Commission for Wednesday, September 17, 2025.

May have a roll call, please.

Ma'am.

Present.

Savino.

Here.

Velazquez.

Here.

Galloway.

Here.

Mazuka.

Here.

Givada.

Here.

Group.

Here.

Cervantes.

Here.

Holland.

Here.

Fetzer.

Here.

And Gibbs.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May you have translation services, please.

Buenas tardes.

Good afternoon.

See alguna persona necessita interpretación inspanol.

Favor de pasar a la cabina para que se le entregue su equipo.

Gracias.

Thank you.

The historic and design review commission is an advisory board appointed by the city council.

I am J.

Maurice Gibbs, Chairman, and the Vice Chair is Jeffrey Fetzer.

It is the function of the Commission to advise the city manager in all relevant city departments concerning all applications for permits for properties in historic districts for landmarks on city property in the river improvement overlay and for diminished demolitions.

And considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for certificate of appropriateness, the commission shall be guided by the city's unified development code and design guidelines and standards that have been adopted by City Council.

An appeal of a decision by administrative official can be filed in accordance with the city's unified development code.

If anyone present wishes to speak in favor or in opposition to any item on today's agenda, please sign up on a public comment sheet.

It is not necessary to sign up if you are the owner of or representative for a project on the agenda.

You will be called on as the case is called.

Case representatives will be given no more than 15 minutes to present their case with an additional two minutes to respond to public comments.

Speakers for or opposed to a case will be limited to two minutes each.

Speakers may also sign up to yield their two minutes to another speaker who has signed up.

Anyone who is yielding their time must be present at the time the speaker is called upon.

Speakers will be called upon in the order in which they are signed up.

Following public testimony, any commissioner may call upon any speaker to respond to further questions.

Approval by the commission does not take the place of any type of permit.

Certificates of appropriateness for work approved by the commission will be emailed to you within 10 days.

No work of any type is to be started without obtaining the appropriate city permits after a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the Office of Historic Preservation.

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for being here.

Um first item is just approval of meeting minutes from September 3rd.

Mr.

Chairman, I move for approval of the meeting minutes for September 3rd, 2025.

Second.

Any further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givara?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Um, we have a fully consent agenda.

I understand that some items will be pulled.

Um, so we will go in order of um sign up and voicemails.

I actually have two speakers that would like to uh speak on items four through six um here at the beginning.

So we'll do them first.

They're in person.

Um, the first is Patty Zionce on good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Patty Zion.

I represent the Conservation Society of San Antonio, and I will be speaking on three items.

Uh nine number four, one on one Bowie Street.

I will take that one first.

It's case number 2025 225.

The Conservation Society of San Antonio opposes the 1,200 square foot billboard proposed for 101 Bowie Street.

The digital billboard rises significantly above the existing parapet of the building, fails to align with existing architectural elements.

The billboard also appears to be visible from the highway, but the application did not uh indicate text.

approval on item number five, 506 South St.

Mary's 2025 230 item.

The Conservation Society of San Antonio opposes the billboard proposed for 106 South St.

Mary's.

It awkwardly adds a curved element to a cubic building failing to consider the existing architecture.

And regarding item number six, 105 auditorium circle, HDRC case 2025-229.

The society opposes the massive 1,250 square foot billboard proposed for 105 auditorium circle.

The huge digital billboard pointed toward Travis Park detracts from the downtown streetscape.

All three of these digital billboards violate the sign code chapter 28 of the UDC, which requires removal of four billboards for their creation of each new digital billboard.

Moreover, it violates the City Council approved digital media and arts pilot program, and it does not contain a permanent art element as required by the pilot program.

There is also no provision for removal of these installations at the end of the pilot program.

Respectfully submitted, Lewis Vetter, President of the Conservation Society of San Antonio.

Thank you very much for your time.

The next is Kathleen Trinchard.

I like the release of Trenchard.

Did I do it right?

Say full say.

Good afternoon, Commissioners and staff.

I am opposed to the idea of digital billboards placed or projected anywhere in or near our historic downtown.

A survey was already conducted online by the City of San Antonio to gauge support for this proposal.

Over 70% of the respondents were negative.

The city's efforts to attract more residents into downtown is bearing fruit.

With more offices being transformed into apartment complexes, billboards will not compliment complement this accomplishment.

What we need is more trees and discrete attractive lighting downtown.

Billboards would conflict with that effort as well.

Perhaps this proposal is actually a Trojan horse to bypass the UDC, as happened already with the digital kiosks advertising beer and cell phones on our sidewalks and our park paths.

Why is San Antonio the only Texas city where this is being pushed?

Perhaps other billboard industries are waiting for the chance to compete with this company without dealing with the UDC.

Commissioners all now play uh voicemails.

Corey is at all for in person.

That's all of our in-berson, yes.

So the next two voicemails are in regards to items four through six as well.

Patricia Cratchett, 733 East Woodlawn Avenue.

I'm calling to recommend strongly that you disapprove digital billboards, items four, five, and six.

Wait, what?

The first time I heard about this proposal to put digital billboards in our city, I thought I heard wrong.

Why would we litter our beautiful historic city with digital advertising?

Trashy and for that matter, an unsafe driving distraction.

These are nothing more than more screens in our lives.

Don't we have enough?

Whether we're local or visitors, I'm appalled and don't know how this advertising medium is going to help the arts and art it.

These signs are also a threat to migratory bird.

Can you imagine seeing birds fly into these signs and then dropping to the earth?

We were designated Bird City, Texas in 2021 by Texas Parks and Audubon, Texas, recognizing that we're on the central flyway, which is a major migratory corridor, a crucial stopover for many bird species.

These billboards contribute to sky glow, the general brightening of the night sky over city, which can lure birds off their migratory paths and toward urban areas.

What have our city planners done to protect millions of birds that travel through our city from this dangerous visual disorientation?

And did you know that many naturalists and bird watchers visit San Antonio because it's a great place to observe birds on their migratory paths?

This whole proposal is just wrong.

A big selling point has been promotion of the art.

In fact, arts will occupy a small part of the overall area of these signs and will flash information sporadically.

Is the driver supposed to look away from the road to try to take down information about a current art exhibition?

Is this how San Antonio wants to promote the art?

Again, I'm just misdefied in wholly disagree with this project.

Please disapprove it.

Thank you for listening and for your service to our city.

So that concludes good afternoon.

My name is Susan, and I live at 607 River Road.

I'm calling about items four, five, and six, and I'm urging you to vote against those items, which would place enormous digital billboards within the historically protected area of Rio 3 and the Auditorium Circle Historic District.

Given the placement of these items on the consent agenda, it appears that the approval is a done deal.

However, as an expert advisory body charged with weighing in on the protection of Rio 3, I urge you to make your professional voices heard, even if the end result is foreordained.

Rio 3 calls for respecting quote traditional formal street level design precedents.

There's no precedent downtown for the scale or garrishness of this commercial advertising.

Tourists and locals visit downtown San Antonio for its history and beauty, and these signs will do immeasurable damage to the fabric of downtown, the peaceful enjoyment of its residents and hotel guests, the television and film industry, which relies on its historic fabric, as well as the natural environment and migratory birds.

If our citizen expert representatives don't stand up for our preservation values, we will lose what makes San Antonio unique and become simply a second-rate Sunbelt City.

Again, please vote against items four, five, and six.

Thank you.

So that concludes our public comments for the agenda.

Thank you.

Do any commissioners wish to pull any items from the consent agenda?

Yes, sir, Mr.

Chairman.

I wish to pull four, five, and six.

Four, five, and six.

Any others?

Yes, sir.

I'd like to pull one and two.

One and two, four, five, and six.

Any others?

May I have a motion on a balance of the consent agenda, please?

