Hello. My name is Leticia Sanchez and I’m the co-chairperson of the Historic Westside Residents Association which represents residents in the near westside of the city. I’m here to speak on agenda item #3, the Housing Bond. As we all know, the housing crisis that we are experiencing in our city is not only a local issue but a national issue. The residents of San Antonio voted to support bond funds to tackle the housing crisis we’re experiencing but San Antonio cannot continue to fund housing projects that don’t help to significantly alleviate the housing shortage for households earning 30% AMI or below. According to data from the SHIP report, housing for households earning 30% AMI or below is the most needed.
A concern of our Association is that the City is rushing to move the RFP process too quickly which could exclude smaller, more innovative and/or non-profit developers from the process. We are concerned that, in rushing to fund housing projects the City will once again provide gap funds to projects that are in the pipeline-typically mixed income projects that provide less than 50% of units to households at or below 30%AMI. In the past, we’ve seen that the City has funded some of these projects/developers who have a 30% profit margin. If we look at NRP’s Legacy at Alazan’s development project, the cost per unit averaged over $200,000. We know that non-profit developers can build housing at a much lower cost per unit so why does our City choose to use tax payer money to fund for-profit developers with high profit margins? The tax-paying residents of San Antonio did not vote for the housing bond to help developers line their pockets. They want to ensure that funds will help to decrease the housing crisis significantly and, ultimately, prevent our residents from becoming homeless. We ask that the Housing Commission recommend to City Council and City staff more time for the RFP process.
We’re also concerned with the proposed scoring criteria that city staff has presented which does NOT incentivize developers to construct or rehab units for the 30% AMI or below population. It gives 15 points for affordability and the exact same number of points for Gap requests. Under the affordability rental scoring, the highest number of points, which is 20, only 35% of total units are at 30% AMI or below. There is no incentive to try to build more a minimum of 50% units at 30% AMI or below.
San Antonio has the opportunity to come up with more creative housing solutions with these housing bond funds but if we take the easy road and use the same formulas or solutions and continue to fund projects that produce a minimal amount of housing for the most needed which are households earning 30% AMI or below, we will never resolve our housing crisis and the number of homeless residents will continue to grow.
This letter was sent by the T1NC Steering Committee/ Public Participation Committee/ Affordable Housing & Displacement Committee to each council member on November 1, 2021
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 CommissionPublic 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
In 2014 Julian Castro created the Mayor’s Task Force on Preserving Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods. This group developed a set of recommendations that included, among other things, the creation of a Housing Commission, displacement mitigation measures, a comprehensive review of city policies, and a housing bond.
In 2015 the Housing Commission to Preserve and Prevent Displacement was formed and for three years worked to carry out the somewhat limited Task Force recommendations. The most notable achievements of this commission were the successful creation of the 20 million dollar Neighborhood Improvements Bond and, in my opinion, serving as a platform to keep issues around affordable housing and displacement in the public eye.
When Mayor Ron Nirenberg took office in 2017, he realized that while these efforts were a good first step, a more energetic and holistic response was required. Shortly after taking office, he formed the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force on which I had the honor to serve. This five-member group was charged with a sweeping, whole-system review of San Antonio’s housing ecosystem and, over 12 months, led as hundreds of citizens participated by sharing stories and concerns, and serving on technical working groups. The task force worked with four different consultant groups as well as City staff to do a deep dive into data and facilitate the process.
This process revealed the following:
Housing costs are outpacing incomes in San Antonio and there is a wide and rapidly growing affordability gap. In 2000, you could find a starter home for a new $110k. Today the floor is about $170k. Incomes have remained relatively flat over that period.
50% of renters in San Antonio are spending more than 30% of their income on housing or 45% on housing plus transportation.
Housing supply is not keeping pace with growth: most new construction is outside San Antonio city limits
Neighborhood instability and displacement are real things and they are happening here.
It wasn’t easy but under the leadership of Lourdes Castro Ramirez. We treated one another with respect and, in the end; we developed not just consensus, but friendship. Ultimately, the five of us, from different backgrounds and points of view, boiled the oceans of information down into San Antonio’s Housing Policy Framework
The actions that the housing policy framework calls for are bold and sweeping and include:
Development of a coordinated Housing System
Increased investment in housing
Increase affordable housing production, rehabilitation, and preservation
Protection and preservation of neighborhoods
And the insurance of accountability to the public.
