Posted on

ACS Report Out by Everett Ives

From:    Everett Ives, BHANA

To:          Tier 1

RE:          My recent meeting with ACS Director Sims

Date:     August 25, 2022

Today I met with Shannon Sims, the Director of Animal Care Services in San Antonio.

It was a constructive meeting and I learned several things that I believe are important to our communities:

·         ACS suffered greatly during Covid and has been very successful lately in rebuilding its field staff;

·         ACS has a $25 Million Hospital facility coming from bond funds that will greatly enhance their capacities;

·         The Director is working with Non-Profits to provide for Spay/Neuter pop up clinics throughout our communities in the near future;

·         I told him very frankly that his website sucks.  They are in the process of redeveloping the website that will make it much easier to directly report animal issues and get access to needed information including  documents, without going through 311;

·         I told him that a Police Officer was frustrated that he could not reach someone at ACS on a weekday to escalate an issue in their agency.  The Director told me that there is in fact a number for Police and he would work with Chief McManus to make sure the information is adequately distributed in the field.

·         There is a shortage of 7,500 Veterinarians in the US and that has made it difficult for ACS.

I told the Director that this kind of good news needs to be communicated in the neighborhoods and that Tier 1 was uniquely positioned to assist.  I promised to connect him with a leader at Tier 1 that would assist him.

I also told him that almost every neighborhood has some form of newsletter and is always looking for content.  He said he has a Communications staff and he would arrange for them to put out a monthly article and circulate it to the editors.  Tier 1 will be needed to assist with that as well.

I learned and I believe the communities need to know that Texas law only covers “Dangerous” animals that attack a human.  San Antonio has passed a similar, municipal law that covers “Aggressive” animals that attack or kill another animal and under certain circumstances.   This and the consequences of both of these can be explained in community meetings.

It was a very constructive meeting and I believe the current Director will make ACS a valuable asset for our communities.

  One last, personal comment.  About 5 years ago I started attending the ACS monthly Board Meetings with the intent to attack the department for its ineffectiveness.  I discovered over the course of perhaps three meetings that ACS was not inept, they were (are) seriously underfunded for the expectations of the community.  COSA has increased the ACS budget but not what I would call generously.  Some of you may know that my “style” is to attack and dismantle my enemies but I now realize that ACS is actually doing a lot for the limited funding they have had and the “enemy” here is the limited budget that COSA has been allocating to ACS.  I believe we can be very effective in helping ACS help our communities by  impacting the COSA budget process to get ACS the staff, facilities, equipment and funding that is necessary to perform as our communities expect.  I also believe the current Director is the right person for the job.  He is an ex-Marine and his character is to go after tasks with gusto.

Contact Shannon.sims@sanantonio.gov

Posted on

Housing Bond Statement for Housing Commission Meeting on 7/27/22

Hello. My name is Leticia Sanchez and I’m the co-chairperson of the Historic Westside Residents Association which represents residents in the near westside of the city.  I’m here to speak on agenda item #3, the Housing Bond.  As we all know, the housing crisis that we are experiencing in our city is not only a local issue but a national issue.  The residents of San Antonio voted to support bond funds to tackle the housing crisis we’re experiencing but San Antonio cannot continue to fund housing projects that don’t help to significantly alleviate the housing shortage for households earning 30% AMI or below.  According to data from the SHIP report, housing for households earning 30% AMI or below is the most needed.

A concern of our Association is that the City is rushing to move the RFP process too quickly which could exclude smaller, more innovative and/or non-profit developers from the process.  We are concerned that, in rushing to fund housing projects the City will once again provide gap funds to projects that are in the pipeline-typically mixed income projects that provide less than 50% of units to households at or below 30%AMI.  In the past, we’ve seen that the City has funded some of these projects/developers who have a 30% profit margin.  If we look at NRP’s Legacy at Alazan’s development project, the cost per unit averaged over $200,000.  We know that non-profit developers can build housing at a much lower cost per unit so why does our City choose to use tax payer money  to fund for-profit developers with high profit margins?  The tax-paying residents of San Antonio did not vote for the housing bond to help developers line their pockets.  They want to ensure that funds will help to decrease the housing crisis significantly and, ultimately, prevent our residents from becoming homeless.  We ask that the Housing Commission recommend to City Council and City staff more time for the RFP process.

