Posted on

T1NC Letter: HB 2496 Update and How We Made a Difference

March 30, 2019

Dear T1NC Neighbors,

April 3, 2019 Update: The bill has made it out of Committee and will be scheduled by the Calendar Committee next. 

March 29, 2019 Update: There is a second version of HB 2496 that basically mirror’s San Antonio’s process. CoSA’s process is that in order for a case to pass HDRC and Zoning, it needs a majority vote (51%) and requires a supermajority vote (3/4) from City Council.  The revised HB 2496 bill requires a super majority vote by both commissions and CC. That isn’t as impactful for SA because HDRC and Zoning’s decisions are not quasi- judicial (they are recommendations only, unlike Board of Adjustment decisions that stand and do not go on to Council), but it is in other cities and would render them powerless against developers and could be devastating.  There is still an attempt to craft a third version of HB 2496 that would mirror San Antonio’s process exactly. Because it has enough committee members who have signed on, the bill will probably be put on the calendar for a vote. 

March 25, 2019 Update: Neighborhoods have been sending letters and it has made a difference, but last night, (Eastside neighborhoods’) Representative Barbara Gervin-Hawkins (District 120) signed on as a co-author. Barbara.gervin-hawkins@house.texas.gov

March 22, 2019 Update:  HB2496 has been scheduled for Public Hearing for Tuesday, March 26th before the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism Committee.C We will need people to testify in opposition of the bill or at least register their opposition to it via one of the kiosks in the House.  Here’s how to testify.

I just wanted to give you a report back about HB 2496 which is the bill that would require a property owner’s permission to designate a property or district as historic. 

Your letters made a profound difference. I am new to things at the state level and I wasn’t sure about the impact other than what I was told, but letters from voters seem to carry as much weight as information from the experts. 

This bill is about making it easier for developers couched in property-rights rhetoric. After I testified, a developer got up and furiously denounced the Texas Preservation group and neighborhoods. Another person testifying for the bill was a pastor of an African – American church who was upset because he could not tear down a building that was in need of expensive repair to make way for a more modern, less-expensive building to better serve his congregants. He was angry that others could dictate to him what he could do with his church, especially boards that were dominated by what he perceived as outsiders. What he did not mention was that his church was built by John Saunders Chase, described by UT as an architect whose “persistence and courage, as well as the forces of history, made him the first African American to attend graduate school at The University of Texas at Austin and the first licensed black architect in the South.” As you can see this is complicated issue. 

The night before I went to Austin to testify, D120 (Eastside) Representative Barbara Gervin-Hawkins signed on to the bill, giving it a big push forward. I asked Eastside leaders to contact her and they did. It was impressive how fast they were able to get those letters out in a matter of hours. Because of those letters, Jordan Ghawi (who is chair of state legislative issues for T1) and I were able to get a meeting with her after the hearings. She generously gave us almost 45 minutes which was impressive considering she was preparing for the House Budget bill the next which was going to be a 12-hour debate. It was her constituents reaching out that got us that meeting. 

I made the point that in inner-city neighborhoods, historic designation is our most important and only tool to preserve our history, culture, homes, and neighborhoods. It is a tool to prevent displacement. She said she hadn’t realized that the bill had an “unintended” consequence. The letter that the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center and the Westside Preservation Alliance sent help to make this case. 

The Representative said her motivation is that African-American pastors were complaining that they were not able to serve their congregants because they had broken down churches they could not maintain. They wanted to tear them down and rebuild and they were unable to do so, and were frustrated, as evidenced by the Austin pastor who testified. Jordan is going to set up a meeting with those pastors, at least in San Antonio, with Office of Historic Preservation to see if they can get some help.

This is where we are now: 
There is a second version of HB 2496 that basically mirrors San Antonio’s process. CoSA’s process is that in order for a case to pass HDRC and Zoning, it needs a majority vote (51%) and requires a supermajority vote (3/4) from City Council. The revised HB 2496 bill requires a super majority vote by both commissions and CC. That isn’t as impactful for SA because HDRC and Zoning’s decisions are not quasi- judicial (they are recommendations only, unlike Board of Adjustment decisions that stand and do not go on to Council), but they are in other cities and would render them powerless against developers and could be devastating.) There is still an attempt to craft a third version of HB 2496 that would mirror San Antonio’s process exactly. This is the version we could support wholeheartedly. This would be a favorable compromise. Because it has enough committee members who have signed on, more than likely be voted favorable out of committee. 

