 Item number four is an ordinance adopting amendments to the center city housing incentive policy C chip and inner city reinvestment infill policy I crypt okay Lori I know we had a extended presentation yesterday so if you have an abbreviation and then we'll get right to citizen comment great item number four is consideration of proposed changes to the inner city reinvestment infill policy and the center city housing incentive policy the first policy I'll discuss is the inner city reinvestment infill policy and what we're proposing is that we change the name of this program from the inner city reinvestment infill policy to the city of San Antonio fee waiver program we will change it from a place-based strategy to a needs-based strategy and only allow projects that meet four categories to be eligible for fee waivers that would include affordable housing owner-occupied rehab historic rehabilitation business development and legacy businesses and as I mentioned on no longer be place-based it will really meet the needs of our community additional requirements are that no project that is going to be pursuing a short-term parental permit through a type 2 permit will not be eligible to receive these fee waivers the next policy I'll discuss is the center city housing incentive policy we are proposing a two-year extension this is an alignment with the essay tomorrow plan the mayor's housing task force it also prioritizes neighborhood preservation and there's a focus on affordability and density the proposed boundary we have a three-level system level one is the central business district which is the area in the yellow peach boundary level two is the area surrounding that central business district which is pink and then level three includes the 13 regional centers identified in the essay tomorrow plan as well as the transportation corridors that will be identified through the via 2040 plan what we've proposed is first for you to be able to be eligible for these incentives to the sea chip is that you must be within a boundary all projects will be subject to design review projects requiring rezoning from single family are not eligible and this is retroactive to 2016 and level one you must provide two or more housing units that meet the density requirements level two 10% of your units must be up to 80% or workforce housing and 10% must be at 60% AMI or below or you must be above five stories and level three 20% of your units must have 60% at 80m 60% AMI or below so that is an actual requirement the incentives you receive for a level one project is you receive a waiver of your city fees and a saws impact fee waiver of up to a million dollars you receive a 15 year tax rebate for 75% on the ad valorem taxes that the developer pays to the city we also have a cap for projects that are over $360,000 they will not be eligible for incentives through the as of right program this is the maximum allowable amount you can get through an FHA loan and then projects that are renting for more than 275 a square foot are also not eligible for this incentive and then finally in level one if you do incorporate affordability into your project you're eligible for an infrastructure grant of $10,000 per unit equal to about 10 up to $500,000 level two as a reminder you must have that workforce affordability component or be above five stories and if you meet one of those two requirements you receive a waiver of your city fees a saws impact fee waiver of up to a million dollars I'm sorry of up to $500,000 a 10 year tax rebate at 75% and then you're not eligible for the city fee waiver program and then level three 20% of your units must be at 60% a mile below and you would also be eligible for your city fees to be waived a saws impact fee waiver of $250,000 and then a 10 year tax rebate of 75% of your ad valorem taxes that concludes our presentation for today we went over this and in a lot of detail yesterday during the B session and I'm happy to address any questions thank you very much Lori and for the benefit of the folks here today the city council has a brief but time-certain event so what we're going to do is we are going to take all citizen comment we'll have the brief recess and then we'll come back for council deliberation so I'll begin I'll call names in order I'll call the next name on the list if you can prepare to come forward we'll start with Graciella Sanchez followed by Yaneth Flores I haven't started okay Buenos Dias almost a year ago the city placed the moratorium on sea chip city staff has spent meeting with some stakeholders mainly for-profit and non-profit developers however they fail to meet with community members who will be most affected by these policies and as Anna Sandoval guiding principle policies which were supposed to be voted on today but will be voted on next month are important and I hope that you consider putting forth those policies of public participation today and not wait until they get voted on next week that doesn't make sense the process has not been meaningful ensuring that public input is appropriately considered in the decision-making process it has not been transparent by communicating the decision-making process to the public including the role of the public in the process or providing to you or to us a record of the input received and the range of views and ideas expressed how many people were actually at these meetings strictly to discuss this policy we were only invited for the first time last week and thanks to you Anna one of my staff members came this process has not been respectful because if it were then we would have been part of this process a long time ago and even what we heard last week was this is what you're gonna get and people challenged that and it's like well too bad and we didn't see any changes process wasn't inclusive again I mentioned that nor accessible even the concepts this