We’re also concerned with the proposed scoring criteria that city staff has presented which does NOT incentivize developers to construct or rehab units for the 30% AMI or below population.  It gives 15 points for affordability and the exact same number of points for Gap requests.  Under the affordability rental scoring, the highest number of points, which is 20, only 35% of total units are at 30% AMI or below.  There is no incentive to try to build more a minimum of 50% units at 30% AMI or below. 

San Antonio has the opportunity to come up with more creative housing solutions with these housing bond funds but if we take the easy road and use the same formulas or solutions and continue to fund projects that produce a minimal amount of housing for the most needed which are households earning 30% AMI or below, we will never resolve our housing crisis and the number of homeless residents will continue to grow.

Posted on

Appointed Community Voices are Ignored/Sidelined on the San Antonio Property Maintenance Code Committee

To whom it may concern, 

We, as community appointed representatives, have come together to express our concerns in regards to the San Antonio Property Maintenance Code meetings that we’ve been participating in since April 2022. The SAPMC undergoes an update every three years, coinciding with updates to the International Property Maintenance Code. The SAPMC governs residential and commercial buildings and structures, establishing minimum building standards aimed at ensuring the public health and safety of city residents.

Code Enforcement has been a divisive issue for years in San Antonio, with community groups frequently calling for change to practices that often harm working class homeowners. The Development Services Department has received increased scrutiny since the publication of the Ousted report, which pointed out how code violations and demolition orders disproportionately affect low-income communities of color in San Antonio. Similarly, a city-funded report, Treasure in the Walls, concluded, “Code enforcement can also impact housing stock, and in San Antonio, it disproportionately impacts certain neighborhoods.” Understanding the context of how city staff interact with policy, and how their decisions have real-life implications on San Antonio residents is vital in understanding where we, as appointed members of the SAPMC Board, are coming from. 

The amendment process, originally intended for five meetings, took a total of nine meetings at three hours a session. As appointed members, we volunteered our time to ensure the concerns of our community were heard. We were told that we were to serve in an advisory capacity and that we would not have the ability to vote. Therefore, we were under the impression that our input would be taken under careful consideration. Of the 87 amendments that were presented to the Board, 24 of them were internal amendments proposed by City Staff and the other 63 were proposed by the community. At the conclusion of committee work, 96% of the internal amendments were approved and only 11% of those submitted by community members were approved. The proposals that were disproportionately disregarded were submitted from public comment and community organizations concerned about the safety and accessibility of their fellow neighbors.

The concerns brought forward included, but weren’t limited to: the ability of code officers to order people to vacate their homes without a prior hearing, the failure of code officers to inform residents of their right to appeal violation notices or provide direction to the process for doing so, the failure of staff to help residents access city assistance programs, the failure to provide translation services, arbitrary decision making by code officers, and dozens of concerns related to confusing or vague language. 

All of these concerns brought forward have merit. However, throughout these nine meetings, almost every amendment proposed to address these concerns was shut down by a representative from the City Attorney’s Office (CAO), Development Services Department (DSD), and the Building Standards Board (BSB) members. We have attached those amendments we feel were not carefully considered to this letter. It was extremely concerning to see the majority of community-backed amendments be ignored by the staff and voting board members. Therefore, we are writing this letter to  publicly state that a majority of the decisions made throughout the SAPMC process were not supported by the appointed non-voting members of the board and that our voices, along with community voices, often fell on deaf ears. 

Beyond the Board’s refusal to listen to concerns of community members, the Board’s rules and procedures were confusing and ever changing. Not only were these rules unclear to the community appointed members, who received no training and assumed their positions immediately upon appointment, but also to the members of the BSB and City Staff. For example, the community appointed members were originally told we would be allowed to make motions, but that ability was rescinded by the CAO in a later meeting. At times, motions were made, seconded, voted on, only to be rescinded after, as the Board seemingly had no comprehension as to what was being voted on or even discussed. For example, in one instance the Board had voted to accept a motion in which the CAO had advised against only moments prior. A non-voting member then commented: “You do realize that you just voted for something that legal counsel advised against.”  Counsel then broke the Board out into an executive session to clarify what had just happened. Even accessing the list of updated amendments week-to-week proved to be difficult. Repeatedly, the staff did not timely update the amendment list on the City’s website which led to constituents being misinformed on the outcome of decisions made by the Board. 

