A good compromise among deeply divided parties, mediators often say, is a resolution where everyone leaves the negotiating table a bit unhappy.
That seems like an apt description of the various adversarial parties and how they feel after City Manager Sheryl Sculley, Assistant City Manager Rod Sanchez, and Shanon Shea Miller, director of the city’s Office of Historic Preservation decided Friday to approve with conditions the development of a mixed-use, multi-family project on vacant private property just north of the historic Hays Street Bridge on San Antonio’s near-Eastside.
Click here to read the exclusive report on that decision by Rivard Report Managing Editor Iris Dimmick, who had a very busy week, producing separate articles on three major development projects in the urban core.
All three of those articles, linked above, illustrate the complexities of infill development in the urban core, especially those involving historic neighborhoods, properties, or overlay zones. Developers, nearby property owners, neighborhood associations, social and economic justice groups, all have a vested stake in the city’s redevelopment.
Mediating those parties in the public interest falls to City Hall and its various review commissions and decision-making bodies. Inevitably, there are winners and losers, although if the system is working right, neighborhoods and the broader community benefit from the often-painful and prolonged democratic process.
Here’s the problem: In a city where infill development and investment is sorely needed, all that oversight adds significant expense to any given project. That makes it very difficult for young developers, who are eager to work in the urban core, to afford the cost.
Here’s the other problem: Eliminate the public checkpoints like neighborhood association review and consent, or say, the non-binding decisions of the City’s Historic and Design Review Commission, and you open the doors to the developers and developments that no one wants in our historic neighborhoods.
No project better typifies this set of contradictions than the proposed development of a 1.7-acre vacant property that sits just north of the Hays Street Bridge on the edge of the Dignowity Hill Historic District. Less than a decade ago, the neighborhood was one of the city’s most neglected historic communities with some of the highest residential vacancy and blight to be found.
The neighborhood’s rich history dates to the pre-Civil War era, and for many decades was at the heart of the city’s black community. Today, like most of the urban core, it is majority Hispanic, with a significant black presence, and growing numbers of young, white professionals drawn to the affordability and availability of century-old homes in a neighborhood a one-mile walk to the Alamo and downtown.
Housing prices have doubled in less than a decade, and that makes “Dignowity Hill” and “gentrification” something that often divides people who all want vibrant and socially, economically, racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods – but disagree vehemently on how to get there.
Read the comments Dimmick gathered from some of the parties.
Mitch Meyer of Loopy Limited, the property owner and project developer, told Dimmick he has not yet decided if he will agree to the additional stipulations put forth by the City as conditions for the complex’s development.
“I’m exhausted,” Meyer said. “I’m glad that the City overruled the HDRC, but there are so many conditions …. it makes the project almost undevelopable.”
Then there are the parties who filed a lawsuit several years ago to try to make the City convert the property into a public pocket park.
“I’m extremely angry, and I’m extremely disappointed, and I really think that it’s outrageous,” said attorney Amy Kastely, who represents the Hays Street Bridge Restoration Group, who said the decision to overrule HDRC amounts to City officials ignoring public input. “This is a deal that was made in secret with nobody else allowed in on it.”
And then there is the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, which has established a record of opposing a number of infill development projects, including development of the Alamo Brewery south of the bridge and Loopy’s project north of the bridge that includes plans for a restaurant by brewery owner Eugene Simor.
“We’re pissed off, and this isn’t the end,” said Graciela Sánchez, the Esperanza’s longtime executive director of the organization that has allied itself with the bridge restoration group.
The one person who seemed satisfied with the city’s Friday decision is Brian Dillard, the outgoing president of the Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Association.
“I am very excited that City staff is working with the neighborhood and the community to find a middle ground at least,” Dillard said. “It takes a lot of courage to actually step out there as City staff in a city that’s trying to develop and say that communities come first.”
Dillard criticized Meyer and Simor for not engaging the community earlier on in the process, but he and a majority of the association’s members, he has said, want to see something happen in the empty lot.
Where do we go from here? It seems evident that contrary to what Meyer said Friday, the project is quite feasible and he, his architects, his respected land use attorney James McKnight, and Simor should sit down with the newly-elected leadership of the neighborhood association and City officials and collaborate on a fine-tuned design.
That likely will not satisfy the bridge restoration group or Esperanza, but studying the legalities of this debate suggest they’ll be tilting at windmills in fighting for a public park. Even in the extremely unlikely scenario that the Texas Supreme Court would hear their appeal of the Fourth Court’s ruling in favor of the City and the developer, it would not lead to the City repurchasing the private property and building a park.
Protest has its place in the democratic process, but if you are going to oppose all such projects, there is little chance of building broad community support or finding the law on your side.
