Author: Cynthia Merla Spielman

Posted on

Letter from SAHOC to Mayor and City Council about the Risk Mitigation Policy Draft

3/21/19 Update: Read about the meeting here: https://saheron.com/cops-metro-to-city-council-on-displacement-we-dont-want-a-study-we-want-action/

TO:      Mayor and Members of City Council

CC:      City Manager; Deputy City Manager; Neighborhood and Housing Services Department; Members of the San Antonio Housing Commission 

FROM: Members of the San Antonio Housing Oversight Coalition (SAHOC), Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee, and Vecinos de Mission Trails

DATE:  March 18, 2019

RE:     Risk Mitigation Policy

As the Mayor and members of the City Council prepare to approve the Risk Mitigation Policy drafted by the Neighborhood Housing Services Department, we believe it is crucial to address outstanding issues with the policy as written. In assessing this policy, our goal has been to uphold the recommendations outlined by the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force. As community members and advocates, we share the belief that this policy misses critical opportunities that must be taken in order to develop the most robust protections for displaced residents.

The members of SAHOC would like to share the following concerns and propose modifications to the proposed policy before final approval.

  1. The policy must require property owners to partner with the City to assist tenants.When property owners plan to issue notices to vacate due to redevelopment or code enforcement changes, the current policy only strongly encouragesbut does not require them to participate in the Residential Relocation Assistance Program (RRAP). San Antonio has the authority to require a developer to participate in a tenant relocation assistance program when a property owner needs the city’s assistance or permission for some aspect of their project, such as a zoning change or permit from the city (See Appendix A for details). The City should take advantage of this power in order to protect its most vulnerable residents. 
  2. Developers should be required to contribute to a tenant relocation fund. The current policy is funded only by money from the City, which ignores the private actors who are responsible for the displacement being mitigated through these policies. The City should determine (through a nexus study) an appropriate fee which developers should be required to contribute to a tenant relocation fund. (See Appendix B for more details). 
  3. The tenant notification requirements should be made stronger.As written in the current version of the policy, the requirements for notifying tenants who will be displaced are inadequate to ensure that these residents are protected. We believe the severe shortage in affordable housing units available in San Antonio warrants an increase in the number of days tenants should receive prior notice to vacate.  For recommendations on how these requirements should be strengthened, please see Appendix C. 
  4. Inconsistencies with the Texas Property Code must be clarified and addressed.The City’s proposed relocation assistance for displacement due to code enforcement actions does not meet the requirements of Section 21.046 of the Texas Property Code. This needs to be cleared up before the policy should be approved.Please see Appendix D for an explanation of the inconsistencies.
  5. The policy fails to adequately reflect the real-life experiences of displaced individuals and families.  In a letter addressed to Veronica Soto and copied to members of the council on February 12th, SAHOC requested COSA to collaborate closely with the tenants of Soap Works & Towne Center, as they are currently experiencing displacement and could offer valuable information that would improve the development and implementation of this policy.  A detailed recommendation regarding a process for authentic citizen participation was offered and was disregarded by NHSD staff.  Failure to seek guidance from those who are directly being affected will likely result in a process that is ineffective and burdensome to clients.  
  6. The requirements of tenants to access the funds are burdensome and bureaucratic and should be revised.  Every effort should be made to create requirements that are reasonable and accessible for those experiencing hardship. For example, the requirement to obtain a written letter from an employer stating a change in work hours or wage is unreasonable. In a city where hourly, temporary, seasonal, part-time work is prevalent, it is unlikely that employers will take the time to issue letters to employees when their wages are affected in a timely manner. Placing this bureaucratic obstacle on tenants is unacceptable. Additionally, the criteria outlined is confusing because it is unclear whether applicants must provide all criteria listed or just one of several listed.  Clarification in this section is seriously warranted. 
  7. More than $1 million must be allocated to assist families with relocation and we ask the City to increase this amount in next year’s budget.  It is inexcusable that our City continues to offer millions of dollars in incentives to developers for economic development and to develop housing that is beyond 60% AMI, while offering a paltry $1 million to assist approximately 200 families who will be displaced by similar actions.  In short, it appears that millions support developers and pennies support the most vulnerable in our community. In addition to increasing the amount of money in this fund, we believe that property owners should also contribute to assist residents.  
  8. The Risk Mitigation Policy has no connection to the larger framework for preventing displacement.Preventing displacement was a critical piece of the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force recommendations, and the creation of this larger anti-displacement strategy is an urgent need that must be prioritized in the NHSD’s three-year business plan.  

Finally, we continue to have concerns about the many parallel processes within the City related to housing. The City urgently needs a coordinated housing system, with a dedicated housing executive within the City Manager’s office whose work is to align the housing-related efforts pursued by multiple City departments and to ensure the City is not creating instances of displacement that it is then attempting to mitigate. We understand that the executive position will be evaluated at the mid-year and a decision will be made by the City Manager at that time. We strongly encourage the City to create this position and hire someone with experience and expertise in affordable housing to fill it as soon as possible.

We believe that San Antonio is currently experiencing a housing crisis, and this crisis is disproportionately impacting the city’s most vulnerable residents. Many of these are families who have shaped this city for generations, giving San Antonio its vibrant diversity and cultural wealth. Many also work the low-wage jobs that keep the city functioning day to day, making their protection essential to any economic prosperity. Therefore, we recommend immediateimplementation of financial assistance to support families who are currently being displaced. 

However, we are petitioning COSA to seriously consider the concerns outlined in this letter during the implementation process. In the following Appendices, we have attached more detailed recommendations that COSA staff can use to modify the current policy.  We hope members of the City Council, the Housing Commission and COSA staff will adhere to this urgent request. 

San Antonio families deserve better. 

Sincerely,

Jennifer Acosta (D8), Rich Acosta (D8), Amelia Adams (D1), Monica Cruz (D10), Paul DeManche (D1), Rebecca Flores (D5), Maureen Galindo (D1), Jessica O. Guerrero (D3), Sofia Lopez (D1), Carol Rodriguez (D3), Cynthia Spielman (D1)

About SAHOC: The San Antonio Housing Oversight Coalition (SAHOC) is a group of concerned residents and organizations. Informed by our relationships with homeowners and renters, we advocate for the implementation of affordable housing policy as outlined in the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force report and adopted by City Council.  We work to ensure all San Antonians can live in affordable housing in neighborhoods of their choice and to hold city leaders accountable to the vision of a more equitable San Antonio.  

Appendix A: Instituting a requirement for property owners to participate in Resident Relocation Assistance

Where the City has the power to require property owners to participate in the tenant relocation assistance program, it should require their participation. Asking property owners to opt in is not sufficient and leaves the RRAP policy without any teeth. 

San Antonio has the authority to require a developer to participate in a tenant relocation assistance program when a property owner needs the city’s assistance or permission for some aspect of their project, such as a zoning change or permit from the city. 

In many other cities, property owners are required to participate in a relocation assistance program when the owner requests a zoning change or variance or applies for a permit for the demolition or major alteration of a multi-family building. The City’s awarding of subsidies (such as Tax Increment Financing funds) or tax abatements (such as the CCHIP abatements) could also be a trigger for mandatory compliance with the City’s tenant relocation policy.