What I learned is that writing letters (often at the last moment, as things change) and showing up to testify on bills that affect our neighborhoods is extremely important. For upcoming legislation, I would be happy to accompany T1 members to the Capitol and we can navigate the system together. Jordan Ghawi, who sits on the Beacon Hill ANA, has been invaluable keeping us informed and walking me through the system. We can also count on our representatives’ staff to help us as well, at least that is the message that we were given by Representative Diego Bernal and by State Senator Menendez. We are not alone.

Posted on

Letter Against HB 2496 from the Westside Preservation Alliance and the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center

March 22, 2019                                                           

VIA EMAIL

Rep. John Cyrier 

Chair, Culture, Recreation and Tourism Committee

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, Texas 78768-2910                                          

RE: HB 2496

Mr. Cyrier,

On behalf of the Esperanza Peace & Justice Center and the Westside Preservation Alliance, a community-based historic preservation coalition dedicated to preserving and promoting the history of San Antonio’s Mexican American and working-class communities, we write to expressour opposition to HB 2496, which would prohibit a municipality from designating a historic landmark without the property owner’s consent.

We represent a coalition that is deeply invested in educating the community about the financial and cultural benefits of historic designation. While these benefits vary across the state due to local regulations, in San Antonio the financial benefits of historic designation are quite generous including a 20% tax exemption for up to 10 years, or for substantial rehabilitation the property owner has the choice of a) taxes frozen at the pre-improvement value for up to 10 years or b) owe the city no taxes for 5 years and then pay 50% of assessed post-rehab taxes for the next 5 years. Getting the word out about these relatively new tax incentives has been a slow process, and unfortunately many property owners are still unaware of the long-term financial benefits historic designation offers. For this reason, we believe HB 2496 overreaches in its attempt to apply a blanket policy across our vastly diverse state when historic designation should be a locally decided issue.  

It is important to note that it is quite rare to seek to designate a building as a historic landmark over the objection of the property owner. If such a situation occurs, it is nearly always because the property owner wants to raze the building, while the city wants to save an important and irreplaceable landmark for future generations. HB 2496 would also make it impossible to create meaningful and coherent local historic districts, as 100% owner consent for a local zoning district is almost impossible to obtain. Importantly, no other form of local zoning has such a requirement.

Respectfully,

Esperanza Peace & Justice Center 

Westside Preservation Alliance 

CC: Rep. Armando Martinez (Vice Chair)

Rep. John Bucy III

Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins

Rep. Justin Holland

Rep. Jarvis Johnson

Rep. Geanie Morrison

Rep. Steve Toth

Posted on

Equal Access to City Notifications

One of the basic tenets of the Public Participation Principles is that of inclusion and transparency, of equal access to information. Neighborhoods have worked diligently to insert themselves in the decision-making process (in decisions that affect their neighborhoods and communities) have benefitted from these ideals. 

The act of registering neighborhood associations on the Neighborhood and Housing Services Department bestows the associations the privilege of receiving zoning changes and other notifications that are within their boundaries. But other organizations or coalitions who have fulfill the basic requirements and who have an interest in zoning or development issues do not receive these notifications by CoSA.

Privileging one type of organization over another works against the spirit of the Public Participation Principles and are a hindrance to meaningful public engagement. CoSA should recognize and send notices to any community and/or advocacy organization or coalition that meets the standards and makes a request upon registration. Broader communication and inclusion of citizen input is the center of the Public Participation Principles. The inclusion of registered organizations and coalitions in the notification process fulfills the following specific principles: 

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.

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. 

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

CoSA needs to create a new outreach category to increase access to information to increase engagement. 

Posted on

T1NC SC Letter to Lege re HB 2496 and SB1488

Written by Jordan Ghawi on behalf of T1NC SC. We strongly encourage other neighborhoods and coalitions to send letters. Please feel free to use this letter as a template to send to the legislative members listed at bottom (with links).

April 3, 2019 Update: The bill has made it out of Committee and will be scheduled by the Calendar Committee next.

March 29, 2019 Update: There is a second version of HB 2496 that basically mirror’s San Antonio’s process. CoSA’s process is that in order for a case to pass HDRC and Zoning, it needs a majority vote (51%) and requires a supermajority vote (3/4) from City Council.  The revised HB 2496 bill requires a super majority vote by both commissions and CC. That isn’t as impactful for SA because HDRC and Zoning’s decisions are not quasi- judicial (they are recommendations only, unlike Board of Adjustment decisions that stand and do not go on to Council), but it is in other cities and would render them powerless against developers and could be devastating.  There is still an attempt to craft a third version of HB 2496 that would mirror San Antonio’s process exactly. Because it has enough committee members who have signed on, the bill will probably be put on the calendar for a vote.

