Express-News Commentary on the similarities between development issues and the tree ordinance

This op-ed was published originally in the Express News: Commentary: Tree exception has become the rule” (February 9, 2021) by Cynthia Spielman and Cosima Colvin, Steering Committee members of the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition.

Re: “Killing Trees,” by Brian Chasnoff, Front Page, Jan. 24

The fact that in every instance, Michael Shannon and the city of San Antonio’s Development Services Department waived the tree ordinance to make exceptions for developer requests is unsurprising to anyone working on neighborhood issues.

An “arbitrary approach to the codes” is something people living in downtown neighborhoods feel they are faced with almost every time a developer wants a zoning change or variance for a project, no matter how incompatible or against the “spirit of the ordinance.” When every case is treated as an exception, the exception becomes the rule.

Residents have seen, repeatedly, how Development Services works with the development community to discard the standards in the Unified Development Code to preserve our natural and built environments. Even in neighborhoods “protected” by a zoning overlay (historic districts or neighborhood conservation districts), Development Services staff has helped developers overbuild lots to maximize profits.

Time after time, Development Services staff approves plans, including exceptions to legal ordinances, that continue to erode our neighborhoods through their interpretations of code. We ask ourselves, much like Debbie Reid, a former city arborist quoted in the article, why have ordinances or standards if every exception is approved? Like the tree ordinance, these standards have become a façade of protection.

Residents work tirelessly to get Development Services to adhere to the ordinances on the books. This places undue burden on the people of this city, especially those with the fewest resources. Meanwhile, the development community is almost always included in discussions regarding new ordinances that will affect it and all too often influences how those ordinances are written.

We mistakenly think Development Services works for residents when actually it serves developers, who are their customers. It is funded by permits and developer fees. We naively expect Development Services to regulate the very entities on whose success it depends.

When the city does try to develop and implement policies that are more community-friendly, it has the challenge of defending those measures against a state government that weighs in on the side of developer. When you have someone like state Sen. Roland Gutierrez sitting within that house of power maneuvering for an exception, it becomes a daunting task indeed to say, “No.”

It should be the job of the city to strike a balance that benefits developers and residents. When the city stands behind and enforces its ordinances, exhibiting a culture of consistency rather than leniency, everyone knows the rules and can plan accordingly. Developments are more likely to be compatible with the neighborhood and contribute to its revitalization and stability.

We appreciate Chasnoff and Reid for bringing this issue into the light, and we appreciate the hard work of neighborhood leaders who, without the benefit of attorneys and staff, work tirelessly to hold developers and the city to account. We hope Chasnoff continues investigating other areas where Development Services is failing to hold developers accountable to the laws that City Council has passed.

Cynthia Spielman and Cosima Colvin sit on the steering committee of the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition.

NFL pioneer’s boyhood home may become historic San Antonio landmark, despite owner’s opposition

Scott Huddleston, Staff writer

San Antonio Express-News

Jan. 28, 2021 Updated: Jan. 28, 2021 7:36 p.m.

A 1921 Craftsman bungalow in the Beacon Hill area north of downtown, the boyhood home of one of San Antonio’s first athletes to play in the National Football League, appears headed for historic landmark designation by the City Council in the spring.

But it’s not a done deal.

There are those who say granting landmark status for the house at 1206 W. Agarita St. seems too much like punishing the owner.

Commissioner Gabriel Velasquez of the city’s Historic Design and Review Commission opposes the designation, saying it would be “an abuse of the intention of the designation to single out a property” whose owner, after initially seeking demolition, now is preserving it.

“It gives the appearance of a consequence, of a penalty, and in this case it’s a consequence and a penalty for doing the right thing,” Velasquez said.

But fellow commissioners disagreed; they voted 7-2 for landmark designation last week. The City Council will have the final say in April.

If landmark status is awarded, the current and future owners would be eligible to receive local tax incentives for structural rehabilitation, but would have to secure approval from the city for exterior work.

On ExpressNews.com: NFL great’s boyhood home may become historic

Rodrigo Velasquez, whose family now owns the house — no relation to the HDRC commissioner — said it’s poorly timed implementation of new regulations occurring after the house and others in the neighborhood already have been altered through window replacements, additions and other changes.

“We just feel it’s a little unfair, that it’s raising our costs, when we have competitors now that are also renovating in that area that don’t have to go through that historic designation,” Rodrigo Velasquez said.

The city’s Office of Historic Preservation and Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association have said the house qualifies as a landmark for its architectural features; its ties to the late Damon Tassos, who played in the NFL in the 1940s, and his family, which was active in the local Greek community; and its significance and contribution to the neighborhood, which the preservation office has determined itself is eligible for historic district status.

Cosima Colvin, co-chair of the neighborhood association’s zoning and urban design committee, said a landmark designation proposed for the house had “overwhelming support” from residents.

The family that now owns the property filed a demolition request in August, with plans to develop town homes on a half-acre tract, but since has withdrawn the demolition application and is returning the house to its original appearance.

“The pressure that our neighborhood is under for development and redevelopment has reopened the conversation of going historic, and we look forward to working with OHP to reintroduce the concept to our membership so that we have a robust conversation of the pros and cons,” Colvin told the commission.

The case tentatively is set for consideration by the Zoning Commission on March 2, with final action by the City Council on April 1.

The council had unanimously passed a resolution in December to start the designation process.

Despite the preservation office’s efforts to engage the public on potentially historic properties and to be more proactive on initiating designations, many houses and building are given landmark status only after an owner has sought demolition.

HDRC Commissioner Curtis Fish spoke in favor of declaring the house a landmark.

“This project isn’t one that’s been singled out,” Fish said. “We see a number of cases that are initiated by demolition requests.”

Rodrigo Velasquez said he will appeal the commission’s decision to the City Council because he believes the landmark decision would be onerous.

He pointed out that instead of tearing down the house and building town homes there, he’s rehabbing the house and developing two single-family residences on the tract.

Tassos memories

Cynthia Tassos Phillips, a daughter of Damon Tassos, has a unique perspective, with memories of her grandparents’ home and stories of her father, aunt and uncle having grown up there on Agarita.

She remembers the rambling porch; a bathroom, the only one in the house at the time, that had black wallpaper covered with pink flamingos; and the tantalizing aromas of olive oil, oregano, garlic, lemon juice and spices used in pastitsio, a baked pasta dish, and other Greek culinary staples.

Her grandfather, Gus Tassos and his brother, Charles Tassos, had come to the United States after World War I, seeking economic opportunity, and built two houses on Agarita in 1921. Charles was a trustee and founding member of St. Sophia’s Greek Orthodox Church, established in 1924.

“They came to America with nothing, like many people did back in those days, and worked hard, made the kids work hard, made the grandkids work hard,” Cynthia Tassos said. “I could tell you exactly where everything is in that house, and I loved every bit of it — and have the best memories.”

Her father, Damon Gus Tassos, played football at Jefferson High School, became a team captain at Texas A&M and went on to the NFL, playing as a guard and linebacker for the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers from 1945 to 1949.

He was known as “The Greek” in sports circles. San Antonio Express-News archives show he had five interceptions, kicked three extra points and played alongside such early NFL Hall of Fame figures as Don Hutson, Sammy Baugh and Sid Luckman.

