Posted on

LETTER RE TREE REMOVAL AT BRACKENRIDGE PARK #1

 by Grace Rose Gonzales

Hello Neighbors, 

So, what is going on at Brackenridge Park and are Heritage Trees really on the chopping block? 

Yes, the heritage oak trees are on the chopping block. Feb 16th HDRC is going to consider and vote on the removal of up to 9 Heritage Trees some of them forty-eight” or more in diameter. The trees line an area called Lambert Beach close by the Joske’s Pavilion. The reasons for the removal are to rid the area of Egrets and because the stone wall at the river needs to be repaired. The Planning Commission has already approved a removal of 290 trees in the park, many exceptionally large but not heritage. 

The fact of the matter is, the oak trees do not have to be removed to repair the stone walls. The stone walls should be moved out a bit to accommodate the oak trees and a permit is required from the Army Corp of Engineers. That solves that problem of repairing the walls. 

The egrets seem to be the main reason for the removal of these trees as the Egrets use the oak trees for nesting. For years, the city has NOT cleaned up after the Egrets and it led to a hazardous situation. But I would argue, your cat box would become a HAZMAT if you did not clean that out for 4 weeks. There are ways to mitigate the Egrets and thinning the trees is one, and noise is the other. But the solution being proposed is, chop the trees and we solve the bird problem. 

As you all can imagine, this severe proposed solution is not popular. Removing the canopies provided by these trees will cause flooding during a deluge rainstorm. The canopies hold the water and let it go into the river at a slower pace alleviating flooding. Also, the canopies keep the river cooler in the Summer, so the fish are not cooked in the 120-degree sun. Let’s also cover the oxygen these trees provide, and the cultural treasure they are known for, and there is no good reason to chop the trees down. 

The amount of money invested in Brackenridge is nowhere the level that are in put into Hemisphere Park or Hardberger Park. The use of Brackenridge is extremely high from museum goers, tourists, birdwatchers, zoo visitors and residents of the inner-city neighborhoods. The inequity in investment has led to severe deterioration, which this 2017 bond money is to address. But cutting our treasured heritage trees is not responding to the deterioration in a manner that is acceptable. Obviously, it is the easiest solution, and cheapest solution, which staff wants to expedite. 

We have an incredible cultural treasure that has not been maintained, and now, the answer will be to privatize the park. The Sunken Garden Amphitheatre is part of this privatizing plan of “cleaning up ‘the park. Removing trees first, next residents, and making this for a money-making venture, is not what this park was gifted for. It was gifted to be an open park, with access for all, and maintained by the city for the citizens. 

If you do not agree with these future plans for Brackenridge, contact your councilperson and mayor, let them know, Brackenridge is not for privatization, and our trees and birds should be protected as well as our quality of life. 

Posted on

River Road NA Statement Re Sunken Garden

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
River Road Neighborhood Association
January 8, 2022

Sunken Garden Theater Not for Sale

San Antonio, TX – The River Road Neighborhood Association firmly opposes a controversial
and secretive proposal to use city bond funds to demolish San Antonio’s historic Sunken
Garden Theater and convert it into an event space that will overwhelm the infrastructure of the
entire area.
“This is the people’s park. It is not for sale,” says River Road Neighborhood Association Chair
Lucy Wilson. “The Brackenridge Park Conservancy has put forward a proposal to use public
funds in a private development scheme.”
River Road board member Blanquita Sullivan notes that the Conservancy disclosed this project
just weeks before it was listed in the city’s bond package,” Sullivan said. “This was all
intentionally planned in stealth mode, taking advantage of a pandemic to avoid, and to control
the message to the public as much as possible. Most people won’t know about this until it’s too
late.” City councilmembers are set to vote on bond projects on January 20th, 2022.
The Brackenridge Park Conservancy wants to expand the historic Sunken Garden Theater at
Brackenridge Park from an 879-seat venue to a concert stadium to hold upward of 7,000 visitors
per event. Park Conservancy has provided plans for at least two concerts per week, with a
minimum of 60 events per year. Such plan could unleash 7,000 people – along with their
vehicles – into the park two to three times per week for months of every year.
Wilson says the developers sought no public input in the planning of the project. Further, she
says, despite River Road neighborhood requests, developers have failed to provide critical data
regarding congestion, traffic, environmental impacts on the neighboring areas and the zoo
animals.
Sullivan points to another of the neighborhood’ concerns that the proposal will deter city
residents from visiting the park. “The limited parking and traffic will prioritize thousands of ticket
holders above those who for generations have visited and used the park for free, creating deep
inequality in our most treasured centrally located park.”
Sullivan notes that the Real Life Amphitheater opening this Spring in Selma (17 miles from
Brackenridge Park) would negate the developer’s argument that the city needs a large
amphitheater.
“This leads to questions of financial viability. There are similar venues including the Real Life
Amphitheater in Selma and Fiesta Texas. Can the city sustain so many large amphitheaters?”
she asks.
Rather than the proposed overhaul, Wilson and Sullivan say, the neighborhood along with
current Brackenridge Park master plan, would like to see a thoughtful amphitheater restoration

