> News
Steubing litmus testRezoning request at Bullis’s back door will show where new council really stands
If you think there are just too many species on the planet the way it is (despite the Sixth Mass Extinction now under way), if “a little toxic contamination of the aquifer never hurt anyone” seems like a reasonable statement, or if you’d welcome the chance to share your daily commute up and down 281 North with a few hundred more extended-cab pickups, you can stop reading now.
To those still tethered, however loosely, to the realities of modern living, let me offer a couple words: Steubing Ranch.
Three-hundred-and-ninety acres of gateway Hill Country property, the ranch is crackling with money-earning potential, zoned and ready to fill up with single-family homes. Only, the Steubing family would like to do a little more than transform 30 percent of their territory into Northside suburbia.
So, they’ve come with a favor to ask of us. Could they maybe, at the risk of kicking more endangered karst invertebrates in Camp Bullis’s face, toss in some strip malls and apartments and lay down asphalt and cement on another 13 percent of their developable land?
Because this is one of the last significant land holdings within whistle-shot of nocturnal-war-gaming (and San Anto cash cow) Camp Bullis, this is one zoning-change request that has gotten its share of attention.
The U.S. Army — fed up with all the light and noise and incessant hammering of an overly prolific species, homo sapiens consumeristis — has declared its own clandestine war on sprawl. As clear-cutting development has buzzed on all around Bullis, the populations of endangered songbirds on the training ground has increased by 50 percent in recent years, according to Garrison Commander Mary Garr.
The running wager is that as more prime warbler habitat is axed for high-dollar suburban homes, the birds are fleeing to the still-wooded Bullis. That has begun to cramp their war-gaming and medic-training style, forcing the Army to begin cutting back on some activities and even putting the camp at risk of obsolescence, military officials insist.
Planning Director Rod Sanchez said he was initially concerned to see plans for C-1 zoning for the ranch, which would include structures with virtually no height restrictions. And the density of commercial development adjacent to single-family homes caused further fretting.
“Once you start putting that close to single-family, I start getting concerned,” Sanchez said.
So Steubing reduced its commercial footprint and threw in some greenspace buffers between residential and commercial areas, earning them a green light.
The Planning Department leaves environmental analysis to the San Antonio Water System, Sanchez said, which gave the proposal the thumbs up, even though the ranch is in the middle of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and pocked with numerous sinkholes.
Though Councilmember Elisa Chan pulled the request from the August 6 Council agenda, the Zoning Comission and SAWS are recommending approval to pave 168 acres of undeveloped ranch land in the northwest crook of 181 and 1604. What remains to be seen is if the full council, peppered with several newbies, will continue to leave such matters largely to the council member within whose district the request falls.
Chan hasn’t exactly rattled cages over drinking-water quality concerns — at least not publicly. In a letter to her constituents, she summarized the objections brought to her attention, including the risk of “potential new bars, nightclubs, auto-repair shops and adult-oriented businesses as well as maintaining the appearance and design characteristics of Stone Oak, building heights and traffic.”
If this is an accurate portrayal of her voting base’s priorities, it’s a clear call for an intervention. Sure, poor planning has already turned North San into one prolonged pileup, but bigger issues are afoot. Only briefly does Chan refer to “the military concern” in her letter, saying it is “the other key issue that we must address before I would recommend proceeding with this re-zoning.”
Calls to Chan’s office this week were not returned before press deadline. But if environmental concerns at Steubing truly aren’t at the top of her priorities, it’s safe to say she is out of step with the military and her mayor.
A letter from Garrison Commander Garr to Assistant City Manager T.C. Broadnax last year claimed the ranch “is the most significant parcel that we have evaluated to date in terms of the potential for endangered species and the potential adverse impact to the Edwards Aquifer.”
Groups like the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance and Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas have long held that impervious cover over the Edwards’ recharge zone should be limited to 15 percent and are angling for the Council’s outright denial of the request. But is anyone pushing the aquifer issue with the city?
