Time is now 3 p.m.

I'd like to call to order this historic design review commission meeting for Wednesday March 18, 2026.

May I have a roll call, please.

Ma'aman.

Present.

Seveno?

Here.

Velasquez?

Here.

Galloway.

Here.

Here.

Givada?

Here.

Group?

Here.

Traviaso?

Here.

Holland.

Fetzer?

Here.

And Gibbs.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please.

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

Necessita interpretacional español.

Favor de Pasarla.

Cabina.

Alfondo de la sala.

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 and all relevant city departments concerning all applications for permits for properties in historic districts for landmarks on city property and a river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

In 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 the 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.

Permits must be attained for all work.

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.

Second.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'aman?

Aye.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Aye.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, at this time we can uh bring our attention to the screen.

Um we had eight items on today's consent agenda.

In the interest of um items that are not Breckenridge Park, um, we are recommending that that heard be heard individually.

Um so that would just leave items two through um eight on consent, and we do not have any public comments or voicemails on those items.

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

Hearing none may have a um motion for um balance of the consent agenda.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Chairman.

I move for approval of agenda items two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight with staff stipulations.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved in properly second.

Any further discussion.

May I have a roll call, please.

Maman?

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Traviaso?

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 401 Vita, 462, Mary Louise, 344 North, 600 Theo Parkway, 118 East Reish, 201 West Mariposa, and 25, excuse me, 9599 Braun.

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 a member of staff.

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

Okay, Edward, you can go ahead and read us into the record for item one.

Agenda item number one, HDRC case number 2025 258, 3700 North St.

Mary's Brackenridge Park.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for park improvements related to phase two of the Brackenridge Park Bond projects.

The phase two scope of work includes one restoration of the 1877 pump house, two excavation rehabilitation, and we rewatering of the historic waterworks raceway, three stabilization and rewatering of the upper Labora Secia, four uncovering and rehabilitation of the upper labor diversion dam, five improvements to the lily pond, six rehabilitation of two historic bathroom pavilions, seven rehabilitation and conversion of electric pump house into a storage building, and eight various site improvements, including landscaping, tree planning, walkway, walking paths, pedestrian bridges, and utility consolation.

Staff recommends approval as submitted, an archaeological investigation is required.

Initial investigations have already occurred, and the project shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations regarding archaeology as applicable.

Go ahead, Mike.

All right, good afternoon.

Uh commissioners, my name is Mike Shannon.

I'm the city's director of our capital delivery department, uh, who will be seeing this overseeing this project uh along with several other departments.

But I'm here, I'm gonna go through a slide deck today.

I know you saw this um a couple months ago.

We were here in January and went through a very detailed presentation of the design of phase two.

Uh and you gave us some homework, uh, some instructions to do.

Um so I'll walk through that, and we have a few changes to the um the proposed uh uh project because of that.

Let's see.

This is the pointer you want to go.

Oh, okay, thank you.

All right, so project recap.

I think uh you all know uh and remember that this uh is a portion of Brackenridge Park on the north side over uh near Hildebrand uh and it's depicted there in the orange there.

So it's a park improvement as mentioned, it's a uh bond project from 2017 uh that the city has uh been working on.

Uh a little bit close up.

Um we a lot of discussion on uh this project is uh divided into phase one and phase two, and we're here today uh seeking approval for phase two, as we were in January.

Uh so there are a lot of considerations in phase one, a lot of considerations in phase two, uh, but right now we'll be focused on uh the phase two part of the project.

Uh phase one uh is still under consideration, uh a lot of work happening over there, uh, but actually we're working to proceed with the phase two work.

So uh just to reorient you to the site.

Um, many of you that have been out there recently as part of our DRT walkthrough, which was really our homework to really answer some questions, look at the you know, real-time uh 3D.

Uh but this is the project here, it's north of uh the north of the um uh the pump house, um and as we work towards Hildebrand.

Uh that's the overall design of what it's proposed to look like.

I'm gonna work through some of those issues.

Um, but really again re rehabbing uh the historic structures or historic uh functions, emphasizing certainly the water as uh sachia, um reestablish the identity of the park, a lot more green space, uh less uh impervious cover, et cetera.

But maintaining a park like you know, uh facility.

This is one of the best uh most important historic uh parks that we have in the city, and I don't want to offend anybody else that might love another park, but I think we all know this is at least one of the most historic and greatest assets we have in the city.

So uh that's what this project is all about.

Um it's gonna include things like rehabbing the cultural resources, creating a plaza, which you see there, uh item number 11, um underground utility conversions.

We've been doing that throughout the the park of the last 25 years, so there's certainly some of that.

Um ecological restoration, uh certainly creating more people space, uh is what you see uh for park um enjoyment uh for the whole community.

So this slide here, just as a little timeline.

Um again, we we were in January, we held the public meeting, we were here um in late January, uh went through the project, a lot of discussion.

And uh after that, uh the recommendation from you all was hey, work with the DRC.

There was some clarifications, some things we wanted to look at very directly, uh, walk through the proposed project.

Uh we did that.

Uh we shortly thereafter uh scheduled a walkthrough.

Um and that was actually incredible uh as part of that.

Uh we had uh many of you are there.

Uh we had uh members of the public that were there, certainly a lot of our team members that have been involved with this project for several years, kind of walked through the phase two in a in a kind of a big giant loop starting at the pump house, uh, and actually uh identified a few uh considerations for the staff to look at to see if we can incorporate uh parking and additional picnic tables uh were some of the key issues, and I'm gonna show those here in a few seconds.

Uh we then further met with some more of you that couldn't couldn't make it to the uh initial site visit.

There was a meeting uh later uh in February, talk a little bit more about it, get some feedback.

Uh that feedback was invaluable because that helps us go back, take into considerations, go back with our design team, and I'm gonna show that we incorporated I think uh some improvements to our proposed design, uh asking you to consider that today.

So, a couple of the items remember um you know, part of this is you know, water flow along the site, drainage.

This is our existing drainage uh that we have.

You can see kind of how the water flows, a lot of them, a lot of impervious cutter cover, right?

A lot of pavement and our proposed design.

So this doesn't um change too much, but again, our overall proposed design, these are the existing conditions.

I think you're all familiar with these.

I think we showed them last time, but a lot of pervious cover in a lot of areas.

But uh if I scroll through, this is Hildebrand uh coming in.

I'm gonna scroll through.

This is the proposed uh impervious cover, uh a lot less impervious cover.

So uh what that does is that really creates uh a lot more filtering of water runoff during rain events, uh, those type of things.

So we're able to control access points, essentially you know, bringing in lid features, uh management uh of uh water flow uh is better.

Uh so that's a big part of our design.

But again, I just wanted to reorient you on that.

Um but um the the focus here is uh this slide is important.

So we had our meeting out in the field, we had a meeting um with shortly thereafter, but some of the key areas were uh I'll I'll point you to uh kind of the north section by the donkey barn, uh item number 23.

I think we all know that.

Um but that whole cultural trail, the picnic, uh I'm sorry, the uh the walking trail on kind of the north side of that plan.

Uh what we identified during the walkthrough was geez, you know, I think it was discussed during our meeting in January, but you know, we have picnic tables there now.

It's a place for people to come enjoy.

This is an important part.

We are actually creating more green space there, as you can see.

We're removing uh that driveway access, that big driveway loop.

We're trying to create more people space, walking trail space, uh people come and enjoy that in a park-like setting.

Um, one of the things we identified though was we're removing, we were proposing to remove all the parking uh kind of from that Hildebrand entrance between the lily pond and uh kind of the area that I just highlighted.

Uh but some comments came from that walkthrough.

Well, geez, you know, not everybody, it's easy to walk from kind of the southern parking spots.

How are they gonna enjoy that?

Uh we have people that have uh ADA issues to consider, uh, maybe ADA placards, they don't get around too much once they get out of the car.

So uh we were able to go back and say, yeah, you were right.

Um that was good feedback.

Uh we're proposing a couple ADA spaces for that area for those that uh may have trouble walking the distance from kind of the southern end of the parking uh to enjoy that northern end of the space.

So I think adding that is an improvement to our overall design.

Again, we want we want more people to enjoy this space overall, and uh that was an important uh part of the consideration, and that's an important piece of our redesign.

So uh after that, um I should go back because there's two things on this slide.

Um it's a little hard to see on the screen.

Maybe you can see it on your computers, but uh we've added additional picnic tables, right?

So that was another comment conversation from uh the meeting.

It was also a large conversation during the walkthrough with the DRC and the in the community was geez, you're you're building all these great spaces, let's say, uh a lot more green space to enjoy walk through, put a picnic blanket down.