March 25, 2019 Update: Neighborhoods have been sending letters and it has made a difference, but last night, (Eastside neighborhoods’) Representative Barbara Gervin-Hawkins (District 120) signed on as a co-author. Barbara.gervin-hawkins@house.texas.gov

March 22, 2019 Update: HB2496 has been scheduled for Public Hearing for Tuesday, March 26th before the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism Committee.C We will need people to testify in opposition of the bill or at least register their opposition to it via one of the kiosks in the House.  Here’s how to testify.

Note: HB 2496 and SB 1488: Relating to the designation of a property as a historic landmark by a municipality requiring landowner consent.

Dear Members of the Legislature, 

We write to you as a coalition of 57 San Antonio neighborhoods and 16 partner organizations to express our opposition to HB2496 and SB1488. 

We are deeply concerned that these bills, if passed, would dramatically alter the fabric of our neighborhoods. We wish to preserve the eclectic mix of residential and commercial architecture unique to our communities. At the end of the day, we want our neighborhoods to continue to tell the story of our history to future generations of Texans.  

Our cities and towns have been shaped by our unique histories and legacies, and our built environment helps to tell those stories. Many important buildings and sites in our communities still exist and thrive today because local advocates nominated them for local designation when they were threatened with demolition. Requiring owner consent for designation substantially hinders the ability of local ordinances to serve as effective preservation tools. Most critically, it also prevents concerned citizens from being able to safeguard cultural heritage in their communities. Far too many buildings and site have been lost because community members simply could not save them from the wrecking ball.

If this bill becomes law, our communities’ voices will be silenced. The bill will also significantly impede local municipalities’ abilities to effectively administer their preservation ordinances, which are uniquely tailored to each city. Our local government programs are specifically written to support the community and give our neighborhoods the tools to identify and protect the buildings and places that are most meaningful to us. Without this toolbox, the unique character of Texan cities and towns will be eroded in exchange for often short-sighted, wasteful, and uninspired development that simply aims for maximum profit.

We ask that you please consider the effects of this bill and the subsequent damage that it would do to local communities and our collective history.   

Respectfully, 

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee

Cosima Colvin, Christine Drennon, Tony Garcia, Homer “Butch” Hayes, Cullen Jones, Ricki Kushner, Velma Pena, Cynthia Spielman, Amelia Valdez, and Theresa Ybanez

This letter was sent to the following legislature members.

Co-author: sheryl.cole@house.texas.gov

Rep. Cole’s legislative director: Andre.treiber@house.tx.gov


Sen. Buckingham (author of the Senate companion bill)

dawn.buckingham@senate.texas.gov

Ginny.bell@senate.texas.gov 

Culture, Recreation, and Tourism Committee Members

Rep. Cyrier’s Office (author of the bill)

john.cyrier@house.texas.gov

MeLissa.Nemecek@house.texas.gov

Jacob.Reagan@house.texas.gov

Alonzo.Wood@house.texas.gov

Rep. Martinez’s Office

Mando.martinez@house.texas.gov

scott.jenkines@house.texas.gov

Rep. Bucy’s Office

john.bucy@house.texas.gov

Allison.heinrich@house.texas.gov

Rep. Gervin-Hawkin’s Office

Barbara.gervin-hawkins@house.texas.gov

ashley.thomas@house.texas.gov

jd.pedraza@house.texas.gov

Rep. Holland’s Office

justin.holland@house.texas.gov

Audrey.sirmon@house.texas.gov

Rep. Johnson’s Office

jarvis.johnson@house.texas.gov

Cole.wilson@house.texas.gov

Rep. Kacal’s Office

Kyle.kacal@house.texas.gov

Dade.pritchett@house.texas.gov

Rep. Morrison’s Office

Beanie.morrison@house.texas.gov

Shane.saum@house.texas.gov

Rep. Toth’s Office

Steve.toth@house.texas.gov

Fernando.sosa@house.texas.gov

Local Reps:

