City staff received the go-ahead Wednesday from a City Council committee to continue work on enabling viewshed protections – and development restrictions – for areas surrounding various cultural landmarks, including the historic Hays Street Bridge, San Fernando Cathedral, Tower Life building, and six other sites.
Such protections would limit development that encroaches on key views of historic landmarks and other culturally significant city vistas “that make San Antonio special,” Shanon Shea Miller, director of the City’s Office of Historic Preservation, told Council members on the Arts, Culture and Heritage Committee.
Council examined the issue after protesters called for such viewshed protections of the Hays Street Bridge on the near Eastside, where a local developer has tentative plans to build a five-story mixed-use apartment complex that would block neighborhood views of the bridge. Councilman Cruz Shaw (D2), whose district includes much of the Eastside, and Councilwoman Ana Sandoval (D7) submitted an official request for City staff to investigate expanded regulations in November 2017 after the project adjacent to the bridge was delayed by the Historic and Design Review Commission. A redesigned version of the project was denied by HDRC on March 9, but City Manager Sheryl Sculley – who has ultimate authority over all the commission’s rulings – approved the project with stipulations two weeks later.
Viewshed protections, applied through a zoning overlay, are already in place for the city’s World Heritage sites: the Alamo and four other missions on the Mission Reach of the San Antonio River. These overlays restrict building heights that would interfere with views of the site. However, buildings that violate these rules have been granted exception by HDRC, as was the case for an apartment complex behind Mission Concepción.
Before rules for specific sites can be developed, the first step is to modify existing city rules regarding viewsheds in general, Miller said. The unified development code includes terms such as “front door” when referencing main entrances to structures. “Obviously the Hays Street Bridge doesn’t have a front door,” she said.
There are already several other sites that are eligible for viewshed protection as identified by the code, but community input collected through several public meetings indicates that the Hays Street Bridge, San Fernando Cathedral, Arneson River Theatre, Mission Marquee Plaza, Tower Life Building, Woodlawn Lake, Japanese Tea Garden at Brackenridge Park, Tower of the Americas, and the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Little Flower are the community’s top priorities. City Council will ultimately decide which are eligible for viewshed protection.
The code amendments also would include evaluation criteria that will be applied to future viewshed consideration, including the site’s iconic snapshot (if it’s often photographed or part of the public memory), cultural ties (representing a familiar aspect of the city’s cultural or social history), and urban planning benefits (enhancing the quality of the urban environment and way-finding).
The new code will be brought to the Council committee again for review before going to full City Council consideration, Miller said. Council is expected to vote on the update in May.
Once the eligible sites are in the code, only then can City staff work with community stakeholders – property owners, neighborhood associations, and developers – to formulate specific rules for each site that outline what view they want to protect.
“It’s a zoning overlay just like an historic district or a [neighborhood conservation district], so properties subject to the viewshed once it’s created will then have to be re-zoned to have that viewshed apply to that property,” Miller told the Rivard Report. “We will be looking at each one to see if we can create a range of standards so it’s not completely black and white. But it will be a unique conversation for each one.”
An appeal process would also be put in place. Property owners or other “aggrieved” parties related to a decision would have 30 business days to appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustments.
Protesters against the project next to the Hays Street Bridge are concerned that this process will take too long; the project could be approved by staff before May.
Graciela Sánchez, director of the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, and attorney Amy Kastely attended the committee meeting and asked for a moratorium on development in the area.
“It’s the viewshed of the bridge, not only from the bridge,” Sánchez said. “The [viewshed] of the bridge should be 360 degrees.”
The apartment developer and property owner, Mitch Meyer, said property rights should be prioritized in these discussions, too.
“It’s presumptuous and naive to think a property owner is supposed to lose the value of [their] property to provide a view,” Meyer said in a text. “If someone wants a view, they need to purchase the property and protect the view.”
There are interim controls on construction permitting that the City could enact while the City considers each viewshed, Miller said after the meeting, but those won’t be in place until that process starts – likely after May. And Meyer has already filed his application, so the rules in place at that time are the only ones that legally apply.
Click here to download Miller’s presentation to the committee.
“This is what we are going to be losing,” said local photographer Kristel Orta Puente, who lives in the Deco District. She held up a large photograph of the bridge at night, back-lit by San Antonio’s downtown (see images above). “This is really really important and it’s disappointing that the HDRC spent so much time listening to citizens just to have their decision overturned.”
During an earlier discussion about the Office of Historic Preservation programs and processes, Shaw suggested that the HDRC should become an autonomous board – making its decisions final rather than subject to the city manager’s approval.
That conversation would have to be taken up by City Council, Miller said. “The City could establish parameters [in the unified development code] where commissions make final decisions. And then a person [would be able to] appeal a commission decision instead of a staff decision.”
Councilman Roberto Treviño (D1) chairs the Arts, Culture and Heritage Committee with Council members Shaw, Greg Brockhouse (D6), Shirley Gonzales (D5), and Rebecca Viagran (D3). Brockhouse was not present for Wednesday’s meeting.