Yes, I'd like to move for approval of the balance, which I believe is three and seven with staff stipulations.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and properly seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Mahmin.

Aye.

Savina?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland?

Hi.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 430 East Commerce or 103 West Magnolia, your case has been approved and you do not need to stay for the remainder of this hearing.

If you have any questions, please contact your case manager or a member of staff.

Your certificate of appropriateness or commission action letter will be prepared and emailed to you within 10 days.

Commissioners, first up is item number one, 123 Alamo Plaza.

Uh the applicant, Greg Burkett is here in person.

And I'll go ahead and pull that up on the screen.

Uh either Greg or uh staff can field questions.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

The the reason why I asked to pull more to um ask uh for a motion from the commission to have uh uh dialogue.

I forget what the language for that what we had said.

So you pretty much just want to move move to um have a dialogue discussion concerning items one and two?

Yes, sir.

Okay, go ahead and make the motion, sir.

Go ahead and make the motion a motion to engage the commission in dialogue uh considering items one and two.

Go ahead, sir.

Mr.

Chair and members of the commission.

Um I'm sorry, we do um I was jumping again.

Let's have a um vote, please, and then we can go into the discussion.

Um call, please.

Ma'aman.

I Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

I.

Givada.

I Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Sorry, good, sir.

Uh, if I can ask Edward, please um zoom in on the uh the sign, leaving some space on either side.

The the the height will take care of itself.

I I want to ask the commission uh it it seems to me that that with respect to the proportions and the respect of the building, that there's an area of the facade that presents itself as the appropriate place for sign.

This sign, it steps into the area of detail of the window and it uses the band above the window, the the the uh trim of the window, as almost saying that it's an appropriate place for the sign.

Which to me it it it appears that the sign is is too big.

It's not the sign isn't uh appropriate or that or that a sign shouldn't be there, but it it would appear to me that that the T and the S should come down below the first dashed line, that is the the lower line, and that at the very least a haunted experience like no other should be raised to a level that doesn't exceed half of that window line, so that it's protruding into the space, but it's not claiming that that area is a space that is intended for signage, so that they can still get the extra spaces they want, but for it to be used completely as a sign freeze and for the to find itself on top of that detailed portion that separates the the two center windows, it seems that it's just too um it's asking for too much of the facade.

I know that that probably shrinks the sign a significant amount.

It it's my opinion.

Um I'm not uh um uh you know, I respect that staff has it on the consent and that that the commission uh may not have the same uh uh outlook on on what I'm uh asking.

But I I I'd like to see if the commission if this is something that that may have passed us by, or I'm just uh being too too rigid this one to the previous DRC.

If any of the commissioners present at that DRC want to report out on on that meeting, I did attend a couple of DRCs on this particular project, and uh we talked extensively about that uh perceived sign band on the building and working with the architecture of the building.

Uh this is the um smallest of their proposals, others were larger, uh extending much further below and above the sign band.

Um and we encourage them to uh reduce it as much as possible.

I think this is 50 square feet, which I think the code allows, and I think they're just going to the maximum square footage commissioner group.

I just have a question for the applicant.

Is this um I'm assuming this is also the logo and the marketing um of their business?

The uh applicant's on the way to the podium now, just one second.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioners Gregory Kitt with Apex Sign Group representing the uh client of this particular uh venue uh for Alamo Plaza.

Yes, that is their logo that they hired a marketing firm to develop and they went through multiple iterations to come to that final design, and that is their logo.

Okay, uh thank you for clarifying and um just since we're in discussion, I'm gonna support the uh item as proposed with statisticulations also because um our preview is not to design.

Uh it it's within the guidelines of the 50 square feet, and we have and I appreciate the uh commissioners that attended the DRC to to make sure that we're no we're keeping within the the size limits.

Um not you know, I mean every business has their logos, and I think that's they have the right for the logo.

So and I think the you know the placement goes with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cervantes.

Yes, my question is for staff.

Staff, do the guidelines mention anything about the sign crossing into the lines of the overhang the way it does, where it kind of impedes the overhang and takes away from it.

And I guess what I'm getting at is it would seem to make sense that it would should be a little bit, you know, either shift it up a little bit or squeeze down a little bit so that it doesn't impede the design element of the windows and the the overhang there.

What are the guidelines say about that?

The guidelines say not to obscure unique architectural features.

Um I can give a little bit of background on this building and signage.

Uh so five or six years ago um there was signage that uh the commission stipulated fit within a certain sign band um on this facade.

When staff received the initial application, or I guess it was actually prior to the application, the applicant reached out, said, Hey, I've submitted signage here before, and there was discussion at the commission.

I'd like to speak with staff.

Uh at that point, uh there were three options that were proposed.

Staff found two of them to be inconsistent with the guidelines, uh, one of them to potentially be consistent.

Uh so uh staff scheduled this for two subcommittee reviews where what we're seeing on the screen now is essentially the uh recommendation from the subcommittee after the second meeting to uh raise the bottom of the sign to where it aligned with the top of the windows uh of the transom within the opening, uh, and then the top of the sign to be placed where it is there.

Um at 50 square feet in the lighting that's proposed.

Technically, this is consistent with the UDC and the guidelines as a reface.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I noticed that the sign is there now from the previous uh uh or the one that appears on Google Earth does not bleed off into the into the uh opening there.

Um okay, well, thank you for answering my question.

I I think it kind of impedes on the um the aesthetic, but that's that's just my opinion.

All right, thank you.

I forget Robert.

Thank you.

Is there further discussion?

Well, Mr.

Shar, I just want to make very clear that that uh my uh uh uh initiation of discussion has nothing to do with the logo, has nothing to do with the design of the logo.

It's it's just as a standard, it shouldn't line up.

It it should be introducing itself into the space, it shouldn't take over the space.

And when it comes to the top of it, I could see the S and the T intruding, but uh not overtaking.

And it and it does overtake the lines, but if it's the will of the commission, uh uh support the the commission's decision.

Um I just want to make my position very clear.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Cervantes, you're oh, you took it down, thank you.

Um if there's no more discussion, may I have a motion, please?

Can I just ask one more question?

Absolutely go ahead.

So currently it's that Viva SATX sign.

Um I guess the opticum can answer that question.

And there's like these color, it's on the application, like all these color squares that are actually covering a lot of the building, correct?

Correct.

The uh area that uh commissioner uh Vasquez is missing uh mentioning that area is covered by neon graphic uh accent sign channel type letters currently, and the app the tenant, the owner is gonna remove all of those.

So it is a dramatic reduction and cleaning up of the storefront facade from what it currently is to what this uh new sign will look like.

And that's also my question.

You're not gonna replace those neon squares with anything else, they will be gone.

They will be removed and they will not be, they will never be seen down on Animal Plaza again.

Okay, Mr.

Chelgger, motion if no one else has any.

Well, well, let me just let me just I I want to just make clear look the the logo and all that's beautiful.

Uh it's not a criticism on the logo.

Uh I don't think that reducing it will affect anything that you're doing.

In fact, I just want to make sure that from my standpoint, it enhances the building, it enhances the sign.

And because there's the the the obvious size of the sign is because that's as much as it could get, but that's not the spirit of good design.

The spirit of good design is gonna be looking at that building and making it fit, making it uh appropriate, and that's saying that the most important thing here is is not the building and it's not the sign.

I mean, it's not the business, and it's not the sign, it's the building.

Otherwise, that's typical uh development services.

But once it comes to us, our role is to be sensitive to the building, which is a little hard for most people to understand because well, as the building wouldn't be doing anything if the business wasn't there, right?

But it just seems that you're missing an opportunity, and I just want to voice it opportunity because if there's anyone that says, hey, you know, that is a better opportunity, then um design prevails.

Otherwise, uh, like I said, I'm uh I'll I'll uh uh be with the will of the commission.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Um Commissioner Group, are ready for your motion, ma'am.