Rep. Bernal’s Office

diego.bernal@house.texas.gov

Julia.grizzard@house.texas.gov

mia.balderas@house.texas.gov

Sen. Menendez’s Office

Jose.menendez@senate.texas.gov

Emily.galdeano@senate.texas.gov


Posted on

T1NC Letter to GPA Director Jeff Coyle with Recommendations for Public Participation Principles Implementation

◊ TIER ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION ◊

March 12, 2019

Dear Mr. Jeff Coyle, 

At our Tier One Neighborhood Coalition meeting on February 16th, 2019 at the Claude Black Center and then again to the Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition on February 21st, we presented a workshop on the Public Participation Principles. We’d like to commend Laura Mayes, Communications Strategist in the way that she answered questions and discussed concerns at the February 16thmeeting. 

The following are specific recommendations we are requesting at this time. These requests are the results of discussions among neighborhoods on February 16thand on February 21st. 

Recommended implementation strategies:  

  • 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, Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meetings as well (which is part of the Mayor’s directive) should be made available to citizens in a timely manner.
  • City websites should be more informational and easier to search for specific information. 
  • Plans for development projects that require zoning changes or tax incentives should be madeopen to the public as soon as they are submitted. 
  • Public meetings should be put on one City calendar so that  any overlap is clear. 
  • To implement the Principles of Public Participation Guidelines Ordinance residents should have the following options available to them when attending City meetings:
  • Parking validation
  • VIA bus ticket (similar to what you get for jury duty); could be downloaded as part of on-line sign in process
  • Quantifiable metric(s) on public attendance at workshops (% of census tract; minimum #) for both CoSA and consultants should be required and available to the public
  • A public expression of support by the City Attorney’s office for the rights of citizens, whether individually or as part of their representative Neighborhood Association or Community Organization, to use processes in place in order to challenge decisions made by city staff, i.e. appealing a DSD decision with the Board of Appeals. 
  • The establishment of a Neighborhood Commission. Again, this was a request that was made several times by T1NC of Mayor Taylor and City Manager Sculley’s response was to create the NHSD, which has not addressed the needs of neighborhoods and not provided that level of ombudsman ship that we are looking for.
  • An acknowledgement of stakeholder public priorities. As one resident put it, someone taking a survey at a Siclovia event is not the same as an informed citizen that will be directly affected by a policy. 
  • There have been several incidences where a public official will imply that public meetings equate to public approval when that has not been the case. Public officials should not imply something that is not true and must be held accountable when they misrepresent the facts. 
  • We understand that the implementation of the Principles are focused on input, not the decision-making process. Tier One would recommend a more transparent decision-making process in which key stakeholders are a part. 

We would appreciate feedback and information about how these recommendations are considered. 

Thank-you, 

Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee

Cosima Colvin

Christine Drennon 

Tony Garcia

Homer “Butch” Hayes

Cullen Jones

Ricki Kushner

Velma Pena

Cynthia Spielman

Amelia Valdez

Theresa Ybanez

cc:

Mayor Ron Nirenberg 

District 7 Councilwoman Ana Sandoval

City Manager Erik Walsh

Posted on

Letter to BoA re: Short Term Rental Special Exception Requests on behalf of STR Task Force Members (written by Cosima Colvin)

Update March 29, 2019: One of the complications that has occurred is the definition of a “blackface” and whether it includes accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or what we use to call “back houses.”

February 17, 2019

Board of Adjustment 

1901 S. Alamo

San Antonio, TX 

Attn: Chair Roger Martinez

Re: The Short Term Rental Ordinance

Dear Mr. Martinez,

As citizens that served at the Development Services Department’s request on the Short Term Rental Task Force, we would like to express our appreciation for your support of the ordinance during a recent Board of Adjustments hearing. 

I attended the pre-hearing work session and was dismayed to find out that the commissioners had to learn in a rapid fire 30 minutes what my fellow STR TF members and staff and I worked on for 19 months. (April 2017 – Nov 1 2018) I felt compelled to follow-up with you and provide a copy of the statement that I mostly got to read (the new 2 min limit threw me off) at the hearing on February 18th.

“Those of us that were asked to serve and represent a neighborhood voice gave up several concessions in order to focus on the issue of Type 2 density. This was the most important part of the ordinance that we fought for and that we heard from the public was their top concern. By placing a restriction of 12.5% per block face we hoped to minimize the commercialization of residential streets.  In the case of multi-family properties and condos, the restriction was designed with the idea that neighborhoods should not have to lose their residential character so that a property owner could operate a mini-hotel within their community. 