In addition to the general disorganization, City staff inappropriately interjected themselves into committee discussions repeatedly. On several occasions, DSD staff argued that the proposed amendments, aimed to make the code more clear (for example, amendment #80, #32, #33, etc.), were unnecessary changes as they were already part of DSD standard operating procedures (SOP). On the other side of the coin, legal counsel frequently advised against codification, claiming the new language would create further legal obligation for the City. At times, the CAO advised against proposed amendments due to the fact that it would create “more work” for them. This is not an acceptable reason to avoid codifying an amendment that has the potential to direct and clarify processes that many San Antonio residents will experience in their lifetime. 

The refusal to codify best practices shows that DSD and the CAO were committed to protecting their own interests above community interests. For example, the non-voting members asked if notices of violations could be issued in Spanish as many residents are monolingual, noting the City has clear metrics on households that speak Spanish primarily. DSD explained the change was unnecessary since it already gave notices in Spanish. But then, confusingly, the CAO claimed it was illegal to have official notices of violation issued in languages other than English. When non-voting members asked if the Code could include that translation services would be provided for residents receiving notices, the CAO inappropriately advised that the City didn’t have the money to put resources into translation services. Another example of when clarification could’ve been codified was when the notices to vacate were being discussed.  City staff told the Board that notices to vacate are simply notices. But, on the form provided by City staff the phrase “ordered” is repeatedly used. Our group explained the confusion this creates for residents who are often scared and dealing with a litany of additional issues at the time they receive said document. We advocated for amendments that could help with this confusion. But the CAO found no issue with the process and allowed for further confusion throughout the SAPMC at the expense of our residents. 

Another situation of utmost concern occurred during a discussion at the final SAPMC meeting that took place on July 29th, during the voting on amendment #79. The Board took some time to read the amendment, which was followed by a board member making a motion to accept it “as-is” into the SAPMC, prompting the board members to call the vote. Granted, many of the board members seemed to not know how to use their microphones, but the appointed community members, City Staff, and members of the audience heard the “yays,” with the “yays” definitely having the votes. Before the “nays,” were called out, the CAO interrupted and provided a personal opinion demanding to know the reasoning behind the amendment and asking who wrote it to step forward. After a lengthy discussion, which interrupted the vote, the members of the Board seemed to have forgotten what they were voting on and tried to make a different motion. Fortunately, they’re not allowed to do this until the vote is rescinded, and even then the vote could only be rescinded by those who had previously voted “nay.” Unfortunately, all these concerns were not taken into consideration and the Board then decided to ignore the fact that they had voted “yay,” despite everyone in the room being able to hear. The Board proceeded with the notion that not enough people had voted prior, and then went back to rescind the vote despite our protests. Amendment #79 did not pass. Not only was it inappropriate for the members of the Board to disregard our concerns on amendment #79, but it was inappropriate for the CAO to derail committee work. The CAO was one of the biggest barriers to ensuring that community voices were heard, and unfortunately it was an uphill battle that the community representatives lost during these discussions.

Lastly, it is important to note that three members of the Building Standards Board are serving terms in violation of City Code. The San Antonio City Code clearly states that members of the BSB are meant to serve no more than four years: “Appointment shall be for terms of two (2) years. A member may serve no more than two (2) consecutive two-year terms for a total of four (4) years.” SAN ANTONIO, TEX., CITY CODE ch. 6, art. VIII, § 6-155.2(g). The City’s Boards and Commissions page currently states, incorrectly, “Members serve overlapping two-year terms of office and there is no limit on the number of terms that may be served.”

Three members have been on the BSB since its inception: representatives of D2, D3, and D9. If their positions cannot be filled, the positions are to remain vacant, not to be occupied by the previous members during this time. It is of the utmost importance that the BSB operates transparently and in accordance with city law. 

The non-voting community members have spent so much time trying to do right by our neighbors, and it felt like our efforts were mostly ignored, if not entirely. We ask those who are responsible for moving this amendment adoption forward to reconsider the amendments presented (see file attached), and to prioritize community need and safety over maintaining the status quo. 

Sincerely, 

Appointed non-voting community members

Uel Trejo-Rivera

Ray Morales

Neftali Rodriguez 

Posted on

https://www.expressnews.com/opinion/commentary/article/Commentary-Reform-property-taxes-then-17171964.php?fbclid=IwAR2f2PbcsVkNfUh-H_rPuDUDujBakqb_jAjfBtR6rXg3zRaTy_9yGC4nNo0

Commentary: Reform property taxes — then eliminate them

Anne Englert, For the Express-News

May 15, 2022

We tell their stories, because the circumstances are real.