“No,” Hannah Pobanz, technical research director for the environmental non-profit AGUA, says with a laugh. “That would be us.”
While the greens are outweighed by monied interests on their strict impervious-cover push, many environmentalists are giving Mayor Julián Castro props for rapidly pushing forward a slate of efforts to protect and preserve habitat around Bullis.
However, dangerous divisions are starting to show within that slate. A proposed ordinance that would require developers near Bullis to submit an affidavit to the city confirming they are complying with the Endangered Species Act is on track for a Council vote on Thursday. But efforts to establish rules protecting “environmentally sensitive lands,” such as steep slopes, creeks, and recharge features, have run into developer resistance at the Tree Ordinance Stakeholders Committee and run the risk of being voted down before they can reach the Council.
Certified slow-growther Richard Alles of the Citizen’s Tree Coalition says that while conservationists (and increasingly Bullis boosters) cherish steep slopes and creekways for their contributions to biodiversity and local water quality, developers are drawn to steep slopes for other reasons — elevated, “exclusive” Hill Country property they like to flatten, a la the Rim. And streambeds? “That’s where they like to put their sewer lines,” says Alles, who is, we should note, not joking.
city getting
out of it but
a kick ass in
the ass?"
- George Rice
So, yeah, there’s some contrasting values at play there.
Meanwhile, the proposed rewrite of the city’s tree ordinance is set for an October Council vote. The ordinance, which is intended to protect “heritage” (ie. nice, old, hospitable) trees warblers try to call home, maintains a loophole that would allow developers to scrape 90 percent of a parcel’s tree canopy if they pay off the city or plant a bucolic field of scrawny saplings elsewhere.
A federally funded regional habitat conservation plan is in the works, but the most promising effort to protect endangered species, our subterranean water supply, and Bullis is moving forward not at the city or county level, but through the Edwards Aquifer Authority. The EAA last week revived a formerly tried-and-failed measure to reduce impervious-cover limits across the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone to 20 percent. But even this effort is destined to fall short.
“Somewhere between 10 and 15 percent is where you begin seeing deterioration in surface-water quality,” cautions George Rice,” local hydrogeologist and board member at both EAA and AGUA. “I’d rather have it lower.”
In any event, the EAA effort will be no end-run around the builders’ lobby and in a best-case scenario will take deep into 2010 to achieve. Rice anticipates a lengthy public comment period to accompany what is sure to be a controversial regional debate.
And with the number of properties “grandfathered” out of the EAA’s jurisdiction, even new impervious-cover limits won’t save Bullis on their own.
For that reason, there is no time like now for city leaders to reject Steubing’s request outright, Rice said.
“If we grant [the rezoning], it means millions of dollars to the developer. What is the city getting out of it but a kick in the ass, all the while jeopardizing Bullis?”
Repeated calls to Camp Bullis’s press staff were not returned, and an attorney for the Steubings could also not be reached for comment.
As of press time, it is not known when Stuebing will surface on the Council agenda. While District 9 constituents may feel more strongly about additional traffic pileup, the “military question,” the future of our endangered species, and the safety of our water supply are matters concerning all San Antonians. We’re sure whatever your district, your council member would love an unexpected
conscience-raising education on regional environmental stewardship. Or, we’re pretty sure they would, anyway.
On 8/19/2009 2:19:04 AM, Anonymous said:
On 8/19/2009 11:58:17 AM, Anonymous said:
Absolutely, Greg! We needn't forget:
“Somewhere between 10 and 15 percent is where you begin seeing deterioration in surface-water quality,” cautions George Rice,” local hydrogeologist and board member at both EAA and AGUA. “I’d rather have it lower.”
On 8/19/2009 12:40:15 PM, tenibration said:
Anonymous is missing a huge point. Current zoning limits impervious cover to 118 acres. The proposed upzoning increases impervious cover to 170 acres.
Therefore, there is MORE (52 acres more) natural green space with the current zoning.
