Part 2 (Part 1 pending) – 27 messages

C* G* <***@hotmail.com> Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:29 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>, Anisa Schell <>

wHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THIS CASE JR/ANISA?

—

J R <***@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:43 PM
To: C* G* <***@hotmail.com>, “Uel Trejo (City Council)” <>, Council District 5 <>, “Rachell Tucker (City Council)” <>
Cc: Anisa Schell <>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>

C*,

As far as I know based on our Gardendale NA meeting on Monday, it’s up to the District at this point. Ortiz McKnight asked to attend our meeting but was a no-show. Teri Castillo was present, as well as Uel from D5.

We’ve made our, for lack of a better word disgust, known about how the case was handled by the Zoning Commission.

Ortiz McKnight did their job, although I wasn’t impressed with how they spoke partially about the truth of specific things such as getting signatures from property owners (they were not property owners). Even as a citizen I know that you can’t just get a person living at a location’s signature for consideration of zoning changes, and that it has to be the actual property owner. So either Ortize McKnight wasn’t aware of this, which is concerning given that they handle zoning cases, or it was a detail left out. Second, while it is true and was stated that OM did attend a Neighborhood Association meeting, they didn’t mention nor was it asked by the Zoning Board of what the outcome of that meeting was, which was negative from the two NAs that overlap this address, which is 834 Leal (not 800 Leal).

To me this is more of an issue with the Zoning Commission ignoring the will of the people who have fought for Single Family Housing, as well as a misstep on the part of the Zoning Case person, who did not play voicemails and included Prospect Hill NA even though they are not within the 200ft notification nor do they overlap this area. I was told that voicemails were played during the last meeting, but that meeting is also online and I sat through it twice and item number 33 during that docket was not reached. They ended at item 31. 834 Leal was item 33.

Sorry I couldn’t attend this morning the WEHA meeting, but we still have issues on this street that require me to be in attendance. We had a recent arson where two neighbors have a person at the location outside jumping the fence from the property, when the fire started, yet the fire was dismissed as not arson. We’ve contacted the SAFFE Officer and Arson, and submitted video from two angles showing the person, same guy that is an issue here at 810 Leal, J* S* J*.

We have our hands full on the street.
[Quoted text hidden]

J. R.

—

C* G* <***@hotmail.com> Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:00 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>

tHANK U FOR THE UPDATE.
tHAT IS GREAT YOU GOT THE cOUNCILWOMAN TO COME OUT HERSELF.

bUZZ ME WHEN U HAVE A CHANCE.

—

Anisa Schell <> Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 3:09 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>, C* G* <***@hotmail.com>, “Uel Trejo (City Council)” <>, Council District 5 <>, “Rachell Tucker (City Council)” <>
Cc: <***@yahoo.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, Matthew Gilbert <>

Hello J.R.,

I apologize for any confusion about the rezoning for 834 Leal. I am happy to help share any information you or your neighbors might need on this case. I want to try to address your concerns, the best I can.

834 Leal was Item 33 on the December 6th Zoning Agenda, but it was continued to December 19th. The continued items get addressed at the beginning of the hearing, which is why you didn’t see it in the video from that day. DSD plays the voicemails of the continued cases at the beginning of the hearing. You can hear them in the video linked here at about the 25-minute mark.

When the case was heard at the December 19th Zoning Commission hearing, it was Item 10. Here is a link to the part of the hearing where it was discussed: https://sanantoniotx.new.swagit.com/videos/291737?ts=6291

I apologize for not attending your meeting last Monday. I had emailed asking if we could attend at the last-minute, but since we didn’t get a response, we did not want to come uninvited. The case is scheduled to be heard by City Council on January 25th. I’d be happy to attend a future meeting or arrange one specifically to discuss this if you would like.

Thank you,

Anisa Schell (she/her)
Project Manager
Ortiz McKnight, PLLC
O: 210.664.0005 | C: 303.947.1618

—

J R <***@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 5:32 PM
To: Anisa Schell <>
Cc: C* G* <***@hotmail.com>, “Uel Trejo (City Council)” <>, Council District 5 <>, “Rachell Tucker (City Council)” <>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, Matthew Gilbert <>, <***@att.net>
Bcc: <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, ***@gmail.com, <***@gmail.com>, <***@icloud.com>

Thanks, I had followed up last week and saw they had changed the order of presentation and that yes, voicemails were played. As for our email, I thought M* got back with you, so I didn’t respond.