The property is privately owned and in Texas the owner has the right to develop it within the guidelines of the law, city ordinances, and the Unified Development Code, which many development professionals have described as an outdated rule book that accounts for some of the bureaucratic delays and roadblocks that slow infill developers.
The City would be wise to step back and examine its own processes, starting with the UDC, but also examining the scope and authority of the HDRC to avoid the kind of situation that occurred with this project two weeks ago. In the space of a single meeting, Meyer saw his request for final approval reach an impasse with a 4-4 vote, and then in the same meeting, meet rejection by a 5-3 vote after HDRC Chairman Michael Guarino reversed his individual vote. That was not a confidence-building display of sound public process.
The City could save everyone time and money by issuing more authoritative guidelines for infill developers, including a tighter definition of HDRC’s role and authority.
Meyer should have known at the outset that the property he purchased was of significant public interest, and that such projects merit the hiring of the best local designers available, individuals with a proven track record of sensitivity to neighborhood history, culture, and character. City officials should make it clear that developers who sacrifice quality for profit are likely to incur financial pain as their projects languish.
City officials also can ask earlier in the process if infill developers have adequately engaged neighbors, and require the parties to hold meaningful discussions before the projects advance for review and approval. Neighborhood associations do not have the legal authority to vote projects up or own, but a developer who ignores their participation or the value of their support is foolish.
There is no undoing the acrimony of the past that has defined this project to date, but City officials have given the parties the opportunity to hit the reset button and work together to develop an important property in a way that will make the neighborhood a better place for everyone.
Well, I don’t think it was a matter of the developer not wanting to find common ground. The DHNA’s ARC(architectural review committee’s) recommendation paper was to pursue viewshed protection that would prevent the building of any edifice. Graciela wants to relitigate the case they lost and she’s not a member of the neighborhood and Nettie Hinton’s official comment at Cruz Shaw’s Town Hall was *I don’t give a GD about no design I just want my park*. So far they’ve conceded that they’d be open to a gazebo and some public restrooms. Uh, should the developer center his design recommendations around the gazebo or the public restrooms or the viewshed pipe dream that doesn’t let you put anything on that lot? So, the two contributions from the other side have been, * I don’t want anything! Get out of here* and *We’re pursuing a view shed ordinance to prevent building anything*.
Conor well said!
The unfortunate part is that there are a number of people in the community who want the development and are excited about it but they get drowned out and bullied by activists who largely aren’t even from the neighborhood. It’s disappointing that communities can be hijacked in this way.
“The City could save everyone time and money by issuing more authoritative guidelines for infill developers, including a tighter definition of HDRC’s role and authority.”
This is spot on. The HDRC appears to govern in a highly subjective and inconsistent manner. They set aside the standards and guidelines they are supposed to abide by when it is popular with the audience or when they fear negative pushback from the audience. A guideline serves no purpose if it isn’t followed in every instance, no matter how unpopular the decision.
When a developer follows the guidelines for a project, the HDRC approval should effectively be automatic. When a project that has followed the guidelines is denied by commissioners’ nebulous rationales, the commission loses all credibility and has tortiously interfered with the project’s development.
At least two of the three projects reported on this week appear to have had significant factual and technical errors in their submittals to the City. GrayStreet’s renderings omitted several floors (withdrawn), and the Friedrich’s plan (approved) appears to bisect the Carver Center with an extension of N. Olive Street through the Center – right though a playground.
The third, this Bridge proposal was already criticized by a commissioner with “the drafting in general, for a project under this much scrutiny, should have been of much higher accuracy.”
Developers, like Mitch Meyers, use modern drafting and rendering tools to create rotating 3-D models of plans that look great, from specific selected angles with selected textures, traffic and clouds. What these renderings are not, by and large, are accurate depictions of the site.
Your article hosts an animation about this development. But is it accurate? Who owns that open space where the tramway cars are depicted? In Meyer’s drawings it’s shown as “open space” and a “pocket park”, but does it even belong to Meyer? This article, based on the December HDRC hearing, appears to indicate it does not. https://www.virtualbx.com/construction-preview/cp-feature-story/25117-san-antonio-residents-avenge-loss-over-hays-street-bridge-park.html An HDRC Commissioner stated: “You created the condition that makes this an issue. You severed it and at the same time you are trying to rely on it.”
The City, and the sitting Council, gets enthusiastic about the pretty pictures, but – with some exceptions – does not do the necessary due-diligence to ensure the plans are actually accurate and feasible. Can Meyer guarantee this will be green and open and park-like?
If Meyer shows a “pocket park” where he has no control over future use of the “proposed green space” then his proposal should be rejected until accurate drawings are provided that do not artificially show his project in a more flattering way.