Am I the only one that just thinks this is ridiculous? Can they spend that energy on helping the homeless or other major real Cory issues? Instead we’re fighting about the view from a bridge to no where that barely gets used. I frequent the area and rarely see anyone on the bridge. Lastly the area surrounding the bridge needs some life. I thought this was the decade of downtown? Why are we creating more boards and more rules to develop the city center where infrastructure exist? If it gets to expensive or problematic to build in the area we will continue to see growth pushed out past 1604, burdening the already sprawled City. Lastly HDRC needs to be dissolved or just advisory the idea they would have final say is extremely scary. Thank god we have Sculley.
I hope Puente got permission from Meyer and the architect to create this imagery using their legally protected intellectual property or she could actually be sued. Possibly the RR too for publishing it. The projects drawings and renderings are not the intellectual property of the public to be manipulated for any purpose, especially with the intent to protest and sabotage the property of that owner. This is not a public work, it is a private property. That is a protected document not for your use. That goes for marketing imagery and construction documents alike. It’s simply not you’re property even if you like to think it is, much like the lot Meyer owns.
Furthermore, if you think it’s okay to publish below the belt shots like this RR it’s really disgusting. I really lose respect for this publication when you do that. I create renderings for a living and this power deserves more respect. It is the second time RR has published protest renderings for this project. Keep it up I can play that game too. I hope Puente or Esperanza never ever want to develop anything themselves besides pictures and protests or you’ll find out quickly you’re not the only one who can weaponize photoshop.
I agree and hope that Puente got permission to use the architect’s illustration to make her point, she is crossing the bridge of Copy Right Laws. You can’t do this without ownership approval. And also by making her visual statement clear, I feel she also created a somewhat effort of making the view of the consider project into a positive; meaning that this project and the bridge looks great and adds to the proposed development. Let’s stop the bantering and build it; people will come. It’s the natural law of the universe. Truth!
The Rivard Report’s use of the overlay image qualifies as “fair use.” We republished the overlay, which itself is a transformative use and commentary, as part of our reporting on the community debate about the issue.
Am I the only one that just thinks this is ridiculous? Can they spend that energy on helping the homeless or other major real City issues? Instead we’re fighting about the view from a bridge to no where that barely gets used. I frequent the area and rarely see anyone on the bridge. . .the area surrounding the bridge needs some life. I thought this was the decade of downtown? Why are we creating more boards and more rules to develop the city center where infrastructure exist? If it gets to expensive or problematic to build in the area we will continue to see growth pushed out past 1604, burdening the already sprawled City. Finally, HDRC needs to be dissolved or their role downgraded to advisory the idea they would have final say is extremely scary. Thank god we have a forward thinking city manager.
The land was donated as a park. The city should honor the original intent of the donation. Urban parks are scare.
The apartments have no architectural value just as bland as the rest. It reminds me of East Berlin in the 1960’s. Who wants to live next to a busy railroad? Who invests in an apartment complex filled with controversy? Is it funny money from out of State? Lets investigate the money men? They must be desperate for a project.
The land will never be a park – that ship has sailed. How about coming to the table and compromising instead of complaining?
There are three parks nearby, each within three blocks of this parcel – Dignowity, Healy Murphy, and Maverick. The area doesn’t need more parks, it and the city in general needs more housing supply.
Call me crazy, but I’d vote that a building that adds housing, and creates some jobs at the shops would be better than an empty park.
How busy are those three parks Jess?
They seem fairly empty when’s I’ve passed by them, except for the basketball court at Dignowity. That seems to get regular use.
“If someone wants a view, they need to purchase the property and protect the view.” —Mitch Meyer
Mitch Meyer — YOU are the epitome of arrogance and hypocrisy. You, Mitch Meyer, did not purchase the property. It was gifted to the City of San Antonio (owned by ALL the people of San Antonio, not just corporate development interests) by the family that actually DID purchase and own the land with the clear stipulation that it be made a park. Against the public trust, it was given as a quid pro quo to Eugene Simor in a quick, shady and corrupt back room deal. Then “deeded” to you. Your contortions, Mitch Meyer (a.k.a. Stella Artois?), to seem entitled as a property owner are vulgar, shameful and a hypocritical farce. The ship may have sailed, but it’s taking on lots of water and sinking fast.
More available housing? You are naive if you fall for the ol Developer line, mixed income housing. It is not mixed income and will only create more loss in already existing middle income and poorer families who already surround the area causing an even widening homelessness issue. I moved from the Northside to the East Side because rent is too high. If this supposedly mixed income complex is erected, so will the rents in the surrounding areas. And then where i go? Are you going to build another Haven for Hopelessness or are you going to find another grouo of nuns to donate property to SamMinistries to build more transitional housing? The root of homelessness is unaccountable and unbalanced gentrification. That, amongst other natural disasters, is the root of homelessness. A city council who sells out to developers in the name of smart growth.