plan. Most importantly, the park should continue to provide greenspace for all San Antonians
including low to moderate income park visitors.
The Brackenridge Park Conservancy has engaged in a project that directly runs counter to its
mission of safeguarding the park’s “natural, historic, educational and recreational resources for
the enjoyment of current and future generations.”

Issues with the plan:
• No traffic, parking, or sound impact studies have been shared with the public
• No business plan or feasibility study has been shared
• There has been no public input in the planning
• Amplification will also destroy quality of life for residents in the surrounding area,
including universities and historic neighborhoods
• The San Antonio Zoo is next door, and such constant amplification creates concern for
animal welfare
• There would be no limit to the number of events or types of events at the venue because
a private company would be in control
• Facing traffic and limited parking, regular park visitors will be forced out
• Traffic along 281, North St. Mary’s, Broadway, Hildebrand, and Mulberry would create a
public safety emergency for the surrounding area

The River Road Neighborhood Association was founded in 1975, and its members are
dedicated to the protection, maintenance and enhancement of the ecological, historical, social
and cultural elements which formed the Neighborhood and endowed the area with its present
character.

Posted on

ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS

by Mary Netherly , King William

January 08, 2022

The OHP Director position would ideally be filled by a registered architect with at least one registered architect on staff. San Antonio did not see the multitude of flaws we’ve all suffered in the last decade+ when a registered architect, with many historic preservation projects on her resume, was director. We didn’t see the high volume of demolition requests nor was San Antonio ranked dismally high in displacements in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Quality outcomes for residents and the historic districts in which they live and the overall success of our inner-city development ought to be top of mind. OHP needs to be audited and reviewed to develop a best practices approach. What we are witnessing in the last decade+ is not best practices. It is sad to see residents who’ve worked so hard to own a home be punished by government flaws that could be readily addressed. OHP is understaffed and outstretched with the rapid expansion of historic districts. There are good programs OHP department has brought forth:  the homeowners fair, window restoration education, the house on Main Avenue, historic certification classes, etc.; however, those expand the core mission of the OHP which is to guide and facilitate new design and additions within the Historic Design Guidelines that were painstakingly developed. The purview of OHP has been expanded greatly while the staff has not grown to meet these needs. Will extracurricular programs and activities have to be cut to focus on core responsibilities if there is no increase in staffing to meet the demands of a fair, equitable, open process?

ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS need to be audited, not expanded. We have all seen the outcomes of cases where inequitable outcomes have resulted. Taking the process behind closed doors will exponentially increase these undesirable outcomes and negate the democratic public process. A fair and defensible process must remain open. All too often Administrative Approvals cause confusion, the perception of inequity, and unresolved neighbor disputes. Community values must include a more open, not a more closed approach. It is already exceedingly difficult to find information, to receive a simple email response, and to reach staff by telephone. Expanding public access to items under review means developing a Culture of Responsiveness: answering phone calls, returning emails, going out to problematic projects, etc. Allowing 15-30 minutes on a case that has typically been taking 2 – 6 hours does not bode well for public trust or faith in the process. Outcomes could be as bad as the worst cases we’ve seen.