the technical the language is so technical and hard for many neighborhood association members to hear I mean one of them was there yesterday for the first time in the B session she didn't even know what she was doing there and she was afraid to come and speak today or yesterday and nothing was offered in Spanish and you had to come to the city staff and all the meetings were during this during the workday nothing after hours it wasn't informative enough it wasn't responsive and again not timely we're you know we've been asking for a delay and you're all keep on pushing it so timeliness is really problematic public input is fair because it allows for participation by those who will be most affected but public participation will also improve the quality of public policy but because it allows for the full participation of an examination and debate of our policies I think you're not is going to give me her time in absence of full public participation and full examination of this policy there is no evidence that it will be successful San Antonio continues to have huge economic disparities and this policy will aggravate rather than solve these disparities the city is committing millions and already has committed a hundred million dollars to encourage development that will clearly have the effect of displacing poor people and bringing the more affluent into the downtown area and the justification for this strategy is that it is untested and has dubious merit this is based on a grand strategy that subsidizing the affluent will trickle down to create jobs for long term long time San Antonio residents but that there is no evidence that it will work on behalf of low-income residents in San Antonio in the downtown area and on behalf of the newly formed me bar you know seven the coalition we have requested and not received answers to the following what analysis has the city done thus far to determine if sea chip was or maybe an impediment to fair housing Councilman Saldana is concerned about $360,000 home is still not affordable to most folks in San Antonio and my staff and so many millennials cannot afford $1,375 a month for a 500 square foot efficiency what analysis the city done thus far to determine if sea chip has had any discriminatory impact on residents of San Antonio what studies have been conducted to measure the impact of sea chip on current residents how have CCDO or other city agencies involve current residents in the development of the revised sea chip program and there are more and more and more what are the city's plans to mitigate the effects of displacement of low-income residents and provide funding for relocation of residents who can no longer afford to live in the sea chip geographic area these are the questions that are responsible examination of this proposed policy must ask and they are the questions that must be answered before the people's monies continue to be spent please delay today's vote answer the questions we and many others have asked in the last week or so I believe most of you have not met with many if any community residents or organizations regarding this policies again it's so rushed I know I haven't met with any of you I also know that at least two members of the mayor's housing task force are not happy with the current sea chip policies being proposed stop the vote bring us into a fully engaged community process and remember as we celebrate the 50 years of the civil rights hearings at OLLU many of us have continued to fight for civil and human rights since the 1968 hearings I was only eight but at least for the last 40 years I have been very engaged on that and I and this sea chip policy challenges the civil rights of our current residents of San Antonio do not create policies that continue to not only economically segregate us but racially and ethnically push the Mexican American and black communities and poor working white people out of the inner city which is gracias thank you miss Sanchez Cynthia Spiegelman followed by Mark Spiegelman Mr. Spiegelman that's he's gonna see my time if I need it yes okay good morning my name is Cynthia Spiegelman and I am here just to represent myself this morning not any association or organization which probably gives you a clue to what I'm about to say we have a moment in the city that could have the vision the leadership the courage the imagination and expertise to create a housing policy that would solve the affordable housing shortage and create a vibrant and livable downtown what happened instead through the sea chip recommendations we find ourselves playing a part in the kind of politics that's been happening all throughout the history of the poor and people of color in this city you're creating wealth on the backs of our most vulnerable residents the 68% of affordable housing that exists downtown will no longer be here in five years the neighborhoods on the west side the neighborhoods from where my family is from will no longer house people that live here now in 10 years because of indirect displacement which make no mistake is as pernicious as direct displacement we know this because it's happening in our downtown neighborhoods making the problem of economic segregation even worse incentivizing is the new redlining first you keep them out and then you push them out progress San Antonio style let me remind you that housing is first and foremost a civil rights issue you're creating policy that makes the poor pay for their own displacement and the argument recently that addressing affordable housing on highly valued land is costly and efficient is the kind of economic argument that city officials have always used to justify their actions against their at risk citizens you're making the burden on the poor even heavier and where will they go the problem with the study that you've commissioned to appease the public is that instead of an