At Texas A&M, Tassos was in a group of freshmen and sophomore players called the “Kiddie Korps,” since the team’s upperclassmen all had been called away to duty in World War II.

After his NFL career, Tassos owned Damon’s restaurant at Austin Highway and Broadway. His cousin, Bill Tassos, opened the Barn Door in 1953. The well-known steakhouse still operates under the same name but with different ownership.

Damon Tassos died in 2001.

His daughter said the family often gathered on weekends at her grandparents’ house on Agarita, sharing tight bonds among siblings and cousins.

Her grandmother, Marguerite Tassos, purchased a donkey that had been housed in a barn in Brackenridge Park and kept it in a lot next to the house.

Phillips remembers learning to ride a bike on Agarita, getting in spear grass fights with her cousins and sprawling out on the floor with her “Papi,” Gus Tassos, when she spent the night with her grandparents.

But her favorite family tales center on her father. Her grandmother didn’t want him to play football, and made sure he attended Greek school before enrolling at Jefferson, she said.

One oft-told story was how her father negotiated his terms of employment with with the NFL over the phone, long before players had agents to handle such matters. Detroit Lions Coach Gus Dorais asked Tassos to “name his price.”

“And Daddy said he took a big gulp of air and said, ‘How about $2,500 for a signing bonus?” Phillips recalled. Dorais “said, ‘We’ll put you on the next plane to Detroit tomorrow.’ And Daddy said it took 24 hours to get to Detroit. But he left 1206 West Agarita, and that was the beginning of his football career.”

Scott Huddleston is a veteran staff writer at the San Antonio Express-News covering Bexar County Commissioners Court and county government.

He has been a reporter at the Express-News since 1985, covering a variety of issues, including public safety, flooding, transportation, military and veterans affairs, history and local government.

Huddleston covered the final construction phase of the SBC Center — now AT&T Center, where the Spurs play — in 2002, and wrote “Then&Now,” a weekly historical feature, for the Sunday Metro section from 2001-2006.

Housing, Food, Utilities, and COVID Neighborhood Resources –

Compiled by the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association

Updated February 27th to add storm crises resources

Storm Crisis Resources for Water and Food and Other Help

WATER

Beacon Hill Community Garden (corner of Grammercy and Capitol) can provide water to fill your containers. Contact Cynthia Spielman at 210-396-3688 or cspielmanbhana@gmail.com  for hours. 

To further assist customers, the City of San Antonio will also be setting up separate bottled water distribution sites throughout the city, as well as the San Antonio Food Bank. 

To find a water distribution site closest to you, see below:

Pump Station Water Distribution Sites

  • NACO (drive-thru) – 13655 O’Connor Road
  • Seale – 254 Seale Road
  • Mission – 615 E Theo Ave
  • Maltsberger (drive-thru) – 8910 Jones Maltsberger
  • University (drive-thru) – 7172 Hausman Road
  • Seaworld – 10349 Military Dr. W.
  • SE Booster (drive-thru) – 1208 S Loop 1604 W

 Bottled Water Distribution Sites for Resident pickup:
Beginning today the City of San Antonio will begin bottled water distribution.
Ten sites will be open beginning today throughout the City. Residents will be able to pick up one case of water per family per day. These centers will remain open through March 6. In addition to the ten sites in the City of San Antonio we have partnered with Bexar County and The San Antonio Food Bank to host additional water distribution at local distribution sites. Full list of locations below.

The bottled water distribution site will open at 1 pm today through 5 p.m. Following today, the hours of operation will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The closing times may change if water is exhausted before closing time.
The sites will abide by COVID-19 safety protocols, including wearing masks and practicing physical distancing.

Bottled Water Distribution to Senior Residents
The City will also provide bottled water delivery to homebound seniors, San Antonio Housing Authority properties and nursing homes without water. These locations have been identified and coordinated with partner agencies. Delivery availability is limited but can be requested by calling 311.

Water Distribution Site Locations

  • Wheatley Heights Sports Complex – 200 Noblewood Dr.
  • Brooks – Challenger Dr. @ Research Place
  • Texas A&M University – San Antonio – Main Campus – One University Way
  • Port San Antonio – 907 Billy Mitchell Blvd
  • SeaWorld San Antonio/Aquatica – 10500 Sea World Drive
  • Six Flags Fiesta Texas – 17000 IH 10 West
  • Food Bank – 5200 Enrique M. Barrera Pkwy
  • Our Lady of the Lake University — 411 SW 24th St
  • Community Bible Church – 2477 N Loop 1604 E
  • Heroes Stadium – 4799 Thousand Oaks Dr.
  • Rolling Oaks Mall — 6909 N Loop 1604 E
  • Bullis County Park – 27583 Old Blanco Rd
  • Julius Matthey Middle School – 20350 Red Forest Ln

SHELTERS AND GROCERIES: 

If you are in need of shelter, the South Alamo Regional Alliance for the Homeless has curated a list of warming centers, including the city-run Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center, here.

  • If you or a neighbor are in need of assistance securing groceries, contact 211 (United Way Helpline) or 311 (San Antonio Customer Service Office).
  • ​The San Antonio Police Department has partnered with the San Antonio Food Bank to deliver food to our elderly, disabled, and neighbors most in need. Call 311 to organize a delivery. 

Busted Pipes and Leaks:

  • If you find yourself in a situation where you have a busted pipe, follow these instructions to turn your water off at the meter and contact a plumber. A list of State licensed plumbers can be found here.
  • If you plan on making an insurance claim following the winter storm, review these tips from the Texas Department of Insurance by clicking here.

Beacon Hill Community Garden can provide water to fill your containers. Contact Cynthia Spielman at 210-396-3688 or cspielmanbhana@gmail.com  for hours. 

Insurance Help After the Storm: 

Food Resources

COVID Information

Housing Resources

  • San Antonio Housing Authority: 210.477.6000, https://www.saha.org/. SAHA provides housing assistance to more than 57,000 children, adults and seniors through its Public Housing, Housing Choice Voucher and Mixed-Income housing programs.

Utilities Help

Rent, Eviction and Mortgage Help Information

Housing Repair Assistance 

Other

United Way: Dial 211
VIA Metropolitan Transit 
Passengers with confirmed appointments may ride to City/County vaccine clinics.VIA Metropolitan Transit will offer complimentary transportation for any person traveling to or from an appointment at a City/County-sponsored COVID-19 vaccination site—including the Alamodome, Wonderland of the Americas mall and others until further notice.This includes regular bus service, VIA Link, and VIAtrans paratransit service. VIA bus and VIA Link passengers may present their appointment registration in print or on their mobile device, and/or their COVID-19 shot record to ride fare-free on the day of their appointment. Registered VIAtrans customers must schedule their trip in accordance with VIAtrans policies and procedures by phone or online. Read the full story at viainfo.net.

St. Peter-St. Joseph Children’s Home (210) 531-8555  Can provide rental assistance for individuals pending disability benefits and individuals who were formerly in the foster care system. 