Page 12 of the Housing Policy Framework provides an initial timeline for implementation. Many but not all of these initial tasks are underway including:
Council adoption of Housing Policy Framework (August 2018)
Increased funding to implement framework recommendations (October 2018)
Reconstitution of the Housing Commission (February 2019)
The Housing Commission is tasked to ensure the Housing Policy Framework will of the people be implemented over the next decade and is currently chaired by Lourdes Castro Ramirez. It is to that body this commission that we will report our findings. Jessica Guerrero, who has joined on the phone, is our Housing Commission representative.
Preliminary steps on addressing and mitigating displacement (April 2019)
Review of the San Antonio Housing Trust (July 2019)
Establish a Technical Working Group on removing barriers to the production and preservation of affordable housing within the Unified Development Code
Strategy 1: Undertake an inclusive public process to determine standards and criteria to allow by-right zoning for housing developments in which at least 50% of the units are affordable. (We are not tackling this. The implementation plan calls for a separate working group to do so.)
Strategy 2: Exempt affordable housing units from SAWS impact fees. (Our group might wish to look at SAWS and CPS related issues)
Strategy 3: Revise the UDC to remove regulatory barriers to affordable housing. (This will be the primary goal for our group and details are on page 40 of the Housing Policy Framework)
The previous Housing Commission noted several ways to improve Sections 35-360 (Bonus Density) and 35-372 (Affordable Dwelling Units) in the Unified Development Code. The concern was that these parts of the code were not highly utilized as the bonuses were small. Below is an overview of the general ideas of changes put forth by Housing Commission.
Current Policy
Issue
Proposed Changed
Applicability
Current policy only applies to multi-unit projects subject to application for rezoning, MDP, or planning. Policy should include single-unit projects and should allow for uses not permitted in a zoning district. (e.g. duplex in R-4)
Affordability
Currently the policy defines low income as not exceeding 80% AMI and very low income as not exceeding 50% AMI. Policy should have more comprehensive range of AMI categories especially for homeowners.
Density Bonus and Set-Aside
Currently developers can increase permitted units by 20% if 10% of the units are low income housing and a 10% increase if 5% of the units are very low income housing. Policy should have a minimum of 5% restricted income units and an increasing bonus density for every 1% increase of restricted units.
Affordability Period
The current policy states units must be affordable for 50 years. Policy should reduce the length of affordability to 20 years for a homebuyer and 30 years for rental units.
Additional Development Specifications(Proposed to be applicable for projects with 75% or more affordable units)
Issue
Proposed Changed
Minimum Lot Size
Allow minim lot size to be reduced to 1,250 square feet.
Building Setbacks
Should not require front or side setbacks and reduce rear setback to 5 feet.
Street Construction Standards
Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to upgrade or improve existing streets or sidewalks.
Utilities
Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to improve deficiencies in existing utility infrastructure.
Storm water Management
Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to improve deficiencies in existing off-site storm water. There should be increased options for off-site drainage alternatives in lieu of on-site retention/ detention pond.
Parks & Open Space
Parks and open space dedication and fee in lieu of land dedication standards shall not apply.
Tree Preservation
Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to mitigate the removal of tress located in development areas.
The Mayor’s Office brought together 20 people from across San Antonio to address the development issues facing affordable housing in San Antonio. Over three meetings, this group determined the priorities and formed subcommittees around these priorities including:
Regulatory Cost Burden: this subcommittee provided recommendations for ways to redirect the cost of affordable housing development away from developers
Accessory Dwelling Units: this subcommittee worked to find ways to update the Unified Development Code to help ADUs meet the current needs of San Antonio residents while respecting the culture and design of neighborhoods
Public Outreach & Engagement: this subcommittee focused on how engage neighborhoods and share knowledge so residents are an integral part of this process
The Regulatory Cost Burden subcommittee was formed after the Removing Barriers committee had conversations about how to redirect the cost of affordable housing development away from developers. This committee engaged experts from many departments to learn about current standards and then worked to provide solutions. To date there have been six meetings as well as an engineer round table discussion meeting which took place in early January. All notes and presentations, to date, can be found here. The following Removing Barriers committee members volunteered to serve on this subcommittee.