assessment of how to prevent displacement it will be a documentation of yet another instance of displacing the poor because it's in the city's best interests and for what what are those interests it's been claimed in meetings and presentation that it's to house all the new employees coming to USA and the faculty and students of the expanded UTSA campus or it's for the new college graduates downtown housing in the form of condos will be priced at three hundred and sixty thousand dollars rentals at 275 a square foot a thousand foot apartment two bedrooms will rent for two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars a month or an 800 square foot one bedroom for two thousand two hundred what mid-level employee of USA of which I think are the majority could afford that I have two children with PhDs who are college professors who couldn't afford these prices and do you honestly think college graduates with their burden of student debt could afford to live downtown never mind the teachers city staff nurses artists chefs architects and other working people that make our neighborhoods so vibrant and that you claim to want to make a vibrant downtown for so who is this for this is incentives for housing for the wealthy at the expense of the poor using our public dollars to benefit for-profit developers this is not a good way to create a vibrant downtown or a downtown that most of us envision and we deserve better from you and those workers that you claim to be building for they will be headed to the downtown neighborhoods if they're still affordable or out to the suburbs because they won't have a choice and instead of easing the pressure of our inner city neighborhoods and controlling sprawl your exasperate the problems and frankly I'm shocked when we were told yesterday that this policy is the product of confidential months of confidential-speaking with developers we have yet to have a full public hearing on this I keep hearing this is a city by design I just didn't know it was the for-profit developers who'd be doing the designing instead of good public policy that would benefit us all thank you thank you miss fieldman cullen jones mr. Jones will be followed by dr. Christine drennan excuse me and with that mayor kosima colvin seats time if I need be cosmo okay thank you go ahead mr. okay with that cullen jones district to mayor council the city of san antonio and its incentive program specifically the city excuse me the center city housing incentive policy or c-chip and the office of the assistant city manager have done a commendable job of incorporating citizens concerns about neighborhood instability and resident displacement within a framework of an incentive program for market rate housing the c-chip policy does everything it can to protect residents from direct displacement and pledges to work with the housing and neighborhood services department on policies that mitigate the effect of displacing residents however the policy does not prevent far more destructive indirect displacement the policy does not address larger concerns people in this city have about a collective vision of housing adopting a policy lacking of meaningful public process to determine overall housing incentive policy for everyone in san antonio jeopardizes future decisions essentially a broken policy becomes the policy citizens concerns regarding indirect displacement incentivize development causes adjacent property values to rise and increase property taxes renters in particular become vulnerable as rents rise the cost burden forces homeowners to move in short vulnerable residents financed their own displacement incentivizing policies like this version of c-chip makes the burden even harrier for those at risk this is a broken policy some in our community's question that question the need for incentivizing market rate housing they argue that san antonio should subsidize genuinely needed housing affordable to more san antonians not market rate housing do we create a policy to produce a livable affordable downtown or do we incentivize a wealthy elite downtown many residents excuse me many residents criticize the city of san antonio's outreach methods as compulsory superficial and more of presentations than actual communications the meetings initiated with varying stakeholders on this particular issue focused on adopting c-chip not seeking input neighbors charge these meetings as presentations not conversations to create change continuing the call for transparent and inclusive policy and decision decision-making by the city the san antonio new Bronfels average median income this leads and illustrates the broken model the city of san antonio's am i is 85 percent of the regional am i affordable housing intended for those making below the median household income calculated using regional metropolitan statistical area figures where the msa is actually market rate within the city of san antonio if we must use msa figures in the policy 60 percent is the upper limit to produce true affordable affordability to have a reflective policy our request postponed the current c-chip until a completed vulnerability assessment is produced as per the recommendation of the housing policy framework produced by the mayor's housing policy task force and the national association for latino community asset builders vulnerability study in conjunction with the neighborhood and housing services department completes their recommendations on displacement of san antonio's residents let's create a better policy tier one neighborhood coalition steering committee kosama colvin christine drennan tony garcia butch haze cullen jones ricky kushner velma panya synthia spillman and therese ebonyas thank you thank you mr. jones christine drennan dr drennan be followed by warren wilkinson thank you new york city chicago san francisco seattle portland boston new orleans washington