Historic and Design Review Commission Meeting - March 18, 2026

The Historic and Design Review Commission (HDRC) met on Wednesday, March 18, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. to consider several certificate of appropriateness applications. The meeting included a consent agenda, public testimony, and discussion on four regular agenda items, with the major item being Phase 2 of the Brackenridge Park Bond projects. The commission approved all agenda items, with votes on each item passing unanimously (11-0).

Consent Calendar

• Items 2 through 8 were approved with staff stipulations on a single motion. The addresses included: 401 Vita, 462 Mary Louise, 344 North, 600 Theo Parkway, 118 East Reish, 201 West Mariposa, and 9599 Braun. No public comments or voicemails were received on these items.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Brackenridge Park Phase 2 (Item 1): The commission received 54 voicemails: 45 in support and 9 opposed. In-person speakers included:
  • Suzanne Scott (Chair, Brackenridge Park Conservancy Board) – Expressed full support for the project, noting the Conservancy backed the final recommendations.
  • Chris Maitree (CEO, Brackenridge Park Conservancy) – Supported approval, citing $9,676,751 in 2017 bond funds and $5.5 million in Conservancy donations; noted 3,353 days since project approval with no work done.
  • Alicia Garlock – Opposed the plans, asking for delay until a playground funded by private donors is completed; argued removal of 88 picnic areas and parking spaces would harm accessibility and cultural traditions (e.g., the Serda family’s 69-year Easter tradition).
  • John Greedle (Attorney for Perez v. City of San Antonio litigation) – Requested preservation of trees 106 and 141, stating they are cultural and religious resources for indigenous groups; noted the Army Corps of Engineers consultation with the Comanche Nation is ongoing.
  • Ida Ayala – Opposed removal of picnic tables and parking, arguing it contradicts the Cultural Landscape Report’s recommendation to retain existing uses; cited the park’s importance for underprivileged populations.
  • Susan Strong – Opposed cutting trees 106 and 141, stating they are the only remaining trees in the pump house viewscape; questioned the placement of new picnic tables near a bike path and zoo fence, calling it potentially dangerous.
  • Ellen Patterson (Attorney and cancer survivor) – Opposed tree removal, presenting environmental benefits of mature oak trees (oxygen production, carbon sequestration, shade, cooling).

Discussion Items

• Brackenridge Park Phase 2 (Item 1): Mike Shannon, Director of Capital Delivery, presented updates from the January meeting. Changes included: adding two ADA parking spaces near the north entrance (Hildebrand side) and nine new picnic tables. This resulted in the loss of 10 proposed new trees out of 250 total, and impervious cover reduction changed from 10% (to 27%) to 9% (to 28%). The stone kiosk relocation was confirmed with Texas Historical Commission approval. Discussion centered on tree removal (trees 106 and 141 are in Phase 1, not Phase 2; litigation does not involve Phase 2), picnic table placement, and the need for more ADA spaces. Commissioner Velasquez questioned the separation of bike trail (item 7) and cultural trail (item 8). The design team explained safety and interpretive reasons. Commissioner Savino and Fetzer encouraged increasing picnic tables and parking further. Commissioner Galloway opposed heritage tree removal but noted public feedback was incorporated.
• 1253/1255 East Crockett (Item 9): The applicant requested amendments to a previously approved construction: roof form change to front-facing gable, removal of fenestration on west facade (later restored in revised plans), 12-foot driveway (reduced to 10 feet per staff), and landscaping. The Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee submitted a letter supporting staff’s fenestration concerns and objecting to the 12-foot driveway and xeric landscaping. The applicant agreed to all staff stipulations, including reducing driveway width and adding natural grass or submitting a detailed landscaping plan. The motion approved item 1 as submitted, item 2 as per revised drawings (fenestration restored), item 3 (driveway at 10 feet), and item 4 with staff stipulations.
• 2509 Mission Road (Item 10): The applicant (Ruben Sausedo, owner) sought approval to construct four two-story single-family homes in the Mission Historic District. Staff recommended approval with stipulations on siding materials, window profiles, fenestration, walkway alignment, and landscaping. The applicant agreed to all stipulations. Motion approved unanimously.
• 219 Theren Boulevard (Item 11): The applicants (Dorian Casitas and Jose Mora) requested approval to repair/replace existing brick cladding (with lime wash) and construct a front porch. They argued brick is more cost-effective than restoring original wood siding (estimated $35,000 vs. $30,000 to remove brick). Staff recommended against the brick cladding, citing guidelines to remove non-historic material. After discussion, Commissioner Group moved to approve with stipulations: allow brick where it previously existed (front of house had brick that fell off), no lime wash, and the porch not approved. The applicants clarified the house was originally fully brick-clad. The motion passed, allowing brick repair where previously present, with wood elsewhere.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1 (Brackenridge Park Phase 2): Approved with staff stipulations. Vote: 11-0.
• Item 9 (1253/1255 East Crockett): Approved with staff stipulations and applicant agreements. Vote: 11-0.
• Item 10 (2509 Mission Road): Approved with staff stipulations. Vote: 11-0.
• Item 11 (219 Theren Boulevard): Approved with stipulations: brick replacement allowed where previously existed; no lime wash; front porch not approved; siding materials to be wood where brick was not original. Vote: 11-0.
• All approvals require compliance with federal, state, and local laws regarding archaeology (where applicable), and certificates of appropriateness will be emailed within 10 days.