On 8/19/2009 3:47:38 PM, Anonymous said:
I think we should halt all development. Then those of us who own homes can enjoy an increase in property value and those who don't own... well, no one really cares about them.
On 8/19/2009 3:53:20 PM, Anonymous said:
I think we should make some t-shirts for the Stuebing Family and Councilwoman Chan with a giant American flag on the front that say, "Support Our Developers", and on the back "Fu** the Troops" superimposed over a photo of a dead warbler floating in filthy drinking water. Just a thought.
Thanks for the detailed account Harman.
On 8/19/2009 4:03:07 PM, Anonymous said:
Has anyone thought about the fact that the family has owned the ranch long before Camp Bullis ever existed? Also, for all the talk about Camp Bullis and their distaste for development they have done a number on their own land. Has anyone flown over Bullis lately and seen the new concrete and asphalt oasis that covers their own property? It is incredible.
Props to Greg Harmon on the most "fair and balanced" journalism I have ever read!
Personally, I am extremely tired of uneducated, unbalanced, agenda filled media coverage unfairly presenting the facts to the wonderful people of San Antonio. We deserve more.
On 8/19/2009 4:22:46 PM, Anonymous said:
To Anon 4:03:07 PM:
Because our city completely fails at planning or limiting urban sprawl in the hill country and over the precious recharge zone, the development community, as anyone involved will tell you, has been racing to develop because the only rule is "first come, first serve". Now, we're nearing a tipping point at Camp Bullis and the Stuebings are obviously too late to the party, despite their history of land ownership.
Also, for you to scrutinize for even a second what the military has done with Camp Bullis while defending private developers is downright offensive. Aside from the endless economic benefits the US Military presence has brought to San Antonio, they are on the outskirts of town TRAINING to PROTECT our country. I suspect you're part of the "Support the troops (when convenient)" crowd, who love foreign war, but hate paying taxes to increase VA benefits and the like.
On 8/19/2009 4:38:28 PM, Anonymous said:
I have the solution. Let's stop development in San Antonio. That way we can:
-increase property values and then
-pay more property taxes and then
-increase our cost of living and then
-discourage businesses (ie Toyota, etc.) to relocate to San Antonio and then
-reduce San Antonios economy and
-in turn increasing unemployment and driving up crime rates and them
-hire some additional police officers with our additional tax revenue!
On 8/19/2009 4:59:29 PM, Anonymous said:
I just ate golden cheeked warbler for lunch today with some of my developer friends. YUMMY.
On 8/19/2009 5:24:04 PM, Anonymous said:
Shouldnt our troops be training in the desert somewhere? We are not fighting a war in the Hills of Tuscany, we are fighting a war on sand! Shouldnt we train on sand? Also, to say that Fort Sam has a more positive economic impact than development is just plain dumb. Their major economic impact is their construction contracts, most of which go to non-local contractors.
On 8/19/2009 7:04:12 PM, Anonymous said:
Thanks for one side of the story, Greg. Are there any journalists left that show the facts, all the facts, and let the readers come to their own conclusions? And Richard Alles? Come on, that guy lies every other breath. I used to listen to him and agree with a lot he had to say until I'd heard him enough times to understand the way he lies and slants the truth in everything he says.
On 8/19/2009 8:00:43 PM, Anonymous said:
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.
Samuel Adams
On 8/19/2009 9:41:39 PM, Anonymous said:
fair and balanced, anon 4:03? nice joke. fair? maybe. if a counterweight to decades of idiotic unrestrained development on top of our primary drinking water supply is part of that definition?
but, good point on family's "right" to earnings. i think what your local government is saying now (finally) is that there are limits. there is nothing stopping them from developing their property and making a tidy profit with their current zoning.
many other worthwhile follow-up comments (apart from "warblervore," a work of tired, & not very witty, mawkishness). impervious cover on base (suggested double standard?) being one.