We’ve already seen too many cases where projects rejected by historic district architectural advisory committees then go to OHP and HDRC and are bungled by staff. What is worse is the follow-through on cases once construction is underway, leaving neighbors quarreling and unresolved issues. Customer support (site visits, consultations, etc.) is inconsistent at best. Inconsistent outcomes are a function of the lack of registered architects in leadership and staff positions, understaffing, and preferential treatment of applicants. Public trust has been broken. Taking approvals to an administrative level will further erode public trust in the process, deteriorate design and build outcomes, and exacerbate the tension between the general public and developers. By the time the public is aware there is a problematic case that needs a ‘path to HDRC review,’ it is often well-advanced along the approval process.

Another negative outcome of the increased administrative COA is the shifting of compliance to neighborhoods. OHP already claims that neighbors are the eyes and ears for them, and with additional hidden approvals, neighborhoods will have more work dumped on them. Currently, the Explorer Map doesn’t keep up with required supporting documents and increasing the public’s reliance on them for administrative COA’s is not going to produce a successful outcome.

There are very concerning problems in other areas as well: it seems minor variances are being granted administratively without the BOA process that triggers the ability of public input which is an important part of the process especially for those located next to or near the property being granted the variances. In some cases, this is a taking of some property owners’ privacy and thus the value of their homes. Is the only solution to this problem litigation? City staff may be overreaching in these cases and an audit of all the “minor variances” that have been granted would produce valuable information, especially when big changes are being proposed to the UDC by OHP that further muddle the process.

Can Tier 1 members find at least 2-3 cases in our neighborhoods where we know there have been bad outcomes? We can have these ready to present as evidence against this request for Administrative Approvals to send out to City Council and the City Attorney’s office, etc. We all know cases that seem unfair, that placed a burden on neighbors, that defy logic, that go against the Historic Design Guidelines, and that have been poorly communicated to the public. We are amongst a sliver of citizens who get involved in the UDC amendments and must make the best impact with the evidence we’ve all witnessed!!

Contact Mary Nethery at netherydesign@gmail.com

Posted on

From the Archives: The more things change…

“The New Urbanist Myth of Democratic City Planning: The Politics of Charrettes” La Voz de Esperanza. Vol 21 Issue 3. April 2008.

Although this article was written in 2008, it articulates the continued frustration residents feel with CoSA’s lack of meaningful public engagement on plans that directly affect neighborhoods such as the Corridor Plans and now the SHIP recommendations and Bond process. While there is no doubt there have been many changes for the better, the SHIP public input process has shown us that, if it is in the City’s interest, public participation will be curtailed and/or ignored. What is striking, is that if we vote in council members who voice the concerns of residents, they too, will be marginalized. Like us they are often asked to make decisions on documents with little time to read or they are scolded on the dais for voicing the concerns of their constituents. The City’s desire for engaged and informed citizenry only holds true if that citizenry agrees with the City’s process or interests. City Hall will make the case that the City’s interests are the interests of us all, but we know, from bitter experience, that is often not the case.

Posted on

The SHIP and the Failure to Follow Public Participation Principles

This letter was sent by the T1NC Steering Committee/ Public Participation Committee/ Affordable Housing & Displacement Committee to each council member on November 1, 2021

Update: Strategic Housing Implementation Plan (SHIP) was posted on SHIP website on November 1st.

Dear Council Member, 

On November 3rd at the City Council B Session, you will receive a presentation on the draft version of the SHIP (Strategic Housing Implementation Plan). We’re writing ahead to let you know that we have some serious concerns and think that you will find that you have the same concerns out of consideration for your constituents. We are concerned that the Public Participation Principles, which play such an important part of the SHIP, are not being followed in this public input stage: There is not enough time for meaningful input on a 68-page document has yet to be released on the website at the time of this writing (days before input begins.)  

We feel the Public Participation Principles are not being taken seriously as necessary metrics that ensure the inclusivity of the public in decisions that will have decades worth of impacts. Those impacts will either decrease or increase the housing crisis. The language throughout the presentations and documents regarding the SHIP, the Housing Bond Evaluation Framework, and the Housing Bond, etc. all talk about connecting to the most vulnerable populations.