The middle-aged woman who inherited her grandmother’s home, the young couple wanting to start a family but wondering how long they can pay the property taxes before they are forced to move; the family that takes out a loan to meet their property tax; the long-term residents in a rapidly changing neighborhood who face displacement; the resident on a fixed-income forgoing repairs and sometimes necessities to pay even moderately rising property taxes.

We know these people. They are our neighbors. They are us.

High property taxes displace families, severing support and destabilizing neighborhoods.

We are tired of Band-Aid solutions. We’re tired of attending workshops on how to protest our property taxes instead of workshops on how to change the system. We are tired of the anxiety that hits us when the tax bill comes. For some homeowners, the property tax is a financial burden.

No one should have to spend 15 to 20 hours to take on the government, pleading their case for their home’s appraisal to be lowered a few thousand dollars, year after year. No one should fear the property tax process, but many do because they don’t have the resources to fight back.

Until property taxes are eliminated, we implore our elected officials at all levels — school boards, county, municipal and state — to create change that is meaningful for homeowners. Elected officials have proven that if they want to do something, they can. They have the power and the tools to lower the tax rate and give the maximum protection to homeowners.

They should:

Run a more efficient government. It is time to stop waste. Governments are to be good stewards of other people’s money. Fair and efficient government must do the right thing so homeowners and renters can live in their communities affordably and not be taxed out of their home.

Cut the tax rate in half.

Double or triple the homestead exemptions. The $5,000 exemption offered by the county is roughly only $30 a year, equal to three trips to the coffee shop, one month’s prescription, a half-tank of gas or one bag of dog food.

Freeze the tax burden on the valuations at the year the purchase was made. If someone buys a $150,000 home, they pay taxes at that rate until they sell it. If someone buys a million-dollar home, they know they will pay approximately $33,000 each year in property taxes until they sell.

Replace the property tax with a strong consumer tax.

Taxing residents out of their homes is an ethical, not just economic, issue.

We cannot continue living in fear that we will not be able to afford our property taxes. Join forces for property tax relief, reform and, ultimately, elimination.

Anne Englert has lived in San Antonio for 25 years; she is a Dellview Area Neighborhood Association board member.

Posted on

How San Antonio’s neighborhood associations can boost residents’ enjoyment and drive value

https://www.expressnews.com/lifestyle/home-garden/article/neighborhood-associations-17162956.php?fbclid=IwAR1DInBZujkcreWpu5omo2aG5M6elj-eUYDI9Fd10kp3db3hCZf0TShGxHw

How San Antonio’s neighborhood associations can boost residents’ enjoyment and drive value

Richard A. Marini, Staff writer

May 11, 2022

In 2019, Sean McMains and Kris Spilker put in an offer on a house in Beacon Hill, an older neighborhood of mostly modest bungalows just north of downtown. Two days later, they decided to check out their new neighborhood and take in Porch Fest, the homegrown, progressive house concert sponsored by the Beacon Hill and Alta Vista neighborhood associations.

“I remember there was a mariachi band playing Ozzy Osbourne on someone’s front porch,” Spilker said. “People immediately starting welcoming us, asking our names, where we were from, things like that. When the band stopped, they were like, ‘C’mon with us to the next house.’ ”

There, they enjoyed fajitas and a different band playing jazz.

“Everyone was so friendly, it was astounding. We knew we were home,” said Spilker who, with McMains and their five kids, has now lived in Beacon Hill for three years.

Events like Porch Fest are just one of the benefits of living in an area with a strong and active neighborhood association — and few associations are as active as the one representing Beacon Hill.

Cynthia Spielman, who serves on the steering committee of the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition, an alliance of more than 50 neighborhood groups in the San Antonio area, contends that a good neighborhood association can not only improve residents’ lives, it can also help bring a community together.

“They do this by tackling difficult issue residents face and by sponsoring fun, social events where people get to know one another,” said Spielman.

A strong neighborhood association can also help smooth out differences among neighbors, she said.

“If people have faith that their concerns will be heard, they’ll be less likely to get angry with one another over potentially divisive issues,” said Spielman, who is also a board member of the Beacon Hill association. “They realize, Hey, we’re neighbors; it’s not you against me.”