However, the picnic tables in the park are an important piece where people gather, they have functions, they may not just have you know lunch or cup of coffee, but they have birthday parties, those type of things.

So we've actually we're proposing to add nine picnic tables.

Uh the design of those picnic tables aren't done yet, um, but we we we acknowledge that we need to add those based on the conversation.

So a handful or so um up on the northern end there by the trail.

Uh that's item number seven.

Uh some important ones were identified uh below the Asechia.

Uh you see, and there are these orange uh square boxes, right?

You see those there.

Um those are where some existing picnic tables, some stone picnic tables are now.

We get some good uh kind of stories about how people use those, and they've been using them for a couple decades for their family gatherings.

So incorporating those back into the design uh spaces where people can not just walk through it and enjoy the space, but also sit down, maybe have an event uh like a family gathering.

Uh and then there's one more on the lower lower left uh there.

But adding the picnic tables, I think was a good addition, uh redesign based on what you saw.

And uh we think that's about the right balance right there.

We're proposing nine.

Certainly if that's too many, you we'd love that feedback.

If that's not enough, we'd love that feedback.

Uh but we think that's a good balance, and certainly something we'll monitor over the life of the park, right?

Because a picnic table is something uh that we can certainly look towards uh through maintenance or additions in the in the future, but uh we certainly see that as a big improvement to the design.

So what that does, I know trees is a big part of the conversation.

This is a park project.

Uh we know we went through this, I think last time uh there will be some trees taken down, there'll be a lot of trees put back.

Uh we gave you a big, I think, spreadsheet or a table with the number of trees, the total now, the total then.

But just to be ultra transparent here, uh we are with the addition of the parking spaces and uh the picnic tables that I show, we will not be putting as many new trees on the site because that's where some of the new trees would go.

But what we're looking at is a total of 10 new trees, four new shade trees, and six understory trees that we had in the original calculations that we presented to you a couple months ago.

So we will forego adding those 10 trees out of the you know 250.

We're still adding 250, uh, but ten of those will be removed because we want to put the 88 parking spaces and we want to put the um picnic tables in those locations.

So just to let you know that's a modification to what we showed you a couple months ago.

We still think the story is we're putting a lot of new trees on this.

This is a much greener uh park area, not only on the um the uh pervious cover, but on the trees side of it.

But uh we wanted you to see that we acknowledge that.

Uh but we uh we think that's a good um a good addition or good redesign.

Um also our impervious cover uh calculation change just a hair, right?

A one percent change, but we want it we want you to see it because uh this was our existing impervious cover, right?

We talked about this, I think a couple months ago.

We do the calculations there on the bottom left that the current site of this phase two is about 37% impervious cover.

Uh we were proposing with the uh two months ago design that would go to about a 10% decrease, right?

We go from 37 to 27.

However, if we keep a couple of uh pervious parking spaces uh and we add those picnic tables, which will have some sort of foundation-based purpose cover, it does shave a percentage off.

So instead of realizing a 10% reduction in impervious cover for the project, it just goes down to 9%.

Still a very positive uh change uh to this area for a lot of those uh reasons.

Uh but again, we wanted to show you how those two changes do affect some of the numbers.

Uh we acknowledge that.

We still think this is a great uh design uh incorporating these uh even though that impervious uh reduces by the impervious net decrease does uh go down by one percent, but still a great overall improvement.

I wanted to touch on a couple uh project clarifications uh because this was uh also discussed in the walkthrough, was discussed a little bit at the meeting, of course.

Uh the stone key law, the stone kiosk relocation by the pump house, right?

Some questions, and actually a lot we started the this is where we started the tour uh back in that um January 28th uh DRC walkthrough.

Um but again uh this is going to be moved, right?

It's been through the THC approval process.

Uh as part of this project, this will be moved.

Uh we will remove this, we will actually park it temporarily, uh, store it temporarily in the location on site, and I'm going to show it to you on here.

But uh we've gone through the uh THC approval process, they're all that they believe that's okay.

Uh and it we will have, of course, uh we will have qualified people uh move it and put it back uh in the new location.

Uh so I just highlight that there.

But um there's a little bit of a history of it, right?

We comes in some photos in 1940s, and if you have any questions about that, I'll certainly defer to my uh historic preservation office friends.

Um but uh again, we just wanted to highlight this.

And and this is the slide.

Um so if you look in the middle there, it says existing location, that's where it is today.

Um the the final location will be kind of moved up in a way to the left there along that walking trail.

However, it'll be temporarily stored uh during construction because there's work to be done not only in the in the um uh the location where it was, but in the location where it's gonna be, it'll probably, depending on how our contractor sequences, it'll probably be one of the last things that's moved back.

Uh but we'll have to work that out when we get to that contractor uh stage of that uh process.

I know at the walkthrough and and maybe even um uh the last meeting.

So really that's a summary.

I felt it was important to talk to you about um not really rehash the entire presentation.

I know that we had a long presentation last time, there were a lot of details.

Um, but we did take your feedback from the last meeting, the feedback we heard from the public, the feedback um we we heard during the DRC walkthrough and then the follow-up meeting.

Um, and we've made some changes, I think addresses that.

We still think uh this project is uh certainly ready for uh to move forward, and we would look forward to your approval.

And I have a number of team members here today.

I know you're gonna hear from a lot of people today, but if we have any detailed questions, uh we'll be happy to uh answer them for you.

So thank you for letting me kind of walk you through some of the uh some of the changes.

Okay.

So um I understand that we have a total of 54 voicemails for this case.

We have 45 that are in support of the project.

We have nine that are opposed to the project.

Um we um appreciate everyone who took the time to to leave a voicemail in the interest of time.

Um we are not going to play 54 voicemails for this case.

We will um ensure that in our minutes that we um acknowledge the individuals who left their voicemails and also um to whether they opposed it or whether they were in support of the project.

So um I understand that we have in-person speakers here, so we will um look at those right now.

Our first speaker is Suzanne Scott.

All speakers will have two minutes unless I say otherwise.

Good afternoon.

My name is Suzanne Scott, and I am the chair of the Brackenridge Park Conservancy Board, a nonprofit organization serving as a steward and advocate for the park and a vested stakeholder in this project.

On behalf of the board, I respectfully request the HDRC approve the certificate of appropriateness for phase two Brackenridge Park improvements related to the City of San Antonio's voter-approved 2017 bond projects.

It is time to bring much needed voter-approved improvements to our beloved park.

Members of the HDRC have listened carefully to the community and have worked diligently to balance the diverse needs of all stakeholders and enhance the natural resources of the park.

The commission has worked with city staff and design teams to address the public concerns regarding the location and accessibility of picnic tables and parking.

The Conservancy supports the final recommendations before the HDRC here today.

And our goal as a conservancy is to create a more accessible, ecologically healthy and enjoyable park for all San Antonians.

And we see these critically needed investments as an important opportunity to demonstrate our shared love for Brackenridge Park.

Thank you.

Chris Maitree.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Thank you for the time.

And on behalf of the Brackenridge Park Conservancy, where I serve as the chief executive officer, we support this project, supported on January 21st when you first heard about it.

We support it today on March 18th.

Uh I just wanted to give some facts and figures.

January 11th, 2017 is when the City Council approved these funds to do this project.

Those funds numbered in 9,676,751 dollars in 2017.

On top of that, Brackenridge Park Conservancy has added another five and a half million dollars to support phase two.

You look at the average rate of interest inflation since 2017.

That adds up to 32.69% of inflation costs since this project was funded.

That adds significant pressure to continue to fundraise to continue to bring this project to fruition.

Also in this site is 12 different historic elements within the park.

Twelve.

Two is the number of parks you have in San Antonio that have registration with the National Historic of Registry.

Brackenridge is one of those.

Today is March 18th.

That's 3,353 days since this project was approved.

Yet there's been zero work done on that site.

I appreciate your review, and I appreciate the community's input and availability to make these fundamental changes to this park.

It will make this park stand out.

And again, thank you for your time and appreciate your support.

And please vote yes for the certificate of appropriateness.

Thank you.

Alicia Garlock.

Matilda Torres and Tony Mount have yielded their time.

She's a handicap.

Before I even start, an attorney would like to came in at three minutes.

You would like to speak.

She'd get stuck in traffic.

Started in a second.

But the attorney has that question.

Uh Ellen Patterson.

Ma'am, you can sign in over here with me over here.

Thank you.

Uh, my name is Alicia Garlock.

I am in opposition of this plans as a whole.

I'm asking you that you delay the start of this project until the playground also solicited to project private donors by the conservancy is completed.

Otherwise, we're gonna have two large areas of the park shut down from people like me, my mother, the regular people that use it every day.

Video.

Thank you.

Place is not a synonym for location.