For example, in the City of Austin’s tenant relocation policy, the participation requirement is triggered by:

  1. a request for the demolition or partial demolition of a multifamily building consisting of 5 or more occupied units, or;
  2. a request for approval of a site plan or change of use permit for an existing mobile home park; or
  3. a request to rezone a property within the Mobile Home Residence (MH) District designation that contains an existing mobile home park.

As it stands, the city’s proposed policy is banking on the property owner opting to participate in the program. While some developers may do this, others will surely not.  For their tenants, this could be the difference between relocating to a safe suitable home and being unable to do so.As written, the burden falls on the tenant to navigate the stressful process of securing adequate housing for themselves and their family members, especially if they are unaware of the services the city has to offer.  

Appendix B: Developers and property owners should contribute to a relocation fund.

The City should not be left holding the bill for the entire Resident Relocation Assistance program. We should be requiring a property owner who is displacing their residents to contribute to these relocation programs financially – especially when the displacement is a result of a demolition or rehabilitation. 

The common response to this is to say that the State of Texas forbids cities from using “linkage fees,” but in fact, where a rational nexus can be demonstrated between a developers actions and the impacts that result from those actions, a city may require financial contribution from the developer. This requires a nexus study to be done in order to determine the amount of this fee, which must be consistently calculated and uniformly applied, but would vary based on the specific factors involved in the displacement event. 

The city of Austin released a Request for Proposals for a nexus/impact study, which will establish a reasonable fee that will be charged by the city. In Austin, this study is intended to enable the collection of a fee to fund affordable housing in the city. Therefore, the study will determine if a relationship exists between redevelopment and the need for affordable housing to avoid displacement of residents. The tasks of the study also take into account the costs to the City associated with services provided to displaced renters. 

San Antonio should engage in a similar study in order to establish a fee to fund tenant relocation.

Appendix C: How the RRAP Tenant Notification Requirements can be strengthened.

The notification requirements for those property owners who do decide to “partner with the city” when displacing tenants are not sufficiently robust. While it is commendable and important that the City requires tenant notices must be in both English and Spanish, what the policy means by “provide written notice” is not elaborated. The following are examples of specific materials and requirements that would be valuable for the City to require of any property owner. 

  • The City should provide a template for the tenant notification letter (including other information for tenants) that should be used by property owners when informing their tenants or mobile home residents.
  • The City should provide a printable sign that should be displayed on the property to notify residents, for both multifamily tenants and mobile home residents.
  • There should be a requirement that the letter include information about how to petition to allow your child to remain in the same school after you are relocated.
  • The policy should require that all notifications be delivered directly to the tenant by the property owner or by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested.
  • The property owner should be required to submit a rent roll that includes information about the number of tenants that would be displaced, the names and number of people on each lease, languages spoken, and number of bedrooms in each impacted unit

Other cities also allow longer minimum time frames for residents to vacate their homes. For example, Austin’s policy allows 180 days for multi-family tenants and 270 days for mobile home residents (compared to San Antonio’s 90/180 guideline).At several of the displacement community meetings SAHOC members attended, the minimum notification period recommended was 120 days for multifamily developments and more for mobile home parks.  The current policy only requires 90 days for multifamily developments and 180 days for mobile home parks.  We recommend the notification be increased to 120 days and 180 days, respectively.  We believe the severe shortage in affordable housing units available in San Antonio warrants an increase in the number of days tenants should receive prior notice to vacate.  We believe there should be other requirements that property owners should adhere to that will ensure residents receive proper assistance. 

Additionally, when developers fail to comply with the notice requirements in cities like Austin, they risk a $500 fine. However, because San Antonio’s policy is opt-in for developers, there is no way to force them to abide by these essential notice requirements, let alone fine them if they don’t.

Appendix D:Inconsistency regarding residents displaced by city code enforcement actions 

The City’s proposed relocation assistance for displacement due to code enforcement actions does not meet the requirements of Section 21.046 of the Texas Property Code. While Section C.ii of the proposed Risk Mitigation Policy states that the City’s policy doesn’t apply to households that qualify for relocation assistance under federal or state law, the policy also clearly states that it covers displacement from code enforcement. 

Section 21.046 requires that the city provide relocation assistance to residents who are displaced as a result of code enforcement actions—and that the assistance be compatible with the assistance required under the federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA). The URA’s relocation assistance requirements are much stronger and more comprehensive than those under RRAP. For example, under the URA for displaced tenants, a city must cover the rent for a comparable dwelling unit for up to 42 months and pay for the difference (between the tenant’s original rent and the new rent), along with moving costs, etc. of up $7,200. There is also a robust appeals process. 

State law requires each city to adopt rules governing assistance of displaced residents, and displacement occurring as a result of City code enforcement action is covered in San Antonio’s most recent revised URA Relocation Policy and Procedures. However, the requirements in this policy are inconsistent with those outlined in the new Risk Mitigation Policy, which also covers code enforcement actions. 

Between these various policies and regulations, there is considerable confusion that needs to be checked and cleared up before the Risk Mitigation Policy can be approved.  Otherwise, the Policy will not be consistent with existing state regulations. 




Posted on

Primer and Perspective on Risk Mitigation Policy (Displacement)

Update (March 18, 2019) A second version of the RMP has been released and the following are changes: The newest version includes an introduction in the beginning, language supporting homeowners with mortgage assistance and outlines amounts on page 8.  The new version also specifies that one-time assistance is for households “annually”– whereas older version did not have the word “annually.” And the last change is on page 5 where the wording has been modified so that “property owners who plan to issue notices to vacate due to redevelopment are strongly encouraged to partner with the City by notifyng NHSD 10 business days prior to issuing notices.”  — whereas previous version stated that developers are requested to partner with the City.    Update written by SAHOC member, Monica Cruz

Read: The updated Risk Mitigation Policy Draft   

The three-year Risk Mitigation Policy is in response to one of the strategies to “Prevent and mitigate Displacement”  in the  San Antonio Housing Policy Framework (pg.43) created by the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force. 

According to the Heron, “The three-year Risk Mitigation Policy, which taps into $1 million taken from the city’s general fund, intends to address city-wide displacement and lessen the traumatic effects of relocation. The policy, a recommendation of the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force, could be adopted by City Council as early as February, with a potential launch date between April and June.                                                                                                                    

The policy provides limited funds for relocation to those who face displacement and qualify due to 

  • city-incentivized developments in which the developers will be expected to help with the costs. For developments that are not incentivized, participation in the program is voluntary on the part of the developer or property owner.
  • rapid increase in rental housing costs where rapid neighborhood change can cause rise of rents
  • It also provides emergency assistance for housing stabilization “providing short term emergency financial assistance to residents experiencing eligible financial hardships. The program allows residents to remain housed and mitigates the potential compounding effects of emergency financial situations.” 

The policy could be adopted by City Council as early as this month and could be implemented April or June. The policy begs so many questions and issues about its effectiveness. 

San Antonio Housing Oversight Coalition (SAHOC) “…a coalition of local non-profit organizations and concerned individuals who support implementation of the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force (MHPTF) recommendations…” reviewed the Mitigation Plan draft and asks many important questions and makes thoughtful recommendations. Please read the SAHOC Review here.  