After six subcommittee meetings, it was determined that most of the standards in place are necessary for the health and safety of the residents. However, there were several ideas on how to shift the cost burden away from developers in order to incentivize more affordable housing development:
Proposed Amendments & Policy Issues
Impact Area
Tree Preservation & Open Space
Trees planted in the Right-of-Way should count toward tree mitigation in an effort to provide more shade and reduce the heat.
UDC
A funding source should be established so affordable housing development is exempt from Tree Mitigation fees.
Fiscal
Parking
Modifications to parking regulations should be centered on the idea that there are not one-size-fits all solutions. Some areas around transit may not need as much parking, but other areas, further from transit and amenities, may benefit from more than the minimum requirement
Policy
NHSD staff is working with the Planning Department to think about ways to fold in parking ideas/updates with the Regional Center Plans
Policy
NHSD staff is working with VIA about proposed amendments around transit stops
UDC (indirectly)
Storm Water
Regional Storm Water
A from ‘Fee In-Lieu-of development’ policy should be created for affordable housing
Fiscal & Policy
A funding source should be established to eliminate the cost of mandatory onsite detention for affordable housing
Fiscal
Immediate Neighbors
Currently, developments are not permitted to increase water run-off to neighboring properties. However, this is a consistent concern this committee has heard during this process.
The Accessory Dwelling Unit subcommittee was formed after the Removing Barriers Committee had several conversations around the important role Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) play in increasing affordable housing. ADUs are generally smaller and usually result in more naturally occurring affordable housing as well as options for aging in place and creating additional rental income. This subcommittee worked to find ways to update the Unified Development Code to help ADUs meet the current needs of San Antonio residents while respecting the culture and design of neighborhoods. The following committee members volunteered to serve on this subcommittee. Nine meetings were held to craft the proposed recommendations. All notes and presentations, to date, can be found here.
Updated language for maximum size:The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger, of leasable space in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.
UDC
Remove the language limiting the number of bedrooms allowed in an ADU
UDC
Remove language requiring the ADU utilities to be connected to primary residence
UDC
Impervious cover should be discussed at the larger level of city-wide storm water regulations and requirements
Policy
Remove language with occupancy limitations
UDC
Updated language for parking: Remove requirement for parking to be located behind main structureFor an ADU 800 or fewer sq. ft. no parking requirements • For an ADU more than 800 sq. ft. one parking space should be included
UDC
Update language for setbacks to:Allow 3 ft. setback with no overhang
UDC
Update language for height limit to:Maximum height of 25 ft.Maximum of two stories, no half story
UDC
Discuss scale requirements in Phase II: design guidelines and pattern book
Policy
Sq. ft. of an ADU shall include all leasable space when calculating maximum size, as included in maximum size updates
UDC
Update language for attached ADUs to: Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is largerAttached accessory dwelling units shall be no higher than the principle structure or a maximum height of 25 ft., whichever is higherAttached accessory dwelling units shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district
UDC
Update language for owner occupied to:Create a provision to allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special provision that would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family No short term rentals shall be permitted in non-owner occupied ADU
UDC
Update language for design to:
Remove design requirements
UDC
Create design guidelines and a pattern book
Policy
Identify a funding source to provide waivers for those who adhere to the design guidelines and/or pattern book
Fiscal
Communicate the benefits of ADUs for all residents in San Antonio
Policy
Develop a financing mechanism with lenders so residents could more easily get a loan to build an ADU
Total floor area of the ADDU shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or be less than three hundred (300) square feet.
Remove language for minimum sq. ft. requirement.
The residential building code requirements provide a minimum size for each room depending on the room type (kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, etc.) so establishing an additional minimum standard for sq. ft. was believed to be redundant so it was removed.
Maximum Size
The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling. The building footprint for the ADDU shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the building footprint of the principal residence. The “building footprint” shall include porches, but shall not include patios. Total floor area of the ADDU shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or be less than three hundred (300) square feet.
The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger, of leasable space in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.
The subcommittee wanted to allow smaller homes to have the ability to build a larger ADU without being limited by the total square footage of the primary residence. In addition, the subcommittee spoke to the importance of being able to have an ADU larger than 800 sq. ft. if a resident had a larger home.