Place is a location that has been claimed by feelings.

According to Donovan Ripkema, preservation has lots of values, aesthetic, social, cultural, environmental, educational, sociative, a whole range of values.

But they need a place to turn around and a place to park.

The parking spaces they want to remove are in use daily.

Where are these people going to park once these spaces are removed?

All the parking spaces are taken up.

No parking whatsoever.

And they want to reduce the parking.

And they want to build a placecape.

What are gonna be a lot of these parking spaces here on the end?

That's gonna be like a turnaround room.

And he's trying to back out because he can't even let's see how we're gonna do that.

Because they even want to take off the turnaround, you know, and look what he's doing right now.

Yeah, that's what Jamal says.

They have to come this way if they want to use the park.

They need to come over here.

All parking spaces are taken up.

But they're not here.

But they're not here at the park.

They are at the San Antonio Zoo.

Uh we're going to stop and then I'm gonna get out.

So you had to roll your wagon over here from way far over there.

Yes.

And you're trying to go to the baseball field?

Yes.

Because there's no parking.

Yeah, I know.

I think we have about 20 minutes to find one.

Oh wow, that's bad.

So they're trying to get rid of parking spaces here in the park.

And we're like trying to say, like, hey, there is no parking as it is.

Yeah.

Why are you gonna take out more parking spaces?

You're making people walk with their stuff, and we had parking spaces.

We need to that's what we're trying to tell the city.

Did you park over here?

For the zoo, but the zoo are you guys going to the zoo?

Is it because there's no parking over there?

I didn't even try it all blocked.

So there's limited parking today on a Saturday.

A lot of these people that are parking in the park, though, are going to the zoo.

Parking spaces are all taken.

It's not for people in the park.

They're actually going to the zoo.

There's no park, not enough parking today.

With disabilities act helps make sure public spaces like parks are designed so people with disabilities can enjoy them.

Removing 88 picnic areas will impact those with disabilities.

Shape or modified and influenced by human activity, interaction, and traditions over time.

Easter in the park is a cultural tradition.

The park is an ethnographic landscape that holds spiritual and cultural value to our community.

Sedina family has gathered in the park for 70 plus years for Easter.

We're here at Bracken's Park Easter weekend, and we're here with the Satan family.

And how many years have you been coming here?

Around 69 years.

69 years.

They have pictures here.

Their family's been coming here to Brackenridge Park.

Is the Brackenridge Park Conservancy fit in?

The plan includes 16 elements solicited to private donors by the Brackenridge Park Conservancy.

Emails sent to city staff by the Conservancy requested assurances that the public process for phase two would not jeopardize the elements and designs on which the BPC has already solicited and received private donations.

Okay.

Next speaker is John Greedle.

Good afternoon.

John Grial.

I represent Gary Perez and Matilda Torres in the Perez versus City of San Antonio litigation.

I wanted to make a couple points just about trees 106 and 141, which were a point of discussion.

The last time this came up, and I believe those were discussed on the second to last page of the PDF that was posted.

It was 29 of the PDF.

So I'm gonna recommend that y'all either stipulate that those not be removed, which would just be reiterating some of the earlier stipulations, or you just deny the aspect of today's permit related to those.

So if you look at tree 141, which is down by the river, that is a part of the city's permit to the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Army Corps is currently consulting with the Comanche Nation who is here in the last meeting to object to this.

So the city's gonna have to go back and forth with the Army Corps and the Comanche Nation regarding that specific tree as well as five others on the river line.

So I don't think it makes sense to approve any plans for that until we see what comes back from the Army Corps.

And then if you have the PDF, I'd really encourage you to look at the tree 106, which is higher up the bank, and you'll see that that's noted reason for removal.

Impacting cultural resource.

It was a whites-only beach.

You know, who in this room would not have been able to use Lambert Beach when it existed as a swimming beach.

And I'm not saying that you shouldn't honor that history, but there are multiple cultural resources here.

And to say that that tree is impacting the cultural resource ignores that to the Native American church, to the Comanche Nation, and to a lot of indigenous San Antins and Texans, those trees are a cultural resource.

Those trees are a religious resource.

Those trees are part of religious ceremonies.

And if you really look at that picture, which is on the second to last page of the PDF, it is just impossible to me.

If you look at that tree, that there is not a that tree is like 10 feet away from a building.

I just think it's impossible that if you told SWA, the design firm, like find a way to save this tree.

And then you heard about the cost and the time of this project.

I think I was here in 2023 saying that if you would choose a design that would preserve these religious trees and preserve the Lambert Beach Walls, you would save time and money.

And I think that many years down the road, that's been completely vindicated.

You know, in economics, you can talk about the sunk cost fallacy.

You don't want to throw good money after bad.

Um, you know, my mom also used to say, you know, it's never too late to do the right thing.

So I know that there's been a lot of years that have been going on as far as the litigation.

Uh that's returning to the district court in the Western District of Texas.

So we haven't even started discovery yet into emails, um, into the design process and what was asked of the design firm.

So it's going to take more time.

It's going to take more money.

And as to the bond funds, you know, that was for restoration of Brackenridge Park generally.

Obviously, it wasn't for this specific design, which was not even in existence at the time of the bond project.

So I don't think that you know you kind of have like the people of San Antonio's democratic imprimatur on this.

So being specific, I just want you to preserve Trees 106 and 141 today, uh, and to remember that the cultural resource of that is if we want to talk about all San Antonians, that includes Indigenous San Antonians.

Thank you.

Ida Ayala.

Uh Ms.

Ayala will receive four minutes.

Olivia Ayala is here and has yielded her time.

Good afternoon.

I'm here in opposition to the current plans for phase two of the Brackenrich Park project.

Specifically, I oppose the removal of picnic tables in the project area as well as removing parking spaces.

Um voters did vote.

I'd love to behind, yes, on proposition three.

But as you've already seen, Alicia posted some of that up there, and um Mr.

Gryll mentioned it as well.

And trees were not on Proposition Three's voter sheet.

Okay, it was very general information.

The Cultural Landscape Report is one of the documents that forms the basis for the guiding principles and reconciliation plan for the Brackenridge Park Project.

The executive summary of the report states, and it's on page one, as this system based treatment is implemented, the many current uses and rituals that contribute to the park and San Antonio's rich identity can and should remain.

What the City and Brackenridge Park Conservancy are attempting to do by removing picnic tables and parking space is absolutely contrary to this recommendation by a report that they paid for.

Phase two encompasses some of the most heavily used picnic areas in the park, including the infamous Easter camping ritual where the Cerna family has spent seven years camping along the Asechia.

In addition, the current plans for the phase two project will deny access to the already marginalized population of people who enjoy the natural and inviting environment of Brackenridge Park.

Even the city is aware of this point.

On page two, in a grant request from the National Park Service, the city states, as this is the only natural resource experience for many underprivileged children and adults, closing the area would deprive users of this type of activity.

And the activity where they were talking about was fishing.

However, in our case, we're talking about picnicking and being able to celebrate family events.

However, this area is the heart of the park for generations of people.

This is a vital picnic area in the park due to its accessibility for elderly and physically challenged.

The nearby parking spaces allow for transporting food, canopies, and everything else they bring to the picnic site, and includes two ADA, um, only two ADA parking spaces in that site.

Removing this picnic site would drastically alter the cultural traditions that are celebrated here and would create overcrowding, removing the parking would create overcrowding in other um areas of the park.

In the OHP design considerations for HDRC, it states, and there's a copy of those, and I didn't mean to insult you, but I printed them all out.

Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, object, or site in this case, and its environment.

These changes may have acquired significance in their own right.

And this significance shall be recognized and respected.

That significance is a cultural landscape, which is explained in the cultural report as a cultural landscape is the creation of the women, men, and children who live their lives within that landscape.

Okay, historically, not the future hope.

Section 35-641 design considerations for historic and design review commission's recommendation.

States construction on public property, and I'm gonna leave that to you.

This is a public park.

BPC management and funding agreement do not change ownership.

Not a city manager staff, not a mayor, the city owns the park.

We are the city, we funded it through the bonds, and the only stipulations I'm asking is that you maintain the parking spaces and the picnic tables.

Thank you.

Susan Strong.

The strong will have four minutes.

Stephen Cook has yielded his time.

Thank you, and good afternoon, Commissioners.

I have a PowerPoint to you.

Thank you.

And the efforts that you've given.

But I do think that we still could get to a better plan in a timely way.

And they did not describe the project in that email.

They gave scripts to allow people to call in and express their support for the project, but nowhere did it describe what the project was.

So I think you really have to take those numbers with a grain of salt.

And I'm sorry that you didn't get to hear from other people that actually know what the project is and have experience with it.

So next slide, please.

