San Antonio Historic Review and Design Commission Meeting - September 17, 2025

The San Antonio Historic Review and Design Commission (HDRC) met on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, at 3:00 PM to consider certificates of appropriateness for signage and digital billboard proposals. The meeting included public comments, approval of minutes, and decisions on several agenda items, with a focus on the appropriateness of digital signs in historic districts.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes from September 3, 2025: Approved unanimously (11-0).
• Items 3 and 7: Approved as part of the consent calendar after items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 were pulled for discussion. The approved items were at 430 E Commerce and 103 West Magnolia; certificates of appropriateness will be prepared and emailed within 10 days.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Paris Simons (San Antonio Conservation Society): Spoke in opposition to items 4 (2025-225, 1.01 Louis Stream), 5 (106 South St. Mary's), and 6 (105 Auditorium Circle). Argued that the proposed digital signs are not aligned with architectural guidelines, violate Article 205 regarding removal provisions, and lack a permanent element for the pilot program's end. Also noted that the council's pilot program does not contain provisions for removal after the pilot ends.
• Kathleen Churchard: Opposed digital signage near historic centers. Cited a city survey where 70% of respondents were negative. Stated that a council member also opposes the proposal. Expressed concerns that digital signs conflict with efforts to attract residents downtown and with tree preservation. Called the proposal a "Trojan horse" for bypassing the UDC (Unified Development Code).
• Patricia Paches (voicemail): Strongly opposed digital signs, arguing they add more screens to public life, harm migratory birds, and contradict efforts to protect the natural corridor and promote art. Urged the commission to reject the project.
• Susan D. (voicemail, address 007 Riverson): Opposed items 4, 5, and 6, stating that replacing historic protected areas with digital signs would cause "miserable damage" to the downtown environment and residents. Asked the commission to vote against these items.

Discussion Items

Item 1: Alamo Plaza Sign (430 E Commerce)

• Commissioner Velázquez raised concerns about the sign's proportion and placement on the facade, noting it appeared too large and intruded into window areas. He suggested the sign should be aligned lower on the building.
• Staff clarified that the sign is 50 square feet, the maximum allowed by code, and that the design was reduced from larger proposals through previous subcommittee meetings. The logo is the business's marketing design.
• Commissioner Galloway supported approval as proposed, noting the commission is not to design but to review against guidelines. Commissioner Cervantes asked about alignment with the building's overhang; staff confirmed the sign is consistent with guidelines after revisions.
• Motion: To approve the item as presented with staff stipulations. Vote: 11-0 in favor. The motion passed.

Item 2: Aztec Theatre Rooftop Restaurant Sign

• Commissioner Velázquez expressed concern that the proposed sign's location, just inches from the historic Aztec theatre sign, creates a false dialogue and challenges the architectural jewel. He suggested moving it further away, centering it, or reducing its size so it does not appear as part of the original sign.
• Commissioner Fetzer agreed the sign should be lowered and centered between the awning and stone band, or made smaller to avoid connection with the Aztec sign.
• Commissioner Cervantes suggested moving it near the corner at a 45-degree angle to separate it from the main sign.
• Commissioner Galloway supported a lower placement centered on the second story windows.
• Motion: To approve with staff stipulations and additional requirements: move the sign lower and center it between the brick of the second floor, and reduce its size so it does not visually attach to the Aztec sign. Vote: 11-0 in favor. The motion passed.

Items 4, 5, and 6: Digital Signage Pilot Program Proposals

• All three items were pulled from consent for discussion. The applicants (Anna Behrman and architect) presented for item 4 (1.01 Louis Stream sign on Buena Vista Street). They chose the location for visibility from the highway while avoiding the Riverwalk. The sign would be mounted above the parapet with a steel frame. They are open to refinements, including a thinner frame and a rear mural for hotel guests. The company name on the sign is for contact purposes during weather events.
• Staff (Parish, from Engineering) explained the pilot program, approved by City Council in July 2025. The program allows up to three digital signs per district (eight districts total), with a maximum of 25% of facade area. These three applications are among the first. The commission's role is to recommend appropriateness; final permits will be issued later. The program does not require removal of signs after the pilot ends, but triggers under code could lead to removal. The digital media ordinance (Chapter 28) governs content and lighting; lumens limits are in place.
• Commissioners raised concerns about the scale, alignment, and impact on historic buildings. Commissioner Velázquez noted that the Auditorium Circle area is a sacred space with rich architecture, and the digital signs represent a cultural shift. He argued that even if the building is not historic, the context matters. Commissioner Grook questioned the program's distribution and whether signs could be concentrated in one district. Commissioner Cervantes supported referring to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for deeper discussion of appropriateness.
• Commissioner Fetzer noted that the sign on item 4 (Buena Vista) does not align with building elements and appears as an add-on. He moved to refer item 4 to DRC. The motion passed (11-0).
• For item 5 (106 South St. Mary's), similar concerns were raised about the rectilinear sign on a cubic building and its relationship to surrounding historic structures. Commissioner Fetzer moved to refer to DRC; the motion passed (11-0).
• For item 6 (105 Auditorium Circle), the sign is proposed on a non-contributing addition to a historic monument. Commissioner Velázquez emphasized the need for a thoughtful design that respects the site's sacred nature and does not just replicate Times Square. He supported DRC referral to explore artistic integration. Commissioner Sabino noted that the building is a historic monument, and the addition is non-contributing but still within the historic district. The motion to refer to DRC passed (11-0).

Key Outcomes

• Minutes approved (11-0).
• Items 3 and 7 approved on consent (11-0).
• Item 1 (Alamo Plaza sign) approved with staff stipulations (11-0).
• Item 2 (Aztec Theatre sign) approved with additional stipulations: move lower, center between second floor brick, reduce size to avoid visual connection with historic sign (11-0).
• Items 4, 5, and 6 (digital signage pilot program) each referred to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for further discussion on appropriateness, design, alignment with building elements, and impact on historic districts (all 11-0). The DRC will consider site plans, visibility, and potential artistic integration.

The meeting adjourned after all agenda items were addressed.