# of Bedrooms
An ADU shall not contain more than one (1) bedroom
Remove the language limiting the number of bedrooms allowed in an ADU
Since the subcommittee increased the allowable sq. ft. it made sense to remove the one bedroom regulation
Utilities
The accessory dwelling shall be connected to the central electrical, water and sewer system of the principal structure. This provision does not apply to the electrical service if the distance between the primary structure and the accessory dwelling is greater than one hundred (100) lineal feet.
Remove language requiring the ADU utilities to be connected to primary residence
The subcommittee believed this requirement was not needed as SAWS and CPS have their own requirements and regulations to ensure the health and safety of residents so this language was removed.
Impervious Cover
Impervious cover is addressed within the accessory structuresection of the UDC: The maximum lot coverage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total area of the side and rear yards, provided that in residential districts the total floor area does not exceed a maximum of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet.
Should be discussed at the larger level of city-wide storm water regulations and requirements
This discussion originated from the concern of increased water runoff that might result from additional construction on a residential site. After much discussion, it was determined this is part of a larger, city-wide conversation about how storm water runoff is addressed after construction is complete
Occupancy
The total number of occupants in the accessory dwelling unit combined shall not exceed three (3) persons.
Remove language with occupancy limitations
With the increased allowable square footage the subcommittee reasoned that a family could easily live in an ADU and did not want to limit housing options due to an occupant restriction so the language was removed.
Setbacks
Accessory detached dwelling units shall require a minimum setback from the rear and side property lines of five (5) feet.
Allow 3 ft. setback with no overhang
Since most other accessory structures are permitted to be built 3 ft. from the property line without an overhang the subcommittee felt this provision was appropriate for ADUs as well.
Parking
Parking areas shall be located behind the front yard.
Remove requirement for parking to be located behind main structureFor an ADU 800 or fewer sq. ft. no parking requirementsFor an ADU more than 800 sq. ft. one parking space should be included
The subcommittee could not determine a reason to require the location of parking to remain behind the main structure so this provision was removed. Building a parking spot is only required for ADUs more than 800 sq. ft. While there were many other options and exceptions discussed including elimination of parking requirements if residents is near a transit stop or has a street wide enough to accommodate on-street parking. However, primary residential homes are currently only required to build one parking spot, but usually have at 2-4. Knowing this, it was determined that most homes would not have to build any additional parking. A parking requirement was included for ADUs over 800 sq. ft. as ADUs that large would more likely have multiple people driving cars.
Maximum height of 25 ft.Maximum of two stories, no half story
The subcommittee wanted to ensure there was a respect for the neighborhood as well as the primary residential structure on the lot so they choose to reduce the maximum height in an effort to better conform to design and nature of San Antonio neighborhoods.
Scale
There are currently no regulations around scale
Discuss scale requirements in Phase II: design guidelines and pattern book
The subcommittee believes that, at the present moment, regulations around height will address the immediate concerns. The design guidelines and pattern book will allow for more details, as needed.
Define Included Sq. Ft.
The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.
Sq. ft. of an ADU shall include all leasable space when calculating maximum size, as included in maximum size updates
The subcommittee discussion around how square footage is calculated stemmed from a concern about the size and scale of an ADU if it was constructed on top of an existing garage. However, after more discussion, it was revealed that in order to build on top of a garage you would likely have to tear down the garage and rebuild unless it was constructed to accommodate an ADU on top. In addition, the ADU would still have to meet the proposed max height requirement of 25 ft.
Attached ADUs
The gross floor area of the accessory apartment shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the total living area of the principal dwelling unit.Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall not exceed one (1) person per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.Attached accessory dwelling units shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district.
Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger;Shall be no higher than the principle structure or a maximum height of 25 ft., whichever is higher; and Shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district
The subcommittee aligned the requirements for attached ADUs with those of the regulations for detached ADUs except where the regulations pertain to setbacks. The subcommittee believes that additions to the primary structure should respect the setback of the underlying zoning district.
Owner Occupied
Currently the owner of the ADU must live on the property. If the homeowner wants to take advantage of a homestead exemption they must live in the primary residence/main house
Create a provision to allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special provision that would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family No short term rentals shall be permitted in non-owner occupied ADU
Please see page 9 for extended details on subcommittee discussion around this topic
Design Requirements
In order to maintain the architectural design, style, appearance and character of the main building as a single-family residence, the ADDU shall have a roof pitch, siding and window proportions identical to that of the principal residence.