T1NC Letter to Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee re: Neighborhood Engagement Team

Neighborhoods are the Answer

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition (T1NC) is a group of San Antonio downtown (inside Loop 410) neighborhoods organized to promote communication, cooperation, education, and support among neighborhoods as well as advocate for thoughtful policies. Contact t1nc.sat@gmail.com or visit T1nc.org

January 4, 2021

Good Afternoon Council Members,

We often hear from city staff, particularly in Planning and DSD and sometimes from elected officials that neighborhoods are the problem, but we believe that neighborhoods are the answer.

The place where we live is the heart of our communities. Passion, love, dedication, loyalty and identity are what root us in our neighborhoods and why we work so hard for their betterment. Our neighborhoods are places that support elders, local school children, those who are vulnerable to displacement, and those who are experiencing food or housing insecurities. We act as a conduit between the city staff, elected officials, and our residents. “We are in this together” has been a neighborhood mantra throughout 2020 and we found ways to make that sentiment felt.

Neighborhoods are the places where people live, work (particularly now), worship, and learn. We believe the City should make supporting and nurturing San Antonio’s neighborhoods a priority. As with early education, it behooves us as a city to invest in neighborhoods. We have learned that investment in early education results in a better future for our students; we believe that investment in neighborhoods would also provide a better future for San Antonio residents.

In Tier One Neighborhood Coalitions’ early days, we lobbied then Mayor Ivy Taylor and City Manager Sherryl Scully for a Neighborhood Commission in order to address the disenfranchisement that neighborhoods were feeling under the pressure of the SA Tomorrow Plan implementation. We also asked for an additional four city staff positions that would look at planning and development with a neighborhood lens and act as ombudsman or liaisons between neighborhoods and city staff and departments. The letter of request, which was submitted during a meeting with Taylor and Scully, was signed by representatives from 18 Neighborhood Associations and two Community Organizations representing Council Districts 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7.

Although we did not succeed in getting the Neighborhood Commission, City Manager Sculley did create four new positions within the Neighborhood Housing and Services Dept. During the 8-10-2017 “A” Session presentation of the proposed FY 2018 Budget, CM Sculley introduced the four new Neighborhood Engagement Team positions with a budget of $255,000. Tier One was pleased by this announcement and proud of the achievement that we felt would help neighborhoods gain a more even footing, improve relations between the city’s planning and development departments and neighborhoods overall and provide a vital resource to neighborhood associations and community organizations.

Neighborhood leaders were gratified that the City was making a monetary commitment to neighborhood engagement, capacity building and access to an advocate within the city structure. Improved working partnership would lead to less controversy, less staff time spent on citizen discontent at commissions and council meetings, and a better outcome for everyone involved.

We need the promise of the Neighborhood Engagement Team to be honored by the city.

Thank you.

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee

Teri Castillo Monica Savino

Cosima Colvin Cynthia Spielman

Mary Johnson Steve Versteeg

Ricki Kushner Taylor Watson

Margaret Leeds

Original Job Description for Neighborhood Engagement Officer

NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT

OFFICER

Bargaining Unit: N/A – Not Applicable

Class Code:

2443

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

SALARY RANGE

$24.83 – $37.24 Hourly

$51,644.58 – $77,467.00 Ann ually

JOB SUMMARY:

Under general direction, is responsible for conducting and coordinating

a variety of social service and/or community development outreach

activities to help improve neighborhood appearance and quality of lif e.

May exercise supervision over assigned staff.

ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS:

Provides guidance and assistance to neighborhood associations with

complex socioeconomic problems.

Organize and provide leadership to citizen groups and committees.

Attends citizen/neighborhood meetings to present and obtain

information on neighborhood improvement efforts, community -based

problem-solving, and encourage citizen involvement.

Promote program activities by designing flyers, brochures, press

releases and other materials in English and Spanish for distributio n.

Meet customer needs efficiently, accurately and within program

guidelines.

Coordinates with City Departments to identify and develop

neighborhood programs.

Assists various City Departments with communicating progress and

delays to policies and projects in the community.

May be required to prepare reports for management and City Council.

Performs related duties and fulfills responsibilities as required.

JOB REQUIREMENTS:

Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited college or university.

Three (3) years’ experience in the areas of housing and community

revitalization programs or local government.

Valid Class ‘C’ Texas Driver’s License.

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES:

Knowledge of principles and practices of neighborhood program

planning.

Knowledge of neighborhood associations and organizations involved in

providing community and neighborhood services.

Knowledge of funding resources for grants.

Knowledge of pertinent Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances,

statutes, and regulations.

Skill in utilizing a personal computer and associated software

programs.

Skill in delivering excellent customer service and conflict

resolution.

Ability to assess neighborhood conditions and determine needed

improvements.

Ability to work with frequent interruptions and changes in priority.

Ability to analyze complex data and develop clear and concise written

reports and presentations.

Ability to communicate clearly and effectively, both verbally and in

writing in English and Spanish.

Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships

with City staff and officials, other government officials, commun ity

groups, the general public, and media representatives.

Ability to perform all the physical, intellectual, and analytical

requirements of the position including decision making.

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS:

Physical requirements include occasional lifting/carrying of 5 pounds;

visual acuity, speech and hearing; hand and eye coordination and man ual

dexterity necessary to operate a computer keyboard and basic office

equipment. Subject to sitting, standing, reaching, walking, twisting

and kneeling to perform the essential functions. Working conditions are

primarily inside an office environment or field environment.

Letter to T1NC Members re Action at the Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee re Neighborhood Engagement Officers

Read: T1NC Letter to Culture & Neighborhood Services re Neighborhood Engagement Team

Read: Original job posting for Neighborhood Engagement Officer

Update: While this temporarily made a difference, the position was abolished by the end of October 2021

January 4, 2021

Dear T1NC Neighborhoods,

Happy New Year to you and yours! Let’s start the year off with a T1NC bang!

The Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee is reviewing the roles of the Neighborhood Engagement Officers (who are part of the Neighborhood & Housing Services Department (NSHD). Despite a yearly budget of at least $255,000, we have rarely (or never) had contact with these officers. We have attached the original job description and it is clear that they are not doing the job that the City hired them to do which is work with residents for the betterment of our neighborhoods. 

We need neighborhood leaders and residents to read statements at the meeting and/or send statements to Council Committee members (instructions at bottom of page.) It is time for neighborhoods to have a voice in decisions made about our communities after months of silence. It is time to engage again. We have attached the T1NC letter to the committee members

Context: District 1 Councilmember Roberto Trevino recently called a meeting with some D1 neighborhood leaders regarding the Neighborhood Association (NA) Registry. During that meeting, we brought to his staff’s attention (Trevino was not on the Zoom) that there would be a lot less strife between neighborhoods and the City if the job of Neighborhood Engagement Officer were being faithfully and competently fulfilled. As a result, the agenda for the upcoming Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee has been changed from a presentation on the Neighborhood Association Registry, to a presentation on the status of the Neighborhood Engagement Officer positions. 

History:T1NC worked hard in 2016 to get the attention of then Mayor Taylor and City Manager Sculley to hear our request for a Neighborhood Commission AND for four staff positions to be added to Planning/Development Services Department (DSD) that would represent the neighborhood’s interests. Our letter was signed by 18 neighborhood associations and two Community Organizations. What we got was a restructuring of the Planning Dept into Planning Department and Neighborhood & Housing Services Department (NHSD)… and no Neighborhood Commission.