anon 3:48: some of the most successful communities in the u.s. have strict urban/rural zoning that does indeed boost property values as well as drive development into the city proper improving city services. our local 'drive-til-you-qualify' sprawl experience has been rapped by the experts, and hard. not only will local air quality, transportation, and costs associated with driving sewer, water, fire, & electric service wherever houses spring up continue to cripple county government, but when the energy shock returns with our economic recovery (that really was $4/gallon gas, you know), just try surviving that commute.
however, the main inspiration here is not who swings the golden nut sack (anon 5:24), but the protection of the edwards aquifer. bullis has simply offered the city an economic argument folks can recognize.
if you are unfamiliar with our unique aquifer, its sensitivity to development, and ways we can all help ensure this chief source of drinking water is protected for hundreds of thousands of us, i suggest you get busy: http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/intro.html.
anon 7:04: sounds like your smear on alles is an attempt to suggest he is misrepresenting the current tree ordinance without actually claiming so. if that's the case, put up or ... well, maintain your current disgruntled, nasty trollishness.
i'll be the first to admit this offering is not half of the story, but only a brief survey of the current scenery. i didn't get into the regional conservation plan about to bring bexar county-style socialism right down your port-a-john vent with a triumphant wash of warbler horns. whoopie!
i sincerely regret the family's lawyer, bullis, and chan were too busy to grab a seat at our table this week. now they'll just have to wait til next time. thankfully, steubing is still in flux and big picture is far from over.
oh, and (huff, huff) anon 8:00: i agree completely... *flint, tinder, blow, repeat* don't like my brand of revolutionary irate tirelessness, go start your own paper/blog/opinion-inspired verse stuff. it's easy!
On 8/19/2009 10:01:11 PM, gharman said:
i don't know why the above post is credited as anonymous: it's me! author, agitant, target, peon. i swear!
On 8/20/2009 2:05:47 PM, tenibration said:
Bullis has been there since about 1915. Now comes along a developer, who buys the land just long enough to turn a profit and destroy the Army's right to use its land. He wants the City to be an enabler by upzoning his land.
That's fine as long as the upzoning is conditioned on a 15% impervious cover limit. If developers run the Army out of town, they should be forced to pay additional taxes to reimburse San Antonians for their lost jobs and small businesses.
On 8/20/2009 4:44:22 PM, Anonymous said:
tenibration 5:47 get your facts straight. The "developer" is the family who has owned the land for over 100 years. The family still lives on their ranch and even runs cattle.
Their land has value. If the city is concerned with it then steo up ti the place and pay fair market value for it.
On 8/20/2009 6:06:32 PM, Anonymous said:
Tenibration- please tell me which lost jobs and small businesses would be impacted if Camp Bullis left. What do you think the impact would be if the development industry just quit--Construction jobs, Engineering jobs, Architectectural jobs, etc, etc. Will Camp Bullis give all these people work? Tenibration, do you live in a house? Newsflash, it was built by a developer. Do you have running water? Built by a developer. Sewer service? Built by a developer. Do you have a job? Office was probably built by a developer. I could go on and on.
On 8/21/2009 11:18:07 AM, Anonymous said:
To the development cheerleaders........Just because we don't want more single family homes and strip malls over the recharge zone, encroaching on our military training grounds, and perpetuating arbitrary sprawl into the southern foothills of the Texas hill country, does NOT mean we are anti-development. So, stop building up straw man arguments only to tear them down. What educated people want is to see a different, calculated kind of development.....one that doesn't replicate the sickness and filth of the ultimate suburban paradise and it's dome of pollution, Los Angeles (where you may be from). There are these really compelling things like "research" & "facts" that tell us if we continue to build systems of highways to connect single family home nieghborhoods to strip malls, then to the city center.........we will end up with air pollution, water pollution, and a hugely vulnerable community to increases in the price of fuel and energy, which are in long term upward trends.
There are plenty of communities in this country, from Seattle to DC, that plan urbanization and smart growth, instead of cowing over to developers. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. Your attempts to force our community into a sprawling land of supercenters, highways, and pollution for your own personal profits and enrichment are offensive, misleading, and dishonest.