Thank you John and Conor. Please read the comments I posted in Iris’ article from yesterday. It will save me a lot of re-typing. I get upset when I continually hear from Councilman Shaw and Brian Dillard that I should have met with the neighborhood or to continue meeting with the neighborhood. Brian Dillard was the first person I met with over a year ago to ask for input and guidance. Councilman Shaw wasn’t a councilman back then but when he spoke at Alamo Beer neighborhood meeting he said “this ship has sailed”. Now he’s suggesting to go back and talk to the neighborhood. I can’t get anything done like this. What everyone wants to ignore is that I have met with the neighborhood. There’s so much to write about that keeping this short is almost impossible. I have forty two signature from people that “live” in the neighborhood that want to see this project developed. How did I do that without meeting with them?
The HDRC doesn’t need fixing. It needs to be abolished and that isn’t because I’m a disgruntled applicant. There is no reason why the OHP and the city planning department can’t implement the Downtown Development Guideline.
I’ve had three HDRC meetings and the planning department recommended approval all three times. But here’s where the dysfunction lies; in my second HDRC meeting I was denied and received a denial letter from planning with the reasons for denial. I corrected all of the reasons for denial and even went the additional step of sweet talking Eugene into giving up his restaurant parcel for a pocket park. That was a big sacrifice for Eugene and was a direct response from working with the neighborhoods concerns. How can anyone say that we aren’t working with or haven’t listened to the neighborhood? We also had a DRC meeting with HDRC commissioners Guarino, Lazzarine and Bustamonte before the regular meeting to show off the new project and get feedback. Everyone agreed that all the conditions for the denial had been met and all three were impressed with the project. At the HDRC meeting only Bustamonte voted in favor of it. How can I accomplish anything when the rules change at every meeting? Two HDRC meetings ago they asked to push the building away from the bridge and cascade it from low to high towards Lamar. We did that. At the last HDRC meeting Azza Kamal asked us to flip the front and essentially undo what was asked of us earlier. Another commissioner sat through most of the meeting and then left before the vote. That odd number would have avoided the confusion of a tie. Michael Guarino flip flopped and used the scapegoat of giving me the option to go the the Board of Adjustment. Anne-Marie Grube said she thought the project was compliant with the DDG but voted against it anyway. Joel Garcia wanted to redesign our parking and throw in multi-family parking ratios that don’t apply to a D zoning. The HDRC process doesn’t accomplish anything and is just another layer of bureaucracy. Go to any meeting and you’ll see what I’m talking about. I’ll say again that the OHP and the planning department is very capable of implementing the DDG, which also need to be revamped or eliminated but that’s a whole other story.
I have complied with the UDC the UBC the DDG and have acted in good faith the entire time and my project still isn’t approved without impossible conditions.
Bob,
Thanks for another thoughtful and accurate article. I appreciate the Rivard Report because we can respond here, add depth and contribute to your reporting. It’s frustrating to just read about yourself in the paper and not be able to respond quickly. Your report fixes that. I do disagree with you that if everyone’s upset then we have a good compromise. “Splitting the baby” isn’t good dispute resolution.
Mitch
Building on stolen land…what great karma. Naming the development ‘Bridge’ is the height of irony. War is Peace and all that. Imagine if your grandmother lived in those tiny houses and you forever blocked her view of the sunset. Abolishing HDRC is just the kind of nonsensical thing we’d expect you to promote. A pox on your project. Someone with zero empathy for the work of Douglas Steadman deserves no shelter from CoSA. Playing the factions in DH against each other was very clever of your team. I respect Xavier and have worked with him in the past. The condescending tone taken with both audience and the commission were outrageous. Abolish your arrogance and your poor little me syndrome before you proceed. It’s s bit thick.
Re: “Here’s the problem: In a city where infill development and investment is sorely needed, all that oversight adds significant expense to any given project. That makes it very difficult for young developers, who are eager to work in the urban core, to afford the cost.”
Loopy Ltd, as an LLC, has been in business for over 20 years. I’m not sure that qualifies as a “young developer.” My understanding is that this project is also receiving over $1 million in public funds, in addition to receiving tax abatements due to a minimal “affordable housing” component.
If “young developers” are “eager” to work in the inner city with reduced oversight, perhaps they can do so without the benefit of public money and tax abatements.
Robert’s encapsulation of the “problem” appears to try to paint the issue where entrenched interests are holding down young, struggling entrepreneurs. That hardly seems to be correct in this case.
A more accurate depiction could be where an already successful, established developer is seeking to maximize profits by utilizing tax breaks and public subsistence – and leveraging a community asset (the Hays Street Bridge) in doing so.
There’s nothing wrong with that, but let’s not paint Loopy as a victim of over-regulation in this scenario.