dc austin texas all until the last 20 years he had functional inner cities that house the working middle and upper classes i was a graduate student raising two little kids by myself living in an east side inner city neighborhood in austin texas those two kids grew up to be really interesting adults because they lived in an east side inner city mixed up neighborhood in austin texas now as a professor with grown kids out of the house i could not afford to live in that east side neighborhood downtown's in inner city neighborhoods across our country have turned into playgrounds for the wealthy they're not neighborhoods and is this what we want there's nothing natural about the situation we find ourselves in the situation we have of a deteriorated downtown and inner city neighborhoods that lack investment we created that with years of incentive policy that directed investment to the edges of the city rather than downtown and then as soon as this economies began to appear in the form of sprawl transportation costs environmental impact we realized that that incentive structure had come to an end and we needed a new one thus the decade of downtown there is and was nothing natural about that because there is and was nothing natural about it that we created it then we can guide it and regulate it rather than leaving it up to some mysterious market force so what do we want and finally this ruse about the am i figures we all know there's a significant difference if we compare msa and city median income figures the median household income of the city 75% of that of the msa which means that 84 80% affordability cutoff is actually higher than the median income level of our families we all also know that we must use HUD guidelines when calculating affordability structures so let's be honest and use the 60% rather than the 80% let's set aside 30% of units in these new developments for households making less than 60% of hot AMI which is our workforce is it a bad thing that some of our lowest income families live on our very valuable land if you use the highest and best use model it is but we're a city not an accounting firm so we should say more power to them we know why they're there because past policy put them there and now present policy wants that land back but unfortunately it's occupied so too bad thank you dr. Drennan Warren Wilkinson followed by Richard Pettis council members manager skelly Warren Wilkinson executive director of Centro San Antonio on behalf of our board of directors represent residents businesses tourism property owners not only downtown but throughout the city I ask that you approve and support the updates to the C chip and the I quit programs these programs encourage development they address affordable housing provide consistent and predictable policies regarding available incentives they promote historic rehabilitation with appropriate oversight they help with development of legacy businesses housing density small businesses and they provide for a two-year reevaluation the previous programs were success these changes enhance and clarify the program attributes I hope you support these policies thank you thank you mr. Wilkinson Richard Pettis followed by Brad McMurray good morning mayor members of the city council my name is Richard Pettis I'm the president CEO of the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce for 124 years the chamber has been an advocate for all of our members in the business community in building and sustaining a diverse and prosperous economy in my tenure we've had the opportunity to engage in various strategic plans of the city on behalf of our 2100 different members today we join in support of the changes to the city of San Antonio feed waiver program and the center city housing incentive policy the chamber believes that responsible economic development is vital to the future growth of our community and well-being of all its citizens the chamber has been active in the affordable housing working group of the mayor's task force on housing and is eager to see some of those recommendations included in the fee waiver programs we have also been involved in the downtown planning group of essay tomorrow focused on development across the entire city the proposed changes you're voting on today ensure that these master plans are connected taking into account the work of many citizens and experienced professionals from across the community involved in these projects on behalf of all of our members we ask that you vote in support of the proposed changes in front of you today thank you thank you mr. Pettis Brad McMurray followed by Kristen Davila my name is Brad McMurray and I'm the vice president of property development for prosperity housing community services we're a local non-profit housing provider we're a 501 c3 and we were celebrating fortunately our 25th year in San Antonio we have our own or administer over 5,000 units throughout central and south Texas and we have a significant presence here in San Antonio we have 16 multifamily developments with over 2200 units so I would say that we have a definite interest in San Antonio I'm here to speak in favor of the fee waiver program the revised fee waiver program and the revised C chip program these programs are not perfect but they're very very good I mean from my selfish perspective my passion is affordable housing and I've heard a lot of passion from the previous speakers and if you ask me I'd want to make it all about affordable housing but I understand that there is economic development that's necessary for a vital city now I haven't put the 10,000 plus hours in economic development that I have an affordable housing and so I can't really speak on that I have an opinion but it's not really a qualified opinion but I do have a qualified opinion when we regard to affordable housing and I want to say that in the past