Neighborhood associations differ from homeowners associations. Neighborhood associations are usually run by volunteers and membership is voluntary. Homeowners associations usually are created by developers, membership is mandatory and requires dues to pay for maintenance of common areas and to enforce standards of appearance within the community.

On ExpressNews.com: San Antonio’s most iconic classic neon signs

The Mission San José Neighborhood Association, which encompasses the area surrounding the historic mission, was founded in 1995 to address a lack of basic infrastructure such as sidewalks, drainage and lighting. Today it continues that fight while also acting as a steward to prevent inappropriate development near the mission.

“Without the association all these years, a lot of that protection might not have happened,” said President Theresa Ybañez, who added that the association also sponsors events such as street clean-ups, a holiday parade and art activities for area children.

In the Monticello Park Historic District on the West Side just north of Woodlawn Lake, the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association puts more emphasis on acts of kindness and education. Volunteers will help elderly neighbors with yard work or by running errands they cannot do themselves. The organization also awards scholarships to high school seniors living within its boundaries.

“But we also have fun,” said Pam Carpenter, the organization’s secretary. “Two or three times a year, we have pink flamingo parties where the yard hosting the party will be ‘flocked’ with one large flamingo statue and a whole lot of little ones.”

Founded in 1978, the Beacon Hill association has become more active in recent years as the neighborhood, like many surrounding downtown, has become a preferred destination for young professionals in search of the amenities of urban living. In addition to being close to downtown, Beacon Hill is also within walking distance of the Pearl, Brackenridge Park and the St. Mary’s Strip.

“The association is having a good moment,” said Spielman, who has lived in Beacon Hill for 21 years. “The neighborhood has a lot to offer, and a lot of younger, newer residents are stepping up and volunteering their time and talents.”

At the same time, however, this influx of well-heeled buyers is quickly pricing out many families, especially non-native English speakers and people of color, who have lived there for years, even generations.

The association has made efforts to help, for example by educating residents how to protest their property tax appraisals. And while the association has a very active Facebook page, it still prints and hand-delivers paper copies of its monthly newsletter to all 2,200 households in the neighborhood, so those uncomfortable being online can stay informed.

Cindy Loredo has lived in Beacon Hill 34 years and said the association has definitely improved her and her neighbors’ quality of life. “During the freeze last year, they came around to check up on everyone,” she said. “Then they told us how we could apply for assistance from the city.”

The association has several volunteer-led committee that deal with hot-button issues, such as zoning, crime and animal welfare.

On ExpressNews.com: Best drought-tolerant plants in sun and shade for color and flowers in your San Antonio garden landscape

When the association hosted a February roundtable on crime, moderated by its President Daniel Hubbeling, it was able to secure both police chief William McManus and City Councilmember Mario Bravo as participants. As the number of stray animals in the neighborhood has become more of an issue, the association created a lending library of humane traps and pet carriers and purchased a $300 microchip scanner to help reunite lost pets with their owners.

“We have two volunteers who handle the scanner, and they probably get calls a couple of time a week,” Hubbeling said.

The association also sponsors social events to help bring neighbors together. In addition to Porch Fest, there are monthly Happy Hours, outdoor movie nights and, this past Easter, an egg hunt with 700 eggs hidden for area children to find.

Despite all these events, the association doesn’t charge annual dues. Instead, it raises money via grants, donations from area businesses, newsletter advertising and fundraisers such as the sale of Fiesta medals. That gives it the financial wherewithal, for example, to purchase audio/visual equipment rather than renting it every time there’s a movie night.

“I donate the use of my sound system, but we probably spent about $1,000 for the rest of the equipment,” said Hubbeling’s wife Kim, who administers the group’s Facebook page.

One of the group’s proudest achievements is the development of the half-mile-long Beacon Hill Linear Park that runs atop a storm water channel from West Hildebrand to Gramercy Place, where it ends at the community garden. The park has footpaths, two playgrounds, picnic areas and a well-used basketball court. Plans call for planting more trees and building a dog park.

The association’s success in securing city funding for the park illustrates its members’ savvy in working with city government.

“We’ve received close to $1 million in bond money since development began almost 10 years ago,” said Jerry Lockey, who has lived in the neighborhood 24 years and is a linear park committee member. “And we’ve learned a lot about the rules and procedures involved in getting these kinds of projects done over that time.”