Remove design requirementsCreate design guidelines and a pattern bookIdentify a funding source to provide waivers for those who adhere to the design guidelines and/or pattern book
The subcommittee would like to produce design guidelines and a pattern book to help guide the development of ADUs in the City. In addition, they would like to find a way to reward those who use these approved plans by providing waivers for development fees.
Allows homeowners the opportunity to provide housing for relatives or the community Provides opportunities for home owners to earn additional income which may allow them to stay in their home in neighborhoods that are rapidly changingLimits market rate investment in neighborhoods which are rapidly changing
Would not be able to use as a large scale affordable housing investment strategy
Owner does not have to live in the home to build an ADU(No STR permitted)
No Short Term Rental permitted so would increase in long-term leases and rentersAllows investors to building affordable housing optionsWill likely increase the number of affordable units
ADUs could become an investment property and could begin to cause more neighborhood change in un-stabilized neighborhoodsMay limit the number of homes available owner occupancy It is still largely, still more lucrative for property owner to flip and sell a home
Create a provisionto allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special exceptionthat would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family(No STR permitted)
Provides a pathway to allow ADUs on non-owner occupied propertyNo short term rental permitted so an increase in long-term leases/rentersIs not granted by- right and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as it might be desirable in many areas.
Is not granted by- right and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis Additional development expenses Additional length added to the process
The Public Engagement & Outreach subcommittee was formed as a result of conversations that took place during the first few meetings of the Removing Barriers Committee. The committee placed a high priority on public engagement and wanted to create a subcommittee to focus on this topic so neighborhood engagement and knowledge sharing would be an integral part of this process. The following subcommittee members volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. There have been seven meetings. All meeting notes, presentations, and documents presented during meetings can also be found on the here.
This subcommittee has taken the time to discuss the City of San Antonio’s public participation principles, specifically what works well and what is missing. These conversations led to several big outcomes below:
The creation of a public outreach framework for Removing Barriers that created a structure for the public outreach and engagement subcommittee
Best practices for public meetings
The creation of a neighborhood focus group that will provide feedback about outreach and proposed UDC amendments
1. Public Engagement Framework
2. Public Meeting Best Practices
Utilize current communication networks such as neighborhood associations, community organizations, schools, churches, and City Council offices
Utilize meetings already happening
Provide accommodations for those who wish to attend a meeting:
Physical access at meeting location
Literacy Levels
Communication (language, on-line availability)
Be intentional about guest lists:
Include neighborhood associations and other active or informed participants
Look for community leaders and engaged members of different communities
Allow for flexibility for public comment during meetings
Take care not to over generalize
Plan meetings at a variety of times and locations to better accommodate all residents
3. Neighborhood Focus Group
After discussion on how best to reach everyone in San Antonio, this subcommittee has envisioned a city-wide meeting of neighborhood coalitions and neighborhood interest groups who would come together and serve as the focus group as well as a group that would be one of the first to hear and provide feedback about proposed recommendations from the ADU and Regulatory Cost Burden subcommittees
This group would consist of approximately 8-12 seats to be filled by neighborhood interest groups who would be encouraged to have interchangeable representatives depending on the topic/timing of meetings with the goal to always have a representative from each neighborhood interest group at each meeting
Representatives would be required to disseminate information to their organization networks
The subcommittee and staff have agreed to being this group with the understanding that adjustments and additions will be needed as the process continues throughout 2020
At a recent public city meeting at which a new development was shown on the screen, Amelia Valdez, Co-Chair of the Historic Westside Residents Association (HWRA) raised her hand. “Who lived there and where did they go?” she asked. Her question was met with silence. A new study by the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity (University of Minnesota Law School) offers an answer:
The displaced are pushed out to the suburbs where public transportation is less concentrated and is located away from employment centers. While the downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods have changed demographically to reflect more affluent and more educated residents, the suburbs have become the place where the displaced find more affordable housing choices. The bright blue on the interactive map is the dramatic change from less affluent to the more affluent. The color brown reflects a new concentration of the less affluent. The map is based on the 2000-2016 census tract. It is not hard to predict where the trends it points to are today.
Good evening members of the Rate Advisory Committee and thank you for your service to the citizens of San Antonio.
I am the owner of a seven- unit MF property, and I live in one of the units. I have owned the property since April 2006.