SAHOC has documented questions and concerns to the Risk Mitigation Policy drat and sent a letter to Neighborhood and Housing Services (NHSD) Director Veronica Soto outlining concerns, offering suggestions, and asking questions about the policy. 

The letter is an analysis of the issues of prevention and mitigation of displacement and can serve as a template to our mayor and council members. Please read the review and letter to better understand the issue so that you may advocate more effectively for your neighborhood and your community. 

Posted on

A Primer on the SA Climate and Adaption Plan (CAAP)


What is the SA Climate Action and Adaption Plan (CAAP)?

 On June 22, 2017, City Council passed a resolution that San Antonio would be in compliance with the Paris Climate Agreements by being Carbon Neutral by 2050.   The CAAP draft that needs to be adopted by City Council was developed with the input of 80+ community stakeholders representing neighborhood, environmental, institutional, social justice, and business groups who served on a Steering Committee and five Technical Working Groups. 

  • It stresses clean energy, energy efficiency, mobility options, vehicle electrification, reduced waste production, and sustainable development as mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the community and the municipal government. 
  • Includes a vulnerability assessment and adaptation strategies based on down-scaled climate projections through 2100 that reveal a future of extreme heat, increased occurrence of drought, and more severe storm and flood events; 
  • Is about clean air, good jobs, transportation choices, clean and secure energy, and current and long-term quality of life.

How the CAAP Works: Mitigation and Adaptation 

The CAAP deals with the effects of greenhouse gases in two ways: mitigation (reduction and prevention) and adaptation (limit’s the city’s vulnerability to climate change impacts).

  • Examples of mitigation activities include increasing renewable energy, reducing energy use in buildings, and increasing carbon-free vehicle use. 48% of emissions come from industrial and commercial buildings first and residential buildings second. 38% of carbon gases come from commercial and private transportation.  
  • Examples of adaptation activities include flood-proof roadways and critical infrastructure, increase tree canopy, and develop a community wild-fire plan. 

How will San Antonio reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) Emissions?

 1. Increase Carbon-Free Energy 

Almost half of San Antonio’s GHG emissions come from the sources that supply our buildings with energy. Reducing the carbon impact of our energy generation is one of the most impactful single actions we can take to slow climate change. San Antonio will focus on the development of carbon-free, grid-supplied energy and converting existing fossil fuel end uses to this new carbon-free opportunity. 

2. Reduce Building Energy Consumption 

Reducing the energy consumption of our buildings will reduce the need for energy generated by high-carbon sources. These strategies go hand-in-hand with increasing carbon-free energy by curbing San Antonio’s growing appetite for energy and allowing for the conversion to carbon-free solutions. 

3. Reduce Transportation Energy Consumption 

More than one-third of San Antonio’s GHG emissions come from our carbon-intensive transportation systems. As a car-centric city, San Antonio will need to utilize smart initiatives to reduce GHG emissions from our transportation systems, including promoting the use of greener vehicle technologies and reducing vehicle miles traveled through transforming and integrating existing transportation networks. 

4. Increase Circularity 

The waste that goes to the landfill today continues to release GHG emissions for decades as it
breaks down. In recognition of these emissions, San Antonio has identified increasing the circular economy as a pillar of climate action. Together these strategies will work to remove items from the waste stream and divert all remaining waste to the least GHG-intensive waste streams. 

5. Promote Biodiversity and Healthy Ecosystems 

Healthy, properly functioning ecosystems can absorb emissions and stabilize the rate of change, resulting in less significant impacts. These strategies will promote healthy ecosystem responses and develop solutions that mimic those of natural systems. 

6. Educate & Enable 

Some of the most important significant behavior changes and limitations to future GHG emissions can be achieved through strategies that may not have significant short-term GHG emission reductions. These strategies will educate San Antonians and develop processes to enable the changes in behavior required to continue GHG emissions reductions into the future. 

CAAP and Equity: How does this plan protect the vulnerable?

Equity was a central tool in developing policy: The following are the ways in which the CAAP ensures clear equity gains which is centered around five climate equity themes: 

1. Access and Accessibility:Increased access to jobs, housing, transportation, funding, education, healthy foods, and clean air for vulnerable populations. 

2. Affordability:Lower / more predictable costs related to basic living needs (e.g. housing, food, utilities, healthcare, transportation, etc.) for vulnerable populations. 

3. Cultural Preservation:Respecting and honoring cultural relevance and history. 

4. Health: Increased health (physical and mental) for vulnerable populations. 

5. Safety and Security:  Mitigation of potential threats and increased access to critical lifelines when (or before) threats are experienced. 

How does this plan affect neighborhoods?

The CAAP affects transportation and development in our communities which is a topic Tier One Neighborhood Coalition neighborhoods have already been working on. The plan makes our neighborhoods safer as we work on issues such as flooding and heat for vulnerable residents.  The plan also asks for a commitment by individuals and neighborhoods to find ways to reduce, reuse, and recycle and change the perception that this is a “new” idea; for our grandparents, this was a way of life. What is most important, is that neighborhoods with strong communities are the best mitigation against natural disasters. This is a point we should make to the City when advocating on issues we care about such as STRs, development, displacement, and housing issues. Strong communities are resilient.

What is the Timeline for the CAAP?

1/25/19               Public Release of the Plan/Open Comment Period

2/24/19               30-day Public Comment Period Closes

2/27/19               Planning Commission Work Session 

3/13/19               Planning Commission 

3/20/19               CAAP Steering Committee /Public Meeting 

3/26/19               Community Health and Equity Committee Briefing

4/3/19                  B-Session 

4/11/19               A-Session 

Public Engagement:

Website – https://saclimateready.org/about-us/draft-climate-action-adaptation-plan/

Survey – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/7P2GKF3

CPS Energy Board of Trustees Public Input Session on SA Climate Ready CoSA Open HouseMonday, February 18, 2019 at the Villita Assemble Building at 401 Villita Street 

  • 5-6 pm Sign up to speak / People First! Community Fair
  • 6 – 8:30 pm Public Input Session

CoSA SA Climate Ready Open House Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at the Central Library,  5-7 pm

Sources: 

Douglas Melnik, Chief Sustainability Officer of the Office of Sustainability.  

The CAAP draft: 

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kstx/files/SACR-REPORT_FINAL_spreads-1-25.pdf
Posted on

Public Participation Principles: A Perspective for Neighborhood Leaders and Advocates


Read: “A Primer on Public Participation Principles”

We have all been there: We work on input for a neighborhood project and feel like the suggestions that have a direct effect on our communities are ignored. We work diligently, going to all public meetings, educating ourselves on the issues, meeting with our communities for ideas, working with the City, only to have it all disappear with no explanation and our requests for information met with annoyance. We are invited to an “input” public meeting and have the feeling that the staff views it as a box to be checked off, not a moment of real communication. When we have insisted on input, there are no feedback opportunities once a draft of an ordinance or policy has been released, our input is dismissed with no explanation. 

Sound familiar? Sadly, this has often been our reality when working with the City to advocate for our neighborhoods and communities. 

It is these citizen frustrations that led City Council to adopt the Public Participation Resolution. 

On February 2018 District 7 Councilwoman Ana Sandoval filed a Council Consideration Request (CCR), “Advancing City Public Participation” to “develop principles and standards for each City campaign to follow to create consistency, clear expectations, and ample opportunity for the public to provide input prior to Council action.” 