Or you want me to do this?

So I want to just remind you that the original stipulation concerning the two trees that Mr.

Grohl spoke about did say that no work would uh occur until Section 106 process is complete.

You heard from Mr.

Gryll that that's a long way from being complete.

Next slide.

Oh sorry.

Um so these are the two trees in question on the left, the twin trunk cypress and the uh cypress up above.

I will say these are the only two trees that will be left in the viewscape of the pump house from this side of the pump house.

So if you agree to cut those two trees down, two trees down, we will just have a barren, you know, treeless landscape there.

Um and all of this is being done, my understanding from the walkthrough is because the utility vault is going to go where that um that tree up above is.

That's the size of a manhole cover.

Surely, somewhere in that enormous plaza or around it, we could find another place to put something the size of a manhole cover rather than right where that one cypress tree is.

And I want to remind you that these this is what the park looked like back when.

So on the left, you see the park before the walls were built.

All trees, all trees.

After the walls were built, that's 1925 on the right side.

And again, a heavily wooded landscape.

And what we're proposing here is to take out in phase one, but also in phase two with those two cypresses, pretty much all of those trees that are left.

So it will look nothing like this.

Um lastly, I want to talk about I can't see the timer anymore.

There we go.

Thank you.

I want to talk about the picnic tables.

I went out and measured, um, and I do appreciate that y'all want to restore picnic tables.

I think that's very important.

But I would ask you to reconsider marginalizing them next to the ugly zoo fence between a bike path that's going to be a 10-foot concrete path where people are going to be zipping by, and you got a bike path on one side and a fence on the other, and it's quite marginalized, and it's uh it's a little bit dangerous, I think.

This is not does not appear to be to scale.

I went out and measured on the left, I measured that as 30 feet, the bike path is 10 feet.

Um you got 27 feet down there.

So you can see it's really not to scale.

Um these picnic pads, the smaller ones are 16 feet wide diameter, the larger ones are 22 in diameter.

So, you know, if you put those down, I would I would ask you to go and do a mock-up and make sure those picnic tables are actually going to fit, and that we're not going to have problems either being right up against this ugly fence, which is completely inappropriate for the park, but that's another, you know, another comment.

Um, but uh between that fence and the bike path.

And as you know, picnic people move around on picnic pads.

So we're gonna have people stepping into the path of bikes, pets, children, cyclists.

It's it could be very dangerous there.

Ma'am, um ma'am, I'm gonna ask you to wrap up your comments, please.

Okay, just one more thing.

Um I think you're still removing the three really nice um tables.

And those are the one thing from the 2000s bond that actually worked.

You rewatered the lily pond before, you rewatered the asequia before.

There's lampposts throughout the project that are all broken.

The grand staircase has to be redone.

Everything from 20 years ago is gone except for these tables, which are incredibly popular.

So I would still urge you to retain those tables that we all paid for 20 years ago.

Thank you so much for your attention.

And Ellen Patterson.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Ellen Patterson.

I'm an attorney, and I'm also a cancer survivor, and I'd like to talk about the park from the perspective of somebody who has suffered cancer and it went there to heal.

Um I want to talk about the trees.

One mature oak tree produces 3,500 cubic feet of oxygen every year, which is about half the yearly oxygen requirement for one adult human.

A person needs 19 cubic feet of oxygen every day to breathe and live.

One mature oak tree sequesters between 22 and 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide every year, thus contributing substantially to climate change mitigation.

The shade of a mature oak tree reduces the ambient temperature and its shade under its canopy by as much as 25 degrees.

That means that on a 90-degree day, the sh under the tree, it could be 65 degrees with the wind blowing.

A typical mature oak tree can produce between 1,000 to 17,000 square feet of shade.

Additionally, large trees can transpire.

That means when they turn they produce they use water vapor, around 40,000 gallons of water vapor annually contribute to contributing to this cooling effect.

This natural process helps lower surrounding air temperatures, making shaded areas much more pleasant during hot weather.

A mature oak tree can hold approximately 1,000 to 2,000 pounds of soil in place with its roots.

This capacity varies based on the tree's size, root system, and soil conditions.

And of course, it provides an oak tree, for example, can provide um waterfowl nesting locations.

So when there's a choice, let's nurture not annihilate the trees.

Let's find reasons to keep these trees and honor them, not to cut them down.

And we're keeping track, we're gonna start cataloging which trees are being cut.

And um, we'll object when it starts to get really bad.

Um, and it already has.

There's trees been cut, and they've been saying it's because they they're diseased.

We would argue that it's because we haven't been taking care of them properly.

These trees should the focus.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

That concludes our public comments.

Thank you.

Um thank you to all of our in-person speakers.

Um we will start now with questions from the commission.

I'm going to start with our virtual commissioner.

Um, Commissioner Mazuka.

Um, do you have any questions for the applicant?

No response.

Commissioner Galloway.

Not at this time.

Thank you.

Um, sir, I I do have one quick question.

Yes, sir.

Uh regarding a staff, uh, regarding litigation and so forth.

Can you guide us, you know, through that process or what are we looking at as we try to make a decision on moving ahead on this project?

Okay, I don't know which microphone to use.

Good afternoon.

My name is Natalie Wilson.

I'm outside counsel for the City of San Antonio in the Perez litigation.

Phase two is not part of the litigation.

Only phase one is.

So does that does that answer your question?

Or help?

Okay.

That concludes your question, sir.

Yes, sir.

That concludes my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Charlie.

So no questions at this time, but very interesting information that was conveyed to us, so thank you.

Commissioner Group.

I have no questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Savino.

Uh yes, I do.

Um I have questions on a couple of topics given enough time.

Who would who can I direct those to on the design team or the management team?

Start with me.

Sure.

It appears in the late documents and page number 17 where we see a rendering of the area and the insertion of the two uh ADA site uh spaces.

And there is the comment that we are going to lose a couple of shade trees because of the inclusion of these spaces.

Are these two trees, the live oak trees that are currently in front of the donkey barn?

No, the the two trees that I said we would lose are the ones that we would we would have put there.

They were they were new trees, proposed trees.

So we had we had the trees preserved.

That was one, you know, we did that whole uh breakdown of trees preserved or trees removed, trees, some relocated.

What I what I what I was trying to illustrate was back in January, we had said we're gonna propose in addition to the preserve X number.

There was gonna be a couple of new trees put there.

That's the delta.

Because of the way this was, you know, uh rendered quickly, it looks like um anyway.

So good, good.

I hate to have to lose trees.

Yeah, we didn't park.

Uh let me be clear.

We didn't put the spaces there to cut down more trees.

It was just there was a little give and take there.

And we agreed that the parking was uh I mean it was a good comment once we were out there walking it again with that in mind, uh we we felt that there had to be some at least some ADA spots in that area.

Perfect.

Okay.

My other question is then also about the um picnic stations, uh benches and whatever else, other equipment that comes with it, including a pad.

First of all, I don't see it in the CDs yet, but I see it in the rendering.

I just wanted to make sure that it did get into the project.

But also, one of the community members makes a good point, um, and that is the way they have been squished up against the property line.

Um might you, as you move forward with the design, might you consider shifting the spirit path southward just a little bit as you are um ensuring sufficient space for those parking uh for the picnic paths.

Yeah, and I think uh yeah, to clarify the answer is yes.

Um we've we have identified those locations right now as this is our thought process based on the feedback that we received since the last meeting and the walkthroughs.

We will have to design the details of that as we go through the formal permitting process.

Certainly after today, this is one step of the process, right?

We have to go through full permitting, all the CDs, all the design details, um, and what will be will be presented in the final construction document set.

Uh based on what your approval is today or comments today, uh I would imagine our OHP team and our permit team would make sure all of that is able to be uh not squished and all of those types of things.

Yeah, and sure there is plenty of space for safety for enjoyment.

Yeah, we are not proposing declaring.

I'm sorry, I mean to cut you off.

We are not proposing an unsafe condition.

That's really a schematic location of where they will be.

Okay.

There will be enough space so that the the the um the bike path does not like cross the picnic area, what we define as the picnic area.

Uh we're not trying to just say there's a picnic table at that orange dot.

There's there is space for it and it will be designed in a safe manner.

Okay.

So that path may shift a little bit depending on the other.

Yeah, I mean we will we want to take what we get from you all today.

Hopefully it's an approval, right?

That's what we are asking for, to finalize those last drawings uh with those elements so that we can propose it through the permitting process.

Okay.

And I do have one other topic, but I'll regarding tree number 106, but I'll let my uh colleagues go first.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mammond.

No questions, Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Uh first for the the city's uh legal council.

Um the the discussion that we have heard regarding 106 and 141 trees.

Uh how does the city see those trees with respect to phase one or phase two?