The voicemails still were negative against the zoning. Two neighborhood associations both were in full agreement that we did not approve of the radical change of use for the property from single family home use, to a fourplex. Our input, which both associations have regular meetings with our public, were in agreement that this was not beneficial to our efforts prior, in keeping the area single family residence during the large area rezoning the year prior. Just about everything was against this decision, yet it was allowed by the zoning board. I’m not sure what the point of feedback from a large part of the community is for, if all that’s going to happen is a meeting just for show where already laid plans are executed.

Watching the video of the case, it appears that no one seemed to care what our wishes were as a community, and instead Prospect Hill NA who does not meet with his public was taken as positive feedback over all of the other negative feedback from community and two neighborhood associations. I know about Prospect Hill not having public meetings because I know a people living in that area that have contacted Phelan and there hasn’t been a meeting in over a year, or more.

The notion that due diligence was done by attending a meeting with West End Hope in Action (WEHA) is half true. I attend both Gardendale and WEHA meetings, so I happened to be on hand when they did show up to a WEHA meeting. During the zoning case while Watson approved of the law office meeting with the NAs, nothing was stated about how we were fully in opposition, and that we had requested a continuance until January, in order to inform the public that there may be a change to the plans for the development.

It was stated that the law office got signatures of positive feedback from property owners, but as a citizen I know you have to have the actual property owners of the area, not just someone staying at a house, regarding zoning change feedback. I’m not sure why this was done, and I don’t want to think it was done purposefully but a law office handling zoning cases should probably know this.

It was stated that many properties in the area had CD zoning, but what wasn’t stated was that these are CD2, which is odd because in most cases they are just for a garage or small backyard structure, not four units on a single property. There is one property next to 834 Leal that we don’t think is in compliance, so we’re going to meet with District 5 regarding that and a few others in the area that do not follow the zoning.

The soft threat of having to demolish the front house if the allowance of 4 units wasn’t granted, was just wrong. Even Bustamante stated himself that he didn’t want to be held prisoner by the idea of the house being demolished. Even if the front house is rehabilitated, there’s no guarantee of when that would or could happen.

The truth was half spoken, and I feel like a larger motivation of “build dense housing at all costs” was at play instead of listening to the people of the area’s wishes. We live here and have a better understanding. We’re in a high crime, very unstable area. Moving forward with high density housing on a single family street when we do not know nor can we have any kind of agreement or guarantee what will happen to the property in regards to who will rent, what rents will be, and when completion of the main house will happen (which was held hostage by stating they would have to demo it if they only were able to build 3 units on property).

I joined the Gardendale NA because in the last two years I have worked daily with city services, including SAPD and BCSO, to try to bring some level of regular living to an area where zoning has allowed a prison and Haven for Hope to be placed, and when Haven was placed we were promised more support for the area because of that. This hasn’t turned out well for us, so we’re going to be looking for accountability with any development done in the area.

I don’t see how there’s anything other than what we would allow, which is a single house with a second unit in back. Community agreements aren’t binding, so I don’t believe that would work either. Basically the city is allowing external investors out of state to dictate to the public what is best for them, regardless of what we have worked for.
[Quoted text hidden]

J. R.

—

V*P* <***@icloud.com> Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 5:40 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>

Thank you for sharing and keeping me informed on zoning issues.

Westwood Square Neighborhood Association
Westside Neighborhood Associations Coalition ( WNAC )

—

Anisa Schell <> Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 8:32 AM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>
Cc: C* G* <***@hotmail.com>, “Uel Trejo (City Council)” <>, Council District 5 <>, “Rachell Tucker (City Council)” <>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, Matthew Gilbert <>, <***@att.net>

J.R.,

I appreciate you sharing your concerns about the rezoning process. Can I give you a call to talk more?

Thank you,

Anisa Schell (she/her)
Project Manager
Ortiz McKnight, PLLC
O: 210.664.0005 | C: 303.947.1618

—

J R <***@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 1:09 PM
To: Anisa Schell <>
Cc: C* G* <***@hotmail.com>, “Uel Trejo (City Council)” <>, Council District 5 <>, “Rachell Tucker (City Council)” <>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, Matthew Gilbert <>, <***@att.net>

Hi Anisa,
I’m not the only person with these concerns, I’m just speaking about them. If Gardendale wants to meet and speak about it, that’s up to the President and I can be present, but this isn’t a “me” vs anyone thing. This is the community’s and two neighborhood associations concerns, so it’d probably be better to speak to more than just myself.

