Overview:
The Zoning Commission voted against the 2-mile Industrial Compatibility Overlay District surrounding the Toyota manufacturing plant.
The San Antonio Zoning Commission on Tuesday denied the city’s request to create a 2-mile industrial buffer zone around the Toyota plant that landowners in the area consider an intrusion on property rights.
Taking up the matter for a second time since June, the commission voted not to recommend that City Council approve an Industrial Compatibility Overlay District (ICOD) as proposed in the draft Texas A&M Area Regional Center Plan.
It is unknown when, or even if, council will consider the item since it has the final say on all zoning decisions.
City staff had asked the zoning commission to postpone a vote on the item, to allow more time to meet with property owners, incorporate some exceptions within the ICOD and clarify the draft language that describes what can be built within the overlay.
But a majority of the commissioners agreed there was no need to wait any longer.
“I think the citizens deserve an answer today,” Commissioner Daniel Kellum said.
The zoning tool would have been the first industrial overlay in San Antonio and similar to other such overlay districts in the unified development code restricting certain kinds of development.
“It places an undue burden on residents, is unfair to taxpayers and is inconsistent with a variety of things I’ve experienced in my own district … and is thus unfair, especially since it’s not being implemented in all industrial areas of the city,” Commissioner Taylor Watson said.
In the case of the proposed ICOD, future growth within 2 miles of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas would be limited to industrial uses to prevent potential safety conflicts between heavy industrial uses and commercial and residential.
The district, almost 20,000 acres of land, was established by using the Toyota manufacturing plant as the center point and drawing a wide circle that also encompassed land outside city limits. The industrial compatibility overlay district only applies to City of San Antonio property.
In May, after dozens of property owners at the zoning hearing to oppose the ICOD, commissioners voted to postpone the city’s request and asked City staff to hold another community input session.
On July 2, the city held a public meeting at the Texas A&M University-San Antonio campus to discuss the ICOD. About 100 people attended the meeting, said Rudy Niño, assistant director of the city planning department.
Feedback during that meeting led city staff to take a step back and ask the commission for another postponement, he said.
“Taking a look at all of the comment cards that we received, taking a look at the regrouping on some of the conversations that we had with residents out there, we thought this is going to take a little bit more time for us to work through and hopefully see if we can come to a resolution,” he said.
But the public meeting earlier this month also prompted Weston Martinez, an arbitrator who served on the Texas Real Estate Commission, to protest a 21-year-old agreement between the city and Toyota over land use.
The controversial Starbright agreement gave Toyota the right to impose upon a 3-mile buffer zone “appropriate land use guidelines that satisfy Toyota regarding use, density, setback and other restrictions.”
On Tuesday, Martinez said his family has owned property in the area since the 1930s and he was “shocked, disgusted and very angered” by what he heard at the July 2 public meeting.
Standing outside the Development Services building, Martinez read from a 2008 council consideration request (CCR) document by then-District 4 Councilman Philip Cortez that recommended staff inform council when zoning requests violated the Project Starbright agreement.
“What we have now discovered is that the Starbright agreement has been used in determining zoning outcomes and decisions that have taken place in all of the areas surrounding the Toyota plant ever since its inception,” Martinez said.
“The Starbright agreement says that Toyota is a direct decision maker at the table,” he said. “We need to know what that really looks like.”
During the hearing, property owner Andrew Nicholas also read from the Starbright agreement, referring to a section that calls for the city to create a zoning process and work with Toyota “as authorized by law” to establish an appropriate new zoning overlay.
“Well, fast forward to 2024 and that zoning district is the ICOD,” Nicholas said.
“In my opinion, the ICOD language copies and reinforces the language laid out in the Starbright agreement through the use of the unified development code,” he added. “The city is trying to codify the language in the Starbrite agreement to fulfill its obligation to Toyota, so it no longer has to rely on the Starbright agreement for zoning.”
San Antonio resident David Trevino said he acquired 25 acres adjacent to the university campus along a creekbed and natural area in 2016. “So putting industrial on my property makes no sense,” he said.
Trevino said he had planned to build community gardens and affordable homes on the property. “All of those plans are on hold now,” he said.
Following Trevino’s and dozens of others’ comments opposing the request during the hearing, commissioners spent an hour and a half asking questions of city staff about the ICOD.
Deputy City Attorney Susan Guinn explained that the ICOD proposal is not connected to the 2008 CCR about notifying council about zoning changes near Toyota and the Starbright agreement.
“There is concern about placing residential near heavy industrial districts,” she said. “This was not an adopted policy by council … it was a discussion. And that was what a CCR does, is brings up the topic for discussion. It was not an adopted policy by city council. And Toyota is not a decision-maker in any of the city’s zoning cases.”
Guinn added: “It’s a notification, it’s not an approval.”
Niño also responded to multiple questions about what kinds of new development would be allowed in the overlay, with some laying out scenarios of what could be permitted and Watson asking for more specifics to be spelled out in the ordinance. Niño said the overall intent is to limit residential intensity.
Commission Chairman Robert Sipes said he was concerned about creating the city’s first industrial overlay in the area. “That’s the trouble that I have, is that they’re being treated differently,” Sipes said, to which people in the room applauded.
Earlier at Tuesday’s hearing, commissioners recommended approval for a rezoning request by the San Antonio Housing Trust that would permit an affordable housing development within the Toyota buffer zone.
“There have been other projects … that I have not supported in this area,” said Commissioner John Bustamante. Last year, developer Fermin Rajunov filed a lawsuit against the City of San Antonio and Toyota over the Starbright agreement after his rezoning request for a multifamily housing development was denied.
“[The Housing Trust] project is distinct from those because there is not bordering industrial uses around there,” Bustamante said. “As a result, I think given its location, given the planned uses, this was an appropriate use.”
Commissioner John Whitsett said the ICOD appears to be creating an industrial district that, according to law, could be annexed by the city in the future. “There is no industrial district established,” by the overlay, Niño said, adding those laws apply to economic development.
In a pre-hearing work session, Commissioner John Whitsett asked the newly named interim director of Development Services, Amin Tohmaz, if he would process all the pending open records requests Whitsett submitted regarding the ICOD proposal.
Whitsett has openly criticized the city’s request for an industrial overlay, repeatedly sending emails and letters to officials at City Hall and executives at Toyota stating his case against it. Prior to the June hearing, Guinn warned Whitsett to recuse himself if he could not remain impartial on the matter.
Whitsett joined other commissioners in voting unanimously against a postponement as requested by city staff. Following a second motion, he also voted in favor of denying the request. Two others, Sipes and Bustamante, voted against the denial.
Niño said before the hearing that if commissioners voted to deny or approve the request, his department would then determine its next step: “It could be going to council it, could be not,” he said.