Motion to approve as presented second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Any final discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Ivina?

Aye.

Velasquez?

I Galloway.

Mazuka.

Ivara.

I Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

I.

And Gibbs.

I motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Item number two, please.

Yes, mr.

Mr.

Chair, same um as for the motion, just to uh gauge a commission into um dialogue.

I I would submit to the commission that the location of this of this one aspect of this uh I guess the semester plan, signage master plan, is the rooftop restaurant uh sign location.

Um from my perspective, the Aztecs sign has entered into the realm of particular design element of this building.

So it it it's it's not just a uh a marquee anymore.

It becomes like the majestic or becomes like the Texas.

Now it's a thing in itself.

This sign that is proposed sets itself not not less than six inches, not more than six inches from the existing circle of the bottom of the Aztec, if I'm reading this properly.

To me, it it it tries to fake itself as an abstract portion of something that might have been there and and now it's coming back in a way that doesn't mimic it.

It creates all kinds of different to me false uh uh dialogues of of its purpose and it's uh through its positioning.

Um it it to me it it needs to be much more uh apart from this.

It needs to respect the marquee so that that people can experience this this architectural gem with the with the sign as uh as a as a piece of the building, uh much like many of the famous theaters or famous buildings in America, that this sign is inappropriate.

I understand the opportunity that exists to be anyone that could put their logo right underneath the underneath the Aztec sign and and to to mimic the idea that I I was here and I've always been here.

But to me it creates a false presence, it presents a greater challenge to the to the location of that sign.

I I don't I don't necessarily think that that's uh um a bad thing.

It it's it's it's just not an easy thing, particularly if you you know I think nine if you ask nine times n nine people out of ten people, if you could have your name anywhere you could have it, where would you have it?

They'd probably paint somewhere over there by the underneath the marquee.

It it's it's not appropriate.

Um, but again, if if it's the will of the commission to think that it is, well, uh I'd be supporting it as well.

At this point, I'm I'm I don't see that it's sensible.

Pass it to the commissioners for uh their opinions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Well, I actually agree with Commissioner Velasquez.

He has a point.

Um, is the applicant in the room?

Uh the applicant is there is an applicant or an individual representative from the company that is on virtually uh Miss Rhonda Wallace.

So just uh to kind of uh follow that, would you be willing to separate it from the Aztec sign and maybe make the circle smaller just to really differentiate maybe I would lower it and make it smaller?

We could do that.

So how far apart from the Aztecs line would you guys want to see it?

Well, and I think it should be if if it were actually go back to the other picture, Edward.

I mean, it could be the one that you were before.

I don't know if I'm delayed.

But uh when you look at the building, I understand why you want it right there, because you do want signage there since it's the rooftop, not the hotel, right?

I get that.

So if you look at it from the lower window and maybe center it around that like that piece of red brick that's between the fringe, like right with the asterisk.

I mean, I I do agree.

I don't think there's a set uh amount of inches or feet, but maybe centering it, you can center it to that part of the building, so it's a separate red enough so that it doesn't seem like it's part of that original aspects sign, and then maybe reducing it in size uh so that it doesn't look like again you're trying to make it part of that Aztec sign, and I'll be willing to hear from other commissioners.

But I agree if the applicant's willing to do that, I would put that in the motion.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Fetcher.

Yes, I would agree with uh my previous commissioners that the sign this new uh rooftop restaurant uh sign is uh inappropriately trying to connect itself to the Aztec um element, and I think lowering it uh possibly centering it between the canopy and that cast stone band along the red brick, like Commissioner Groob mentioned, and definitely making it smaller um than trying again trying to match the Aztec sign.

I think that'd be much more appropriate.

Thank you, Commissioner Cervantes.

Yeah, just to just add to my fellow commissioners here.

Another idea perhaps would be bringing it closer to the corner and making it like a clamshell, kind of where it still faces down the street, but it's not part of the uh uh of the main sign, but it's kind of opened up at a what do you call it a 45 degree angle where it's kind of clamshelled and then you know clam shelled with the mouth facing the corner of the building, and then you you know kind of sets itself apart, but it's still there, and then and that might even allow you to keep it at that size if you do something, but that might be a little too dramatic.

I don't know, but you know, just an idea to throw out there.

Thank you, sir.

Um I just I agree with Commissioner Groob that uh it should be lower in about that level that is centered on that second floor course of windows.

Thank you, Commissioner Masuka.

I I also think it could be the same size, the current size.

Thank you, sir.

Any further discussion?

May I have a motion, please?

I'll do a motion, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, ma'am.

Um we're not the designers, I'm gonna let the designers finish the work.

So we're gonna do a move to approve uh with staff stipulations and add a stipulation that the um southwest corner sign be lowered, centered in the brick centered the brick uh for the second story, and then reducing the size just enough to not make it look like part of the uh Aztec sign.

Second, spin move them properly second for the discussion.

And that's really just leaving it open to the designers.

It's not about they don't have to reduce it a lot, it's just making it you know, just not mimicking, and it can be something that is visually is reduced enough to doesn't make it look like it's part of the Aztec sign.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Thank you.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye, Savino.

Aye, Velasquez, aye, Galloway.

Mazuka.

Ivada.

Hi.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Wallace.

You can email that update directly to me.

Okay, thank you, guys.

Item number four, please.

Commissioners, I will pull up the uh case file that was posted with the agenda, but we also have uh revised documents for items four, five, and six, and so those may be more uh pertinent to the applicant's presentations.

Um so Nick, I just made you a panelist um and we will pull up your updated drawings now.

Okay, great.

And then also we have two other orange royalty members on.

You have Anna Behrman, who is the senior one of our senior directors of development, and then you know Sidicki, who is our director of architecture.

I want to see if they could have speaking availability as well.

Yes, I got them.

Awesome.

Thanks, Ed.

Thank you.

Yes, um I've pulled all of the digital signs today for further discussion, and uh generally having to do with how the sign relates to the existing structure.

Um in terms of the 101 Bowie Street.

Um basically cantilevered vertically above the parapet, uh, does not relate other than the bottom of the sign relating to a belt course on the parapet, there's no other relation to the existing elevation uh details, the uh mortar joints of the the spandrel panels.

Um that is uh one of concerns that I'd like to hear from the the designers and the owner for um other than making it more visible from the freeway.

I don't know why you'd want to do this and not relate it to the building.

Um again, it's in the Rio district, and uh we're charged with uh looking at signage as it relates to the uh structures themselves.

Um and one thing with the projecting above the parapet, uh there was never a drawing or uh image produced to show what sort of structural frame would be visible uh from the south that would uh support this uh tall sign.

Uh I assume there would be some sort of uh steel structure that it would uh support it, and that would uh be visible from the uh from the south.

So I'd like to hear the design uh ideas behind this location and detailing.

Hi, this is Yumna from Orange Barrel.

I I'm hoping you can hear me.

Um yes, thank you.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to speak about the sign.

Um, you know, what we were looking at, you know, obviously our first is concerned sighting.

We picked this location because we wanted to be on you know the east side of the building to avoid the river walk, obviously.

Um and as you mentioned, we did align this with the articulation.

Our focus is not the freeway.

We're trying to maintain to capture the street visibility that you see right here.

And there's I mean, there's trees and things.

If we lower it, it's just not visible.

But that said, um, you know, around that tree you can see right there.

But we could work on um, I think we're limited by the 672 square feet um text dot limitation, but we could maybe incorporate uh like a kind of slender frame to give it a bit of a more refined look around it.

Um as for the back, our intent is we're we're we have engineered drawings now and we can prepare a rear elevation.

Um the property owner has asked us also to treat the rear of it.

So we are looking at either putting some kind of nice perforated panels or a mural on the back so that um guests would look down at it.