As one Westside resident put it, “We’re suppose to go to bond meetings, ARPA meetings, be concerned about UDC amendments, and keep up with other issues like zoning cases, and read 68 pages and give input within a couple of weeks along with our jobs and our families? We feel like we are always left out in the cold because we can’t keep up, and here we are again. This feels like it is on purpose.”    

The draft SHIP was not available until two months after the intended August deadline. It was decided at the Housing Commission that the timeline would not be adjusted to the right so as to keep the adoption of the SHIP on schedule for December. Because of this delay, and the decision not to shift the timeline, there is now the negative consequence that our communities are facing.  

The first public input session is scheduled for November 1st on the Westside, one of our most vulnerable populations, without the adequate time to receive the information or the proper accessibility to ensure that they are able to give input. The flyer information in English and Spanish were not made available until Friday, October 29th. The Neighborhood Housing Services Department (NHSD) site is not updated with the draft SHIP nor the intended Summary needed to make the information accessible prior to the input session. 

What exacerbates this issue is the lack of accessibility to information has been a primary topic in all of the meetings, as a part of insuring the Public Participation Principles.  NHSD, which facilitated the SHIP task force meetings and the production of the document, is responsible for the task of meaningful public input in a short window before adoption by City Council. 

At a Housing Commission Public Engagement and Outreach Committee, NHSD have recognized the challenges and have admitted to not being able to meet certain accessibility criteria.

Is this not serious enough that the Housing Commission could anticipate the problems for public participation when they decided not to shift their timeline?

The Administrative Directive AD 10.1 Public Participation and Engagement has guiding principles such as “inclusive”, “accessible”, “informative”, “timely” and “convenient”, that are the minimum criteria to be met when engaging the public. Determined milestones that keep everything (ethically) in check. It is the people that body our governance structure and, the people that are the majority, are left out of critical policy making processes. Public input is scheduled for three input sessions, by person and by webex and phone, as well as a survey that will close on November 15th.

Again, the draft and the summary have not been made available to the public on the NHSD site (as of Sunday October 31st; the first input session is Monday November 1st). And it should be reiterated that the most vulnerable populations who need to know whether or not they are included in the Strategic Housing Implementation Plan and who deserve a voice in this policy, need accessible engagement and outreach. 

 If it is not corrected now, in this first step, there will be consequences in the near future that include the growing mistrust of CoSA to remove the barriers to affordable housing and to solve the housing crisis.  There is a lot of language that protects neighborhoods but there are concerns about certain portions regarding removing barriers to housing production which opens a door that could compromise everything we have worked towards if housing production includes market rate housing and those barriers are the protections we have fought for to prevent displacement.

This is a discussion that needs to be had in full length. In order to build trust in the process, a process that residents feel is skewed towards the benefit of the development community, we are asking that more time be given for public input and more is done to ensure accessibility.

Attachment:

SHIP Recommendation for Public Participation  EAP 5 (pg 56) of the SHIP states the goal of meaningful public input as recommended in the Public Participation Principles. If the Public Participation Principles are not used to adopt the SHIP, how can residents trust they will be implemented as part of the plan? 

EAP 5: APPLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PRINCIPLES WHEN CREATING & IMPLEMENTING NEW POLICY (pg 56)Goal: Create a truly participatory and inclusive process that is focused on marginalized and overlooked communities.This strategy is to create public engagement process that focuses on active community input and participation in policy development. It would focus on equity related to specificvulnerable populations and creating stable housing for these community members. The strategy would need to build trust and support participation in substantive issues. The focus will be on the processes that are impactful. Intentional paths will be created that make it easy for people to engage so that partners can come together in the city. This is needed to counteract how information has not been as well received. There needs to be dialogue atthe table of participants. Community concerns sometimes do not make it to the agenda, and this can place a checkpoint on that. The data gathered can be reported back to ensure thatpeople are engaging, and decisions are made together. This will need to occur in multiple settings to include the digital space. This will help to ensure that the community feedback isincorporated, transparent, and that members feel empowered.This will require cross-department collaboration and engagement from people with lived experience and various community partners including the department of Human Services,LISC, CHDOs, Housing Commission, and NHSD.  The adopted Public Participation Principlesare found in Appendix A. Performance Indicators/Measures:• Increase in public participation rate• Continuously engaged participants• Number of people that participate from vulnerable populations• Funding invested in community driven engagement 