M*, R*, anyone from WEHA, if you all want to meet that’s your call. I’ve given my concerns more than enough in multiple emails to just about everyone that could be involved.
[Quoted text hidden]
J. R.

—

Anisa Schell <> Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 4:57 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>
Cc: C* G* <***@hotmail.com>, “Uel Trejo (City Council)” <>, “” <>, Council District 5 <>, “Rachell Tucker (City Council)” <>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@att.net>, Matthew Gilbert <>

Thanks, J.R. I understand where you’re coming from on behalf of your neighbors. I know I can’t address all of these concerns because some have to do with the overall zoning process and also the recent large area rezoning. I can speak to the neighborhood outreach and signatures and accountability for the proposed development for 834 Leal.

City staff required that we reach out to Prospect Hill as well as Gardendale and WEHA. Gardendale and WEHA’s opposition were noted by staff during both zoning commission hearings in December. Matthew and I knocked on doors on Leal and Perez to talk with residents about the rezoning. The signatures we collected are attached. The city did not include these in their counts at zoning commission, although all residents (renters or property owners) are allowed the opportunity to comment on zoning cases, since it is a public process.

I know there’s been concern about the property owners living out of state. If the rezoning is approved, they plan to hire the Triple Key Group to do the renovation and new units. This contractor is located here in San Antonio. https://3keytx.com. With regard to accountability with new developments, we fully support that. The conditional use we’ve requested includes a site plan that will be enforceable by City Code. What is shown on the plan is all that will be allowed if the zoning is approved.

We appreciate your feedback and the conversation surrounding this rezoning and development in your community.

Thank you,

Anisa Schell (she/her)

Project Manager
Ortiz McKnight, PLLC
O: 210.664.0005 | C: 303.947.1618

—

R* R* <***@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 10:21 AM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>

We are up against multiple huge monsters we need a strategic plan to chip away at them

—

Derek Tulowitzky (City Council) <> Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:28 AM
To: Anisa Schell <>, J R <***@gmail.com>
Cc: “***@hotmail.com” <***@hotmail.com>, “Uel Trejo (City Council)” <>, “Rachell Tucker (City Council)” <>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@att.net>, Matthew Gilbert <>

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the additional information Anisa! I’m attaching the approved site plan at Zoning Commission for everyone to have as reference as well. Thanks!

—

J R <***@gmail.com> Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 6:50 AM
To: <***@gmail.com>, <***@yahoo.com>
Cc: “***@hotmail.com” <***@hotmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@att.net>, R* L* <***@gmail.com>
Bcc: C* M* <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***.com>, ***@gmail.com, <***@gmail.com>, F* C* <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@icloud.com>

Back during the 70’s Mario Obledo, general counsel of MALDEF at the time, declared that at last Mexican Americans “will elect people from the barrio to speak for (them) in the councils of government.”

This doesn’t look like we have representation for us at the local government level. Everyone seems happy with the district and law office side, but it’s not based on the wishes of the people that actually live here in our area. The tone of the response is that of being quietly mocked for our lack of power, heard but ignored.

I’ve already submitted my feedback in opposition, again, to this project. I encourage anyone from the area to at the least have your voice heard by sending in feedback regarding this zoning case, and/or, contact your neighbors within Gardendale / WEHA and encourage them to do so.

Send to before January 25th: Case # Z-2023-10700321 CD
Email to:
or call 210-207-2187
and leave a message up to 3 minutes.
[Quoted text hidden]

J. R.

—

O*M*<***@gmail.com> Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:48 AM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>

Thank you for the information.

Even their bull needs to be approved

—

Derek Tulowitzky (City Council) <> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:04 AM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>
Cc: Anisa Schell <>, “***@hotmail.com” <***@hotmail.com>, “Uel Trejo (City Council)” <>, “Rachell Tucker (City Council)” <>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@att.net>, Matthew Gilbert <>

Hi JR,

I had a good, productive conversation with M* and R* last night following a community meeting about this case. If you’d like to call me to discuss the case I can always be reached at 210.207.8295. I believe Uel and M* are working to confirm a time/date where we can meet to discuss future land use for the Gardendale area. I’m sure the information will be forwarded to all parties who would like to attend and I’ll be sure to add those on this email from the area so that they can attend as well. Thanks

[Quoted text hidden]

—

J R <***@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 4:31 PM
To: “Derek Tulowitzky (City Council)” <>
Cc: Anisa Schell <>, “***@hotmail.com” <***@hotmail.com>, “Uel Trejo (City Council)” <>, “Rachell Tucker (City Council)” <>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@att.net>, Matthew Gilbert <>
Bcc: C* M* <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***.com>, ***@gmail.com, <***@gmail.com>, F* C* <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@icloud.com>, N* W* <***@gmail.com>

We started this whole conversation last year. Today’s the day of the council meeting, I believe that was at 2pm.