And while it was always understood that a property owner would have the legal right to request a Special Exception in order to circumvent this restriction, I think the hope was that DSD staff would review that request within the context of the work that had been done by the STR Task Force, the input that had been received by the community and the goals of the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan, all of which would provide a strong argument against allowing for the operation of a commercial business in the middle of a residential block and protect neighborhoods from losing their residential integrity. In addition, the concession was made that those operators that were already registered with the city and current on their legal obligation to pay the HOTax, which was required prior to the implementation of the STR Ordinance, would be grandfathered. And yet here we are, 7 days after the deadline to register, already considering a case that would push that work around to its very limits.

I also understand that staff has a set of pre-determined criteria that they need to use as a guideline, but I question how they have responded to some of those. While the property is already an MF property, so already being used for rentals, and therefore staff does not feel that it makes a difference whether those are long term rentals or tourist accommodations, I wonder if the other 6 tenants living in the building feel the same way.  It should also be noted that although many of the surrounding properties are zoned MF33, they are in fact single family properties and so the zoning is not reflective of the use.

In closing, we ask the commission to deny this request under the spirit of what the task force worked to balance between neighborhood preservation and the rights of property owners.

STR Task Force Members,

Cosima Colvin

Cynthia Spielman

Tony Garcia

Jim Smith

Cullen Jones

Charlotte Kerr-Jorgensen

It should be noted that Cynthia Spielman, Charlotte Kerr-Jorgensen and Jim Smith are STR Operators.”

We hope that you and your fellow Commissioners will be provided with additional training and resource material to be able to more comfortably consider STR Special Exception Requests. Although we stand behind the ordinance as a whole, we believe it will be requests based on the density restrictions that will test the ordinance’s mettle and the Commission’s.  I want to affirm that we are not saying that there should never be a Special Exception granted, but that they be meted out judiciously. Our group will continue to advocate for support of the ordinance

Lastly, we know that it is an important consideration of the Commissioners to hear from the neighbors and Neighborhood Association most directly affected, but in truth, STRs are an increasing issue in many of our urban core neighborhoods and precedents that get set in one will affect others. The citizens count on the Board of Adjustments’ members to consider their well-being as a matter of course, whether they are able to participate in the process or not. 

We thank you for your service to our city and its residents.

Sincerely,

STR Task Force Members,

Cosima Colvin

Tony Garcia

Cullen Jones

Charlotte Kerr-Jorgensen

Jim Smith

Cynthia Spielman

Posted on

Bird Mitigation Plan Elmendorf Lake Park and Bird Island Statement

By Gloria Pacheco Hernandez


My name is Gloria Pacheco Hernandez, and I am the President of the Las Palmas Neighborhood Association, which is part of the larger Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition.

I come before you to advocate the need for a sensible and mutually agreeable plan to save the Cattle Egrets birds, who were near extinction at one time, as well as other bird species of Bird Island in Elmendorf Lake Park.

The Egrets and other birds love to roost at Elmendorf Lake, especially on Bird Island, adjacent to the Our Lady of the Lake campus. They also like to eat at the Covel Gardens Landfill, because there are a lot of insects there. They are constantly flying back and forth between the two locations. But flying between the two locations causes problems when the birds interfere with aircraft. Therefore, many local officials and area military officials see the birds as a problem, threatening aviation in the area. What to do
about the birds has become a combative issue, especially for bird advocates and those of us who live in the area and do not see the birds as a major problem. Right now, the birds are contained in their natural habitat, and they are not causing any great damage.

The park, lake, birds, and other natural wildlife, add to the beauty of the neighborhood as well as affords researches and students an opportunity to study this unique inner-city area, the birds and other wildlife. Elmendorf has become a hot spot for area residents and bird watchers, who have a chance to see and study as many as 40 varieties of birds. Destroying the birds present habitat could result in them moving onto other public property and causing thousands and even millions of dollars in damage. It could also
put the Egrets once again at danger of becoming extinct. We want to be a bird-friendly community. Birds like and deserve healthy living environments, just as we as humans like and deserve healthy environments.

Presently, the community/public has not been provided with sufficient
documented information and data to support the birds are a severe threat to the airspace near Lackland AFB and Port San Antonio. Which leads me to believe there has not been an actual, in depth study of the situation. Therefore, I am requesting that the military and local officials and agencies involved work together to find an alternate solution to this matter and not relocate the birds from their natural habitat.

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