Posted on

Commissioners and Board Members Code of Conduct

Briefing on Proposed Code of Conduct for the Historic and Design Review Commission on March 3, 2021

Purpose: The residents of San Antonio are entitled to have a fair, ethical, and accountable local government. To achieve this goal appointed officials should: 

  • Comply with the letter and the spirit of the laws and ordinances that apply to the structure and operations of local government. 
  • Be independent, impartial, and fair in their judgements and actions. 
  • Use their office for public good and community needs and not for personal gain or self-promotion.
  • Conduct public deliberations openly and in an atmosphere of respect and civility. 

To this end the City of San Antonio Historic Design and Review Commission adopts the following Code of Conduct to increase public confidence and trust in the integrity of local government and its effective operations. 

Code of Conduct

All members of the Historic Design and Review Commission, including the Chair, have equal votes. 

No Commissioner has more legislative power than any other Commissioner, and all should be treated with equal dignity and respect. 

All Commissioners should: 

  • Fully participate in Commission meetings, public hearings, and other public forums while demonstrating respect, kindness, considerations, and courtesy to others.
  • Prepare in advance of meetings by reviewing Staff presentations, reports, memorandums, and other pertinent material and be familiar with issues on the agenda. Questions and comments should be directed to Staff in advance, if practical, so that public deliberations and information sharing can be effective and timely. 
  • Represent the City at public events in a professional manner. Serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community. 
  • Be respectful of other people’s time. Stay focused, be succinct, and act efficiently during meetings.
  • Inspire public confidence in San Antonio local government through thoughtful representation and a commitment to discuss and deliberate issues based on fact.

Public Meeting Hearing Protocol  

It is the responsibility of the chair to keep comments on track during public meetings. 

Commissioners should honor efforts by the chair to focus discussion on current agenda items. If there is a disagreement about the agenda or the Chair’s actions, those objections should be voiced politely and with reason, following procedures outlined in parliamentary procedure. 

The Chair has the responsibility to run an efficient public meeting and has the discretion to modify the public hearing process to make the meeting run smoothly. Commissioners will not express opinions during the public hearing portion of the meeting except to ask pertinent questions of the speaker or staff. “I think” and “I feel” comments by Commissioners are not appropriate until after the close of the public hearing. Commissioners should refrain from arguing or debating with the public during a public hearing and shall always show respect for different points of view. 

Main motions may be followed by amendments, followed by substitute motions. Any Commissioner can call for a point of order when a procedural rule is not followed and seek a timely ruling by the Chair. Only Commissioners who voted on the prevailing side may make motions to reconsider. 

The Commission is composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds, personalities, 

values, opinions, and goals. All have chosen to serve in a public office to preserve and protect the past, present, and future of the community. In all cases, this common goal should be acknowledged even as the Commission may “agree to disagree” on contentious issues. 

In Public Meetings

Difficult questions, tough challenges to a particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of a free democracy in action. This does not allow, however, Commissioners to make belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments. 

  • Honor the role of the Chair in maintaining order.
  • Practice civility, professionalism and decorum in discussions and debate.
  • No shouting, verbal intimidation, or physical actions that could be reasonable construed as threatening will be tolerated.
  • Each Commissioner has five minutes to speak the first time, and an additional five minutes after each Commissioner who desires to speak has done so. 
  • Respect the five-minute speaking time limits, and do not interrupt a speaker. 
  • Notwithstanding, the time limits set forth above, the Chair has discretion to alter the speaking time limits, based on the length of the agenda and complexity of cases.

#####

Posted on

NEIGHBORS HELPING NEIGHBORS

Christina Wright and Cynthia Spielman

Commentary: Make neighborhood groups part of disaster response by Christina Wright and Cynthia Spielman,  For the Express-News March 3, 2021

We all knew it was coming: In the days leading up to the winter storm, neighbors started helping neighbors with advice on how to prepare for the cold weather and assisted those who needed an extra hand. We all watched the weather reports as the temperature dropped dramatically.