These they are guidelines only: The City must find ways (strategies and ideas) and the money, when needed, to implement them. Anything that takes funding (for example taping the meetings) will need an identified funding source or budget amendment. The Principles  mostly deal with citizen input and the implementation recommendations by the Government and Public Affairs (GPA) Department  as well as the Mayor’s directives. 

The fact that the Principles focus on the input process are, at the least, a recognition of public participation is important and its strength is important to the CoSA.

What the Principles are not, is a tool to partner in decisions made about our neighborhoods and communities. 

Public Participation is Citizen Power

Public input and participation have very different outcomes depending on the amount of decision-making power stakeholders have. There is a real difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power to affect the outcome of the process. We need two things to have real decision-making power about the futures of our neighborhoods: knowledge and a meaningful partnership with the City. 

 Illusory Forms of Participation

There have been several degrees of participation between neighborhoods and the City decision-makers.  Participation that allows the City to claim that all sides are considered, but its purpose is to maintain the status quo, is often the norm.  Many times this takes the form of presentations or charrettes that are educational. But when the City extends an invitation for “public input” it has often been a presentation and citizen input is superficially noted. The meeting feels like a box is being checked as part of a City process.

City meetings often become participation in participation.  In one type of participation,  a few representatives are given a place as part of the process (on a committee, board, etc.) to placate citizens and to give them the sense that they have power. The effectiveness of these representatives is based on how much technical assistance they are given to help make decisions and set priorities and on the extent that the community has been organized to press for their priorities. Sometimes, such as was the case in the recent sub-area planning meetings, neighborhood representatives stopped attending meetings because they did not understand the process or the jargon and acronyms or the presentations. There was no attempt to educate these representatives or to allow neighborhoods to choose alternates. Online surveys, charrettes, superficial input sessions are a way that the City “consults” with neighborhoods without actually taking account any real input. There have even been instances where City representatives convey meetings with residents on a project as tacit approval. 

Partnership Depends on Transparent Information 

What we seek is a true partnership with CoSA in decisions that affect the future of our neighborhoods and communities. We need a structured sharing of planning and decision-making with a transparent mechanism for working through differences and the decisions stand.  To do this more effectively, we need access to City information. As one neighborhood leader states, “Essentially the City process is a big black hole… What is the point of PPR, if you don’t even have the basic process information available to the citizen to understand what is going on?”

One tool that would help citizens understand this crucial information and affect change would be flowcharts detailing City processes for any department or project requiring citizen engagement. An example of a city process flow chart is below:

In a recent NOWCastsa article, “San Antonio flunks public records test, compared to other Texas cities” it was noted, “San Antonio is, without question, the most backward city of any of the major urban Texas municipalities when it comes to making public records available. Opacity seems to be the rule.” 

      

Specific Recommendations: 

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition, who recently held a workshop on the Principles, suggested ways to make public information more accessible: Flow charts of CoSA processes, posted standardized minutes for all boards and commissions, livestream and archived video of not only City Council meetings, but Zoning Commission and Board of Adjustment meetings as well (which is part of the Mayor’s directive), City websites should be more informational and easy to find specific information, plans for development projects that require zoning changes or tax incentives should be more transparent, and all public meetings should be put on one City calendar so that the overlap is clear. 

Partnerships also Depend on Community Building 

Partnerships can work most effectively when there is an organized power-base in the community to which the the citizen-leaders are accountable.

Two things we can do as neighborhoods to more effective partner with the City is to maintain strong neighborhood associations and coalitions that are transparent, inclusive, and agree about overarching ideas; and educate ourselves about City process. We need to cultivate neighborhood “experts” on different issues. 

Neighborhood Plan Process

In most cases, where power has come to be shared, it was demanded by the citizens, not given by the City. But San Antonio has a successful model for a true partnership between the City and neighborhoods: the Neighborhood Plan process. Neighborhood residents met in multiple meetings to share their vision for their neighborhood’s future. The City staff facilitated the meetings, offering their expertise to help residents create a plan that would be workable and sustainable. Unfortunately, the climate changed with the change of city manager who began to implement a top-down approach. Now citizens often feel in conflict with City staff instead of working towards common goals. 

What can we do?

  • Advocate for information transparency. 
  • Advocate for partnership between neighborhoods and the City infor all decisions having to do with the future of our communities. 
  • Advocate for the specific recommendations to make public information more transparent.
  • Please access the website at http://www.saspeakup.com/and sign up for updates. 
  • We must commit to continue to monitor the progress of the implementation strategies.  Identify and/or support the approval of funding  For any strategy that needs to be funded (i.e. filming and archiving commission and committee meetings).
  • Continue to ask how the ordinance is being implemented when dealing with different City departments. It is up to us, the public, to now hold City departments responsible for upholding the new public input process.  Are we seeing a difference? Let our elected officials know what is working and what is not. 
  • Continue to ask about how the City makes decisions. Who are the stakeholders and who had input that created the end result?
  • Identify ways the City can be more transparent and inclusive in its decision-making process. 
  •  Pressure our elected representatives to adhere to the spirit of the Public Participation Principles.  
  • Continue to create and maintain strong neighborhood communities and coalitions and to educate ourselves to advocate effectively. 

Sources

Arnstein, Sherry, R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” AIP Journal. July 1969. 216-224.

Chrissy Q. McCain, District 1 Council Aide

http://nowcastsa.com/blogs/analysis-san-antonio-flunks-public-records-test
Posted on

Primer on Public Participation Principles


Listen to NOWCASTSA’s interview with Councilwoman Ana Sandoval here.

In response to public frustrations, in February 2018 District 7 Councilwoman Ana Sandoval filed a Council Consideration Request (CCR), “Advancing City Public Participation” to “develop principles and standards for each City campaign to follow to create consistency, clear expectations, and ample opportunity for the public to provide input prior to Council action.” 

CoSA’s Definition of Public Participation: 

“For the purpose of the principles and standards addressed in this directive, the City defines public participation as ‘any process that obtains and considers public input in a decision prior to taking action.’ ‘Public participation’ is a two-way communication with the goal of engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process. Public participation campaigns differ from public awareness and education campaigns, which do not include the opportunity for the public to influence the decision or outcome of a policy, program, or action. However, both campaign types utilize various marketing and public relations tactics to promote and support the effort, such a print advertising, social media and news releases.”

The Principles of Public Participation Principles that have been adopted

Councilwoman Sandoval’s CCR presented specific guiding principles to public participation and now these recommendations have been formally adopted by City Council: 

TRANSPARENT – Be open and clear by communicating the decision-making process to the public including the role of public in the process, what type of input is sought and how the input will be used; provide a public record of the input received and the range of views and ideas expressed.

INCLUSIVE – Engage a broad range of stakeholders, with particular emphasis on those who do not normally take part in City public participation process; make every effort to ensure that stakeholder groups do not feel left out of the process.

TIMELY – Seek public input well ahead of key decisions; engage the public proactively.

ACCESSIBLE – Ensure that anyone who wants to participate in the process can provide input; overcome barriers to participation, whether they are geographical, physical, socioeconomic or language barriers. 