So we we we also understand the need to um refine that for not only vehicular traffic, but guests of the hotel okay, and one other question.

Um is it necessary to have the uh sign companies or whoever that little uh management company's name down below the image the sign itself and have it's independent illuminated and and illuminated well that's industry best practice.

Um we can look at alternate configurations of it, but it's important to have our name there.

Um I mean, should anything happen with the sign, we wouldn't want them contacting the hotel.

They would know to contact us.

Um I mean, we remotely monitor these signs and and we we pay attention to them, but there's always like unexpected um, you know, periodically there'll be unexpected weather events or something like that.

And so it's useful for the public to know to access us.

So we'd like to keep it very close to the sign phase, so it is clear that it is not hotel branding.

Um but if it was within the this the sign itself in that lower left corner.

I understand what you're saying.

Um so from a design standpoint, I understand why you would propose that.

The problem is that it becomes difficult as a sign operator because then our branding gets incorporated into the advertiser content and it makes the it turns into sort of a mixed message.

So generally that's just not industry practice.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabina.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

A couple of questions.

So what other regulatory steps do you need to take for this to be complete?

Um Commissioner, I just so you know we do have um Rachel Parrish with Development Services who's overseeing the the entire permitting process.

And so I think if there's any questions about the requirements or permitting process, she probably be the best witness on that.

Okay.

Anybody can answer it.

Yeah, no, you're fine.

Um, so I wanted to explain a little bit about how this process works.

Come up here and come to the portal.

I'm not the only one with questions.

There are a lot of folks that are not familiar with the process.

I'm sorry, she had a mic.

Yeah, not a problem.

So I'm Rachel Parrish.

I'm the DSD engineer over field services, including the sign team.

We were lead in developing and um changing this program whenever uh city council will give us feedback.

Um, and so this is an ordinance that was adopted by city council in July, July 12th of this year.

So this process that we've developed, they can come to HDRC at any point in the process.

I want to be clear because not all of these will be per will not will have applications for permit in the system right now.

They can, for example, this one has not applied yet with us, but we do not issue the actual permits for these if you guys are required to see them until you have approved them.

So we will hold them at that point.

But as part of the process, what will end up happening is they will apply for this permit.

We go through the requirements um that are in chapter 28, including the amendments that were done with this ordinance.

Uh we review for compliance of all of these, and then we ask for a series of documents that are very unique to this program.

So, for example, the revenue sharing contract, an agreement with our arts division, um sorry, arts and culture department for the revenue sharing part of um this and the art component.

So the art component does not come to you at this time because Arts has their own process that they will be going through, but they need to know which signs are actually going to be put up before they can go through this process.

And so our role in this is to make sure that all of these signs get the approvals needed, and then arts will go and work with the building owner to develop the art component and then come back to you with the art component approval.

As part of this project application, they are required to get textile permits, they're required to get any OHP approvals, any approvals for HDRC, any normal uh process related approvals, so that the permit issuance is the last step in all of this, with the exception of the art component that will happen afterwards.

Okay, thank you.

That's um a lot of a lot of good points.

Um, but Ms.

Parrish, can you give us an idea of what the timeline is for a tech stot permit or something like this?

The timeline for text out permit right now, from what I understand from feedback is about three months.

Um just want to get an idea of what kind of time we're looking at for all of these decisions and so about three months is what we're looking at minimum for anything that's on text dot.

Um they don't have to go front to text dot if it's not visible from a uh a roadway.

We have a map as part of all of this, it'll show which ones are eligible.

Um there are a lot of other factors that go in that we look on along a way.

Yeah, this one especially is very visible from 37, right?

Exactly.

Yeah, and so this one would definitely.

Um my second question is for the applicant.

Thank you.

Oh, let me ask Ms.

Parrish while she's jumping.

Sure, not a problem.

Um I know this is a pilot program.

Yes, sir.

So conceivably uh it could be not extended, in which case these signs would come down, is that correct?

They would not.

That was actually brought up as part of the input process during the council decision.

They did not put the requirement for the signs to come down at the end of the program.

So any signs that are approved in this program will stay up in perpetuity until they modify it to the extent that it is no longer viable as part of the program.

For example, if they no longer have an agreement to have the art on there and the art gets taken down, now they don't comply with the program.

Um or if I mean there's a lot of things that'll trigger the fact that the sign has to come up to current code, and if the current code does not have this program in place after two years, they will no longer be able to have the sign.

But no, the program itself does not have a requirement for the signs to come down.

Okay, thank you.

Um Commissioner Group.

Yeah, I have some questions for her too.

Sure.

So I mean I want to understand more of this pilot program too.

So there's eight districts, these are the first three within those additional ten signs that will be approved.

Correct.

So we are allowing basically as many people to apply as for this as possible.

What happens is we have the eight districts, and only three are allowed in each district.

The three that are going to be allowed in the districts are the first one to hit the finish line and permitting.

So when we issue that permit, they lock in their spot.

Until that when we look at the districts, what district does this fall under?

This is the downtown east district?

The downtown east.

The three that you are hearing today should all be downtown east.

So they will all be in that one district.

Yes, ma'am.

So that leaves uh seven signs for the other eight districts.

Um two of them will be reserved for the city.

So um that will go through a completely separate RFP process.

So right now there will be eight as part of the program that will be permitted um in this way.

So uh if we assume that all three of these are approved and make it all the way to permitting, then yes, these could be the three for this district.

But you don't have any restrictions that each district can have basically all eight.

No, ma'am.

Okay.

No, one can Commissioner Fetster's uh question about that added the branding and all that.

Is there a size limit?

And do you have also any uh concerns about how this is mounted on the buildings?

So, as part of it, one of the documents that we are getting is verification from a structural engineer that the building's been evaluated and that it can support this structure.

Um, and then as far as science limits, they can be up to 25% of the building facade, but uh generally text regulations are going to be more restrictive than ours.

Um, and I did want to go back a second because I want to I want to make sure that I'm clear and I may have misheard you.

So not all eight can go into one district, no, but we do not have to have one in every district.

Every district has a maximum of three, but there is no minimum.

Oh, but yeah, I remember now, yeah, the three.

I know.

It's just kind of a shame that you put all three in one district uh when it's a pilot program.

Um and then I guess to that question again, it's so how does that brand fall into this?

Because you you talk about revenue sharing, you talk about you know, there has to be a percentage for the city and and all that.

So, how does that logo and the and the company orange barrel fall into that?

The logo we really don't have an opinion one way or the other on.

That's more of a marketing thing.

Okay, but for us it's signage.

So, and that's right, maybe to staff, because it says that everything should conform to existing laws.

Does signage not fall under this because like our signing, our signage laws guidelines?

We do.

So, as part of the digital media and arts ordinance, it did revise our chapter eight uh twenty-eight for our sign code.

It did revise it.

Which means that we're now allowing a sign bigger than 50 square foot?

Yes, ma'am, as part of this program, it can be up to 25% of the building facade with other restrictions.

And that is that is ours as part of the digital media and arts.

Like I said, there are other portions of code that they need to comply with, which will likely bring that square footage down.

But this particular is our code like for historic districts does that fall under that.

So I mean, the major thing that the pilot did is it allows for the off-premise sign.

And so essentially a billboard, so your advertising services and goods that are not present on the property.

And so that'll include orange barrel, orange barrel doesn't live at this property and it's off-premise, but that is allowed under this pilot.

Um, so we have historic design guidelines for signage on historic properties.

We just reviewed um two requests um under those guidelines.

Those don't really apply because you can't have a sign on a historic building under this policy.

Um so the only thing that would apply really is Rio.

Um Rio does, as you know, have similar uh requirements for like total number of signs for a business, and so this is a little bit different because it is off-premise advertising under the pilot.