Operating a successful neighborhood association takes hundreds of volunteer hours as well as committee leaders and a dedicated board. The Hubbelings, for example, estimate they each spend five to 10 hours a week working on association business.

Neighborhood associations interested in upping their game can contact the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition, which holds workshops on issues that impact residents. The group’s website, t1nc.org, and its eponymous Facebook group also contain plenty of helpful information.

rmarini@express-news.net | Twitter: @RichardMarini

Posted on

Neighborhood Plans, Future Land Use, & UDC Amendment 22-21: Issues

Read the Planning Department’s edit of UDC Amendment 22-21

T1NC chose to work with city staff (DSD and Planning) to modify their proposed 22-21 amendment, seeking to protect existing neighborhood and community plans and to provide for public engagement on future land use. As a result of this work, the Planning Department added language that may help protect neighborhood plans and future land use in neighborhoods as they participate in the  sub-area planning process. 

Language that may help protect future neighborhood land use: 

The Planning Department  added a reference to the “important aspect” of previously adopted neighborhood and community plans including their future land use, to the Statement of Purpose in the final version . 

Planning also added to Sub-Area Plans: “Goals, objectives and future land use from adopted neighborhood and community plans shall be reviewed and serve as a foundational element…, throughout the development of sub-area plans.”  This  is important, but neighborhood and community plans and their future land use are to be used as a reference – not as a basis, to develop the larger area sub-area plans.

Planning also commits, in its edited amendment: “…When a proposed sub-area plan includes geographies in a previously adopted neighborhood or community plan, the planning department shall invite …registered neighborhood associations and registered community organizations with boundaries within the previous plan area to review, discuss, and provide input…”

However….

In our Amendment 16-4, which we hoped to incorporate into 22-21, we asked for previously adopted neighborhood and community plans, inclusive of future land use plans, to be incorporated without revision into Sub-Area Plans, thereafter amendable, which was denied because, they stated, incorporation without revision impermissibly restricts City Council performing “legislative” action of plan adoption. We also understood that many neighborhood and community plans have outdated or neighborhood-disliked future land use plans.

Areas of concern with the final version of 22-21 going before PCTAC on May 9: 

  • (3) B, Corridor Plans

The “study areas of a corridor plan should” include areas (1/4) mile, (1,320 feet) of the major arterial, expanding to one-half mile around high traffic stations. 

A city block is typically 330’ to 660’, so the corridor plans could potentially infringe higher density development a minimum of 2 blocks into currently residential zoned areas.

  • (b) (2) Stakeholder Participation

City also added to the final version a section on Stakeholder Participation, (b)(2). – which was not discussed in our meetings. 

Besides the involvement of the T1NC UDC Committee, this amendment has been proposed with no “public hearings” and limited public participation process (PPP). 

Once sub-area plans get adopted, they will supercede, (a)(5), currently adopted neighborhood and community plans and we’ll have to work within that framework.

(h) Consistency Requirements

Once sub-area plans get adopted, they will supercede, (a)(5), currently adopted neighborhood and community plans and we’ll have to work within that framework. Previous plans won’t be referenced anymore for rezoning applications. The new zoning will be consistent with the new land use. 

The larger sub-area plans are too large to address specific individual and smaller neighborhoods needs and objectives which have been removed or been reduced by the new hierarchy of plan types. 

Neighborhood Action:  

T1NC UDC Committee is not making a recommendation, but urgently request that neighborhoods provide comment. 

We should urge everyone – individuals and neighborhoods, to become informed, get involved, and to comment now or at city council if this amendment is supported by PCTAC.

Please contact t1nc.sat@gmail.com for questions. 

Posted on

Large Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) in Residential Neighborhoods

Dear Neighborhoods Across the City,  

One of your D7 neighborhoods,  Alamo Farmsteads/Babcock Road Neighborhood Association, needs your help. We know this is short notice, but there is still time to voice an opinion at City Council on Thursday, May 5th. 

Item 43:  ZONING-Z-2021-10700350 – Requested Zoning: “RE CD” Residential Estate District with a Conditional Use for an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) for up to 10 residents for 6960 Pembroke located in District 7, identified as Item 43 on the agenda for the April 7th City Council Meeting. 

Opposition: Staff recommends denial; The Zoning Commission voted unanimously for denial. 