CONVENIENT – Make it as easy as possible to engage with the City; provide multiple opportunities for the public to provide input; when possible, meet people where they are instead of only requiring them to show up at a public meeting; utilize the power of digital communications while being mindful of technology gaps. 

INFORMATIVE – Educate through public participation; use the opportunity to help people understand how the City organization works and to enhance both the public’s and the City’s understanding of issues, policies and challenges; strive to ensure that opinions are informed with facts. 

RESPECTFUL – Consider all input received, including differing viewpoints, while balancing the interests of all stakeholders. 

CONTINUOUS – Treat every input provided by the public as another step toward a more engaged community by developing the infra structure to foster sustained participation; residents who make the effort to participate should be continually engaged in future efforts; residents who want to share an opinion with their City organization should be able to do so at any time. 

MEANINGFUL – Ensure that public input is appropriately considered in the decision-making process; use public participation to improve City programs, policies, and ordinances. 

RESPONSIVE – Communicate outcomes to all who participated and provided input. 

Note: These are guidelines only: The City must find ways (strategies and ideas) and the money, when needed, to implement. Anything that takes funding (for example taping the meetings) will need an identified funding source or budget amendment. 

What has been implemented or is in the process of implementation so far: 

In June 2018, the Government and Public Affairs Department (GPA) the department that oversees communications and City-wide campaigns, presented a summary of public participation recommendations to the Governance Committee to consider. These minimum standards have been or are now in the process of implementation:

  1. All City department campaigns should be branded SASpeakUp going forward, barring any special circumstances (i.e. SASpeakUp: Let’s talk about scooters, etc.). GPA in a collaboration with the Information and Technology Services Department (ITSD) has rebranded the SASpeakUp a one-stop website for input for all public meetings and input opportunities. www.saspeakup.com
  2. Public meetings, which often achieve attendance that is low or not necessarily representative of the entire community, should serve as a supplement to any input opportunity, not as the foundation for public participation. 
  3. A clear timeline should be established for each opportunity, including a two-week minimum input period. Results of the campaign should be reported in the standardized format and provided prior to any City Council briefing or action at the committee or meeting level. 
  4. Each campaign should utilize each of the City’s existing communications resources, barring any special circumstances.
  5. All surveys and associated materials must be printed and available online, made available in English and in Spanish.
  6. All contact information gathered throughout the campaign should be added to the City’s Central database and used to communicate campaign outcomes and new input opportunities. 
  7. GPA convenes a working group that by November had met six times to develop and implement recommendations for the City’s digital engagement strategy.

Proposed strategies that still need to be implemented: 

Directives by the Mayor and Councilwoman Sandoval proposed in an Addendum of Recommendations will be evaluated for costs and then implemented for Council approval. This is the direction provided to staff. 

  1. Enhanced Public Access to Council Meetings
  2. broadcasting all Council Committee meetings, Planning Commission, Zoning Commission, and Board of Adjustment meetings livestream on social media and on public access television;
  3. making video archives of the meetings accessible on the City website;
  4. aggregating a record of council member votes and attendance; and
  5. public transportation or parking assistance to members of the public attending City meetings.
  6. Reviewing “Citizens to be Heard” (CTBH) Format and Recommending Best Practices
  7. coordination of a minimum level of attendance by councilmembers and city management;
  8. instructions for the public on how CTBH works to members of the pubic as they sign up to speak;
  9. during the sign-in process, providing citizens options to meet with staff or council to address concerns; and 
  10. timely posting of questions/comments by citizens online, along with official response on the City’s website and transmitted to Council. 
  11. Accountability / Customer Service
  12. enhancing current efforts to conduct customer service surveys and focus groups for City services which most frequently impact residents, i.e, waste pick up, code compliance, zoning, etc., as well as the internal process to regularly review, address and report on findings of customer services surveys to Council or appropriate advisory committee. 
  13. a regular update on Public Participation Activities and Advances to the Community Health and Equity Committee (CHEC), including activities under development and other advances that would be of interest to Councilmembers and constituents. 

Formation of a Citizens Advisory Group (This group will be formed soon): 

In order to support these efforts, the Mayor will create a citizens advisory group to provide insight on the CHEC’s consideration of the Advancing Public Participation recommendations. The advisory group will be comprised of leaders in the field of public engagement and community members with experience with City-led public participation processes. 

Timeline:

  • February 2018 – Sandoval’s CCR with signatures of support from Council members Bockhouse, Perry, Sandana, and Viagran.  “Advancing Public Participation” that requests a comprehensive review of City-led public engagement activities on the basis that “successful development of policy and implementation of City programs depend on meaningful public engagement
  • June 2018, The Government and Public Affairs Department (GPA) under the direction of Jeff Coyle, presents recommendations to the Governance Committee. GPA, they state, “is working diligently with department directors and communications staff to encourage compliance.” GPA convenes a working group that by November has met six times to develop and implement recommendations for the City’s digital engagement strategy. 
  • February – November 2018 The CCR worked through several committees including the Governance Committee and the Community Health and Equity Committee (CHEC)  
  • November 1, 2018 Memorandum from Mayor Ron Nirenberg and Ana Sandoval to Sheryl Scully: Addendum to CCR on Advancing Public Participation which make additional directives to staff.  
  • January 16, 2019 The CCR “Advancing Public Participation” that provides policy directives to City Manager and City staff by City Council is adopted. 
  • The City must find ways (strategies and ideas) and the money, when needed, to implement. Anything that takes funding (for example taping the meetings) will need an identified funding source or budget amendment. Now that Council has adopted the principles, staff will provide recommendations for their implementation, and the Mayor and City Manager will send out directives for implementation to staff. 

Sources: 

  • City of San Antonio Council Consideration Request (CCR). “Advancing City Public Participation” submitted by Councilwoman Ana E. Sandoval. February 27, 2018
  • Memorandum to Sheryl Sculley, City Manager. “Addendum to CCR on Advancing Public Participation.” from Mayor Ron Nirenberg and Councilwoman Ana E. Sandoval  
  • Agenda Memorandum File Number: 18-6437 to Community Health and Equity Committee. “Public Participation Recommendation.” Government and Public Affairs. November 26, 2018.
  • City of San Antonio Legislative Details (With Text) File Number 18-6437 on the subject of “Public Participation Recommendations” November 26, 2018
  • Agenda Memorandum File Number: 19-1438 to City Council A-Session. Government and Public Affairs. January 17, 2019.

Vocabulary: 

  • Principles: Resolve of principles are the guidelines that City Council adopted
  • Recommendations: Suggestions for implementation that staff provides to Mayor and City Manager, elected officials and commissions.  
  • Directives: Directives are the instructions that the Mayor and City Manager hand down to City staff. 
Posted on

SA Tomorrow Replaces Neighborhood Plans and the Democratic Process

By Cynthia Spielman and Cosima Colvin

Printed originally in NOWCastSA.com

Neighborhood Plans are civic engagement and grassroots democracy at its most local level.

They were created by ordinary people who care about their community and were willing to work, to participate and to engage with their neighbors in a real partnership with the city under the 1998 Community Building and Neighborhood Planning Program.

We spent hundreds of hours planning, facilitating and attending meetings. We talked to one another, and sometimes struggled with ideas until we finally came to a consensus.