For the period 7/10-8/8/2006, the Meter Water Use was 26,184. The bill for that period was $164.48
For the period 9/5-10/4/19, the Meter Water Use for the same period was 25,435. The bill was $334.20. That’s a cost increase of over 100% with about 700 less gallons used.
My property supports seven households with a total of 13 occupants. My rental income has increased 39% over 14 years and most of the increase has been as a result of tenant turnover.
Four of my current tenant households have been with me for over four years and the tenant in one unit has lived in the building since 2005. I value my tenants and because I live at the property, it is important to me that we all have a good relationship. All of my tenants are good, hard working people, but almost all are living paycheck to paycheck. Between the increases in property taxes and the water, I am faced with having to raise their rents by 10% and I’m afraid that not all of them will be able to absorb that. The problem is, they will not find more affordable housing. And because they aren’t SAWS customers and therefore don’t qualify for subsidies and don’t have a voice in this process, I am here for them as well as for me.
I feel like I am being penalized for providing affordable multi-family housing at a time when there is a housing crisis in our city and our country. Several mayors have put together committees and task forces to find solutions. What about giving small multi-family landlords that are providing good, affordable missing middle housing in neighborhoods credit for the role they are playing and setting rates that reflect their contribution.
Lastly, I looked into getting a leak detector for my property, but found out that as a commercial customer I do not qualify for the rebate, so once again I am at a disadvantage.
I urge you to consider the damage that increased rates are doing to the ability for the residents of this city to stay in their housing, whether as homeowners or renters. Once the damage has been done, it will be a long road to recovery.
Cosima sits on the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition and is a Co-Chair of Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association’s (BHANA) Zoning and Urban Design (ZUD) Committee. This statement is a modified version of the original which is available on the Rate Advisory website
“The more intensely we build in our inner-city neighborhoods, the more affordable the housing.” We hear it from city staff and from our elected officials. It is no wonder this idea has become the rationale for much of the recent developer-driven city policy on infill.
This seems reasonable on the surface. The more housing we build, the more affordable it becomes: supply and demand. The model of supply and demand is an old and simplistic one that belies the reality that affordability is a complex process, particularly when applied to San Antonio’s housing.
Intense development is not producing affordable housing in our inner-city neighborhoods. On the contrary, it is producing market rate (expensive) housing that drives up land values through property valuation and speculation. This practice results in displacement and increases the income segregation in this city. Often affordable “middle” (duplex, triplex, and fourplex) housing has been demolished and its residents displaced to make room for expensive new construction. The density stays the same; the land values rise.
Incompatible and expensive development destabilizes resilient communities and destroys the neighborhoods in which they live. A recent study, “Opportunity at Risk: San Antonio’s Older Affordable Housing Stock,” prepared for the San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) by PlaceEconomics (2019) shows that much of San Antonio’s affordable housing was built before 1960 and that this affordable housing (rental and owner-occupied) is disappearing quickly to make way for market-rate rental and condo units. The most affordable housing is the housing we live in now and it is disappearing quickly.
Manhattan, San Francisco, and Chicago are very dense and very expensive. Density does not necessarily lead to affordability as recent studies have pointed out: It is not how much you build, but what you build.
The argument for density, even if it is market rate, is that eventually, as the new structures age, or as another part of town becomes desirable, those who can will move into newer or more attractive neighborhoods, and their old housing will become available and will cause rents and house prices in their old neighborhood to fall.
Theoretically, this makes sense. But in reality, significant obstacles inhibit the affordable housing this model predicts. For instance, much of the new housing being incentivized and encouraged by the city is infill development — building within our existing neighborhoods. This new development is quite expensive causing surrounding properties to rise in value — thus the dreaded property tax hike that is pushing many of us out of our original neighborhoods (we can afford our mortgages, but not our taxes!). This model assumes that used housing — not unlike used cars — will filter down to lower and lower income families, yet by the time it does, it often requires significant investment to make it livable once again.
The question often asked is how (or why) did our housing stock deteriorate to the point that low-income housing is practically uninhabitable? The two most compelling answers would be, first, the lack of available investment dollars through the mid 20th century due to redlining policies that steered investment capital into the suburbs; and, second, the gradual shift through a house’s life from being owner-occupied to being renter-occupied. When a house becomes renter-occupied, it is an investment. As an investment, it may make better financial sense to defer maintenance— and the house deteriorates.