In FY2018, Sculley did add four positions to NHSD – the Neighborhood Engagement Team, she called it. This team was to be comprised of one administrator and three officers with a budget of $255,000.  Barbara Ankamah was appointed as Administrator and now only two officers (because the third, Erika Ragsdale, who admittedly did make a sincere effort, left.) 

While much of NHSD’s resources have gone to COVID-19 and housing help since last March, members of the T1 Steering Committee met with Lori Houston last December (2019) about this issue and there was no follow-up. 

NOW: 

None of us in the Steering Committee (whose members cover the downtown districts)  know who our Neighborhood Engagement Officer is nor have we had any contact from or assistance from the Neighborhood Engagement Team.  

Do any of you know who your engagement officer is? Have you received any help? 

If this program and these positions had been properly administered and carried out over the last three years, instead of making it all about the NA Registry and a few token efforts, we wouldn’t be where we are today. Not only has the Neighborhood Engagement Team been allowed to squander the $255,000 annual budget (the money from FY2018, not subsequent years), but they have squandered other COSA staff time and the opportunity to help us make  our neighborhoods more stable and resilient. 

We appreciate that Councilman Trevino is asking NHSD staff to present on the status of this position/program in response to our input. The Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee is comprised of Council members from D1 (Chair), D2, D3, D9 & D10 (their email addresses are below.) 

What you can do: This is a chance for us to make the City fulfill its promise to neighborhoods. This is a chance for neighborhood voices to be heard! 

Please mark your calendars for January 7th @ 2:00 pm and consider making a statement at that meeting about how much help or interaction your neighborhood has had with your Neighborhood Engagement Officer, your disappointment  with the process, and your desire to see change. If you or someone from your neighborhood can’t make a statement at the meeting, please send a copy of your remarks (it does not have to be long, just a short statement) to each of the council members on the committee (we have attached addresses). If you send to the T1 Steering Committee, we can find someone to read your statement. A last resort is to send to Councilman Trevino to read into the record at the meeting. Each speaker is allotted three minutes.

An example of a statement might be as simple as

“My name is _____. I live in (or serve as) the __________neighborhood in District _____.  We have had little or no contact with the Neighborhood Engagement Team. 

We don’t understand how our tax dollars that are paying the salaries of the engagement team and the administrator (whose only responsibility, until recently, was to oversee this team) have been used or what have these engagement officers been doing (before COVID-19). Our community/neighborhood wants change in the future and for the City to fulfill its commitment to our neighborhoods. 

Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee members: 

Chair: D1 Roberto Trevino roberto.trevino@sanantonio.gov

D2 Jada Andrews-Sullivan Jada.andrews-sullivan@sanantonio.gov

D3 Rebecca Viagran Rebecca.Viagran@sanantonio.gov

D9 John Courage John.Courage@sanantonio.gov

D10 Clayton Perry  Clayton.perry@sanantonio.gov

Instructions to watch or to speak: 

Culture & Neighborhood Services Council Committee members: 

Chair: D1 Roberto Trevino roberto.trevino@sanantonio.gov

D2 Jada Andrews-Sullivan Jada.andrews-sullivan@sanantonio.gov

D3 Rebecca Viagran Rebecca.Viagran@sanantonio.gov

D9 John Courage John.Courage@sanantonio.gov

D10 Clayton Perry  Clayton.perry@sanantonio.gov

Instructions to watch or to speak: 

The meeting will be available to the public at AT&T channel 99, Grande channel 20, Spectrum channel 21, digital antenna 16, and www.sanantonio.gov/TVSA. The meeting will also be available by calling (210) 207-5555 (English and Spanish available).

Members of the public can comment or speak on items on the agenda. To submit comments or sign up to speak, please go to www.sanantonio.gov/agenda and click on the eComment link associated with the agenda for instructions. Questions relating to the rules on addressing the Committee may be directed to the Office of the City Clerk at (210) 207-7253.

Or go to legistar at https://sanantonio.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx and click “ecomments” at the end of the Culture & Neighborhood  Committee Meeting

Government Hill resident’s comments at City Council re Zoning Change from R-6 to C-2 in a residential neighborhood on why we fight for our communities.

Written by D’Ette Cole of Government Hill

Note: On November 5th City Council (A Session) meeting Government Hill residents gathered with white COVID masks on which were printed, “C-1”.  They were there, after so many postponements to ask City Council to reject a zoning change from R-6 to C-2 in their residential neighborhood and to accept instead a compromise of C-1, a fair compromise that they were struggling to have approved. 

Read about the case at the SA Heron

Good morning, 

We hope good prevails today. We have a compromise for C-1 on the property which sits just 24′ across the street from our homes.  We hope that if any motion for higher than C-1 light commercial is introduced that you will not entertain it, you will not support it, and that you will be a protector and a proponent for community compromise and our 200′ neighbors’ compromise for c-1.

This has been a long pursuit which began over a year ago when we first got word that the property at the corner of Reno and Edgar street was going to be sold and that the longtime neighbors would be removed and the six houses  leveled for a twenty-pump mega gas station a zoning change from an almost unheard of R-6 (residential) to C-2 (intense commercial).  It seemed incredible that affordable housing would be demolished and we would be living across the street from a huge gas station. We did not know where to begin to fight.

First the case would have to go through the rezoning process to get rezoned from R-6 to C-2 commercial. Not imagining how this huge project could be plopped down in our tiny neighborhood immediately in front of our homes and so close to an elementary school, the 200′ neighbors banded together to show and tell the city that there must be some mistake.  

Ours is a predominantly Latino, multi-generational, working class neighborhood. Several of the 200′ neighbors who have called this neighborhood home for decades,  said I didn’t understand: No one will care, no one will listen,  and we won’t win because we never win – we don’t matter. Before this process was over, I began to understand why they felt this way. 

With the overwhelming opposition to this encroachment within the 200′ and blocks beyond, we organized and pushed on but there are group members who do not access the internet, that are not computer savvy, or would never be able to stand and speak here. There are those in our group that you have not seen because they cannot come to commissions or hearings due to health issues or because of their essential jobs, especially now with COVID.  

Home. 

This is home. We love our homes and are extremely house proud and though the story of how and when we each came to call this neighborhood our home is different from each of our neighbors – We all have stories of dreams and desires of inherited homes passed down, full of fond childhood memories:

Neighbors like Dora and Martin whose first homes with first mortgages bring the swell and pride of ownership in our community. 

Neighbors like Addie and Caleb who have lived in their well-loved home for decades with adult children who have moved back in to care for ailing elders. 

Roxanne and Aden, starter homeowners with hopes of future kids walking to the elementary school down the street. 

Jazzma and Armando, retirement homeowners looking to downsize. 

Lorenzo and Virgina, purchasing and refurbishing a small house on the top of hill with a million dollar view of the downtown skyline. 

These are some of our neighbors.  

These homes, these neighbors, these streets, our elementary school, and our park are a lot to fight for. 

Our community has been worth every second, every meeting, pow wow, late night group call, every Sunday afternoon driveway meeting, every block walked, every signature collected, every email sent, every phone call, every educating and telling of details, every sign designed and every sign hung, every sleepless night, every tear shed and every new worry wrinkle. 

Everything has been worth it because this fight has been about our homes and our neighborhood. 