No one expected or had warning of the power outages.

The reality of it all came swiftly as the neighborhood social media pages filled with reports of the loss of food and no water. Ordinary residents performed countless acts of kindness for one another. After a week of struggling to stay warm in the dark and freezing cold, the first thaw caused countless numbers of burst pipes and a significant amount of damage to homes. Anyone that could help turn off water, add a temporary fix until a plumber was scheduled, or offer their services as a plumber, helped their neighbors.

Despite all this, the fear we felt for our neighbors who are not online, for our elders, and our families with young children was quickly realized. Those horror stories will be told for a long time to come. They needed help quickly.  

This story is proof of the generosity of spirit of which we are all capable.

 It is a story of the good that starts locally and works its way outward. An email from Ann Helmke from CoSA’s Faith-Based Initiative to Sarah Woolsey sparked what we started calling, Neighbors Helping Neighbors: “Research clearly indicates that the most effective and efficient method to impact community need is to act as locally as possible in expanding concentric circles…”


Thanks to Sarah Woolsey (Founder)  and employees of The Impact Guild , Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association, and Christina Wright (Alta Vista), and over 50 volunteers from the neighborhoods, local churches, Trinity students, TIG co-working members and their friends, about 175 neighbors were helped. Organized in hours, we knocked on doors to conduct wellness checks over the next three days, organized food and water, made deliveries, and distributed flyers. We solicited donations and Councilman Treviño and State Representative Diego Bernal provided water and State Senator José Menéndez provided hot meals.

Beacon Hill and Alta Vista were two of many neighborhoods across the city that bore the brunt of the power outages and broken pipes. It wasn’t until after the emergency that information started coming in from CoSA, CPS, and SAWS. Information that created more questions than answers.

There is a structure in place to help residents on a micro level: neighborhood associations. All of the registered neighborhood associations are fully accessible through the Neighborhood & Housing Services Department. But the system, or lack of system, failed us. There were significant gaps in the relief efforts by the city getting being accessible to all residents. But there’s an opportunity – neighborhood associations are connected on this micro level and with the support of city council districts can play a bigger role on reaching neighbors on a house-by-house level. But we need timely communication and resources.

The more local the solutions, the more effective they will be. 

Neighborhoods have proven their ability to rise to the challenge. There should be a structure in place in which neighborhood leaders are part of the disaster response. The communication should be two-way. Neighbors know what is needed and how it can best be delivered. 

Even in the best of times, neighborhoods should be encouraged. We should have a leading voice in the decisions about our communities. In times of crisis, the resiliency of our neighborhoods could make the difference between life and death.

Posted on

Letter to State reps from former president of NCTONA re storm outage

Rep. Steve Allison, Rep. Diego Bernal, Rep. Lyle Larsen

Gentlemen:

I am addressing the three of you as a group for two reasons.  First, though each of you represents a slightly different political philosophy, you are all men of principle and integrity, and you have served the people of San Antonio loyally and well.  Second, having met you personally, I know that each of you acts with an independent, open mind for the best interests of our City – not because of partisan pressure from some Authority Figure.  Given your common interest and shared background, I believe that the three of you can and will work together to solve a compelling problem.  The matter at hand is of the highest importance to the people of Texas.

We have just experienced a very severe winter storm that paralyzed much of our City.  We experienced widespread power blackouts, loss of water in some areas, and a host of problems.  At the heart of these problems is the Texas power grid which frankly failed the people of San Antonio.  I am sure you agree that this failure should not be repeated.

Our City-owned CPS Energy is merely a part of the Texas-wide power grid overseen by ERCOT, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.  ERCOT bears responsibility for the disasters we suffered due in part to its unfounded assumptions regarding the lack of need to “winterize” power generating facilities.  ERCOT’s lax policies, which victimized four million Texans, are partly due to policies set by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and ultimately by the state legislature in Austin.  It is at the state legislature, where you play key roles, that changes in policy must be made.