The solutions that help stabilize our neighborhoods, while producing more affordable housing, include building affordable housing on vacant lots that is compatible not only in design, but also in value to the neighborhood and does not impact the housing market. We need to ensure equity in investment across all of our neighborhoods. The city needs to incentivize and help with the rehabbing of declining housing stock so that vulnerable residents can stay put.
The Task Force for Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing proposes the construction of accessory dwelling units to provide the much needed “middle housing“ that is being demolished in our neighborhoods. Accessory dwelling units can provide rental property to offset rising taxes for the homeowner, and they can provide affordable housing that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
To adequately address the problem of the housing crisis we need to build affordable housing along our transportation corridors and in our regional centers. By building on empty and/or blighted retail space, we would meet the projected need for affordable housing and adhere to the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan. At the same time, we would be building infill that is compatible to our neighborhoods in both design and cost.
San Antonio’s leadership cannot expect to solve the crisis of the affordable housing shortage by making decisions based on business adages such as “supply and demand” that do not correlate to the human element in housing. San Antonio’s inner-city neighborhoods are too fragile and many of its residents too vulnerable to survive if we get this wrong. Those of you elected to represent us must be visionaries who do not lose sight of the needs of your most vulnerable constituents.Cynthia Spielman serves on the Steering Committee of the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition. Email: t1nc.sat@gmail.com
Next ADU meeting: February 7th at 10 a.m. at NHSD at 1400 S. Flores
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or granny flats, mother-in-law-flats, back houses, pool houses, or garage apartments, whether attached or detached, are a big thing right now. ADUs can allow for extra income to homeowners to help with the rising taxes, they can provide for affordable rentals which are much needed, and they provide density that can help area businesses as well as justify better public transportation and other amenities. Most neighborhood residents throughout San Antonio are allowed to build an ADU on their property, but there is an opportunity to refine the Unified Development Code (UDC) that will make building these units easier for homeowners while also providing protection for neighborhoods.
Tobin Hill, however, has been struggling with an ADU that is substantially taller than its principal home, and seems incompatible with the surrounding area (some have likened it to a “tower”). A neighbor challenged the city’s Development Services Department (DSD) over the approval of the permit for this ADU, and took it to the Board of Adjustment in early August. The board voted in favor of the property owner and not the applicant (the neighbor) who was challenging the building. After the meeting it was expressed that many of the board members were confused about what their vote meant (which was not helped by the fact that DSD put up the wrong information on the screen about who was for and against the project). Consequently, the Board of Adjustment has agreed to vote at the September 16 hearing whether to hear the case again.
Tobin Hill’s Towering ADU
I am a Tri-Chair of the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee in which we are tasked, in part, with finding ways to help residents build ADUs more easily, while protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. We are looking for ways to not only make these structures easier to build, but to also ensure they are built in ways that can be embraced by neighborhoods across the city. We are also looking at ways in which it will be easier to rehab existing ADUs. Many of the UDC code amendments that we want to address include design issues, height restrictions, and definitions and interpretations.
For more information on the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee, please click below:
The funds below are limited and qualified residents should apply immediately. Please keep checking the Neighborhood and Housing Services Department (NHSD) for updates. For more information contact: Jennifer Buxton, 210-207-6459, jennifer.buxton@sanantonio.gov
Fee Waiver Program (previously known as CRIP) offers:
Owner Occupied Rehabilitation
Participants in home repair/rehab through NHSD or non-profit organizations will qualify for
Up to 100% waiver of City and SAWS fees
An exemption from $100 application fee.
Historic Rehabilitation (applies to NCDs)
Owners of residential and commercial structures eligible to be designated as historic may receive waivers for 100% of City fees and 100% of SAWs fees, $150,000 maximum per project.
Projects must be eligible for historic designation
Requires a review by Office of Historic Preservation, regardless of designation.
Note: These funds are now available to residents in all council districts.
Owner Occupied Repair and Reconstruction (OOR)
Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation is still accepting applications for districts 8, 9, and 10 for this fiscal year. Staff will start accepting applications on August 12 for the new fiscal year from all districts, and the application period will end on September 13th. The lottery will be held October 1st.this program assists qualified households with substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction
Available city wide with applied equity metrics
Loans are deferred, forgivable and 0% interest
10-20 year restrictive covenant
Up to $80k for rehab and up to $100k for recon
Households must be below 80% AMI
Under One Roof (U1R)
Replaces worn roofs with an energy efficient white roof. It has the following stipulations:
The roof surface must be less than 1700 sq. ft.
