Map (273k)

Team Reports

In summary, the charrette group that I facilitated was concerned with these major issues, in no particular order:

1. The property which was not deemed environmentally or historically sensitive be offered to the original land owners. If this proved impossible, then it should be reserved in some way for public use either as a park, wildlife management area, etc. The least desirable solution would be to offer the land for public auction without any restrictions.

2. The property that is environmentally and historically sensitive and that is going to remain in the public realm be readily accessible to everyone. Not reserved for some special groups such as archeologists, birdwatchers, etc.

3. The river bottom area be preserved in a natural state with conservation easements suggested for landowners other than SAWS to extend the preserved river corridor beyond publicly owned land boundaries.

4. The City of San Antonio proceed with development of the western portion of the river bottom as a park with both passive and active use areas.

5. That public lands be properly secured and patrolled to prevent any activity such as dumping, drug use, etc.

With heavy agricultural representation and an outspoken ownership perspective, a lot of this team's struggle was with the initial "grasp" of problem & vision. Once the "philosophy bar" was hurdled, there was an amazing consensus in favor of conservation and sustainable/sensitive development for the property. After acknowledging that previous owners should be given right of first refusal for the parcels at fair market value, the door was open for some very imaginative ideas.

All ideas orbited around preserving the rural, wild, agricultural and cultural values of the area. This was expressed best in the idea of a "Land and Man" Center. The theme of which is to show the transcendental- evolutionary relationship over time between man and nature; from a pre-historic opportunism over the intervening historic & settlement periods, into the present agricultural adaptations, while exploring the future of sustainable, holistic, and integrated agricultural practices.

This center could be housed in the historic structures with interpretive exhibits, trails, and demonstration areas radiating from it. But, moreover the cooperative relationship between restoring native prairie, woodlands, and utilizing the fields inside the public lands would be best served as conservation models and shared-land, with regional farmers outside the area. Furthermore, it was agreed that the projects management should be a consortium of all stakeholders.

Access to the river is critical, albeit sensitive. And the management of the floodplain in a natural state needs to be much more structured and controlled than other areas of the property. Linkages with Elm Creek and the floodplains of other drainageways should also be part of this primary environmental conservation core. Additionally, buffers should run continuously to the flood plain and vary in their width according to the natural land forms and vegetated areas. Multi-use trails need more study because of conflict between user/groups. Potential hiking, biking, and equestrian options should be explored.

Team ‘Y' Report
Facilitator - Larry K. Travis, AIA, ASLA, AICP
Team Y participants
Small Group Work Session

As the facilitator of the Medina river Charrette teams, I was pleased by the genuine effort members of the group put forth during the work sessions.

My group included Ed Garcia as co-facilitator along with a good mix of people representing different interests and backgrounds.

Our group reached consensus on the following:

1. The Medina River/Applewhite site should become part of a comprehensive regional open space corridor system.

2. Develop an interactive exhibit of anthropological history in the existing historic structures. This exhibit could emphasize Native American history and culture.

3. Develop a canoe route along the entire reach of the Medina River.

4. Public ownership and controlled access with adequate security for the entire floodplain area of the Medina River.

5. Create a public park on land accessible by Highway 16.

Team ‘Z' Report
by Team Facilitator - Steven Tillotson, AIA
Team Z participants
Small Group Work Session

As the design facilitator for one of the four Medina River Charette teams I was impressed by the unanimous desire to keep this river healthy, protect cultural resources and maintain the rural values of agricultural, wildlife and natural beauty. Equally impressive were the differences of specific land use suggestions. All participants presented intelligent and compelling arguments for agricultural use (rangeland, pasture, and cropland); natural habitat; residential development; even a theme movie set park; and a zoo. Extremes ranged between former property owners simply wanting their land back and being left alone; to maintaining public ownership of the land for more intensive development and economic growth.

Specific issues with which the group found consensus are as follows:

1. Public ownership and maintenance of the bottomlands, which is generally associated with the 100 year flood plain.

2. Creating a multiple trail system for hike, canoe, bicycle and horseback with controlled public access along the river.

3. Minimizing as much as possible the amount of publicly owned and, conversely, maximizing the amount of privately owned property. 4. That the SAWS administered property, scheduled for public sale or to be restored to their pre-Applewhite configuration, have legal restrictions which correspond to land use performance criteria.

Given the apparent conflicts among the diverse attitudes for specific land uses, this particular Team (Z) crafted a statement for a land use strategy which would accommodate a variety of uses and changes in land use as long as basic water, wildlife, cultural and rural values can remain productive. This would require three elements: First, that the Medina River be acknowledged and treated as a continuous river system with multiple values; second that appropriate land uses are determined by performance criteria which seeks to maintain identified goals; and third, that there would be a legal mechanism to coordinate, monitor and support land use decisions and implementation.