Looking forward to hearing the outcome.
[Quoted text hidden]

J. R.

—

F* C* <***@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 4:35 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>

JR, I missed out on ur zoning case, how did it work out?

—

J R <***@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 5:40 PM
To: F* C* <***@gmail.com>

Teri approved it, saying that because the schools in the area have a chance of closing down, she wants to make sure it is greenlit so we can have enough students to go to school. She also lied and stated that they reduced the amount of units.

It’s absolute garbage.
[Quoted text hidden]

J. R.

—

F* C* <***@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 6:08 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>

Teri comes across as a deeply grassroots person; she attends N.A. meetings and is known as a progressive –what is causing her to go off track?

Residents naturally look at and understand retail politics but never do they look at or understand wholesale politics. By this I mean to say that what’s missing from this picture is the role of strong market forces which affected, and will continue to affect, low and moderate income communities such as school districts.

Remember when city officials bragged not long ago that S.A. was “the fastest growing city in the country” while we see accelerating de-populution in the city’s inner core. Why is that happening?

The role city & other public institutions play in connection to the private sector in this economic shift has never been discussed or understood.

Adopted economic policies have long-term term consequences but we never talk about policy impacts.
[Quoted text hidden]

—

J R <***@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:29 PM
To: F* C* <***@gmail.com>

Progressives have no interest in business that I’ve seen, unless it’s for their own supporters, and that isn’t the public. It’s pretty easy to win a seat here in D5, all you have to do is reach the minimum, and since we have the lowest voting of the districts, no need to actually reach much of anyone.

She brings in Socialist/Marxist group PSL https://www.facebook.com/psl.satx/ into meetings such as the VIA Scobey project.
[Quoted text hidden]

J. R.

—

J R <***@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:54 PM
To: <***@gmail.com>, <***@yahoo.com>
Cc: “***@hotmail.com” <***@hotmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@att.net>, R* L* <***@gmail.com>
Bcc: C* M* <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***.com>, ***@gmail.com, <***@gmail.com>, F* C* <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@icloud.com>,

Teri Castillo approved based on there being a reduction of housing units (there was no reduction, they approved 4 units) and stated that because of SAISD closures, she has a responsibility to create more housing for students in the future.

Video of the case today: https://youtu.be/Lv3JXFBb1xk

In the face of countering everything they have stated, in absolute lack of care for the public’s wishes and that of two neighborhood associations, the city has decided to do what they had apparently planned all along. It was also stated by Derek Tulowitzky that the property deal had been done under Shirley Gonzales, prior to Castillo, but this leads me to wonder why the property was sold only last year on February 22, 2023, and why would a “deal” from the prior councilwoman hold up today.

If that was the case, where is the public sign off on this? I thought that property owners couldn’t lobby the District directly, because they sure aren’t lobbying or attempting any favor or to work with the community in this case.

WEHA, it was stated that you had no response. Yet I spoke with C* and he was in on the emails. I was at a WEHA meeting when leadership agreed that this is a bad idea and were in opposition. Yet, they ignore WEHA as if they don’t exist, in favor of Prospect Hill? Prospect Hill NA does not meet with its public. We know this, because people from that area come to both WEHA and Gardendale meetings.

Now you see, what happens here, happens because there is no regard for the public. We speak. It’s HEARD. But it’s ignored.

Meanwhile tonight, we have the cops back on 700 block of Leal, just the next block over from where 834 Leal zoning was approved. So they want to make sure there’s enough housing for children, but what about actually securing the area and ridding us of the drug dealers? Or the arsonist that is still running around free?

Teri stated that there’s a middle school two blocks away. Either she forgot, or I’m not sure, but there’s an elementary school right on the next block that is also SAISD, the one that takes in children from Haven for Hope. I’m not sure of the middle school she’s referring to. Tafolla? That’s quite a few blocks more then two away.

All of this ties together.

I have done what I can, as a regular citizen, to fight against this. While the city got its way, regardless of the information that is truthful that I’ve shown them, I can only say the next step is to take this to the public at large and inform them of what is happening here on the West Side.