This process has been extremely intimidating and consistently disappointing.  Our neighborhood and our homes have been publicly  disparaged in descriptive terms like “derelict, crime ridden, crime stricken, drug and graffiti infested, unsafe and scary” by those who should know better, by a member of the Zoning Commission, by attorneys, by those who want to profit from our neighborhood.  

We’ve been ignored, we’ve been dismissed, we’ve been excluded, we’ve been insulted, disparaged, berated and basically told to be quiet.  We would not stay quiet.

We love our neighbors, we love our neighborhood, we love our city so we cannot be blamed for fighting so hard for the best outcome for this block that impacts us all so significantly.  Despite it taking such a long time to get here, we look forward to a true C-1 compromise.   A C-1 light commercial project that will be an appropriate buffer between the C2-NA Frost property on the access road and our dense residential front yards.  A neighborhood friendly C-1 development that will be the appropriate scale and setting to meet our residential and school zone streets.

Council representatives: I couldn’t and I wouldn’t do the job that each of you has signed up for and run and won to do.  I thank you for having the will and for wanting to make a difference, to make things better, do better, and do good.  Please never underestimate the power of listening and understanding,  conversation and collaboration and compromise – this fight would have been more civil, more fair, less hurtful, less marginalizing, and better for it.

Please support the 200′ neighbors C-1 compromise for this case.

Letter to Elected Representatives from Gardendale NA re: illegal dumping and issues of homelessness with additional comments by West End Hope and Action NA

Written by Maricela Garza and Rafael Garza

This letter is being written to bring to light some of the issues the Gardendale Neighborhood Community is experiencing.  Gardendale Neighborhood Association is asking for assistance, direction and the ability to proactively work together to address the mentioned concerns affecting our neighborhood areas.  

The Gardendale Neighborhood Community has been seeing a continued increase in homeless foot traffic in our residential streets and more recently an increase in illegal dumping in our living areas.  The illegal dumping is exacerbating the homeless traffic as they sift through the dumped items and scatter the mess on to streets and properties.  It is as if businesses, surrounding non-profit agencies and even some of the community residents have become numb about reporting leaving the issue to become the norm for our living area. 

As leaders of this community, we cannot turn a blind eye on this issues at hand as the matter will only worsen if left unattended.  With the new development planned for Houston St & Frio with The Alamo Construction Community, the Cattleman Square  area and Scobey’s, buildings, Gardendale Neighborhood Association is requesting we all be proactive to address these concerns.  

Gardendale Neighborhood Association is requesting a meeting be set up with all those involved with regards to these concerns and also requesting to be included in any discussions that may inadvertently affect our community.  The Gardendale Neighborhood Association is on board for growth and progress as long as it keeps the best interest and safety of the community in mind.  As project developers request letters of endorsement and support, us leaders representing the community need to have a voice in the safety measures that need to be put in place as we are the affected community.    As mentioned prior to developers interested in our community areas, while the new development areas are protected and cleaned out for the upcoming project areas to look presentable for their marketing, the communities are being overlooked and over-run with the homeless going deeper into the community areas and and residential homes.   

We are looking for progress in the community area/ district that can be a benefit to all;  not just the new projects.  A prime example is that of a sign that was just captured in the McDonalds property on Houston St. The sign reads:  NO SOLICITATION, NO LOITERING, NO TRESPASSING…..Persons found to be soliciting on McDonalds Property will be subjected to arrest.    This is the kind of action the community would like to see in the community property areas particularly surrounding the Haven for Hope, GI Forum area and around the non-profit agencies not collaborating with the community and not complying with city guidelines.  

Please also see additional attached attached pictures that depict some of what Gardendale Neighborhood Association and the community are living / seeing.  Please remember, as leaders of this community, Gardendale Neighborhood Association serves as your eyes and ears for what is happening in the community areas you represent.  Gardendale asks that you respond timely with a meeting set up to have our concerns heard so that our community does not become part of the forgotten as new development comes in to our areas.  

Thank you,

Maricela Garza and Rafael Garza

Gardendale Neighborhood Association 


WEHA Response to Gardendale’s concerns. Written by Carlos Gonzalez

Thank you Gardendale for being the eyes and conscience of city leadership and politics. Homelessness is a city and county wide issue and the Mayor and County Judge should call a HAVEN Summit to assess the operations of Haven for Hope and find out why they are unwilling and unable to effectively communicate with the surrounding neighborhoods. Senator Menendez also represents this area, as does too State Rep. Diego Bernal- where are they in this fight? Where is Justin Rodriguez who heads up the Haven Community Affairs Dept? is the UTSA urban serving effort? What happened to the early promises that Haven would be monitored and ADJUST to obvious challenges? There has been no adjustment as dozens of mostly men, daily wander and hang out in our neighborhood because Haven offers no free transportation back to their own neighborhood.

Every single city council candidate should be held accountable regarding the homelessness situation in San Antonio and in particular their views on how to make Haven more accountable, accessible, transparent- and either greatly improved or RE-LOCATED.

Carlos Gonzalez

Cochair

West End Hope in Action

An example of illegal dumping in Gardendale

RBAH Subcommittee Recommendations Draft

   
Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing
February 14, 2020


Table of Contents

Background of Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

Overview of Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force Report

Charge for Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

Overview of Work by Previous Housing Commission

Overview of Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

Technical Working Group Members

Regulatory Cost Burden

RCB: Background

RCB: Proposed Amendments & Policy Issues

Accessory Dwelling Units

ADU Background

ADU: Proposed Amendments & Policy Issues

Details for Proposed Changes to UDC, to date

ADU: Owner Occupied Details

Public Engagement & Outreach

PEO: Background

Public Outreach & Engagement Plan

Background of Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

Overview of Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force Report

In 2014 Julian Castro created the Mayor’s Task Force on Preserving Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods. This group developed a set of recommendations that included, among other things, the creation of a Housing Commission, displacement mitigation measures, a comprehensive review of city policies, and a housing bond. 

In 2015 the Housing Commission to Preserve and Prevent Displacement was formed and for three years worked to carry out the somewhat limited Task Force recommendations. The most notable achievements of this commission were the successful creation of the 20 million dollar Neighborhood Improvements Bond and, in my opinion, serving as a platform to keep issues around affordable housing and displacement in the public eye. 

When Mayor Ron Nirenberg took office in 2017, he realized that while these efforts were a good first step, a more energetic and holistic response was required. Shortly after taking office, he formed the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force on which I had the honor to serve. This five-member group was charged with a sweeping, whole-system review of San Antonio’s housing ecosystem and, over 12 months, led as hundreds of citizens participated by sharing stories and concerns, and serving on technical working groups. The task force worked with four different consultant groups as well as City staff to do a deep dive into data and facilitate the process. 

This process revealed the following:

  • Housing costs are outpacing incomes in San Antonio and there is a wide and rapidly growing affordability gap. In 2000, you could find a starter home for a new $110k. Today the floor is about $170k. Incomes have remained relatively flat over that period. 
  • 50% of renters in San Antonio are spending more than 30% of their income on housing or 45% on housing plus transportation.
  • Housing supply is not keeping pace with growth: most new construction is outside San Antonio city limits
  • Neighborhood instability and displacement are real things and they are happening here. 