Obviously, there's um larger parameters that it would have to meet.

Um, but no, it does not have to meet like the requirements of Rio in order to be approved by this commission.

Well we're asking you all to do and what the ordinance says is that if it is in Rio or if it is potentially impacting a historic property, that you are a recommending body in the process.

So it's kind of my thing is like what's our purview here?

Because there's DMA guidelines, and then our guidelines are not valid.

So what what are we looking at?

How do we actually approve this by saying, well, I mean, personal opinion, or can we go get how it's connected to the because in these three cases, you're all saying that this is not a historic part and historic building.

So two of them are right, right?

They're not on the historic part of the building.

This sign is not considered a historic building, so you all recommending approval, but I don't understand what are we what is our say, what are our guidelines?

Because I mean if the DMAR guidelines, well, then okay, fine, but that's not our purview.

So that's why I'm having a hard time figuring out is what is it that we're looking at to actually approve?

Mr.

Chair, may I ask a quick question also to confirm is the downtown design guide not relevant here?

Typically for a D district D zoning that would be in place.

Yeah, so there were not specific policies for design and placement and materials that were adopted under the pilot.

Um what was adopted was that it would come to you all for recommendation, and your purview is the building essentially.

You already have purview over alterations to any building within Rio or historic properties.

And so um some of the comments that came up regarding kind of proportion and aligning with architectural elements, um, understanding the visual impacts of the structure, those are all valid questions for the installation of something physical like this.

Um but to Commissioner Group's point, you're right.

There's no additional policy for the actual design of these things that has been adopted under the pilot.

Um and so no, the the decision making should not be arbitrary or opinion-based, but you do have the ability to review these based on the architectural impact to the properties.

Well, Mr.

Chair.

And just can I finish this last thing on that?

So we have not gotten any um briefing on this, and I don't want this to become a discretion of opinion or design.

So I just wanted to ask my permission is if maybe this is something that can move for D or C because what I understand is they get certificate of appropriateness, then they'll go and actually ask for a permit, but then it would already have our approval, right?

It doesn't come back to us again ever.

The thing that would come back is the public art component.

So Mr.

Chair, one moment, please, Chair got someone ahead of you.

Um was that um the balance of your question is Commissioner Group?

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes.

Yeah, thank you.

My concerns are very similar.

So but bottom line, what happens if we say no on this?

The applic just like any request for COA, the applicant could propose a revised application or a different location.

Okay.

Um yeah, I would support DRC if somebody wanted to do that.

I don't think there's a digital sign in the world that matches with any historic building in the city.

So well, and so yeah, just to clarify, I think people agree with that, and that was one of the components of the pilot ordinance is that it cannot be located on historic property.

And so part of the um review here is confirming that you all agree that there's not an impact to historic buildings, or you're confirming that you agree that um this is an installation that affects an historic building.

This building is not historic.

Um, this is coming to you for Rio.

And so again, you can review it similar to the first case today.

There was comments about the placement of the sign in terms of uh the architecture of the building and where it should fit and that sort of thing.

That's all relevant here, and that's all something you can discuss within the the parameters of Rio.

Um, but the question of whether or not digital should be allowed here has already been answered by city council.

Mr.

Chair, I have a couple of questions for the applicant.

Go ahead, Tate now.

Okay.

Um for a sign this size as proposed, what is the weight of the sign?

Uh I can do a quick calculation.

It's 15 pounds per square foot.

Okay.

Um and would it be your firm or who would do the drawings for the infrastructure of it and the cladding that you mentioned?

Um so it's about a thousand pounds.

Our firm it contracts, we've contracted a group called ANC, their design build contractor.

So they will sign seal all of the drawings they've completed.

We have a full set of architectural structural drawings from them that we're going to be submitting in the near future.

And they would also build it.

Okay.

So but that is a requirement for the permit also, correct?

To have those sealed drawings?

Yes, we we will have them submitted as soon as we finish a little paperwork.

Yeah, that'd be really helpful to say.

But with that in mind, um, did you guys explore bringing down that sign into the next into the lower band of the building to better integrate it into the building?

Because right now it looks very um like an afterthought.

Um did you all explore that?

We we did consider it it limited its visibility because of the adjacent trees.

Um we obviously didn't want to uh impact those trees.

Um on your elevation, your photo elevation, it looks pretty visible to me.

Yes, so that's that's a great point.

Um if we were to pull back a little further, you can see um, and if you were to kind of pan to the left, you can see those trees.

Um those trees make the visibility a pretty short window.

So we obviously we pick this vantage um so that we could we could best convey how the building fits together with the sign.

But yes, you can see this this tree canopy is um that's what drives the visibility.

Yes, it's still visible though from even this point of view.

Um thank you.

All the questions I have.

Thank you.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Well, I'm just wondering if it if it wasn't uh worth bringing to the commission for uh discussion as to what we think is um uh what it is that we're talking about.

Because if if all the different regulations are to somewhat with respect to any opinion that we could give, they dovetail with each other.

What's appropriate, what what what's it what what's the appropriate place on a building, whether it's because the building is a building in Rio or because the purview is historic and it's inappropriate for a historic building.

It seems they all of those considerations dovetail.

Within the context of that, if city council has already made this decision, that gives the impression that there isn't any way that anybody can say anything about these buildings if they're not on or these these marquees if they're not on historic structures.

I'm sorry, ask your question again, Commissioner Group.

No, we're this is questions.

We don't have a motion.

Well, Mr.

Chair, we're also not following the clock, right?

We're also you know, talking for 10 minutes and they're I mean if we're gonna be lax with the rules, let's be lax with the rules.

If we're gonna be tight with the rules, let's be tight with the rules, but don't start with me, please.

I appreciate if you don't start with me.

I'll do a motion serving going to discretion.

Well, that's that's what I'm getting at is perhaps we could have a discussion before we be make a motion that that is a motion based on the sign.

Let's have a motion, then we can go further into this.

But I'd like to make a motion, Mr.

Chair, that we have that we enter into discussion with the commission over what we understand our purview is here.

Any further discussion on that okay?

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Savino?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chair, we have three of these cases before us.

They're, I would say pretty much identical.

I can tell you the one that that I think speaks the loudest.

This one is pretty pretty loud that we're looking at right now because with respect to dropping it, it also seems to mitigate the highway situation, right?

And that and the original argument is that it's for the visual impact with people driving that way.

So there's all kinds of arguments we're going to get into as to why it has to be up there.

And I mean, if you're in the sign business, obviously you want everybody to see it, including the people on the highway.

But when we get to the sign that's an auditorium circle, that is a sacred space in San Antonio, Texas.

That's a space with the municipal auditorium.

That's a space with one of the finest uh examples of uh terracotta in the entire United States.

And I know because I worked on that project.

It's very very precious architecture.

We talk about appropriateness.

Uh it's hard, it's going to be hard for us to understand what appropriateness means when it's uh um bounced off of uh that city councils already said that it's appropriate, that digital signage is appropriate.

Um is it i i it it it would it would appear that it's almost not allowed for us to say that's not appropriate.

And just using the what on auditorium circle, because the the building next to it is not historic building, but the one next to it is and and a and a and again a precious piece of architecture.

So are we being asked to bless a cultural change in the attitude of signage downtown because City Council passed that ordinance, or are we given the power to say yes, but not there?

Um because in addition to the ridiculous scale under the under the the umbrella of art.

Uh we're not talking about lumens, uh the potential for these things to go off, the the fact that they move and they flash.

And and um, I think an easily an easy argument that uh 50 percent sign, 50 percent art is a sign.

And the fact that there's no stipulation that these signs are going to leave at any given time, that they may end up being permanent billboards.

Uh we look at uh Times Square.

There's some there's some intelligence behind what New York is trying to achieve in that circumstance.