On 8/21/2009 11:43:16 AM, Anonymous said:
why not use permeable pavements to help mitigate the negative effects of impervious cover (water quality, sprawl, tree removal, etc.)? Why are there no compromises between the unbridled development community and total anti-development extremists? There are technologies (permeable pavements, green roofs,other low-impact development tech.) and strategies (smart growth, form-based code, etc.) that would allow for win-win outcomes...
On 8/21/2009 4:21:32 PM, Anonymous said:
Ummm, I think we have a winner at Anon-11:18. Couldn't have said it better myself.
On 8/23/2009 8:58:33 AM, Anonymous said:
Anonymous 11:18- have you seen the land plan for the Steubing tract? It was shown at the council meeting and I saw it myself. 40% impervious cover/100 acre park/ green spaces throughout. what more could you reasonably ask for? All thought stops w the "intelligent development" (anti!) community when someone tells them the property is going to be developed. If you had a brain that allowed you to think you would realize that this is a fantastic and responsible land plan that should be welcome with open arms. The reality is that the Bullis contingent wants something to cry about and this is the biggest opportunity to exploit it.
Move Bullis 20 minutes South of Ft Sam, where nobody wants to live, and let them play with their guns.
On 8/23/2009 3:06:59 PM, Anonymous said:
"Move Bullis 20 minutes South of Ft Sam, where nobody wants to live, and let them play with their guns."
Wow you're just full of productive suggestions!
I have looked at the map actually, and that tract is just about the last piece of unmanipulated land north of 1604 in the recharge zone. It should remain as is and the City/County should come up with a plan to buy it from the greedy Steubing family.....over time if necessary.
On 8/24/2009 10:58:16 PM, Anonymous said:
the greedy Steubing family? are you serious? do you actually know any of them? they live on the property right now! trust me, not greedy. they have owned a piece of property for well over 100 years and its not the government's right to try and restrict them from developing it. i assume all of the people on this board are renters?
On 8/25/2009 11:43:18 AM, Anonymous said:
Actually, I'm a homeowner in Helotes, which is far from perfect......but at least they know how to control the influence of developers from dicatating their entire community.....economic benefits aside.
Again, I don't know how many times you have to hear it before it sinks in, but nobody wants the government to 'restrict' development. We want them to dictate development for the benefit of our community........which means protecting the current and future water supply and mitigating air pollution, with respect to the economy and property rights.
And no, I don't know any of the Stuebings, but they're on the wrong side of a very public controversy, in which what is good for their pocket books, is bad for the acquifer. They made their own bed. It's not as if community activism on behalf of the acquifer is a new phenomena.
On 8/25/2009 12:14:46 PM, Anonymous said:
Have you seen the land plan? How do you know they havent already addressed it? If the city doesnt want anything to happen on the property, open up the checkbook and purchase it. Why dont they do the same thing they did with Voeckler?
On 8/25/2009 11:13:06 PM, Anonymous said:
The city won't do what they did with Voeckler because they don't have the money to pay the Steubings what the land is worth as compared with commercial development therefore we will get what we all want, more starbucks and jack in the cracks right next to new apartment complexes so our schools can get even more over crowded.
Thanks Council person Chan, you've got your finger on the pulse of your district, unfortunately it's cutting of the blood supply to our brains.
On 8/26/2009 12:51:29 PM, Anonymous said:
I live near the dvelopment and was able to vote against it. Went to the mettings with the lawyers...it is just like everywhere else USA nothing special...big box retail, another starbucks, etc...Chan needs to vote against this development.
On 8/27/2009 7:01:37 AM, Anonymous said:
Even your "map" is biased. Take a look at an actual map and you will see that the Steubing property running east to west is less than the length of Sonterra boulevard. There are many homeowners in Stone Oak who will be shocked to learn that their houses are on the Steubing Ranch. According to your "map," there are several businesses including a Tetco already on the Steubing Ranch.