It wasn’t easy but under the leadership of Lourdes Castro Ramirez. We treated one another with respect and, in the end; we developed not just consensus, but friendship. Ultimately, the five of us, from different backgrounds and points of view, boiled the oceans of information down into San Antonio’s Housing Policy Framework

Charge for Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

The actions that the housing policy framework calls for are bold and sweeping and include:

  • Development of a coordinated Housing System
  • Increased investment in housing 
  • Increase affordable housing production, rehabilitation, and preservation
  • Protection and preservation of neighborhoods
  • And the insurance of accountability to the public.

Page 12 of the Housing Policy Framework provides an initial timeline for implementation. Many but not all of these initial tasks are underway including:

  • Council adoption of Housing Policy Framework (August 2018) 
  • Increased funding to implement framework recommendations (October 2018)
  • Reconstitution of the Housing Commission (February 2019)
    • The Housing Commission is tasked to ensure the Housing Policy Framework will of the people be implemented over the next decade and is currently chaired by Lourdes Castro Ramirez. It is to that body this commission that we will report our findings. Jessica Guerrero, who has joined on the phone, is our Housing Commission representative.
  • Preliminary steps on addressing and mitigating displacement (April 2019)
  • Review of the San Antonio Housing Trust (July 2019)
  • Establish a Technical Working Group on removing barriers to the production and preservation of affordable housing within the Unified Development Code
    • Strategy 1: Undertake an inclusive public process to determine standards and criteria to allow by-right zoning for housing developments in which at least 50% of the units are affordable. (We are not tackling this. The implementation plan calls for a separate working group to do so.)
    • Strategy 2: Exempt affordable housing units from SAWS impact fees. (Our group might wish to look at SAWS and CPS related issues)
    • Strategy 3: Revise the UDC to remove regulatory barriers to affordable housing. (This will be the primary goal for our group and details are on page 40 of the Housing Policy Framework)


 Work of Previous Housing Commission

The previous Housing Commission noted several ways to improve Sections 35-360 (Bonus Density) and 35-372 (Affordable Dwelling Units) in the Unified Development Code. The concern was that these parts of the code were not highly utilized as the bonuses were small. Below is an overview of the general ideas of changes put forth by Housing Commission. 

Current Policy
IssueProposed Changed
ApplicabilityCurrent policy only applies to multi-unit projects subject to application for rezoning, MDP, or planning. Policy should include single-unit projects and should allow for uses not permitted in a zoning district. (e.g. duplex in R-4) 
AffordabilityCurrently the policy defines low income as not exceeding 80% AMI and very low income as not exceeding 50% AMI. Policy should have more comprehensive range of AMI categories especially for homeowners. 
Density Bonus and Set-AsideCurrently developers can increase permitted units by 20% if 10% of the units are low income housing and a 10% increase if 5% of the units are very low income housing. Policy should have a minimum of 5% restricted income units and an increasing bonus density for every 1% increase of restricted units. 
Affordability PeriodThe current policy states units must be affordable for 50 years. Policy should reduce the length of affordability to 20 years for a homebuyer and 30 years for rental units. 
Additional Development Specifications(Proposed to be applicable for projects with 75% or more affordable units)
IssueProposed Changed
Minimum Lot SizeAllow minim lot size to be reduced to 1,250 square feet.
Building SetbacksShould not require front or side setbacks and reduce rear setback to 5 feet.
Street Construction StandardsProjects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to upgrade or improve existing streets or sidewalks.
UtilitiesProjects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to improve deficiencies in existing utility infrastructure.
Storm water ManagementProjects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to improve deficiencies in existing off-site storm water. There should be increased options for off-site drainage alternatives in lieu of on-site retention/ detention pond.
Parks & Open SpaceParks and open space dedication and fee in lieu of land dedication standards shall not apply.
Tree PreservationProjects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to mitigate the removal of tress located in development areas.


Overview of Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

The Mayor’s Office brought together 20 people from across San Antonio to address the development issues facing affordable housing in San Antonio. Over three meetings, this group determined the priorities and formed subcommittees around these priorities including: 

  • Regulatory Cost Burden: this subcommittee provided recommendations for ways to redirect the cost of affordable housing development away from developers
  • Accessory Dwelling Units: this subcommittee worked to find ways to update the Unified Development Code to help ADUs meet the current needs of San Antonio residents while respecting the culture and design of neighborhoods
  • Public Outreach & Engagement: this subcommittee focused on how engage neighborhoods and share knowledge so residents are an integral part of this process

Technical Working Group Members

Committee Member InformationMeeting Dates & Attendance
First NameLast nameAffiliationJune 21stJuly 15thAug. 12th
JimBaileyAlamo Architectsxxx
CynthiaSpielmanBeacon Hill NAxxx
StevePoppoonHomespring Realty Partners x 
MarthaBandaEquitable Development Specialistxxx
JeffBuellSitterle Homes/Greater San Antonio Builders Assc.xx 
RebeccaFloresNeighborhood Leaderxxx
PeterFrenchRising Barn   
Dahlia GarciaCrockett National Bankxxx
David GarzaLDZG, Inc.   
JordanGhawiNeighborhood Leaderxxx
Jose Gonzalez, IIFinancial Consultantxxx
Summer GreathouseBracewell, LLPxxx
JessicaGuerreroSan Antonio Housing Commission  x
Suren KamathBriggs Medicalxx 
AlanNeffEquitable Development Specialist   
FrankPakuszewskiSOJO Urban Developmentx  
AmandaSaldivarBig Red Dog, Civil Engineer x 
AnisaSchellTier One Neighborhood Coalition Memberxx 
SandraTamezFair Housing Councilx x
ColleenWaguespackNorthside Neighborhood for Organized Developmentxxx


Regulatory Cost Burden

RCB: Background

The Regulatory Cost Burden subcommittee was formed after the Removing Barriers committee had conversations about how to redirect the cost of affordable housing development away from developers. This committee engaged experts from many departments to learn about current standards and then worked to provide solutions. To date there have been six meetings as well as an engineer round table discussion meeting which took place in early January. All notes and presentations, to date, can be found here. The following Removing Barriers committee members volunteered to serve on this subcommittee. 