As a result, for the first time in San Antonio’s long history, residents in neighborhoods were able to define what was valuable about their community’s past, and articulate their dream for the future. Fifty-five plans were adopted by San Antonio City Council as ordinance and incorporated into the Comprehensive Master Plan.

We celebrated not only our plans, but a process that we trusted.

The City told us to own our plans, to advocate, and to work for their realization. We did. We do.

But now it seems the engaged citizenry of people who care about the future of their neighborhoods has become an inconvenient impediment to the City’s new vision for our community.

If the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan has its way, our neighborhoods, instead of being of unique identities, will simply be part of a larger Sub-Area Plan, subject to the development vision of others.

We formed Tier One Neighborhood Coalition because, from the outset, the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan has not included meaningful representation from neighborhoods and has repeatedly vowed to eliminate existing Neighborhood Plans.

When the SA Tomorrow planning process began in 2015, the city selected 200 people to serve on the nine Plan Element Working Groups. Just five individuals were chosen to represent neighborhoods, and they were all in one group: Historic Preservation and Cultural Heritage.

Planning staff did not incorporate neighborhood concerns from public meetings even though neighborhood stakeholders asked specific questions and shared concerns regarding the status of their plans within the Comprehensive Plan.

Planning staff insisted at these public meetings, during which consultants took copious notes and placed feedback on wall-mounted white butcher paper, that Neighborhood and Community Plans would be reviewed and included in the new plan.

Instead, language in the May 2, 2016 draft of the SA Tomorrow Plan stated that existing Neighborhood Plans would be eliminated, and contained very few protections for neighborhoods while promoting focused infill growth in the urban core.

The newly formed Tier One Neighborhood Coalition scrambled to come up with revised language to keep our Neighborhood Plans intact, add provisions that would prioritize and protect neighborhood stability and sustainability, and assure that neighborhoods would be included in the implementation process.

As a result, the July 20, 2016 “final” draft SA Tomorrow Plan addressed concerns regarding incompatible development and inclusion in the decision-making process during the implementation stage, but there was no assurance that the neighborhood and community plans would remain intact.

Responding to our concerns, Councilman Roberto Treviño intervened and offered an amendment from the dais as City Council was about to pass the plan on Aug. 11, 2016.

His amendment: 1) “On page 17.10, include “Neighborhood and community plans should be respected, as appropriate, as they are integrated into the Sub-Area Plans.” 2) On page 17.14, include additional language related to neighborhood plans that strikes “replace” and adds “incorporate” so that the whole text reads, “The Community Plans should integrate and will eventually incorporate.”

Section 1.3: of the adopted Comprehensive Plan states: “While the Comprehensive Plan is an umbrella policy and planning document with city wide implications, it does not alter or negate our existing neighborhood plans, community plans, sector plans or any other land use plans.”

Then-Councilman Ron Nirenberg underscored that later in 2016 by telling neighborhood leaders: “Existing neighborhood plans will be respected and built upon, not replaced.”

Unfortunately, despite the assurances of Treviño and Nirenberg and the plan’s own directive, the SA Tomorrow Sub-Area Plan process is about to eliminate and replace our existing Neighborhood and Community plans.

The explanation given by the Planning Department when challenged on the status of neighborhood plans is a lot like when a loved one dies, and people tell you that they aren’t really dead as long as you keep them alive in another form in your heart.

Comforting, perhaps for consoling a family member, but less so when we hear it from City government regarding our neighborhoods and the democratic process.

Posted on

NIMBY: Not What You Think

By Cynthia Merla Spielman and Anisa Schell

This was published in the San Antonio Express News on March 6, 2018.

Recently a non-profit developer gave a presentation on similar developments in different parts of town. One presentation was given to a group of residents  in an economically depressed part of San Antonio, and another in a more upscale area. One neighborhood welcomed the 100% affordable housing development; the other neighborhood was staunchly against the development and the rhetoric became an ugly comment on the poor.

Often neighbors have valid reasons for opposing affordable housing developments that have nothing to do with the potential residents, even if they couch their concerns in discriminatory language.

Both neighborhoods wanted the same thing: economic diversity that nurtures resilient neighborhoods, neighborhoods that are able to care for its most vulnerable residents. The more affluent neighborhood embraced the change that would work for both established and new residents. The economically depressed neighborhood opposed the development because they felt overwhelmed by their own poverty. Instead of working with the second community to find solutions, politicians and developers were quick to label residents NIMBYs and silence their objections.

NIMBY, an acronym for “Not In My Back Yard,” is a pejorative term. It conveys disrespect and is dismissive of resident concerns. The term NIMBY has been used to label dissent to any project. It is meant to rob neighborhoods of their voice. Rather than listening to the concerns that residents bring forth, the label of NIMBY is applied by those wishing to push the project forward, stereotyping and ignoring the complexity of community.

Any large development impacts neighborhoods and before the City incents these developments or grants them zoning changes, the impact on community and neighborhoods should be assessed for such things as traffic, roads, the effects on local schools, environment (run off), housing values, health issues, and quality of life issues for both current and potential new residents.

Often, developers approach neighborhoods when they are nearing the end of their planning phases. Drawings have been submitted, city approval has been gained, funding is in place. From the developer’s perspective, everything is ready to go. They bring these near-complete plans to the nearby residents and tell them what they are going to build. Residents are taken by surprise and find that there is no room for input into this process. When residents raise objections, the developer becomes frustrated. Tempers flare and concerns are dismissed. Residents cry foul and developers confirm their suspicion that neighborhoods are just against development.

Large developments that offer just a few units of affordable housing benefit developers more than future residents or neighbors. The residents of the surrounding area are left alone to solve the issues that often come with increased traffic, run-off, crowded schools, and a perception of falling housing values to people who have barely hung on to middle class.

These projects are seldom located in wealthy neighborhoods and the wisdom of crowding the “poor” into large developments without support often make the problems of poverty worse. Developers are granted tax abatements that rob school districts, while at the same time burdening the neighborhood schools.

Rather than fighting the residents when the project is ready to break ground, why not garner resident support from the project’s inception? Before funding is applied for or submissions are made, developers should reach out to neighborhood associations and community leaders. To be successful, there has to be more meaningful input from residents and that input should have the ability to create change.

Developers and politicians should take a proactive approach with neighborhoods. No one knows the neighborhoods better than the residents who live in them. Developers and city leaders may be surprised to find that communities can readily identify places where more housing is possible in their neighborhood, and what challenges may be faced when inappropriate development occurs in the wrong place.

Changing the framework of the discussion from one of blame and name-calling (NIMBY) to a positive discussion of community and solutions will help make the building of affordable housing in our neighborhoods possible.

Posted on

The County Commissioners and Affordable Housing

The County Commissioners recently released its Tax Abatement Guidelines effective January 31, 2018 – December 31, 2020 which incentivizes market rate multi-family rental housing in the Center City. The Commission also released its Bexar County Skills Development Fund for Economic Development which incentivizes companies or businesses with twenty (20) or more employees to train new employees and pay the targeted Occupation Positions no less than $17.44 and no employee at project site less than $11.32 excluding benefits. Only 25% of the new employees are required to be Bexar County residents.

