August 27, 2017

Roberto C. Trevino
Councilman
P.O. Box 839966
San Antonio, Texas 78283

RE: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION REQUEST 1) INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE (IDZ) (Apr

12, 2017), AND 2) MULTIFAMILY ZONING DESIGNATIONS MF/RM ZONES (Aug 21, 2017)

Dear Councilman Trevino:

San Antonio Neighborhoods for Everyone (SANE) is a coalition that supports building a city where all
neighborhoods are welcome and open to everyone - young and old, rich and poor, renter and homeowner,
healthy and frail, citizen and immigrant, migrant and lifelong resident.

We are writing regarding the priorities you have articulated through CCRs in recent months. They seem
to represent a narrow set of interests, and the way they contradict each other relays that they are not
written based on principles or a coherent vision for the future. We want you to know that we will support
you and stand by you if you choose to take a principled and coherent approach to development regulation
and housing policy that actually reflects Councils commitment to equity and inclusiveness. However
these CCRs appear random and reactive, and will lead us toward less equity.

Since April 2017, you have submitted two CCRs (4/12/17 IDZ & 8/22/17 MF/RM Zones) that appear to
lead the city towards limiting housing choice and housing affordability for future generations, and you
have not led or signed onto any CCR bringing the Housing Commissions Affordable Housing Policy
Recommendations to consideration by the Council. Why does your agenda appear to be focused on
helping existing homeowners achieve the most predictable and profitable returns on their home
investments, while allowing affordable housing policy recommendations to languish?

The IDZ CCR states that the designation allows for too much guesswork and does not encourage
developers to design for community compatibility, and the density increase, lack of parking and visual
concern stresses neighborhoods. What stresses neighborhoods is lack of density and diverse housing
types, too much parking, and setbacks that value parking over walkability. On the other hand, the
MF33/RM4 CCR states that the development review processes in these base zones does not come with
the benefits provided by the process required for IDZ rezoning. So which is the problem, too much
discretion, or not enough?

The IDZ was introduced in order to help inner-city areas compete with areas on the fringe of our city that
are less expensive for developers to build on, but cost the city much more to service. The IDZ is directed
at buildings and sites that are vacant and underutilized by the current development community. The IDZ
has helped much in this regard. If anything, the IDZ has not gone far enough. We are in support of the
IDZ review, if the goal is to expand its reach even further, reducing the costs of dense, walkable infill
development to expand affordability in the face of our rapid population growth.

The UDCs stated purpose for RM 4 begins: These districts provide areas for medium to high-density
residential uses where adequate public facilities and services exist with capacity to serve development
In any case, the fundamental purpose of RM-4 and MF-33 zones is to allow more housing for more
people to live in, and to designate places where it can be built without being subjected to discretionary
(costly) approval processes.

We urge you to consider how changes to the IDZ, MF-33, and RM-4 standards and approval processes
will increase the cost of housing construction, limiting affordability, diversity and inclusion over the long-
term. Housing is where people live and will live for generations. Why do your priorities focus on
limiting its construction and density? Changes to the IDZ could also provide tools for a vocal minority of
neighborhood residents to kill projects they dont like based on personal bias, projects that would benefit
our inner-city neighborhoods and city as a whole.

We ask you to broaden your agenda to fight for income desegregation and mixed-income housing in all
neighborhoods of the city, and instead of mostly catering to voting homeowners that tend to have the time
and resources to demand attention, be proactive to learn from and build relationships with marginalized
communities that may be affected by these policy changes. Given the priorities you have articulated
through these CCRs, your and your Council colleagues recent statements about elevating equity in City
policy seem insincere.

Public debate and council consideration of community issues is part of healthy local democracies. As you
request councils consideration of IDZ, MF-33, and RM-4 zoning issues brought forward by the
homeowning constituents, please expand the discussion by successfully championing a CCR for Council
to consider the Housing Commissions Affordable Housing Policy Recommendations.

Thank you for considering our concerns.

Sincerely,

San Antonio Neighborhoods for Everyone (SANE)

Dawn Hanson, Chair