On 9/7/2009 12:54:33 AM, Anonymous said:
"4:44:22 PM, Anonymous" Your facts are wrong, The Steubings are not the developers. Therefore your argument is wrong...sorry, fallacies and untruths don't fly.
"6:06:32 PM, Anonymous" figure out yourself what jobs would be lost if Bullis moves. Also, my home wasn't built by a developer. So, let's see...you don't know what developers do and can't figure out what jobs would be lost.
Why don't you educate yourself and come back in a year or two when you can discuss intelligently?
On 9/7/2009 11:00:10 AM, tenibration said:
"8:58:33 AM, Anonymous" since you think 43% impervious cover is so fantastic, then you must REALLY LOVE the status quo, which limits impervious cover to 30%. If you aren't opposed to the upzoning, I must assume that all thought stops w/ the "destroy Ft. Sam/Camp Bullis" community when someone tells them the property is going to be developed
On 9/8/2009 12:28:44 AM, Anonymous said:
8/21/2009 11:43:16 AM, Anonymous said "why not use permeable pavements to help mitigate the negative effects of impervious cover (water quality, sprawl, tree removal, etc.)? "
Because:
1) permeable pavement isn't allowed over the recharge zone per state regulations.
2) permeable pavement does nothing to stop tree removal or sprawl.
Search by:
Cuisines (701)City (689)
Neighborhood (114)
Reviewed (173)
Critic's pick (56)
Open 24 hours (17)
Late dinner (303)
Brunch (54)
Takeout (142)
Delivery (36)
Outdoor dining (124)
Kid friendly (156)
Serving
Food (50)No alcohol (18)
Featuring
Dance floor (8)Darts (1)
Billiards (7)
Games (2)
TV (10)
Outdoor seating (25)
Dress code (2)
No smoking (11)
Wheelchair access (42)
WEEKLY CONTENT
HOME
NEWS & POLITICS
ARTS & CULTURE
COLUMNS
FILM
MUSIC
NEWS & POLITICS
HOME
THE QUEQUE
MASHUP
THE SAY-TOWN LOWDOWN
COLLEGE GUIDE
BLOGS
CURBLOG
QUEBLOG
SUBSCRIBE
CALENDAR
CRITIC'S PICK
SEARCH EVENTS
ADD AN EVENT
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
© 2009 San Antonio Current
ARTS & CULTURE
HOME
VISUAL ARTS
PERFORMANCE
BOOK REVIEWS
OPERA & CLASSICAL
MUSIC
HOME
SOUND & THE FURY
LOCAL MUSIC
MIXX TAPE
REVIEWS
BIG MUSIC ISSUE
BIG MUSIC AWARDS
SCREENS & TECH
HOME
S'NUFF FILM
TV REVIEWS
FILM REVIEWS
FILM VAULT
VIDEO GAMES
LOCAL FILM
FOOD & DRINK
HOME
AMUSE-BOUCHE
RESTAURANT REVIEWS
CAFE SA
THE OMNIBOIRE
VALUE VINO
THE BAR TAB
ADD A RESTAURANT
COLUMNS
HOME
DEAR UNCLE MAT
¡ASK A MEXICAN!
FREE WILL ASTROLOGY
CLOTHES MINDED
MIXXED MEDIA
SERENE DOMINIC SHOW
JEFF TURNER'S VIDEOS
BEST OF SAN ANTONIO
2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006
BEST OF MAP
CLASSIFIEDS
PLACE AD
HOUSING
SERVICES & PROFESSIONALS
MASSAGE THERAPY
JOBS
HOME
SEARCH FOR JOBS
POST RESUME
EMPLOYERS LOGIN
SA CURRENT STUFF
NEWSLETTER
EVENT PHOTOS
FREEBIES
MYSPACE
LINK TO US
You are missing a huge point: Current zoning allows the Steubing Ranch to be developed as single family homes with no buffers, no greenbelts, no mix of land use (smart growth), etc. The proposed rezoning includes all of the above, plus 40% of the land as preservation.