Precinct Four County Commissioner Tommy Calvert wrote an open letter, “Bexar County’s New Incentive Policy Benefits Top 10% Again” decrying the the fact that the proposal allows “only the top 10% of the larges businesses to train and hire 75% of people from out of town after you give them $250,000 for workforce training.” He states his objection to the abatement policy: “…When I asked the court to work with me to provide a market incentive to balance the decade long policy where Bexar County only gave tax abatements for multi-family developments that called for the highest rents and highest mortgages and put in place policies that benefit the vast majority of working people, the staff and court has provide (sic) inaction and excuses.”

On February 8, 2018, Commissioner Calvert held a Neighborhood Reinvestment Fund Committee Meeting at the DoSeum in which he discussed with community and business leaders the proposals and asked for solutions. Hans shot up across the large and crowded room. What happened next was a lively, diverse, and informative discussion of solutions.

In San Antonio, a city with high economic/geographic segregation, where zip code determines fate, affordable housing is tied to opportunity – jobs and education and health.   Our tax dollars should be used to encourage workforce and affordable housing and helping people stay in their homes, not to incentivize market rate housing that most of the hard working citizens of San Antonio can ill afford.

The kind of incentivizing of development and market-rate housing that the Commissioners propose has led to displacement in our downtown neighborhoods. As home prices shoot up, my neighbor Danny stands before me and says he is struggling to stay in the home he grew up in, a home he has cared for and a neighborhood that is the only one he has known. “People tell me that my house is an investment,” he says, “But it is not an investment: It is my home! Where would I go?” We need funds for owner-occupied home rehab and neighborhood reinvestment and tax relief.  Another neighbor, at my kitchen table, demands that we stop improving the neighborhood because she can’t afford it. We shouldn’t have to stop improving our neighborhoods in order to help people stay in their communities, but we should mitigate the unintended consequences of incentivized market rate development. If in n Beacon Hill and other downtown neighborhoods, the affordable housing is the still housing we live in now, it may not be for long.

Median-income households can afford less than half of the homes on the market, making the local housing market inherently unaffordable. The statistics on renters are worse yet: Renters compose 47% of the the housed population.  As of 2010, more than half of renter households in Bexar County would not have been able to afford the two-bedroom fair market rent that requires an income of at least $33,680 or $16.19 per hour over a 40-hour work week.  The average Bexar County worker earned $12.18. Since the Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Housing Plan of San Antonio (which produced these figures) was produced in 2013, the housing situation has only worsened. Rents have steadily risen.

Teachers, firefighters, City staff, architects, healthcare workers, those at the 80% of AMI, whether they be renters or homeowners, are finding themselves priced out of the San Antonio downtown area. If renters stay, they struggle to pay unaffordable rent which can prevent them from achieving the dream of home ownership. Homeowners may soon join their ranks.

What we need is training programs for Bexar County residents, higher wages, the development of skilled industries (not tourism), and a way for neighborhood  students to have access to to a decent education. What we need is housing that is affordable and  neighborhoods that are resilient.

The SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan requires that developments that receive public funding or use public financing tools, provide affordable housing units – an important objective that this Commissioners Court has failed to require.

According to NALCAB’s recent study, “An Analysis of Housing Vulnerability in San Antonio” produced in January of this year, public policy and incentives that are proposed here have helped to make rental housing unaffordable.  The highest multifamily effective rents were in areas with high concentrations of new production, often incentivized production.

In other words, the City incentivized an unaffordable rental housing market, using our tax dollars to worsen a housing crises. Now the County, learning nothing from the City’s errors, seems to be proposing to do the very same thing. It does not make any sense.

There is nothing wrong with market rate housing which will proliferate on its own as the market grows; but our tax dollars should be used to incentivize affordable and workforce housing and training that benefits the citizens of Bexar County, not just the market rate development community or corporations.

I understand the desire to raise the tax base by incentivizing market rate housing, but we can do that by raising the living standards of our citizens through education, opportunity, and housing.

On February 13th, after two hours of presentations (notably by Dr. Christine Drennon of Trinity University and SAISD Superintendent Pedro Martinez) and citizen input, Commissioner Calvert was able to successfully persuade the Commissioners Court to hire a housing consultant and create a citizen –staffed advisory committee. County Commissioner Tommy Calvert should be commended for working for affordable housing and seeking public engagement as the process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Neighborhoods and Short Term Rental Proposed Ordinance

PROPOSED SHORT TERM RENTAL (STR) ORDINANCE

Update: Since this was published, the STR proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Zoning Commission on February 6th (after hours of public testimony) who voted to recommend approval with the added language to add authorized bed and breakfast (B&Bs) establishments to the proposed distance limitations for Type 2 STRs. The Commission also voted to recommend revisiting the distance grid for Type 2 STRs, to consider a limitation on the amount of condo and apartments units in individual buildings which are used as Type 2 STRs, and to consider a limit on the number of sleeping areas and occupancies for Type 1 STRs.

The proposed ordinance  will got to City Council B-Session for discussion and then City Council A-Session for consideration.  The dates have not been announced for these meetings.

The STR proposed ordinance can be found at https://docsonline.sanantonio.gov/FileUploads/dsd/ShortTermRentalDRAFTOrdinance.pdf

History

In February 2017, then District 10 Council member Mike Gallagher submitted a Council Consideration Request to “review current code and research best practices regarding short term rentals.” The City’s Developmental Services Department (DSD) formed a Short Term Rental Task Force (STRTF) to study the issue and draft an ordinance. The Task Force was made of six representatives from five neighborhood association boards.  The task force also included ten STR operators, a representative from Airbnb, two land use attorneys, staff, and various other interests. Since May 2017, the Task Force met eight times with DSD staff as well as five public general meetings held monthly in the evenings for broader input.

The Board of Adjustment met on January 8th and approved the ordinance with the added requirement that no Type 2 STRs be allowed a special exemption only if it “…will not alter the essential character of the district and location…” of the property. The Planning Commission approved the proposed ordinance including the requirement added by Board of Adjustment and also added a request that City Council explore prohibiting Type 2 STRs in designated Historic Districts.

Summary

Elements of the draft ordinance that are of particular interest to neighborhoods (Portions of this proposed ordinance at end of this document):

  • A distinction is made between owner-occupied (Type 1) STRs and non-owner occupied properties used exclusively as STRs (Type 2).
  • Much of the permitting (not all), fees, taxation, and safety requirements are the same for both types and both are permitted in any residential zone; however, a distinction is made in two important ways: Only Type 2 STRs have to appeal to the Board of Adjustments (BoA) for a variance and only Type 2s are subject to a density requirement (similar to the existing ordinance regarding B&Bs) although that is subject to appeal. Type 1 STRs have no such restrictions.  All properties registered before the ordinance is adopted are “grandfathered” in terms of density; these properties will not be required to adhere to density standards but will count towards future density calculations.

Neighborhoods

Most of the inner loop neighborhoods have concerns about the proliferation of Type 2 STRs and seek regulations to guide future STR use. Neighborhoods have come under considerable duress with the rising unaffordability and unavailability of housing (both through ownership and rental). The proliferation of unregulated Short Term Rentals (STRs) deepens this problem by removing housing from the market and community resiliency is strained as long term housing become hotels.