Committee MemberMeeting Dates & Attendance
First NameLast nameSept. 4thSept. 25th Oct. 16thNov. 6thNov. 26thJan. 22nd
JimBaileyxxxxxx
CynthiaSpielman xxxxx
StevePoppoonxx  
JeffBuell x  
RebeccaFlores x xx
Dahlia Garciax  x 
David Garzax xx 
JordanGhawi    
Jose Gonzalez, II    
Summer Greathousex  x 
JessicaGuerreroxx  
Suren Kamathx xx 
FrankPakuszewskixx  
AmandaSaldivarx   


RCB: Proposed Amendments & Policy Issues

After six subcommittee meetings, it was determined that most of the standards in place are necessary for the health and safety of the residents. However, there were several ideas on how to shift the cost burden away from developers in order to incentivize more affordable housing development:

 Proposed Amendments & Policy IssuesImpact Area
Tree Preservation & Open Space
 Trees planted in the Right-of-Way should count toward tree mitigation in an effort to provide more shade and reduce the heat. UDC
A funding source should be established so affordable housing development is exempt from Tree Mitigation fees.  Fiscal
Parking
 Modifications to parking regulations should be centered on the idea that there are not one-size-fits all solutions. Some areas around transit may not need as much parking, but other areas, further from transit and amenities, may benefit from more than the minimum requirementPolicy
NHSD staff is working with the Planning Department to think about ways to fold in parking ideas/updates with the Regional Center PlansPolicy
NHSD staff is working with VIA about proposed amendments around transit stopsUDC (indirectly)
Storm Water
Regional Storm WaterA from ‘Fee In-Lieu-of development’ policy should be created for affordable housingFiscal & Policy
A funding source should be established to eliminate the cost of mandatory onsite detention for affordable housingFiscal
Immediate NeighborsCurrently, developments are not permitted to increase water run-off to neighboring properties. However, this is a consistent concern this committee has heard during this process. Policy
The City should establish citywide regulations to address run off onto neighboring properties with the backing ofTexas Water Code 11.086. (Full Texas Water Code)Policy
Street Construction Standards
 A funding source should be created to exempt affordable housing from impact feesFiscal
SAWS and CPS Capital Improvements plans should be aligned with future bond projects as well as the VIA 2040 Long Range Plan and SA TomorrowPolicy


Accessory Dwelling Units

ADU Background

The Accessory Dwelling Unit subcommittee was formed after the Removing Barriers Committee had several conversations around the important role Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) play in increasing affordable housing. ADUs are generally smaller and usually result in more naturally occurring affordable housing as well as options for aging in place and creating additional rental income. This subcommittee worked to find ways to update the Unified Development Code to help ADUs meet the current needs of San Antonio residents while respecting the culture and design of neighborhoods. The following committee members volunteered to serve on this subcommittee. Nine meetings were held to craft the proposed recommendations. All notes and presentations, to date, can be found here.

Committee MembersMeeting Dates & Attendance
First NameLast nameAug. 30thSept. 20th Oct. 11thNov. 1stNov. 22ndDec. 13th Jan. 17thFeb. 7thFeb. 12th 
JimBaileyxxxxxx xx 
CynthiaSpielmanxxxxxxxxx 
MarthaBandax    
PeterFrenchxx    
Jose Gonzalez, IIxxxxxxx x 
Summer Greathousexxxx x 
AlanNeffxxx    
AnisaSchellxxxx xx 
SandraTamez    
ColleenWaguespackxxxxxxxx 
JordanGhawi      x   


ADU: Proposed Amendments & Policy Issues

Proposed LanguageImpact Area
Remove language for minimum sq. ft. requirement.UDC
Updated language for maximum size:The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger, of leasable space in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district.  This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.UDC
Remove the language limiting the number of bedrooms allowed in an ADUUDC
Remove language requiring the ADU utilities to be connected to primary residenceUDC
Impervious cover should be discussed at the larger level of city-wide storm water regulations and requirementsPolicy
Remove language with occupancy limitationsUDC
Updated language for parking: Remove requirement for parking to be located behind main structureFor an ADU 800 or fewer sq. ft. no parking requirements • For an ADU more than 800 sq. ft. one parking space should be includedUDC
Update language for setbacks to:Allow 3 ft. setback with no overhangUDC
Update language for height limit to:Maximum height of 25 ft.Maximum of two stories, no half storyUDC
Discuss scale requirements in Phase II: design guidelines and pattern bookPolicy
Sq. ft. of an ADU shall include all leasable space when calculating maximum size, as included in maximum size updatesUDC
Update language for attached ADUs to: Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is largerAttached accessory dwelling units shall be no higher than the principle structure or a maximum height of 25 ft., whichever is higherAttached accessory dwelling units shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning districtUDC
Update language for owner occupied to:Create a provision to allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special provision that would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family No short term rentals shall be permitted in non-owner occupied ADUUDC
Update language for design to: 
Remove design requirementsUDC
Create design guidelines and a pattern bookPolicy
Identify a funding source to provide waivers for those who adhere to the design guidelines and/or pattern book Fiscal
Communicate the benefits of ADUs for all residents in San AntonioPolicy
Develop a financing mechanism with lenders so residents could more easily get a loan to build an ADUPolicy


Details for Proposed Changes to UDC, to date

Topic Current LanguageProposed LanguageExplanation
Minimum SizeTotal floor area of the ADDU shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or be less than three hundred (300) square feet.Remove language for minimum sq. ft. requirement. The residential building code requirements provide a minimum size for each room depending on the room type (kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, etc.) so establishing an additional minimum standard for sq. ft. was believed to be redundant so it was removed. 
Maximum SizeThe accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling. The building footprint for the ADDU shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the building footprint of the principal residence. The “building footprint” shall include porches, but shall not include patios. Total floor area of the ADDU shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or be less than three hundred (300) square feet.The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger, of leasable space in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district.  This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.The subcommittee wanted to allow smaller homes to have the ability to build a larger ADU without being limited by the total square footage of the primary residence.  In addition, the subcommittee spoke to the importance of being able to have an ADU larger than 800 sq. ft. if a resident had a larger home. 
# of BedroomsAn ADU shall not contain more than one (1) bedroomRemove the language limiting the number of bedrooms allowed in an ADUSince the subcommittee increased the allowable sq. ft. it made sense to remove the one bedroom regulation
UtilitiesThe accessory dwelling shall be connected to the central electrical, water and sewer system of the principal structure. This provision does not apply to the electrical service if the distance between the primary structure and the accessory dwelling is greater than one hundred (100) lineal feet.Remove language requiring the ADU utilities to be connected to primary residenceThe subcommittee believed this requirement was not needed as SAWS and CPS have their own requirements and regulations to ensure the health and safety of residents so this language was removed. 
Impervious CoverImpervious cover is addressed within the accessory structuresection of the UDC:  The maximum lot coverage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total area of the side and rear yards, provided that in residential districts the total floor area does not exceed a maximum of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet.Should be discussed at the larger level of city-wide storm water regulations and requirementsThis discussion originated from the concern of increased water runoff that might result from additional construction on a residential site. After much discussion, it was determined this is part of a larger, city-wide conversation about how storm water runoff is addressed after construction is complete
OccupancyThe total number of occupants in the accessory dwelling unit combined shall not exceed three (3) persons.Remove language with occupancy limitationsWith the increased allowable square footage the subcommittee reasoned that a family could easily live in an ADU and did not want to limit housing options due to an occupant restriction so the language was removed. 
SetbacksAccessory detached dwelling units shall require a minimum setback from the rear and side property lines of five (5) feet.Allow 3 ft. setback with no overhangSince most other accessory structures are permitted to be built 3 ft. from the property line without an overhang the subcommittee felt this provision was appropriate for ADUs as well. 
ParkingParking areas shall be located behind the front yard.Remove requirement for parking to be located behind main structureFor an ADU 800 or fewer sq. ft. no parking requirementsFor an ADU more than 800 sq. ft. one parking space should be includedThe subcommittee could not determine a reason to require the location of parking to remain behind the main structure so this provision was removed. Building a parking spot is only required for ADUs more than 800 sq. ft. While there were many other options and exceptions discussed including elimination of parking requirements if residents is near a transit stop or has a street wide enough to accommodate on-street parking. However, primary residential homes are currently only required to build one parking spot, but usually have at 2-4. Knowing this, it was determined that most homes would not have to build any additional parking.  A parking requirement was included for ADUs over 800 sq. ft. as ADUs that large would more likely have multiple people driving cars.
Height LimitsADUs currently fall with height limits for the zone in which they are located. Most residential zones are limited to 35 ft. and 2.5 storiesMaximum height of 25 ft.Maximum of two stories, no half storyThe subcommittee wanted to ensure there was a respect for the neighborhood as well as the primary residential structure on the lot so they choose to reduce the maximum height in an effort to better conform to design and nature of San Antonio neighborhoods. 
ScaleThere are currently no regulations around scaleDiscuss scale requirements in Phase II: design guidelines and pattern bookThe subcommittee believes that, at the present moment, regulations around height will address the immediate concerns. The design guidelines and pattern book will allow for more details, as needed. 
Define Included Sq. Ft.The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.Sq. ft. of an ADU shall include all leasable space when calculating maximum size, as included in maximum size updatesThe subcommittee discussion around how square footage is calculated stemmed from a concern about the size and scale of an ADU if it was constructed on top of an existing garage. However, after more discussion, it was revealed that in order to build on top of a garage you would likely have to tear down the garage and rebuild unless it was constructed to accommodate an ADU on top. In addition, the ADU would still have to meet the proposed max height requirement of 25 ft. 
Attached ADUsThe gross floor area of the accessory apartment shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the total living area of the principal dwelling unit.Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall not exceed one (1) person per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.Attached accessory dwelling units shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district.Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger;Shall be no higher than the principle structure or a maximum height of 25 ft., whichever is higher; and Shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning districtThe subcommittee aligned the requirements for attached ADUs with those of the regulations for detached ADUs except where the regulations pertain to setbacks. The subcommittee believes that additions to the primary structure should respect the setback of the underlying zoning district. 
Owner Occupied Currently the owner of the ADU must live on the property. If the homeowner wants to take advantage of a homestead exemption they must live in the primary residence/main houseCreate a provision to allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special provision that would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family No short term rentals shall be permitted in non-owner occupied ADUPlease see page 9 for extended details on subcommittee discussion around this topic 
Design RequirementsIn order to maintain the architectural design, style, appearance and character of the main building as a single-family residence, the ADDU shall have a roof pitch, siding and window proportions identical to that of the principal residence.Remove design requirementsCreate design guidelines and a pattern bookIdentify a funding source to provide waivers for those who adhere to the design guidelines and/or pattern bookThe subcommittee would like to produce design guidelines and a pattern book to help guide the development of ADUs in the City. In addition, they would like to find a way to reward those who use these approved plans by providing waivers for development fees. 