Uh particularly that uh that they're even in discussion.

Natalie, can I respond to that?

Yeah, I'm I yeah, because I'm not trying to understand the question.

They are not uh they are not actually part of today's request.

And so those trees were included in the phase one scope that already came to HDRC.

And so again, as was mentioned by one of the speakers, we don't have full Army Corps of Engineers permits for that project yet.

And so those trees won't be removed until we have the permits that we need to remove them.

And it's not by action today somehow over superseding the phase one approval.

It's a separate review.

What would it uh would it anyway be inappropriate or unsanctioned if there was uh stipulation regarding those two trees?

It's really outside of the scope.

No, no, but that's not my question.

But yeah, but they're not a part of what we're what's before us today.

That's in another phase.

We are focusing on phase two, and those trees are not in this particular thing.

Right, right.

But that's why I asked for legal because I'm more concerned with the legal response than I am to what we're concerned with.

Yeah, I I hear you.

I mean if you want to make a comment to it but just know that it really doesn't have any bearing on what we are doing here today.

But what do you think?

Right, right.

But that's why that's why I was going to ask legal counsel this follow-up but Corey answered instead of legal counsel.

I think there's there's kind of three layers right there's it has already been approved for the under the certificate of occupancy with the stipulation that all other required permitting including the use case permit has to be in place before they are removed.

So that's I think the stipulation that you were maybe asking for is was already part of the phase one COA.

The the 106 permitting process is ongoing and the core can make its determination of whether or not those trees can be removed and then there is potentially the additional layer of the litigation in which the district court could potentially which we don't think is the right answer, but could potentially say I don't care that the HDRC said it was okay.

I don't care that the Army Corps of engineers says it's okay.

It violates the plaintiffs First Amendment rights you're not you you have to redesign around those trees.

Or they could say it it impacts the religious rights but you've met the constitutional standards, right?

So there's y'all's part of protecting those two particular trees has already been taken care of in the stipulations you put in the COA for phase one.

But what would that mean there is a prohib there would be a prohibition from us considering there's the the requirement that the other required permits be obtained before those trees are removed.

Right but would there be a prohibition within the context of a motion here to place an a stipulation but there is no action that is able to be made on something that is outside of the scope.

Yeah.

You guys review residential cases a lot it would be asking them to build a shed that they're not asking for and so you we you cannot stipulate something that is not being requested today.

Corey that's a that's a little closer to what I'm asking.

Yeah.

Okay.

So yes it would be a procedurally improper to put the stipulation in phase two that would affect a phase one action.

Okay.

And the city thank you.

Okay.

Yes.

And then further question for uh um I guess uh m Mr uh Shannon, Mr.

Shannon.

Sir on the the the you we we did the walk around and and it it was very very uh in enlightening uh visit.

Uh uh it appears that uh much of the of the changes that are proposed a bunch of the city's design work is is uh really far reaching uh or or progressive uh uh thoughtfulness in in so much of it.

Now there are some sticking points that things that I think we went around in circles about that that I would have to tell you that I don't see um in any of the discussion that we had around the park benches around the one axis that's along the fence wall um and some of the limited parking possibilities that that that would break the vast majority of what is being proposed.

So I I want to focus in on questions regarding the park benches for instance.

I I personally don't see uh uh the possibility of of supporting a motion that didn't go along with a drawing that was specific to where the park benches went but but I think also one that that it uh addresses the idea that somehow the park benches were being relegated to an area that was other than the area that they are and this plan uh actually reinforces the idea that the park benches most definitely are not where the park benches are in any way, shape or form.

Is that something that the city might consider um providing us with in in the future um if it depending on the on the will of the of the Commission here that there's a need for a greater thoughtfulness with respect to the positioning of park benches or the increasing of park benches but a drawing that is specific to park bench locations so I think I understand your question so I'll give it a shot and I'm going to ask my friends at uh historic preservation but certainly the uh let's be clear the the locations that we're proposing do include us removing the existing ones and installing in the same general area on the southern side of southern plan side of this IKEA and certainly on the northern side um where some benches are currently so putting them back in generally the same areas of the park right um certainly in different locations but generally in the same areas we're trying to we're trying to keep that spirit that we we talked about at the walkthrough uh that you heard today in terms of those are critical pieces to enjoy this whole section of the park um so uh that's that's I just want to reiterate that that you're very right there um that that is what

So putting them back in generally the same areas of the park, right?

Um, certainly different locations, but generally in the same areas.

We're trying to we're trying to keep that spirit that we we talked about at the walkthrough that you heard today in terms of those are critical pieces to enjoy this whole section of the park.

Um that's that's I do want to reiterate that that you're very right there that that is we're not trying to you know slip something by you, but that's but we believe that those locations um are where they're generally be fully designed after today if we got approval.

Um but certainly uh I don't know if Corey you want to help me with this about if they ask us for a specific design to be brought back to them for review and consideration, maybe you can walk me through that process.

I mean that's up to you all.

I mean, this is very normal.

Um you often do not see things at their final CD development permit ready set phase.

And so what staff does on the back end after HCRC review is anything that comes in for a permit, we make sure it's consistent with what you all saw and approved.

And so if Mike says there is going to be 20 picnic tables, we're gonna make sure there's 20 picnic tables.

But um, but then ultimately um I think if you need a spec for a typical picnic table, that is something you could request to come back.

Um if not, it's something that could be uh delegated to staff to as a stipulation to conduct during its permit review.

I have another question.

So I'm not sir, I'm gonna ask you to hold that.

I mean, we've um then an interest for the rest of the commissioner.

So um when we get to discussion, I'll allow you more time for that.

May ask just one.

So you do no.

I got one.

No, sir.

No.

We're going to go on to the next commission, then I'll give you opportunity when we go into our discussion round to have that, because you have had a lot of time already.

Okay, I'm going to hold you to that.

You're going to give me opportunity to go through my list.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Holland.

I I have no questions, but I will make a motion if there are no other questions.

Um give give a moment for that.

Let me hear from the vice chair and then we'll go from there.

Sure.

Yes.

Um this is I don't know if it's for the design team or for Mr.

Shannon, but uh we understand that the latest drawings are uh addressing issues that have been brought up in the recent past in terms of parking and uh picnic tables.

And as you study final locations and layouts, uh would you be willing to include looking for additional uh parking for ADA up at that end of the site?

I know there's quite a bit of uh driveways and parking up there now that is scheduled to be removed.

And as you study this particular area, uh would you all be willing to consider or look at possibly increasing the number of spaces up there?

Yes, I think I think yes.

We believe based on what we heard, this is the plan that that we we think captures all that.

We think the two spaces capture that.

Uh but based on your feedback, um certainly if you think, hey, we need a little we need a little bit more, you need to consider more, we can certainly do that.

Um I mean that's not a that's certainly not a deal breaker.

I think we were we agree just based on, you know, again that walkthrough um I'm relatively new to this project too, so uh but that was enlightening for a lot of us, including those that have been on us but on it for a while is yeah, we we really could use some ADA spots there.

So if if you if you tell us to go look at some more spaces, and if you have a number in mind, you can share that, we'll try to accommodate.

But uh we believe the two does what we need it to do.

Uh as we're trying to balance everything that we're trying to do in that area, all those improvements that we see as improvements.

I know there's some disagreements as to what is constituted an improvement, but when you take it all into consideration, that's our that's our best stab at it right now.

But if you tell us to try try for some more, we'll certainly take that back as part of um if you guys vote that way or tell us of a stipulation or something like that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um and before I take your motion, Commissioner Alm Holland.

Um Commissioner Mazuka, did you have any questions for the applicant?

No, I did not.

I appreciate the uh the effort to include more parking spaces on the north side.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Holland, I'll entertain your motion, sir.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'd like to make a motion to approve with staff stipulations as presented.

Second.

It's been moved in properly second um discussion, yes, sir.

And I have some comments.

I I just I want to acknowledge the amount of work that has gone into responding to the concerns raised at the last hearing.

And at the DRC, the applicant has clearly listened and made thoughtful adjustments to the plan within the scope of this commission's purview.

We've seen meaningful additions to seating, including picnic tables and flexible options, clarification around the tree impacts and preservation.

Improvements to the drainage to protect the park's historic resources and confirmation that elements like the kiosk are going to be reserved and relocated rather than lost.

I just want to highlight as well that it's important to note this project was approved by voters in 2017 as part of the bond program, and that reflected a broader public mandate to invest in and improve this park.

These are reasonable good faith accommodations that strengthen the project and they remain consistent with the adopted master plan and staff's findings based on the record before us.

I believe the application meets the preservation standards and prepared to support this as submitted.