I understand from reading the financial pages of the Express-News (and newspapers published outside Texas analyzing our disaster) that the heart of the matter lies in the desire of certain Texas business interests to obtain the absolute cheapest power that can be produced.  As a consequence, ERCOT and several Utilities cannot commit even minimal funds for the steps necessary to “winterize” power sources, be they natural gas, wind, or other means.  The rationale is that “Texas winters are always mild.  We don’t need to spend good money to winterize because a bad winter will never happen and, in any case, winterizing will only raise the cost of each kilowatt hour of electricity generated.”  ((Although this rationale works much of the time, it did not work in 2011, nor this year, nor in earlier crises.))

ERCOT’s lax policies are underscored by a stubborn, unwarranted “go it alone” desire in the matter of power generation despite the obvious examples of northern states such as Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas – subjected to far colder temperatures than Texas – yet which experienced no crises due to ample preparation for winter weather.

We read in the newspapers about a flurry of lawsuits filed against ERCOT, to include possible “wrongful death” lawsuits in consequence of people who died, either freezing to death or because vital equipment such as dialysis machines failed during power outages.  Some businesses suffered losses due to disruption of production lines.  Firms in the food business lost millions of dollars’ worth of food when power to their refrigerators failed.  Power failures also damaged critical stocks of vaccines and other medicines.  Even printing, publishing, and electronic communications were negatively impacted.  This morning’s paper had news about a Houston Utility filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  Attorneys could plausibly argue their cases against ERCOT along “willful negligence” lines.  After all, these disasters werepreventable.

It may be that some of your adversaries on the House Floor may object and say “Well, that freeze was a fluke.  It will never happen again.  Therefore, there’s no need to waste money on winterizing.  And we will not adhere to any federal power safety and security standards because they only just cost us more money.”  This pseudo-reasoning will only set us up for a repeat of the disaster we just experienced. 

You should remind these naysayers that the cost to Texas goes beyond the billions of dollars of damage inflicted due to lack of foresight, indifference, and callous neglect.  What business from another state or foreign country would wish to set up a plant or conduct operations in a state whose power supplies are demonstrably unreliable?

Pointing fingers or assigning blame for the disaster is merely a waste of time.  What is required is to fix a system that clearly is broken. The three of you, working together with like-minded colleagues from other parts of Texas, have it within your power to do this. The legislature can secure our grid in two ways — by joining our grid to the other 49 states, and by adopting federal guidelines for the safe and secure operation of its energy producers, especially as regards fully “winterizing” our power generating facilities.

With every good and warm wish,

G. L. LAMBORN

Colonel, USAR (Ret.)

Former President

North Central Thousand Oaks Neighborhood Association (NCTONA)

Council District 9

Posted on

Large Area Rezoning

Large Area Rezoning (LAR) 

In  2017 and 2018, Councilman Trevino initiated a Council Consideration Request (CCR) to direct staff to  “rezone, with plan amendments where necessary, the following properties in collaboration with property owners and the community to make zoning consistent with the current uses of the property or the land use plan, where appropriate: […]   for the neighborhoods of Dellview, River Road, Monte Vista, Beacon Hill, Alta Vista, and West End Hope in Action neighborhoods. Dellview and River Road have completed their rezoning and their LAR was adopted by Council. Monte Vista’s LAR was approved by the Zoning Commission and goes to City Council soon. Alta Vista and Beacon Hill are beginning their process.  

In 2019, District 2 Council member Jada-Andrews filed a CCR for the intersection of intersections of Lamar Street and N.Hackberry Street, and Nolan and N. Pine Street.  

In 2020, District 5 Council member, Shirley Gonzales, filed a CCR  for a large area rezoning for some Westside neighborhoods.(to review and rezone properties generally bound. by Castorville Road, U.S. 90 and S.W. 19th Street)

“Throughout the past few decades, many areas of the center city have had ongoing concerns regarding zoning inconsistencies. These inconsistencies were the result of the code conversion from the “old” zoning code, which utilized an A-J tiered system of zoning, to the new system we use today. While some of these changes are subtle, given new development patterns in the urban core, these subtle differences are causing large impacts throughout our neighborhoods. Some of these impacts include the inability for residents to pull permits in their neighborhoods because their use does not match their zoning, incompatible development within our NCDs and Historic Districts, and placing our city staff, commissions, and City Council in difficult positions regarding zoning changes which are contradictory in nature.“ (Trevino, 2017 CCR)

So what does this mean? 
If your neighborhood has a large area of inconsistent zoning (zoning that is not compatible with its land use) you may qualify for a large area rezoning. The LAR must be requested by your council member through a CCR.  No property’s zoning will be changed without the permission of the property owner. But there are several reasons a property-owner might welcome a change of zoning and compatible zoning is good for the well-being of our communities. 