The current roof must be at least 10 years old
Available city wide with applied equity metrics
5-year restrictive covenant
Forgivable grant up to $14k
Households must be below 80% AMI OR 62 years or older OR disabled OR veteran
Minor Repair Program
Minor Repair is still to be decided by the City Manager’s office and Council. NHSD has requested at least $275,000 in their budget for this upcoming fiscal year. They should know by September if this has been approved and for how much.
Lead Hazard Reduction & Healthy Homes
Assists homeowners and landlords create healthy, safe and sustainable homes
Available city wide
Addresses lead hazards and minor safety issues
5-year restrictive covenant
Must have child at least 1 yr and up to and including 5 yrs old – in home at least 6 hrs week
Approximately $35k per unit
Households must be below 80% AMI, no back taxes, clear title, no liens or judgments
Please be advised that on Monday, July 29, 2019, the Historic Westside Resident Association met with representatives from the NRP Group, San Antonio Housing Authority, Brown and Ortiz Associates, and District 5 to discuss the Alazan Loft development.
The following neighborhood associations were in attendance as well: Westside Preservation Alliance, Tier One Neighborhood Coalition, Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition and the Esperanza Peace & Justice Center. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed site plan for Alazan Loft. We want to make clear that the Historic Westside Resident Association supports the development of affordable housing in our historic Westside community. However, the proposed site plan submitted by the NRP Group does not meet with the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan requirements.
The Alazan Loft site plan must be revised to meet the guidelines of the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan.
All buildings on all lots should be a maximum of two (2) stories with 20’ setbacks from sidewalks to adhere to the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan and neighborhood character.
Reduce parking spaces to accommodate the revised site plan for two -story structures.
Add heat sinks such as landscape islands on parking lots.
Introduce green space which would include buffer landscape and street scape to adhere to the neighborhood character.
Elevation drawings (black and white) for the two story structures for the revised site plan.
The following issues were presented, discussed and requested from the development side:
We are also very concerned about our neighborhood residents being uprooted and displaced during and after this major construction process.
Please note that SAHA spokesman, Michael Reyes, expressed in the Rivard Report (July 26, 2019) the importance of gathering “feedback from all neighborhood associations and community leaders to make sure we are building something that reflects the neighborhood”.
Of major concern is the fact that our Historic Westside Resident Association and the organizations listed were informed of only two, not 17, community meetings sponsored by SAHA and the NRP Group. These two meetings in 1st Quarter 2019 offered the associations very limited time for community engagement.
There were no additional notifications or discussions until the Historic Westside Resident Association was informed on July 8, 2019 via U.S. mail of the Zoning Commission hearing scheduled for July 16th, 2019. The hearing was for the NRP Group request in zoning change from MF-33 to IDZ 3.
In summary, we have requested that the NRP Group submit a revised site plan to meet the above listed points under IDZ-3 with conditions. We will meet again on Friday, August 2, 2019, at 4:00pm with the goal of receiving a revised site plan that adheres to the Guadalupe Westside Community Plan and reflective of the character of the neighborhood. We hope for an agreed upon revised site plan before City Council review on August 22, 2019.
Mayor Nirenberg, as you review the needs of the residents of the Westside neighborhoods, please remember your commitment to the Housing Policy Task Force as well as the protection of our historic San Antonio neighborhoods.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amelia Valdez
Chairperson of Historic Westside Resident Association
The Removing Code Related Barriers for Affordable Housing Committee (RBAH)
What it is: This task force will look at the recommendations made by the Mayor’s Housing Task Force and will will focus on minimum lot size, building setbacks, street construction standards, utilities, storm water management, parks and open space requirements, and tree preservation among other recommendations and ideas. One of the important recommendations is how to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs) less expensively and more easily to help homeowners meet the rising costs of taxes, utilities, etc. and to provide affordable housing to seniors, students, and others. Read: A recent study, “Opportunity at Risk: San Antonio’s Older Affordable Housing Stock,” prepared for the San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) by PlaceEconomics (2019) and
Note: Subcommittees have finished their recommendations and they will be reviewed by the entire task force on Friday, February 28th from 10 a.m. – noon. View the full recommendations here