But we look at sporadic placement throughout downtown that itself hasn't quite found its identity.

It I I mean, I wonder what our role as a as a commission is, Mr.

Chair, to formulate the pattern of a new digital culture downtown.

Um I'm really interested to find out where fellow commissioners are.

Thank you, sir.

Um further discussion from other commissioners.

I would like to say something.

Go ahead, ma'am, please.

And I think uh Commissioner um Velasquez staff verified, it's not about we're not here to discuss appropriateness of the signage, digital signs in downtown.

We're talking about appropriateness to that specific building.

Each case it's separate.

So and at no point are we being asked to discuss appropriateness of digital signs, no personal opinion or designing the art.

Um I when I do a motion, it's not whether it's a yes or a no motion of for or against.

There's also an option to move this to a DRC, which is what I wanted, because I think that um Commissioner Fetts were touching on something.

Each of these signs should be more appropriate to the building.

And even if we would just want to look at uh the Bowie one, if you want to uh Edward, pull up the drawing.

I think we always talk about when we do sign, align it with historic elements of the building.

Well, there's no alignment here, and I do believe that there could be a further discussion.

I don't wish to design a sign on the dais.

So what I was going for was a motion for a DRC.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Cervantes.

Yeah, I definitely uh see some of what uh Commissioner Vasquez is saying, uh, and I definitely agree with uh Commissioner Greek that we need to move this to a DRC, and I wonder if we even need a subcommittee to look at the overall impact of the uh uh to updating either the DRC guidelines or or staff guidelines or whatever it is that we need to look at to kind of have a some sort of overview on this uh digital sighting is gonna be going on throughout the cities, particularly in the historic areas areas rather.

Um but I would support uh a DRC.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Professor?

Yes, I would also support a DRC.

Um these are the first signs coming to us based on this new ordinance.

And uh it may take some discussion with the designers and uh some cases may be uh more appropriate, but uh this one definitely I think needs to come to a DRC where we can have a more in-depth discussion about uh where an appropriate location and size would be for this sign.

Thank you.

Commissioner Fesser, are you stating that uh DRC would be suggested for not only um OE Street, but in the other two as well, so for all three um cases.

We can't do all three at once.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

I'll speak to that when they come up.

Mr.

Chair.

Um I believe Rachel had a clarification that she wanted to make.

Okay, go ahead, Mr.

I just wanted to be clear.

I know um a couple of the concerns that came up had to do with the flashing in the lumens, those are regulated in the sign code.

They do need to comply with those as well.

Well, let me just clarify that one moment, please, sir.

Did you have something?

You're good.

Okay, okay, sorry.

J just taking the consideration of the building in the auto term circle.

See, see, this is this is the reason why we talk about a cultural change, is because on the building, that's one thing.

That's a sign on a building that's a piece of art on a building.

But when the thing starts to illuminate and it starts to change the environment of these sacred spaces, now it almost gives the HDRC the capability to say, look, this is something that you may not have considered, but this is something that most definitely reflects a change of the overarching environment that is created by these sacred spaces.

It's it's it's like as if you went into the middle of Prague and you put up a digital sign.

Clearly, you can just look at the sign and you can say that thing over there is flashing if you want to ignore the fact that it's flashing on all the buildings around it.

So now the buildings are are a product of their color changes of every experience that a person could walk into a space like that and say this is what it really is, unaffected.

So when we look at the auto term circle space, for instance, Mr.

Chair.

Uh those are things it seemed that they have to be taken in the case.

Right, we're only on item number four right now.

So then well that's what was get getting to.

Is that perhaps the three could be motion for DRC as a slate?

Is that as a as a we'll deal with them as they come up?

So uh we'll make a motion.

Well, we have a motion of we don't have a motion yet, but once we have a motion report for this.

Go ahead, Commissioner Group, thank you.

A motion to move to DRC.

Second, it's been moved and properly secondary.

And let me just add to this also to um to the city.

I think it is uh really to discuss our role is not to change the ordinance.

We cannot do that.

We understand.

I understand now there's an ordinance here on the party program.

Uh really discuss the signage size proportions to historic elements and make it look.

I would ask to this DRC if you could actually bring kind of also a site plan like from the street if you're saying you chose this location because of the tree, so something that visually will help us understand how the trees play role in here, and also maybe uh overall with the whole building, if you can bring that to the specific to this case to the DRC.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

I.

Savino?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

I.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

I.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Item number five, please.

Commissioners, uh, the applicant Ashley Fairman is here in person.

Uh, and just like uh item number four, we have uh updated documents or additional documents that can be shown for item number five.

Mr.

Chair, based on last discussion, I would like to do a motion.

One moment on that, Commissioner Group.

Um, because Commissioner Fesser pulled this case on see if he has any questions first before we do that.

Yes.

Uh just a couple of quick questions and then I would support a motion to DRC.

Um the original submittal has the on the side plan shows the sign location on the southwest corner of the building.

On one of the new drawings, the elevation of the south wall shows the sign on the southeast corner of the building.

Just clear clarifying what is the location for the proposed sign.

Was the uh the architectural drawing put in the late submission there?

You had it there.

Yeah, I know you I'm going trying to find the one in the new package.

There it is.

Um Commissioner Fetzer, um, sorry, Ashley Fairmon, Killing Griffin and Fairmont.

Uh the intent is for the rendered sign, if you can pull up the southwest corner.

So the southwest corner as opposed to the southeast corner?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um again I had questions about the appropriateness of this uh curved sign on a uh very rectilinear and and cubic uh building.

Uh what is your actual audience with one-way streets?

You know, are you really gonna see the sign?

Uh the location on the building in terms of aligning with spandrel panels and windows, uh, but we can get into all that.

Uh should this get sent to DRC?

Sure.

And and I have representatives from the sign company, they're virtual here as well.

And we can answer questions or based on what happened with the last case, I think we would be supportive of going to a DRC meeting as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

I move to a move this case to a DRC.

Second.

And I think all these questions, Commissioner Fretzer, are really, really good.

I I don't have access to the late files, and I don't know if all these questions would be answered uh here on the dias, and I think that deeper discussion is really important and the reason for the DRC.

I also would like to see, and I know it's not part of the ordinance, or I don't understand, like because we're looking at how it impacts the historic building visually, I also really would like to see um how they are attached to the historic building.

If it's under our purview, I I think you're you know this, but this building is also not historic.

Designs are not allowed on historic buildings, so it'll never be a historic building.

It'll always be non-historic buildings in Rio or some other property that's under your purview.

Okay, so yeah, you're considered right.

And then I also ask if how um this building relates to the there is a historic building across the street, right?

But I think uh Commissioner Fetzer's questions again, like the same way.

What what's how does a height play?

Why did you choose that height?

How does it correlate with both sides of the building?

Um how does it, you know, visually go with maybe the adjacent historic buildings?

Thank you.

Other questions.

Um we still have one more, right?

That we're right.

I'll save comment for the last one.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I have a comment on this one and the the previous one also.

I think this really goes to the point that even though we're not following the design guidelines, we're not following the design downtown design guide per se, the spirit of those documents needs to be observed and considered in this very historic setting.

Um true, this building here is not historic uh or designated historic.

It is a building of its time, probably in another condition or differ different situation.

It could be designated historic.

But it is the spirit of the sign or the signage as it fits within the spirit of the architectural style that is essential in pulling this off, and also to what my colleague um mentioned, what does it do to the space, the surrounding space of landmarks across the street in every direction?

And if we keep that in mind as we go to the DRCs for this one and the previous one, um my hope is that we can uh develop a kind of display that will make this unique and um make it um sensitive to its historic setting.

It doesn't have to be a time square kind of experience, it could be a different kind of experience.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Hearing I may have a roll call, please.

May I just ask add something?