as an affordable housing developer I've been I work here at Prospera but I've had previous careers at the San Antonio Housing Authority Texas Department of Housing Community Affairs working in East Austin developing and revitalizing housing that led to that economic growth so I've got a lot of different perspectives that that helped in my opinion and I just want to applaud the fact that Lori Houston and John Jax and Veronica Garcia and the rest of the Center City Development Office staff really reached out and asked for the non-profit affordable housing dividers opinions we got to involve in this process that's not always the case so I hear what others are saying but in this particular instance I would say that they really gave us a seat at the table I have to my I'm very empathetic of the fact that somebody who has a passion for affordable housing comes in and hears all these acronyms and all these complex things and really can't prove doesn't understand it well after 20 years I'm still working on trying to understand it but the fact of the matter is it's a very complex process and one of the things that I want to applaud about the fee waiver program is that it does focus on affordable housing that's a change it's got dedicated funding for both the saws and the city fee waiver programs which is an excellent thing and as well as created a cap on that funding for the saws fee waivers so that multiple projects can participate now one of the things it does to is it uses the HUD income limits now I echo dr. Drennan's perspective we do have a difference the 60% is probably a better way but I don't know that it's economically viable for this other economic development at the 60% that's why I think the two year period to give it a chance and analyze it is an excellent way to do it I also applaud the seat ship for eliminating the luxury housing I know through thank you mr. McCurry I just like you all to support this thank you Kristen Davila followed by Jack finger good morning mr. Mayor counsel my name is Kristen Davila and I'm the vice president and treasurer of Merced Housing Texas Merced is a nonprofit affordable housing provider here in San Antonio our primary business is to develop affordable housing we also run an owner occupied repair program where we've repaired over 630 homes in the city we own five multifamily communities in the city I'm here today with my peers from other nonprofit affordable housing organizations to support this ordinance to adopt and the proposed amendment to the center city housing incentive program I want to thank the city of San Antonio staff and in particular Ms. Houston mr. Jackson Veronica Garcia for involving us in the process of reviewing this this ordinance and this policy they met with each one of us individually and genuinely heard what we had to say and incorporated our feedback and in particular they incorporated our feedback and our recommendation related to using the HUD defined income limits for program eligibility so I wanted to say that we Merced have been happy to be a part of this process and continue to be happy to participate in the future thank you very much thank you Ms. Davila Jack finger Michael Taylor good morning mayor and counsel Michael Taylor have debt for humanity last night at the public hearing I spoke about how the city permit fee waivers and the impact fee waivers that we receive through the fee waiver program are really essential to habitats budget for new houses I talked about how the fee waiver program is contributing significantly to habitats building of new homes excuse me they're affordable sorry they're affordable for low and very low income families and how the changes that are proposed will help us build even more homes I mentioned that CCDO staff were very responsive to the feedback from the nonprofits and I wanted to provide an example the original policy was based on a yet to be produced locally derived income limit standard instead of the HUD standard which our nonprofits pretty much live and die by we explained how difficult and expensive it would be for the city to develop its own income limits that are adjusted for family size and corrected based on market rents which is what HUD does and I also explained we also explained how difficult and expensive it would be for the nonprofits to comply with two different standards CCDO heard our concerns and they changed the policy and the income limits to be reflective of the HUD income limits we are supportive of the policy and we ask that you approve it today so that we don't have to delay construction of 22 no 22 new homes for low and very low income families that we're starting in January thank you so much and again I would ask for your support thank you mr. Taylor bill shown thank you mayor city council persons I spoke last night and shared some opinions and one thing that wasn't able to expand upon because of time limitations and that is I understand the changes being made in the proposed C chip program today understand the reason for them support them but I want to share with you an opinion that they may this is coming from being in the development world today and seeing land prices climb seeing construction cost climb a concern that there may be a chilling effect and the program may be somewhat ineffective in spurring additional housing in the downtown area and I just want to share an opinion that if that happens I hope I know we've talked about a two-year review I'm hoping that if that occurs that there may be an opportunity to look at it perhaps annually simply an encouragement strongly encourage you to vote in support of this of the C chip program today and look forward to seeing what kind of impact it might have thank you mr. Shone that's everyone who signed up to speak at this time the city council will recess and will reconvene for council comment and action at approximately 1245