I also want to be clear that I don't see any outstanding issues within our purview that would materially be resolved by any further delay the applicant has addressed the positions raised.

And the remaining issues we've heard largely fall outside the Commission's authority.

So really any delay today would not meaningfully change the outcome.

It would just kick the can down the road.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Does the second want to make any comments?

No, I appreciate Mr.

Holland's comments.

I kind of uh go in line with that too.

And I was also present at the last um in online DRC looking at the changes.

And just we've we have gone through, I went through phase one on this commission, and um I appreciate that you actually are taking the comments, and I feel confident too that if this passes today, when it passes, that you're still gonna take on those comments that are pup the public and us come with today because that's how you've been doing everything, every step.

You've always listened.

You have taken the comments seriously.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um we'll go now in order.

Um Commissioner Mazooka, do you have any comments you'd like to make, sir?

I do not.

Thank you, sir.

Um Commissioner Kelloway.

Uh yes.

Um I just want to say thank you to the public, thank you to all of the stakeholders for the feedback and the process.

Um, you know, I feel like you know, we the Commission has been very diligent, intentional, thoughtful about like um about this project.

And you know, um I don't think that we've delayed it three years or anything like that.

You know, like it's been slightly delayed, but civic engagement takes time, and the public deserves that.

Uh and so um I think we have met people where they're at.

I will be go on the record that I'm still opposed to the removal of heritage trees, um, and am not happy that that wasn't you know resolved in this, but generally um I can see where you know feedback from the public is being put into place, and you know, that to me is a hopeful move forward.

Thank you, sir, Commissioner Gabada.

No comment right now, sir.

Thank you, Commissioner Chavieso.

No comment at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner Savino.

Uh yeah.

Um I do also want to um thank the uh city staff for providing a couple of more weeks, a few more weeks for us to take a closer look and to express the concerns we have in uh you've responded um well to the ones that are um of most importance.

Um less the trees.

I too am concerned about the trees.

I'm not supportive about removing uh really any of the heritage trees except for one of them in this scope.

Um I think adding the picnic stations is incredibly valuable.

What it's doing is it's putting people back into that place.

I was concerned with the earlier rendition of the asequia and the lily pond and the the mill race as being almost too precious.

You can come through, you can walk through, you can sit for a while, but you really can't occupy and habitate the space.

Now with picnic stations, you can do that.

I do uh want to repeat that I think uh the space allocated to those picnic stations needs to be greater and more um more enjoyable.

Um but you've expressed uh a willingness to look at that and even shift the spirit path just a little bit where we need to do that.

Um ADA along with uh Commissioner Fetzer, I totally agree that additional ADA spaces are necessary.

Um for all of the uses and all of the folks coming in there.

Um I would be remiss to not mention the historic interpretation of the southernmost portion of the asequia.

I made the comment during the DRC walkthrough.

Uh what we have at item number 17, the pedestrian bridge that was discovered over going over the asequia.

I laud your attempts or your um commitment to um restoring it.

I think that's really a wonderful thing.

But the assequia stops right then and there.

Sure you'll have signs interpretation, but to see it stopping, look a few feet over to the south and seeing the ravine begin on the zoo property, telling us that there is a waterway, a historic waterway, and not having anything expressing that or addressing that on that last portion.

It's kind of a uh it's a missed opportunity that maybe the Brackenridge Park Conservancy can pursue.

That would be a wonderful project for y'all to pick up.

Um just to create some continuity with the history of a sequias and how that area is used.

Um those are the bulk of my comments.

Thanks for for coming back to us with this.

Thank you, Commissioner Mammon.

No comment, Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Velasquez.

I would like to ask for for some clarification from uh city staff with respect to uh item seven and item eight.

Uh why is there you know, this this need for these two categories that is a spirit walk and that the other is um bike the bike path.

That they're that they're that their design seems to do nothing more than really create an arbitrary separation that that has a greater impact than the picnic tables does.

So that we've used this this pathway to legitimize the removal or the moving of these of the picnic tables.

Um it just seems very elementary.

Much like the ADA parking that the accommodation is done as far away from everything else that's sensible.

And it doesn't seem that it's material to make or break a project like this.

And I I appreciate the the motion.

And I think the motion is a a good motion, but but it's not necessarily critical to whether or not the solution in these small areas could get even better.

So why are these two things seem as things that have to be really far apart, like really divorced from each other, the bikes and the and the hiking?

And why is it seen as appropriate to divide this little piece of land as appropriate when the we're almost saying that increasing the benches in those environments is not appropriate?

So in in terms of impervious cover and all the other arguments that can be made.

Um I uh I don't know that there's an answer for it.

Uh but do you all have an answer for why those two things?

And Mr.

Chair, I appreciate the time because you cut my questioning time of the city, which was not supposed to be this kind of time, it's supposed to be questioning time.

Commissioner Velasquez, I'm not I'm letting you go.

Okay, well, this is what I just heard that thing, and you know.

Uh can somebody from the city Mr.

Let me just make sure I might come out.

I just want to make sure.

So you you want to know the the intent of seven and eight, the hike and bike trail and the cultural trail.

I just try to understand the question, and I might ask you.

Well, that's 7 and 8.

Yes.

Because it might be a design issue.

The seven and eight are so so uh seen as important that they're apart from each other, yet they both encourage an interruption of the green space.

Uh why why is that seen as appropriate, but the park benches are not appropriate.

Well, the park benches are appropriate, that's why they're not.

But they're by the fence, right?

Um please introduce yourself.

Oh, sure.

Uh thinderbaumgardner uh with SWA, we're the design firm uh responsible for the work.

Thank you.

Uh no, parks bitches are on the plan and they're and they are there because they are appropriate.

Right, right.

But but up there, what about between the seikia between 17519 and seven.

Okay.

So the the way this uh is set up right now.

So the number seven is a bike trail.

It's hike and bike, but it's gonna have bicycles on it.

It's people, you know, generally people are moving, right?

I'm going from here to there.

Uh standard uh um approach to these kind of things is then if you're going to then have a very slow moving trail, you would want to separate it, right?

Because you don't want people that are that are moving slowly, looking at nature, trying to learn about history.

Remember, there's interpretive science, things like that.

Uh they're on number eight.

Because they're moving slow, they're not paying attention for bikes, right?

So we want to make it a safe environment.

That's why they are two different um uh circulation systems.

Number eight uh provides access to the green space between seven and eight.

Uh that is a large uh lawn uh which will function really well and has been designed specifically for Easter campers to use.

Uh because a lot of people do bring their own equipment out.

A lot of people bring their own tables and chairs and things out, as you you would notice in the photographs that were shown earlier.

So that's a huge space for people to occupy for that.

But on just a sunny Wednesday afternoon, you could play frisbee there too.

But that trail brings you safe access to get to that.

In addition, number eight, it's a loop trail, right?

People like to move in loops, especially if they're trying to learn something or kind of see different uh ecological systems that are along that route.

So there's little stories along that route, and there's benches along it as well.

There's a little rails you can stop and look, you can watch this, you can watch that.

It's there to bring people into the park into parts of the park that are difficult to access today.

Further, number seven, uh those tables now are all ADA accessible because you can get from those uh parking spaces to those uh picnic tables, which most of the picnic tables that exist today are not accessible from an ADA um uh code point of view.

So that's why they're separated.

They provide a lot of opportunity for the public.

Far more opportunity than exists today.

Uh when we design these things, it's very thoughtful.

This is like a little Swiss watch in a ways.

I I would go further and say that you know the number 11 is sort of a plaza space.

That's kind of where your journey begins.

And you move along number eight, you find your way down at the um uh the uh the lily pond, the dam that's been um exposed now that you can see it.

Then you continue down across the little uh number 19 where the uh donkey uh cart used to be.

Then you move along the other side of the raceway.

So it creates a loop, slow moving.

You're gonna have uh school kids that are there doing things on any given day of the week.

Uh they're gonna learn a lot, but they're also in a safer location.

So park benches could go in that area, the frisbee area that you are talking about.

Right.

I mean, I mean, uh the only reason I say is because uh the the the spirit of the question is that that would be saying that the way that it is now and has been is wrong.

Or does it work?

It uh it will work better in the future is the idea.

Um that's uh I appreciate that you say that, but yeah, it will work better.

And and the idea with uh is to absolutely to make a large open space, right?

That was kind of a desire.

This is a lot of things that we heard.

If you go back to the master plan that was done before we were engaged in the project, a lot of the questions that were asked and a lot of the results of early engagement was about more open space like that, more flexible type of open space.

So these are responses to other types of comments that we've um yeah that the city has received over time.

Okay, another question it might be for you.

Number seven is is not just a bike trail, right?

It's also access to the zoo.

Uh I mean not really.