Nine (9) of the eleven (11) neighbors within 200’ are in opposition.  We had 74% of Alamo Farmsteads residents who submitted their surveys as “In Opposition”.  Four Neighborhood Associations submitted as “In Opposition” (3 of which have had recent zoning cases for ALF expansion). 

However, Councilwoman Ana Sandoval from District 7  has indicated that she is going to recommend approval of this zoning case and has asked the community to find a compromise with the business owner.


The issue: Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) embedded within residential neighborhoods is a valued service for the community and by right, every residential home in San Antonio can be a 6-resident ALF, but a residential ALF embedded within a neighborhood does have an impact to the nearby neighbors and community and allowing for additional growth of a facility would only add to their impact. 

Any property surrounding your home can become a 6-resident ALF regardless if you are in a historic, conservation, HOA, gated community, etc.  There are currently 95 residential-type ALFs registered in Bexar County, so this will eventually need to be addressed by every district in San Antonio.  Also, this does not include those residential ALFs with less than 4 residents that do not have to register.

Since the City has not developed an overall plan for managing the number and location of these ALFs, and does not have accurate numbers on occupancy rates and total capacity of these facilities; it is premature to approve this request which would set a precedent for other residential ALFs in other districts of San Antonio.  Please support us in opposing this zoning request.   We ask that you reach out to your council member and ask her /him to listen to their communities. We’ve attached a template letter. 

Please also consider a written message to be read at tomorrow’s City Council meeting in opposition to Item 43

To sign up to speak visit www.saspeakup.com

·      Click on meetings and events at the top of the page 

·              Select City Council A Session for May 5th at 2 p.m.

·      Click on the Comments Icon and leave the following written message, if you’d like: 

Template Letter

Item number

Name

Neighborhood and Council District

Please deny the request for a RE CD with a Conditional Use for an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) for up to 10 residents for 6960 Pembroke. Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) embedded within residential neighborhoods is a valued service for the community and by right, every residential home in San Antonio can be a 6-resident ALF, but a residential ALF embedded within a neighborhood does have an impact to the nearby neighbors and community and allowing for additional growth of a facility would only add to their impact. 

Any residential property can become a 6-resident ALF regardless of type: historic, conservation, HOA, gated community, etc.  There are currently 95 residential-type ALFs registered in Bexar County, so this will eventually need to be addressed by every district in San Antonio.  Also, this does not include those residential ALFs with less than 4 residents that do not have to register. We recognize the valuable service of ALFs but we also recognize that this is a business and the balance between the service, the business, and the residential neighborhood needs should be balanced in a plan developed by the City. 

Since the City has not developed an overall plan for managing the number and location of these ALFs, and does not have accurate numbers on occupancy rates and total capacity of these facilities; it is premature to approve this request which would set a precedent for other residential ALFs in other districts of San Antonio. This request has been denied by staff as well as a unanimous vote of the Zoning Commission.  Please support us in opposing this zoning request. 

Neighborhoods working together can help make a better City. 

Thank you,

Phillip Manna
Alamo Farmsteads/Babcock Road Neighborhood Association

Posted on

T1NC’s letter in support of Westwood Square’s request for more time for the YWCA case for a Human Campus

Zoning Case Z-2021-10700341 CD at 2318 Castroville Road (Agenda #44)

Case Manager: Summer McCann, Planner   contact: summer.mccann@sanantonio.gov

March 14, 2022

Dear Council Members, 

This case, which has involved the YWCA’s request for a zoning change from MF33 to C-2NA CD with a Conditional Use for a Human Service Campus, has been one that has been contentious and rushed and has often lacked the meaningful public input of the near neighbors to the project. In a recent neighborhood meeting, residents requested a rescheduling of this case so that they understand and have input on the restrictions before they can support. This does not seem too much to ask. 

Having support from and working with community has been the stated goal of the YWCA and giving residents more time to give support can only help the YWCA’s project as they seek resident input in future decisions. Giving residents more time will  build trust and cooperation. 

We request that you reschedule the vote on agenda item #44 until the next council session to give residents more time to understand and give meaningful input on the restrictions for a covenant before they support.  