And and maybe just to finish um I think we're all having a little bit of a hard time understanding what's our purview, right?

And I don't even know.

I I get what Commissioner Sabino said, and I don't even know if how they relate to the historic building is even within our purview.

But um can I also ask the city staff, is there a way to I know these three will be in one of the eight districts?

Is there any intent or could that be something discussed with the applicants of unite unifying these these districts and really trying to figure out where would be best because it seems like right now it's like first approval gets first rights and let's put them all downtown and then we'll figure out where the rest goes, or is there an option to actually like look at it from like it would be great to have one in each district or separate them a little bit?

Um I don't know if I'm the best person to answer this.

I mean it's really up to whatever agreements can be brokered with those private property owners, and so I know that there's been a lot of outreach to different property owners within the different districts, and you know, some are more eager than others, and so it's it's really hard for a third party that then pick the most appropriate locations because they may not be viable options.

I want to add on this one as part of the conversation for this ordinance that um the discussion on how to distribute the signs was discussed, it wasn't arbitrary, and they did um as a council decide to have just the limit on the number in one particular district and not have a requirement for uh distribution across all of the districts um was considered and part of the approval process.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Parish?

Another question.

Um I know the signs may end up being permanent, but in your negotiations, are you allowing for the lease and all that and the permit?

Are you um would the mounting of these signs to the buildings be available to be discussed and uh basically dictated that that they anchor through uh joints in the masonry rather than through the face of a big stone or through the brick or how is it attached to these structures?

Even though they're not historic, uh should the signs come down in the future, it's a lot easier to uh patch uh a hole in a mortar joint than it is in the panel.

So um as part of the DSD process, we cannot um impose additional regulations other than what is outlined in the ordinance.

So that one is not part of our purview.

What we are allowed to do is make sure that the sign is structurally sound, and I would assume that the building owner would be inclined to make sure it is in the masonry joints, but we are not also able to look at the lease agreement between the sign company and the building owner.

Thank you.

And I have one more question.

So I'm just gonna stay until you're so based on what you just said, so that means that the building owners themselves will have a say so in how it's going to be um anchored to the building.

So even though what um Commissioner Fetcher is suggesting, and you said that's not in your purview to do that, but the building owners themselves will be able to have a say so on that and if they say I want it, you know, inside I mean this way, and it then if the sign owner says no, that's not how it should go, then they can basically decline to have that on everyone.

It would be all part of the lease agreement.

I mean, and what they decide to put in there.

I mean, it maybe, maybe not.

It really all depends on what they agree to as far as the sign company and the building owner.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Sabatis.

Yes, just going back to what you just asked.

So if the building owner decides they want to allow something on there and they want it mounted a a way that violates the guidelines, would that be a separate uh topic brought to the uh to the commission just for that alone?

I don't think so.

I think based on what she was just saying is that um that's between the at least agreement between the sign owners and the building.

So um it it wouldn't seem that it will come back to us for that because that's they'll be between them too.

So our right now we're just this with us now because of the location of the signs, but not necessarily building okay.

Thank you.

But we do this all the time, like we often include stipulations if there's an impact of masonry that it be patched and repaired with any kind of materials.

That is certainly something that could always be included as a stipulation or condition to any of these.

Thank you, sir.

Any further discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am.

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Velasquez?

I.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Aye.

Group.

I.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

If sir.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Item number six, please.

Hey, Commissioners, this is 105 auditorium circle.

Uh, we also have updated documents that I can pull up for this one.

And Mr.

Chair, in like fashion, if if uh we're gonna end making a motion for DRC, I'd like to make that motion so that I can make a few comments as well with it.

Okay, I'll take your motion, sir.

Motion to uh send uh 105 auto terms.

I don't know if it's 105.

Well, audit term circle to uh DRC.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Um Mr.

Chair, I'd like to ask uh Edward, could you take the image to page 14 of 17?

The PDF, or the the one that we have okay, thank you, Edward.

Maybe zoom in a little bit.

This picture is a is a very good example, Mr.

Chair, of the the juxtaposition of these two styles of architecture, the fact that it's a space that has been created, even if it's on a street that that then obviously turns into a place that I I doubt few people in San Antonio would say it's not a sacred space.

But it appears that in the three uh uh presentations, the activity, the the process of design seems to be void.

It seems to all have been a billboard-shaped object uh placed somewhere.

There doesn't seem to be anything appropriate about the way that any of these signs were placed.

Now that would give the impression that what I'm saying is that they're just simply not appropriate.

But if if I were to be as proactive as possible and and to say that that a sign uh a piece of art, however we want to call it, is gonna go on this flat wall, possibly because it's just a flat wall.

Well, if it's speaking the language of art, there's the possibility that someone would say or so that that it that it could go to a class of students and they'd have to come back and legitimize what would make a rectangle void of the of what what it presents, that it it is in in effect uh appropriate for the space.

Is it a vertical rectangle?

Is it a horizontal rectangle?

At some point, perhaps the pilot project does not adapt to the billboard world.

Therefore, the only solution here is that whatever the pilot project is, is that must be a billboard-shaped billboard.

Which which in a way breaks a lot of the rules, like just let's just use New York, for example, that they're not afraid of using a horizontal or vertical, whatever seems to be appropriate in a space that city council has already decided is going to happen, right?

So hopefully in the DRC, we're able to to to also flush out the the appropriateness of a piece of art.

And I I want to tell you that I've I've spent much time years consulting on and the placement of large-scale art.

As a matter of fact, I think that I'm on this commission as the arts commissioner, at least when I first got on, that's what the title was.

Uh so I want to be able to exploit that and take that very seriously when I tell you that there is a way to do things, but but but it's not you just create a frame and stick art in it.

With respect to architecture, to be to to make this project really intentional.

Uh it should take a beautiful wall like that.

Not see it as a flat space, but re really be able to understand the beauty of this plane.

Uh and much in the way that we look at the Lego that library.

Plenty of planes to put a digital billboard on it.

But if you were gonna do it, you'd have to do it right.

And and this facade gives us the opportunity that of all the DRCs, if I can ask the commissioners that plan to participate in that DRC to contemplate and to meditate on this wall, and and to be very sensitive in terms of what we are calling a pilot project for the production of art as opposed to finding the appropriate place for a billboard.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Group.

Uh yes, so I um just for the DRC, another thing that I also would like to see a little.

We don't have any like specific drawings, right?

Here, like size and lines, right?

Like we talked on the other ones, but also we do.

I don't understand really where's the visibility.

I guess it's like people when you're standing at the tow in, is that where we're trying like what I know it's yeah.

Okay, and I guess it's on this you know the package that we online didn't get access to, but I would like to see that more details uh in the DRC as well as the impact of where what parts of town are we trying to get a visual from for this sign and for the placement there.

That makes sense.

Yes, thank you, Commissioner Sabino.

Yes, um Corey, can you confirm the landmark status of the property?

So this is the one where I believe you all can make an interpretation for us.

The ordinance says signs may not be located on historic buildings.

This entire property is an individual historic landmark.

Um obviously for the Southwestern Bell Building, which is the portion to the right, the older portion.

This is a later edition, um, as probably as late as early 1980s.

Um so non-contributing, not really considered historic, but the property itself is historic.

Um so we are recommending that this is allowable because it's not attached to the historic building per se.

Um but you are all free to interpret that um differently if because there's not really a written policy on that it's that distinction.

Right.

Since this was built, this addition was built after the first one, right?

That's why it's an addition, but it was built before the designation as a landmark.

It's been 25 years plus, so it is eligible, or we would in any other situation in a historic district or a landmark, consider it contributing until it was proven otherwise.

Correct?

Is that correct legal?

At the same time, though, if this property is.

Yes.

Thank you.

So yes, it's it's very different stylistically.

