompatible infill, “Review of the current IDZ (Infill Development Zone) Zoning Designation” as well as the ”Request to Discuss and Propose Solutions to Current Issues Facing Multi-Family Zoning Designations” and D6 Councilman Brockhouse’s CCR, “Review of City Incentives for Residential and Commercial Projects”
You state that “neighborhoods organize and advocate for their survival,” which I find to be awfully strong language about zoning. There is no real threat to your neighborhood, except that which is inevitable: an ongoing metamorphosis that will necessarily be welcomed if we are to evolve with the future of this city and the generations to come that will call San Antonio home.
You state that development equals “exploitation,” failing to consider that nearly every home in our nation was built by someone who could be labeled a developer. Incentivizing development is necessary in order to accommodate the growth we will surely experience, in light of the fact that our land use codes and financing mechanisms are too restrictive to achieve the number of new units we need all on its own.
You mention “compatible development,” but what is compatible anyway? You and I would probably agree that a paper mill is incompatible with residential development, or that an 8-lane freeway should not be adjacent to an elementary school. But beyond that, there is no real definition for what is compatible or incompatible when it comes to development. If you look at the original plat for Beacon Hill Terrace, for example, it was intended for narrow-lot development, such as townhouses. You could make a clear argument, using your own logic, that almost every home built in that portion of Beacon Hill is incompatible with the historical intent for the neighborhood.
Is it really a victory to you that properties are downzoned so that fewer families have the opportunity to enjoy the amenities that you have been so fortunate to buy into? When you are “protecting the neighborhoods,” with this move, what exactly are you protecting them from? Young professionals? Renter families who cannot afford to buy a detached home? Senior citizens who can no longer maintain a yard? People of color, who we know experience the inequities of lower wages and underemployment? Preserving single-family detached zoning will not be seen as a victory to most of these people, and using your councilman to prolong land use patterns that were built on racist intent is shameful.
You also state, “Owners of homes will find that their taxes will be lowered by down zoning.” Seriously, where did you get this information? I have never once heard a legitimate argument that your taxes would be based on the property’s zoning.
The bottom line here is this: children being born today are likely to live into the 22nd Century. With that in mind, does this zoning fight you’ve been waging make San Antonio a welcoming and sustainable place for them. The answer is unequivocally ‘no.’
I was really happy to see this CCR which is going to help so many of our residents in the downtown neighborhoods. I especially appreciated the time Chrissy McCain from the D1 office took to explain this process, how the areas were identified, how they would be affected, and that owner consent would be obtained. This CCR is just good sense.