T1NC Steering Committee 

T1NC Zoning & Land Use Committee

Posted on

WNAC Letter re YWCA rezoning for Human Campus asking for more time for residents to give input

March 14, 2022

Dear Councilmember,

The Westwood Square Neighborhood Association (D5) & Los Jardines Neighborhood Association (D6), held a community meeting on Saturday, March 12th regarding the YWCA zoning case.  The meeting was to inform the community of the process and discuss the zoning change that was approved by the zoning commission on Tuesday, March 15th, and to advise on the choices of what is at stake for the neighborhood including discussion on covenants/deed restrictions, and the site plan.  The community/ neighborhoods were advised that the YWCA zoning case is scheduled to go to Council on Thursday, March 17th.  The community/neighborhoods voted for more time to continue the conversation and to process what was discussed at the meeting regarding the covenants/deed restrictions and the site plan. District 5 & 6 staff were present at the meeting and are aware of this request.  We believe that those who are affected by this decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.  Westwood Square NA & Los Jardines NA are submitting this Request to City Council for a Continuance of two weeks ( till March 31st ) to secure solutions that work for the community. We are hopeful that with this reasonable request we can find a resolution. 

Looking forward to your response.

Respectfully submitted,

Velma Pena, President

Westwood Square Neighborhood Association

Westside Neighborhood Associations Coalition (WNAC)

Erik Estrada, President – Los Jardines Neighborhood Association

Westside Neighborhood Associations Coalition (WNAC)

Posted on

Letter to Residents re Heritage Tree Removal at Brackenridge Park #2

by Grace Rose Gonzalez

Friends,

On Feb 16th, the HDRC heard the item submitted by Parks staff to cut down 10 heritage trees that line the San Antonio River in Brackenridge Park. There were at least 50 citizens that came to the meeting, which lasted almost 5 hours in which staff tried awfully hard to convince the HDRC commission to approve the removal of the trees.

There is a continuance for about a week, as HDRC asked for a presentation of what will be the design at Lambert Beach after the removal of the trees. Staff pushed back hard, not wanting to give HDRC a presentation, but the public and the Commissioners were adamant that this was necessary before they would approve the removal of the Heritage Trees.

The reasons that Park staff gave for rushing this removal was to beat the egrets time in nesting and that the crumbling retaining wall and leaning trees were dangerous. However, the retaining wall and leaning trees have been in this condition for over 10 years, so that seems disingenuous to say, it is a safety issue. As far as the egrets are concerned, the city staff wants to make sure that there is no nesting that begins in March and ends around the end of the Summer. They will not be able to touch the trees once nesting begins as the egrets are a protected bird by Federal Fish and Wildlife.

The Fish and Wildlife representative presented that the egrets were a nuisance, and they were managing closely the egrets with the city by deterring as much as possible.

Overall, the quality of life at Brackenridge will change in the ecosystem structure. The big shade trees will be gone, and egrets misplaced, and little 4” trees with lots of concrete are what have been shown in previous renderings by design team and staff will be in place. 

It is an atrocity that we will witness and a horror we will remember for the rest of our lives.

However, something to truly consider before these huge trees are cut down, is, the escalation of cost in construction since the pandemic.

According to the AGC (Associated General Contractors of America) the rising cost in materials was 27.8% from April 2020 to August 2021. Projects all over the city have been impacted by this inflation and commodity shortage. This escalation has not been addressed in our discussions on Brackenridge Park project. 

The most prudent action that needs to be taken at this time is a reconciliation to current costs and the scope of the project. We should ask for this reconciliation to verify the variance, and what can really be built. This will help tremendously in prioritization of work. It could be that we wait a year on Lambert Beach area, giving us an opportunity to dig deep into the design with stakeholders. So many stakeholder groups have not had an opportunity to voice their desires, to the point of feeling excluded. This is especially true for the indigenous tribes that these lands were their homes.

A project phasing would be a positive approach in a time of uncertainty in construction.  The reality with almost 30% inflation, the project is one third smaller. 

In an effort to keep the heritage trees, move the retaining wall, do all the studies, and see if this approach would work, phasing would be a positive method to consider in light of the budget shortfall that this and all construction projects are experiencing nation wide.

Your food bill and gas have gone up remarkably since 2018, and you have had to prioritize your shopping. The same holds true for a construction project. 

The reconciliation of the budget variance should be the first homework due by staff to the HDRC Commissioners at the next meeting so to confirm the real size of the project with the money the city currently has designated.  The trees may not need to be cut down just yet.

Just a thought, and you should share with your Councilperson.