Um and so anybody on the street would say, oh, this has nothing to do with this other original 1933 or 38 building, but it is a history of the company, it's a history of the property and the redevelopment of downtown.

It is a building of its time, but it is now historic.

So what would the process be for in order to make the the digital sign project go through?

What would the process be to render it non-contributing?

But it's also in a historic district.

So, you know, there is that to consider as we're looking at the building's historicism.

Are we are we, you know, are we as a commission and as a community ready to uh just remove the historic status of something so we can um you know put the digital billboard up?

And I do like I do appreciate the ideas that you bring to the to the medium.

Um rather than um letting the billboard drive it or the commercialism drive it, let the um let the the canvas drive it and the place drive it, and let the arts program drive it.

I appreciate that.

Why not?

Excuse me, I'm still I'm still talking.

I have 12 seconds.

And so those are the those are the concerns that we should discuss in our DRC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Well, I just want to make sure we keep within our purview.

We're uh City Council has approved a city ordinance.

We are not to challenge that, is not our role, and it's again back to we can go further discussions.

You can go discuss this with your city council that appointed you.

I think that's where the discussion needs to go, not whether or not this ordinance, and we need to make sure that I think it's very clear.

I'm gonna ask staff, brief us all individually if needed.

What is our purview with this ordinance and what can we actually have an opinion on or actually vote on, and what can we be part of our Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Point of order, Mr.

Point of order?

Madam Moment, please, sir.

You're supposed to ask me what my point of order is.

I think the Commissioner will state his point of order.

I understand, sir.

But when I say one moment, please I hear I hear you, so just give me a moment to finish that part now.

Now that she's done, you can go ahead, please, sir.

Well, uh I uh forgive the interruption, but I intended to interrupt because we're being given directive, and the directive is with respect to city council.

I I haven't been briefed in any legal fashion that tells me that my purview is X and Chair, you haven't given me what my purview is either.

So for a commissioner be telling me what my purview is with respect to city council, what I can and can't do, what I'm expected to do by my city council person, all that I find very inappropriate.

I appreciate her willingness to uh a fellow commissioner's willingness to interpret perhaps for the safety of all commissioners or the good and welfare of all commissioners.

But I interrupted because it makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I just want you to know it makes me feel very uncomfortable, and it makes me feel as if I have to do what someone expects me to do, and I am and I fear that it gives that impression to the citizens that are watching television that I find inappropriate because obviously we have a democratic process here, which means that the end result is however it is that we vote by majority and the majority is what the rule is.

Umless there's a uh a legal uh directive that says you will do what your councilperson expects you to do.

I'm not sure.

I never said that.

The UDC clarifies your role.

City council has approved this ordinance with what our role is in this ordinance.

If you're against the ordinance, you have any questions to the ordinance, I say directed to the city council.

I never said that you do whatever your city council present is.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes.

Yeah, I I want to I want to kind of actually kind of jump on that as well.

It's it's it's it's our it I I see it as our job to work with the city ordinance, not necessarily go against it or oppose it, but it's it's our it's our job to look at it, interpret it, and see how we can best uh fit that into what our purview is.

But I also do take issue, Commissioner Groots uh with her interruptions of people and trying to keep people either stifled or or that perception that I get.

Uh I know her knowledge is vast and I respect her experience on the staff, but I think we go around in circles, you know, getting interrupted when we can just finish our comment.

And I don't think it's any one commissioner's purview aside from you, Mr.

Chair, uh, or Ms.

Mr.

Vice Chair in your absence to stifle people's communications.

Thank you, sir.

And I just want to make it clear.

Um when we're in discussion, um I'm I do give a little leeway um for commissioners to voice because there are times when the the topic itself goes a little bit off topic or off design for where we're going, but and I would give a little purview because we're trying to get to a point, and I can feel that based on my experience that I've had, you know, being on the commission and being here with you.

So just understand that from you can have I mean, I'm talking to you, Commissioner Belasquez, you know, of course you have your your opinion, your state effect, and I'm never going to stifle that, you know, from you.

Um same thing for Commissioner Group or any commissioner that's here.

So just know that, and I can't tell you how to take her comment.

Um I didn't take it that way, but that's that's neither here or there.

You you can feel the way you feel it, and that's and I respect that.

So I just want to make it clear that you know we can as commission, I I try to make sure that we work together and that we have some type of um harmonious discussions, and understand sometimes it gets a little off of kilter, and then it's my job to reel it back in, but understand that everybody's position or everybody's concerned you know, as long as I'm here is going to be respected, and I just want to make sure that we're all clear and as place to be placed on the record that um that's my position and how we're going to move forward with that.

So is there any further discussion on this item before I call for a vote on Vice Chair Petcher?

Yes.

Uh question for the applicant.

Yes.

Yes.

Um this pilot program specifically says no display shall be located on any historic designated structures.

What discussions did you have with City DSD or OHP in terms of placing this sign on this historic designated landmark?

Sure, yeah.

So Ashley Fairmon, uh Killing Griffin and Fairmont, I'm here with the sign company.

Also, uh, I do want to introduce, we do have representatives of ATT here who are the owners of the building.

Uh so Robin Curry as well as the architect.

Um, and happy to answer questions, but also happy to do that in the DRC with all of us present there as well.

Um so we did look at this and do you understand that it does that property does have that historic designation on the entire property.

Um, but uh in looking at it, you know, it it the intention of that designation is for the 1930s Southwestern Bell building.

This was in a building, it's called the Annex Building that was added um in the 80s is when it's you all know in the staff report.

Uh the buildings don't even really line up in terms of floors, so you know, in terms of connection.

So we felt that it was an appropriate location for the sign because we didn't believe it was contributing to historic.

Happy to continue that discussion with you all.

Um did have some preliminary discussions with historic staff on that as well.

Um, and that's why we're here before you, but also as seen for the last few hours, this program is new, um, and there's a lot, I think, to be discussed.

So we're happy, but would appreciate an opportunity to go to DRC to talk about it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

I do have one last comment, just to the overall conversation.

Um, the structure, both structures are uh landmarked, as is the property is landmarked.

Um and to our purview here, it is to follow the ordinance, the digital media ordinance, and to um protect our historic landmarks, historic districts, et cetera.

So if we were to strictly follow this, our charge, our purview, this would be an easy denial, because per item number 12, no display shall be located on any historic designated structures.

So just to clarify, as we're going through the muck here and the clouds and the the nebulous conversations.

Um it's pretty clear.

To me, it was pretty clear when I first read the when I first saw the case, when I first read the ordinance, it was clear.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, just I want to clarify something a little bit more.

Yes, sir.

Um I think uh the intent would be, and uh Mike, my my intent is uh really to focus in on what is appropriate.

And and and that's not just uh uh like say lumens, right?

But uh orientation.

That that what you want to achieve, particularly with respect to the Department of Arts, if that's the Department of the City that's in charge of this project, that they achieve what they want to achieve.

But there's an appropriate way to go about something.

Sometimes something that that would seem appropriate may not be appropriate at all.

But also sometimes it could be just the limitations of the imagination and it I'm committed to being just as imaginative and just as uh uh progressive as as need be to find the right way to do that.

And on a lighter note, just to uh the people here from Southwestern Bell, uh the very first job I had in architecture was in that building, measuring it from one side to the other.

I know that building like the back of my hand.

Um so maybe I'm a little uber uh uh sensitive to the to the precious environment that's there, and I uh and I promise not to let that interfere with uh uh uh fairness to this to this project.

Uh but I think at the same time along the lines, should it be appropriate in that environment, all the more reason for it to be really appropriate?

It's it's it should be that special to us as a commission because that really is what our job is, to be sensitive because the buildings can't speak for themselves.

Thanks for the time, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Givada.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That was the last case on today's agenda.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.