Uh number seven will take you up through underneath Hildebrand.

No, no, I I know, but as it goes to where it is on this drawing, going this way.

To the left.

Does doesn't it there, isn't there an entrance to the side of the building that is off of Hildebrand and that goes into the You would not be able to get to the zoo that way.

There's no No, I don't mean for the public.

It's a service entry right now.

Will cars still be able to if you see the sun where well above number 23, where you see the two ADA uh written there.

Yeah, you could move up that way to a service route into the zoo.

Uh but these are very different circulation systems that would not be um Right, but I'm talking about where it's uh picnic units.

It's movable table and chairs.

Uh-huh.

That's an entrance, right?

To the zoo?

Uh not for people, not for not for the public.

Uh there may be some back of house and what back of house.

A big part of what we have tried to do with the plan is that uh but but there is, right?

I mean, there is.

It will be they will have access.

I guess uh I don't believe that will be zoo access in the future.

What's happened is that over time the zoo is kind of like stepped into the park more and more.

And so a lot of their kind of back-of-house uh things were really impacting the park.

So the idea is for the zoo, the zoo to do their back-of-house things within the zoo and for the park to become a park.

And and next 223, is that a vehicle be able to do that?

There is one space there, which has been greatly minimized from what currently exists, but there is an access point there.

I can't recall if it was for fire or actual more detail.

Sorry.

Uh so right that uh there's I'm sorry, I am Ashton Williams, uh San Antonio native and project manager on the uh Bracken Ridge Park Project with SWA Group.

Sorry, that was a little long-winded.

Um so that area there is currently a zoo operations uh fence zone.

The intention would be that we would be able to close that off, and that would only be a fire truck turnaround point.

Um that is just something that has to still be negotiated with the zoo on the city side that I can't speak to that uh personally on the design team.

Um but that there if you look at um do you see that crosswalk that that crosses Brackenridge drive there, there will be bollards there.

So normally cars will not be able to access that drive except for uh park staff and their removable ballots so they can pick them up and pull them.

Um so that number seven normally will just be serving people uh moving through the park to to circulate Bracken Ridge proper and a little in the larger loop, because this this trail continues further down into the park, correct?

And then at number seven where it goes up towards number six, uh the San Antonio Spirit Reach is being developed north of uh Hildebrand.

And so people from um Brackenridge Park can go up to the Spirit Reach and learn about the this the headwaters of San Antonio, and that's the beginning of the historical journey for this whole project.

So we're connecting that as part of this experience.

So it's important for these um pathways to uh have the distinct identities because it's helping um site legibility for people to learn through the site and understand where they are and um communicate the historical journey, but also be functional for all the different um activities that have to go on the park from maintenance to uh a park experience as well.

I I did have two more questions and there's short questions.

Though on the for design but that's on design.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Yes, sir.

Um we've I've given you an extended period of time here in this session.

So to keep saying I have more questions, I have more questions.

Can I ask you to wrap wrap up, please, so we can um it's just it's just one that has to do with the design firm was aware that in the River Reach and and the West Side Creeks that that there are bikes and there are people walking, there's one trail throughout the city.

And and then to uh Commissioner Savino's point, I also was hoping that there would be some exploration in the bridge in the area that connects that Asequia uh to the water to the to the pump house that that uh perhaps there's a creative way to do I mean you show a picture here that shows the water going through the arches, yet there's no effort to do that in the actual thing.

Sure.

So um I'm just to provide some additional context.

So when they investigated the uh pedestrian bridge at number 17, they also discovered another uh number of historic artifacts that are buried between uh the end of the aceia there in the zoo.

So it's actually not an open channel um from where the end of the saquia is to the zoo.

There's a lot of things underground that are blocking that path.

So in order to expose that whole channel through the actual the zoo end of the asequia is blocked off currently.

Um so those two bodies of water don't meet and they can't meet because the animals poop in the water.

Um but um essentially uh so if you were to dig that down, you wouldn't have any way to drain that water out through that area, and then also you would be impacting the cultural resources that are buried.

There's an indigenous um American hearth that's a little bit below there, and then there's a bunch of actually um there's a bunch of crisscrossing pipes that we don't actually know um how they played into the larger story of the um pump house system.

Um so until that information is available, we are not really sure how to interpret it in that way.

Um but through signage um we would hope to communicate that story and illustrate that.

But that's a separate um uh package and study that hasn't been completed yet.

But we would hope that that story would be told through that signage.

Um but a physical way to connect those um we just don't have enough information to do that at this time, but it could be a future project or um I appreciate your answer uh and the way you went about expressing this very important to me.

And m Mr.

Chair, I just would wonder if the maker of the motion wouldn't be willing to place a specific uh obligation on the city's part to provide us with a plan, not that it just goes to OHP staff and that they uh hold it to uh you know its standard, but that there is a plan for uh the park benches and and an extension of uh of parking that wouldn't hold up the project, but would give us a little bit more opportunity to ensure that there is this inferred right through the park benches that uh the citizens actually have a right to be there any time that the park is open, that that it's not an area that is separate.

So, in the spirit of brevity, just to ask the maker of the motion if you would consider adding a stipulation requiring the city to come back with a specific plan for approval for park benches and some increased parking in that area.

Does it make it a motion desire to do so?

No, my motion stands.

Thank you.

All right.

Um Vice Chair Fetzer.

Yes.

Um I wish to thank everyone who has been involved in this project from day one.

Uh the public, the design team, city staff, um, a lot of effort and I'm sure blood, sweat, and tears have been shed to get to us, get us to this point.

And um, just one last statement.

As the design team and the city staff work out the actual uh construction documents and finalize the design of what's uh presented here today, and uh if it's passed, um, to consider the number of number and location of picnic tables and number and location of the uh parking spaces as a minimum.

And as you uh delve into the details, since this is a fairly quick turnaround from the last meeting, uh if you can increase those numbers, I would encourage you to do so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And um I'd like to also say um I thank you for everyone um who contribute to this project, the um speakers, the um voicemails, the people who are in person, um, as well as our um commission here, because um everyone is passionate about this project, and we want to make sure it's right.

So um just wanted to take the time to thank everyone who um put something into this.

So um thank you.

May I have a roll call, please?

How much longer on the second roll in the comments?

I mean, because we've I would like to make your comment, go ahead, ma'am.

I do want to get an another word in to avoid the confusion that um may have been created by my suggesting to express the rest of the assequia.

I am fully fully aware that when the SAKIs get um covered, they get filled up with debris, they get used for other channels.

So that the Brackenridge Park Conservancy isn't discouraged.

It doesn't mean a full excavation of the of the element and to in order to express it.

There are a number of examples here in town that use paving and other materials to express something below, just so that you're not discouraged.

Yes means a lot to me.

Um so I'm willing to make this extra comment for that on behalf of the asekia and that history.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Savino.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am?

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Msuka.

Aye.

Givata?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Javieso?

Aye.

Holland?

Aye.

Petzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Can we have item number item number 10?

I'm sorry, item number nine, please.

We'll wait just one moment for the room to clear out.

Those who are excellent, I ask you to please exit quietly, could we still have other cases to hear, please?

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ed.

Agenda item number nine, HDRC case number 2026, 067, 1253, 1255 East Crockett.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to amend the design of a previously approved construction and to install a driveway and landscaping elements.

Within this request, the applicant has proposed the following one to amend the previously approved roof form to now feature a front facing gabled roof with no side dormers, two to remove previously approved finestration on the west facade, three to install a driveway at the rear that is the north of the new construction to feature twelve feet in width, and four to install landscaping elements throughout the property.

Staff recommends approval of item number one modifications to the previously approved roof as submitted based on finding C.

Number two, staff does not recommend approval of item number two, finestration modifications based on finding D.

Staff recommends the following fenestration be added to the west facade.

Commissioners, I will note if you look through the exhibits, you'll see where the applicant submitted uh a revised design after we completed our recommendation that addresses this.

Number three, staff recommends approval of item number three, driveway installation based on finding E with the stipulation that it not exceed ten feet in width.

And for number four, staff recommends approval of item number four, the installation of shrubs and brushes to screen mechanical equipment.

Zeric materials are not approved to be installed per this plan.

Uh a foundation inspection is to be scheduled with OHP staff to ensure that foundation setbacks and heights are consistent with the approved design.

So commissioners, um, I guess to uh move this along, I will note that there is a letter and a voicemail.

Uh so let's not forget that.

Um the screen now is the revised design.

Um you can see where the applicant has added finestration back to this facade.

Um here are the documents that were previously reviewed and approved by the HDRC.

Uh the applicant had removed finestration here, that finestration has been added back.

You can see it here.

Uh staff recommends approval of the modification to the roof form.