ADU: Owner Occupied Details

Options Discussed ProsCons
Owner must live in the home to build an ADUAllows homeowners the opportunity to provide housing for relatives or the community Provides opportunities for home owners to earn additional income which may allow them to stay in their home in neighborhoods that are rapidly changingLimits market rate investment in neighborhoods which are rapidly changingWould not be able to use as a large scale affordable housing investment strategy 
Owner does not have to live in the home to build an ADU(No STR permitted)No Short Term Rental permitted so would increase in long-term leases and rentersAllows investors to building affordable housing optionsWill likely increase the number of affordable unitsADUs could become an investment property and could begin to cause more neighborhood change in un-stabilized neighborhoodsMay limit the number of homes available owner occupancy It is still largely, still more lucrative for property owner to flip and sell a home
Create a provisionto allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special exceptionthat would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family(No STR permitted)Provides a pathway to allow ADUs on non-owner occupied propertyNo short term rental permitted so an increase in long-term leases/rentersIs not granted by- right and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as it might be desirable in many areas. Is not granted by- right and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis Additional development expenses Additional length added to the process


Public Engagement & Outreach

PEO: Background

The Public Engagement & Outreach subcommittee was formed as a result of conversations that took place during the first few meetings of the Removing Barriers Committee. The committee placed a high priority on public engagement and wanted to create a subcommittee to focus on this topic so neighborhood engagement and knowledge sharing would be an integral part of this process. The following subcommittee members volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. There have been seven meetings. All meeting notes, presentations, and documents presented during meetings can also be found on the here.

Committee MembersMeeting Dates & Attendance
First NameLast nameAug. 28thSept. 18thOct. 9thOct. 20thNov. 20thDec. 11thJan. 15th
CynthiaSpielmanxxxxxxx
StevePoppoonxxxx
MarthaBandaxx 
Dahlia Garciaxx 
JessicaGuerreroxxx 
AlanNeffxxxx
SandraTamezxxx
ColleenWaguespackxxx
JordanGhawixx

Public Outreach & Engagement Plan

This subcommittee has taken the time to discuss the City of San Antonio’s public participation principles, specifically what works well and what is missing. These conversations led to several big outcomes below: 

  1. The creation of a public outreach framework for Removing Barriers that created a structure for the public outreach and engagement subcommittee
  2. Best practices for public meetings
  3. The creation of a neighborhood focus group that will provide feedback about outreach and proposed UDC amendments


1. Public Engagement Framework


2. Public Meeting Best Practices

  • Utilize current communication networks such as neighborhood associations, community organizations, schools, churches, and City Council offices
  • Utilize meetings already happening
  • Provide accommodations for those who wish to attend a meeting:
    • Physical access at meeting location 
    • Literacy Levels
    • Communication (language, on-line availability)
  • Be intentional about guest lists:
    • Include neighborhood associations and other active or informed participants
    • Look for community leaders and engaged members of different communities
  • Allow for flexibility for public comment during meetings
  • Take care not to over generalize
  • Plan meetings at a variety of times and locations to better accommodate all residents 

3. Neighborhood Focus Group

  • After discussion on how best to reach everyone in San Antonio, this subcommittee has envisioned a city-wide meeting of neighborhood coalitions and neighborhood interest groups who would come together and serve as the focus group as well as a group that would be one of the first to hear and provide feedback about proposed recommendations from the ADU and Regulatory Cost Burden subcommittees
  • This group would consist of approximately 8-12 seats to be filled by neighborhood interest groups who would be encouraged to have interchangeable representatives depending on the topic/timing of meetings with the goal to always have a representative from each neighborhood interest group at each meeting
  • Representatives would be required to disseminate information to their organization networks 
  • The subcommittee and staff have agreed to being this group with the understanding that adjustments and additions will be needed as the process continues throughout 2020

Where have all the people gone?

At a recent public city meeting at which a new development was shown on the screen, Amelia Valdez, Co-Chair of the Historic Westside Residents Association (HWRA) raised her hand. “Who lived there and where did they go?” she asked. Her question was met with silence. A new study by the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity (University of Minnesota Law School) offers an answer:

The displaced are pushed out to the suburbs where public transportation is less concentrated and is located away from employment centers. While the downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods have changed demographically to reflect more affluent and more educated residents, the suburbs have become the place where the displaced find more affordable housing choices. The bright blue on the interactive map is the dramatic change from less affluent to the more affluent. The color brown reflects a new concentration of the less affluent. The map is based on the 2000-2016 census tract. It is not hard to predict where the trends it points to are today.