I channel the character Stefon from Saturday Night Live (SNL) in exclaiming that this story has EVERYTHING (yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes):
–A proposal for more luxury apartments downtown called LOOPY that was cancelled at least twice by City review processes due to poor design (including rendering) work but reversed by a city manager who knows better and seems to want San Antonio to be more like Phoenix — which The Rockefeller Foundation and sociologist Andrew Ross (New York University) describe as the least sustainable city on the planet and one of the most segregated, pointed towards a future of eco-apartheid;
–A developer “exhausted” (and venting in Rivard Report comments) after garnering super special city manager design approval and so many failed attempts to design a basically decent project that excites the public and meets minimum (and comparably weak) Downtown Design guidelines–or matches the pedestrian / public realm urban design characteristics of past East Side downtown workmanship. Removed from the context of a site near Hays Street Bridge, this proposal dog (which the Rivard Report has devoted considerable press towards, at the expense of other crucial infill development stories, such as the devastation the proposed Zarzamora Overpass project / Union Pacific give-away would bring) wouldn’t hunt in most cities or urban neighborhoods of merit in the US;
–The suggestion that HDRC and separate Downtown Design guidelines are non-binding–depending on who you know or the value the city manager sees in your project:
–The suggestion that quickly doubling housing costs WITH new housing development inside the 410 loop is a trend that all San Antonians are happy for and that is good for us. Along with the indication that the East Side’s African-American identity is in the past;
–Angry activists including attorneys questioning a highly questionable final decision that smells a lot like oligarchy, as Peter Moskowitz (2017) describes how some local governments (and posses of select nonprofits, business interests and local media outlets) are running and “killing” great American cities.
At heart, SNL’s Stefon is an urbanist critiquing commercial and other gentrification (“the former CVS, which became a Chase Bank and then became a CVS again”) and the absurd or loopy leadership tastes and short-term interests shaping modern US city conditions.
The HDRC might as well not even show up for their next meeting if whatever they decide is non-binding and we’re all living in Sculleytown, anyways–waiting for whatever urbane and equitable states like Arizona and Kansas think of next as good for San Antonians.
See:
Plight of Phoenix: how long can the world’s ‘least sustainable’ city survive?
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/phoenix-least-sustainable-city-survive-water
How to stop gentrification
https://newrepublic.com/article/144260/stop-gentrification
I read your comments with some interest only to find them going down a rabbit trail. For a second I thought you might make some sense but realized that you don’t and are just angry. Sheryl Sculley has nothing to do with a dysfunctional HDRC. I think it shows great leadership that she took action. To call this Sculleytown is dumb. She has the right to disapprove of an HDRC decision and only uses it in extreme cases where dysfunction in the HDRC is apparent. It’s interesting how so many people just want to bash Sheryl Sculley and look for any venue to do so. Sheryl Sculley just did her job and in doing so didn’t make it easier for the developer, she merely broke an impasse. Give her a break.
Gentrification is synonymous for progress. The entire area inside Loop 410 has rising property values because people are moving to San Antonio not because of new developments. Go to BCAD and type in a few east side properties. They have already doubled, tripled and quadrupled in the last ten years. Gentrification has already happened. I realized that you don’t know what your talking about when you attached two links that have nothing to do with your comments. A link about suburban sprawl and water problems in Phoenix are irrelevant to an apartment project on the east side of San Antonio. Come back with a better argument than just bashing Sheryl Sculley. That’s weak.
Amen. Took the words right out of my mouth.
I’m liking what Mark is saying, and will watch SNL tonight to see what Stefon has to say. The Rivard Report continues to ignore how this property was GIVEN to the City for a park. The Hays St. Restoration Group , established by the City of San Antonio, was ignored just as was the HDRC recently. So this is a double slap in the face of citizens donating their time to guide and improve City projects. Developers: this is why we have a love/hate relationship.
So be upset at the city and not the developer. Yes?
Do you live in a house, condo or apartment? I know you do, everyone does. Guess who provided that abode. Drumroll please………..a developer.
Put a couple chickens and goats on the land, and apply for an ag exemption. Call it an “Urban Ranch.” Invite the neighborhood over to learn about urban ranching. The only downside I see is a stray goat or two eating the couch on the front porch of some homes. That’s a win-win for everyone!
Sir Nigel- awesome idea. That is exactly what we need – goats cut loose to clean up the mess of all the lazy bum couch dumpers! The GOATS can chew up the sofas and maybe chew on an a__ or two while they are at it. This will also keep code compliance off everyone’s back. Property owners can rent a goat a day for $10, bring revenue to the city and have animal control take care of them, get rid of code compliance officers and save tax $$ !!!!!
A bridge to nowhere and a publicly funded eyesore that no one wants. Keep the area a green zone and when demand is great enough private money will bring development.
Doesn’t Dignowity Hill already have a park with a City View? Why does San Antonio try to save EVERY little old thing? Also if the people living in front of the bridge want to take advantage of the view, can’t they just leave their homes and use the bridge. Take a stroll, stand on the bridge and look at the skyline? Maybe I’m just not getting it.