Contact Cat Hernandez at Developmental Services Department for more information.

CCRs: 
D1 Council member Roberto Trevino: Dellview  and  near north and west neighborhoods
D5  Council member Shirley Gonzalez: Westside neighborhoods
D2 Council member Jada Andrews-Sullivan: Intersections of Lamar Street and N. Hackberry Street and Nolan and N. Pine Street.

Posted on

Letter to Mayor from Neighborhood Resident

February 20, 2021

Dear Mayor,

CPS has a presentation on their website wherein they reveal their growth strategies through 2021 and beyond. After studying that presentation, it is clear that a substantial portion of their strategy for managing growth of demand is “Demand Response”, which on the last page is revealed to be a code word for “curtailment”, which is another code word for blackouts. You can study the presentation yourself, it’s at…..https://www.cpsenergy.com/content/dam/corporate/en/Documents/Trustees/BOT-Presentations/2019-03-25%20-%20Generation%20Update.PDF

In an interview with KTSA on February 15th, CPS Energy President and CEO Paula Gold-Williams said she is “absolutely sorry.” I guess she goofed or made a small mistake somewhere. That interview can be found on the web at, https://www.ktsa.com/cps-energy-on-rotating-outages-were-absolutely-sorry-that-this-is-happening/

In the interview, Gold-Williams reveals that CPS Energy has the “electrical capacity of 7,000 megawatts” of power and she further reveals that the current freeze has raised demand to “around 5,000 to 5,400 megawatts”. That’s really good news. San Antonio does not have to draw on the Texas grid to supply ALL of the demand for electricity in the CPS Energy service area. Except, they made a small error which she explains, “we actually had thought that the cold weather was behind us”.

That error has caused deaths. Pets and people have died of exposure, which is polite speak for “froze to death”. That error has caused MILLIONS of dollars of property damage. That was one hell of an error.

How does a person keep their job when they make that kind of mistake? In fact, how do they stay out of prison when they fail so spectacularly? How can I get a cushy job like that?

SAN ANTONIO WAS CAPABLE OF MEETING ITS OWN NEEDS DURING THIS TEXAS FREEZE EXCEPT THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WE HIRED TO DO THE PLANNING FOR OUR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM GOOFED UP. How is that not criminal?

The following are possible actions that the City might take to make sure this crises does not happen again:

  1. Terminate the top 5 executives at CPS Energy TODAY. Also terminate the Chairman of the Board of Directors TODAY.
  2. Form an investigative group made up as follows and require them to grill every executive, board member and department manager at CPS energy to determine why and how CPS energy failed to provide for it’s customer’s needs:
    1. 5 City Council Members
    2. 5 Citizens at large, preferably neighborhood leaders.
    3. 5 SAPD Officers or Fire Fighters
    4. 5 Middle managers in the CPS System
  3. Change the Mission Statement of CPS Energy to include the following, “Demand Response or blackouts are not any part of a solution to San Antonio’s energy demand growth. CPS Energy’s primary duty is to plan for, prepare for and provide for the Electrical Demand of CPS Energy’s consumers”
  4. Clearly post on the CPS Energy home web page a graph that shows the real time Capacity and Demand (without DR, Curtailments or blackouts) on a 24 hour timeline.
  5. Require CPS energy to finance repairs for it’s consumer’s properties for damage they claim was caused by CPS’s failure to provide Electrical service, at a interest rate of 0% with a repayment term of not less than 10 years.

Mayor, you have been presented with the opportunity to show leadership and to step up and deal with a crisis and you will be judged by how you manage the current San Antonio Freeze crisis. Please take decisive action quickly.

Respectfully,

Everette Ives

.