The following recommendations are from the neighborhood representatives who served on the Short Term Rental Task Force:

“Having served on the Short Term Rental Task Force we are generally in favor of the ordinance that was drafted in addition to the recommendations made by both the Board of Adjustments and the Planning Commission with the caveat that we would still like to see language regarding density requirements for the Type 2 rentals strengthened.  Although there may have been an attempt for the representation of neighborhoods to be equal to that of STR operators and other stakeholders we ended up with only six (6) neighborhood representatives on a Task Force of 25 members clearly putting us in the minority.

One of the strongest concerns that we hear from neighborhoods is that residential blocks are losing neighbors because of the slow but sure proliferation of STR rentals.  While the density grid attempts to address this issue, it does not take into account the existence of B & B’s or Type 1 STRs resulting in a narrow view of what could become the accumulative effect on the residential use and quality of life of the neighborhood. As we did during the STR Task Force meetings, we continue to advocate for the inclusion of B&Bs in the calculation of distance as per Figure 399.06-1.

Our second recommendation regarding density goes to the number of STR units per lot. Our concern is that multi-family properties will be allowed to operate like hotels and reduce the number of long term rentals. We would support adding either a percentage or a fixed number of total units per lot to ensure the retention of affordable housing stock.”

Different neighborhoods present different issues in response to the proposed STR ordinance. Downtown neighborhoods like Beacon Hill for example, seem most concerned with the growth of Type 2 STRs, while a historic neighborhood like King William, who is also contending with B&Bs, have an added concern about Type 1 STRs. Most agree that the issue of density of Type 2s, as well as the process of seeking approval from BoA for Type 2s are a priority to protect neighborhoods and communities.

Schedule (Revised)

The next meetings are as follows:

  • Jan. 25, 2018 – Community, Health, & Equity Committee Briefing and Action (dated            stayed the same)
  • Feb. 6, 2018 – Zoning Commission Action (dated changed)
  • Feb. 8, 2018– City Council Action (date stayed the same)

The times, place, and agendas may be viewed at https://sanantonio.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx). There will be one more General Meeting for public input on January 31st from 5:30-7:00 pm at the DSD /Cliff Morton Building (1901 S. Alamo) before the draft ordinance goes to City Council for a vote on February 8th.  A copy of the draft ordinance, the meeting schedules, a history of public comments and other details and information are available at http://www.sanantonio.gov/DSD/Resources/Codes#176642678-short-term-rental.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Neighborhoods’ Rezoning Victory

A trend towards helping legacy downtown neighborhoods is gaining momentum as neighborhoods organize and advocate for their survival.  We have turned the narrative to one of development (exploitation) of neighborhoods to one of protection and compatible development. It has taken education, organizing, attending meetings. and speaking out. This victory is not just for a few neighborhoods in District 1, but all neighborhoods who seek this kind of protection.

A giant step was taken to provide for relief for downtown neighborhoods when District 1 Councilman Roberto Trevino filed and passed an important CCR (City Council Consideration Request), the “Request for Large Area Rezoning of Properties”  which was filed on October 5, 2017 and passed City Council unanimously November 9th at A Session. The Councilman’s office was flooded with letters of support from the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition and area neighborhoods such as West End Hope in Action,  Alta Vista, Beacon Hill, River Road as well as others.  Monte Vista  produced 210 signatures on a petition as well as emails (113 were from the targeted areas specifically).    Representatives from Monte Vista and River Road spoke in favor of the CCR. and others,  such as Alta Vista and Beacon Hill spoke at the Citizen’s to be Heard on November 4th.  Monte Vista should be especially lauded as an example of community organizing for this CCR. Councilman Trevino should be commended  for protecting the neighborhoods in his district.

The CCR seeks to correct incompatible zoning (the result of error) of relatively large tracts in Monte Vista, River Road, Alta Vista and Beacon Hill, as well as the West End Hope in Action neighborhoods.

Mike Shannon, Planning, presented the history of zoning in SA and how the errors occurred. The original zoning was enacted in 1938, and in 1965 COSA adopted categorical zoning districts. In  2001 COSA adopted the UDC conversions. Often errors occurred in which “properties not zoned for what they have right now.”

The City staff will do field research and meet with neighborhoods and with specific property owners. No zoning of a property will be done without consent of the property owners. However, owners of homes will find that their taxes will be lowered by down zoning and there may be other incentives for change such as neighborhood stability.

The fiscal impact of examining a total of 1,231 acres will be about $24,380 of application fees absorbed by DSD. Process will begin after the rezoning of Eastern Triangle and World Heritage which will be around the summer of 2018.

The lone person who spoke in opposition called the change “reactionary and arbitrary” and  that “exclusionary” zoning will discourage future workforce housing in already expensive neighborhoods. But as Councilman Trevino pointed out, these MF-33 properties have single-family, often historic homes, on them; they are not empty lots. There are other multifamily designations that allow for multifamily structures such as RM 4-6 and MF-18 that are more compatible. Some of these erroneous zonings are for industrial uses, not housing. The reality is that in D1 downtown neighborhoods, no developers are proposing affordable work-force housing. As one land use attorney put it, it is economically unfeasible. Affordable housing is being built, he stated, is going to be on inexpensive and large tracts of land with City incentives. Those conditions do not exist in downtown now.

In West End, the zoning corrections will stabilize land use in an area that has historically been the target of inequity in planning. Many buildings sit vacant and many properties violate codes but it is difficult to target when the zoning is incompatible (an example was made of someone is operating an auto repair shop out of a church structure.)

Councilman Trevino stated that this CCR would correct a “multitude of zoning errors…correcting a legacy of incompatible zoning” in District 1 and was in response to neighborhoods’ concern over incompatible infill for density in their communities.

The vote to approve was unanimous, with D5 Councilwoman Gonzalez absent. D7 Councilwoman Sandoval inquired about the process for other districts to correct these kinds of large tract zoning errors. Mike Shannon told her that each district would complete the same process. The Council members who signed off on Trevino’s CCR were from Districts 2,9,4, and 6.

The specific areas targeted for rezoning: Maps on CCR

Areas of Monte Vista as indicated in the adjacent map

  • South of West Mulberry Ave, and areas adjacent to East Mulberry Ave
  • South of Hildebrand and East of McCullough
  1. Areas in the northern portion of River Road NA, and areas inside of District 2 just north of

their boundary along Mulberry as indicated in the adjacent map

  1. Areas of Beacon Hill and Alta Vista: South of Gramercy, North of Ashby, West to

Fredericksburg, and east to San Pedro as indicated on adjacent map

  1. The District 1 Portion of WEHA south of Culebra, north of Leal St., East to Colorado St. and

following the western boundary of the district as indicated on adjacent map

“These four areas have been identified as those neighborhoods in District 1 with the largest sections of these code conversion errors, and therefore present themselves as candidates for large area re-zonings to correct these inaccuracies. This will improve the quality of life for these areas, especially those which have industrial zoning in residential areas, and help implement the land use plans as intended for these areas. One of the four areas mentioned would include the Midtown area.” (CCR)

There are several more CCRs coming up that need support: Councilman Trevino’s CCR addressing incompatible infill, “Review of the current IDZ (Infill Development Zone) Zoning Designation” as well as the ”Request to Discuss and Propose Solutions to Current Issues Facing Multi-Family Zoning Designations” and D6 Councilman Brockhouse’s CCR, “Review of City Incentives for Residential and Commercial Projects”