At the least I ask that you in your own way, reach out to people that may understand the fight we have here, and support us in the future with the lack of accountability going on within the city.

This is one small zoning case.
What else happens when no one is watching?
[Quoted text hidden]

J. R.

—

<***@icloud.com> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 9:29 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>

JR
It doesn’t surprise me that she voted for it because of housing reduction she’s always to use that excuse. Unfortunately there is not enough support from other west side neighborhoods believe me I’ve tried myself many times to get support. I am so tired of Castillo’s politics.

Westwood Square Neighborhood Association
Westside Neighborhood Associations Coalition ( WNAC )

On Jan 25, 2024, at 8:54 PM, J R <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[Quoted text hidden]

—

F* C* <***@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 9:33 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>

“Progressives” from the socialist perspective focus on equity & justice issues, but progressives from the Comm Eco Dev perspective focus on economic policy issues. I do believe I am the only CED practitioner in the city & the region.

As much as I’ve reached out to countless people over 35 yrs, I’ve never met one person with an interest in economic policy issues.

That’s surprising bc economics is the lifeblood of any community. Because no one is interested in economics, our future is determined for us. All that is left to do is to react, too little, too late.

And, bc we have not seen any generational leaders, esp Latino, we remain stuck in our ditch ranked as amongst the nation’s most impoverished & economically seg*ated cities. At least we excel at something.

We choose to live in the present with as little knowledge as possible.

[Quoted text hidden]

—

F* C* <***@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:11 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>
Cc: <***@gmail.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, C* G* <***@hotmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, <***@att.net>, R* L* <***@gmail.com>, M* G* <***@gmail.com>

Thx 4 this update J R.

Let’s not forget or ignore the fact that the city adopted their long-term Vision in 2014, along with their Sustainability Plan, Strategic Eco Dev plan, Strategic Housing Imple Plan, and other related actions, which includes upgrading all zoning codes, to facilitate the ability to densify the entire city, in preparation for 1mm new residents by 2040.

In other words, get on board or get left behind.

All Council members, past and present, are aligned to move in this direction, notwithstanding the negative financial impacts upon our older neighborhoods.

Community representation is a fiction, all work in conformity to the “long-term Vision”, which has never been questioned for their actual socioeconomic effects.

But, no one understands what those adopted plans call for, no one has read them. While our core inner city is de-populating, city leaders brag that we are “the fastest growing city” in the U.S. Aren’t we working at cross-purposes?

These are strong market forces city resources are invested in, to transition the city into its next phase of commercial real estate development. As a result, property values have accelerated, as with property taxes, utility costs, food insecurity, and human suffering.

This runaway train left the station 10 yrs ago, but we are not even aware about the impacts from adopted economic policies, but worse, no one is interested in these topics. That’s what I know from decades of community work.

[Quoted text hidden]

—

E*R*<***@att.net> Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:45 PM
To: J R <***@gmail.com>, <***@gmail.com>, <***@yahoo.com>
Cc: “***@hotmail.com” <***@hotmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, R* L* <***@gmail.com>

HUD years ago began to move away from high density development to single home residential. The meetings held showcased the chaos of the Alazan Courts, the Mirasol etc. higher density units that caused chaos with time. Such observations were nation wide. Sadly people buying in areas where their projects do not match the character of the neighborhood and not being HUD involved violate HUD proactive measures to avoid the dangers that higher density had brought upon our neighborhoods in the past. Sadly we are not the Dominion or other but are the founders of our city. Worse ownership can change as soon as zoning has been acquired and all promises fly out the window. As for community plans innocents like me finding it was just a way to green light projects for insiders was repugnant and sickening denying generational families that the character of their neighborhoods be disrespected. We are a Tale of Two Cities with wolves in sheep’s clothing calling the shots. To be fair development attorneys must represent their clients as if they are saints, period but must respond to questions honestly be the response be good or bad. That is what we face for not being able to afford attorneys to respect the character of our neighborhoods built to avoid the chaos of the past based on HUD findings.

—

J R <***@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 2:41 PM
To: <***@att.net>
Cc: <***@gmail.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, “***@hotmail.com” <***@hotmail.com>, <***@harperscbc.com>, <***@yahoo.com>, R* L* <***@gmail.com>

Kickback cash: San Antonio contractor admits paying $100,000 to VA official for contracts.

https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/bribery-guilty-plea-18629215.php
[Quoted text hidden]
—
J. R.