Uh that's consistent with the guidelines as well as historic profiles found within the historic district.

Uh essentially the only thing that's uh left for discussion regarding these modifications, the driveway here, the applicants noted that at twelve feet in width, the guidelines note 10 feet in width.

Uh and the applicant has provided a landscaping plan.

Um there's not a uh an actual turf material noted, and so staff is simply saying if the applicant or a future individual has the intent of installing xeric material, gravel decomposed granite, there needs to be a full landscaping plan.

If the plan is to install natural grass or turf, uh then do so.

Thank you.

Um Ed I just want to say also um in the late voter and in letters, I don't see we don't see this letter, so um I will pull it up.

I've got it on my screen.

So it it probably just wasn't added to the thumb drive.

Um I will play the voicemail now and then I will share my screen share the letter that was submitted.

Hi, this is Lulu Francois, chairperson for the Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee calling in on 1253, 1255 each pocket.

Um HCRC case number 067.

We agree with staff's recommendation on the penetration, but we're confused because previously staff said the penetration was not met.

So our question is was the penetration met or not?

Another stipulation that was called out was that the penetration on the west facade on the bottom level was too wide.

Was the width reduced previously and have staff confirmed that the penetration was reduced to meet historic guidelines?

We also agree with staff denial of both the 12-foot driveway and the zero landscaping material.

Um we do not live in West Texas, and this is not the desert.

Uh we also have a question about the glass doors facing the street on both the first and second floor.

Um glass doors are not historically accurate, and a wood door or wood and glass door should be used instead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, sir.

Um you want to present your case?

I'm very confused.

You could present your case, sir.

Yeah, is um my name is Ricardo Macola.

Um I'm the project designer, and we previously had been approved, but then after the approval, my the owner, my client came to me.

He had given me wrong direction from the beginning.

So that's I came up with this concept of uh that first that you now wanted to present something that looked like a two-story house based on the entire block is only one stories.

Uh so I wasn't sure we wouldn't be approved with that.

So I came up with that concept of the dormers, so it would look like just out high one story.

But then when he came back, uh he asked me to redesign so we can actually have proper two story uh house, so that's why these uh uh changes came about.

So that's why these uh uh changes came about.

And uh one of the items about the penetration, but uh yeah, originally I have windows on that side on the left side of the house, but then that that part of the house is going to be too close to the the neighbor on that side.

So I decided to remove the windows to to create some privacy.

Uh but then I said we submitted the pro the project uh was used to bring the windows back to that part side of the house, so I did.

Um and basically just a minute of just changing from the last comments about the driveway and the landscaping, and that'll be about it.

So as far as the uh recommendations for staff, um so we're uh obviously they're recommending item um one, they're not recommending item two, um recommending approval item three and recommending approval item four.

So um did you want to make any specific comments on um item number two?

I can I can jump in.

Um so uh that's kind of obsolete at this point.

Um the revised documents that are on the screen now is what the applicant submitted after we had finalized that.

So um staff finds that the finestration that's shown here uh does indeed address our our previous previous concerns.

Uh so I I think that leaves really just the uh driveway with at needing to be reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet, um and the applicant uh confirming whether or not natural grass will be installed or the commission stipulating that or stipulating that um if there is another plan that a detailed plan be submitted to staff review.

Thank you.

So, sir, um based on what um Ed just said, so are you willing to stipulate today or is this something that you prefer us?

I mean, because we will address that in our motion most likely, but how do you yeah, we are going to to have a I mean I was gonna say it could be shall natural grass All right.

And in driveway your Yes, no, we're gonna correct it to 10.

All right.

Sounds good.

I'll make a motion based on those comments.

Um let's see if anybody has any questions first.

Um Commissioner Mazooka, any questions for the applicant?

No, I don't uh well actually as he addressed the full glass doors that were commented on the question, sir.

Um the uh Commissioner Mazooka was commenting on the neighborhood association submitted a letter uh noting that they didn't find the glass doors to be appropriate, uh and he's asking if you have any comment on that.

Um well the comment would be if uh if we need to delete the glass doors and do something more appropriate, then we'll we'll do that.

Thank you, sir.

French doors would would work.

French French doors.

With French doors.

Um I think that would probably modify the width some um staff generally finds the door to be appropriate.

Um if you want to reduce the window light to be a half-light, then that would be fine.

We can work on that together.

Yeah.

Thank you.

You could Commissioner Mazuka?

Yes.

Thank you, thank you.

Commissioner Galloway?

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner.

No questions right now, sir.

Let me finish the name, sir.

Commissioner Javias.

No questions.

Commissioner Groove.

I have no questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Savino.

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Mammon.

No questions, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Velasquez.

It's a question for Edward.

Edward, uh in terms of the landscape, you know, like most recently and then in the very near future, we're gonna be hitting historic temperatures above a hundred degrees in March.

Is there any uh leeway that that the applicants are provided with respect to adapting to the fact that grass is sure thing?

We have uh a full zero escaping plan.

So we've never said or our that plan says that you can have xeric drought tolerant materials.

You just need to submit a plan to us so that we can verify what's going in.

And so all we're saying is if in the future they want to do that, then they can't just do it.

They need to make sure that it's consistent with the policy guide that y'all have approved four years ago or so.

Thank thanks for clarifying that, Edward.

Thank you.

Commissioner Holland?

No questions, thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Peterson.

No questions.

Thank you.

Uh may I have a motion, please?

I wanted to can you want me to do that?

Oh, sure, good.

Okay.

So based on the comments and the uh applicants willing to agree.

Um approve item one with staff stipulation.

Approve item two as presented in the revised um drawings presented today.

And approve item four with staff stipulations.

Second.

It's been moved in properly.

Second discussion.

Okay.

All right.

So looking down the line.

So based on no questions along the way, so I'm assuming everyone is okay.

All right.

May I have a motion?

I mean, may I have a roll call, please?

May I'm in?

Hi.

Savino.

Hi.

Alaska.

I.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka.

Givata.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

So.

Aye.

Colin.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Item number 10, please.

Um, before we jump to item number 10, uh, Ruben, I see that you're here.

Um, Brenda was going to join virtually, and I don't see that she's on the call right now.

Um, do you want to go ahead and present without her, or would you like to Okay?

Okay, fine.

There we go.

Let me get this going now.

Uh agenda item number 10, HDRC case number 2026 066 2509 mission road.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct four two-story historic uh or excuse me, four two-story single family residential structures on the vacant lot at 2509 Mission Road, located within the mission historic district.

Bear with me, the computer is going a little slower.

Yeah.

All right.

Staff recommends approval based on findings A through T with the following stipulations.

Uh one that each structure feature all lap or board and batten siding or all masonry facade elements is noted in finding J.

These materials should not be combined on a single structure.

Board and batten siding should feature boards that are approximately 12 inches in width and batons that are approximately one and a half to two inches in width.

Horizontal lab siding should feature an exposure of between four and six inches.

All siding if composite should feature a smooth finish.

Two that each facade feature a uniform window feature uniform window profile and materials is noted in finding K.

Staff standards do not prohibit the installation of vinyl windows.

However, window products must comply with the adopted standards for windows and new construction.

Product specifications must be submitted to OHP staff for review and approval.

Three, that additional finestration should be added to the side facade of each structure is noted in finding L.

Four, that each front walkway aligned with the front door is noted in finding M.

Five that a detailed landscaping plan should be submitted to OHP staff for review and approval as noted in finding O.

Landscaping design should be consistent with the guidelines for site elements in the adopted policy guide for zero escaping.

She's got all the she's my architect, so she's got all the specifics, but I mean what questions can I answer?

We agree to do all the required items.

Um so if you you agree to all the uh staff stipulations, so yeah, yeah, definitely.

Yeah.

Um can you introduce yourself, please, sir, and then we'll name this Ruben Samosedo.

Um I am the owner of the property and developer.

Thank you.

And so just to clarify, so um the all the staff stipulations you're agreeing to.

So to go a little further on that, um I had a meeting on Monday with the designer, uh, and we went through each of these and talked about what an acceptable approach would be to addressing each comment.

Uh so I feel confident that uh we can looks like she's on now, so I'll let her speak.

But yeah.

Uh Brenda, you're on now.

You may need to hit star six to unmute.

Um but I've just read the request into the record and we're discussing uh stipulations.

Ruben noted that uh you all are in agreement with each stipulation.

So if you want to comment or need to comment on any of those, please do so.

And once again, you may need to hit star six on your phone to unmute.

Okay.

Um we agree with the stipulations.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Hello?

We can hear you.

We are okay with everything that is being uh said so far.

Um we are working on the changes and um providing all the requirements they are have been asked.

So I think we're getting all right.

Thank you.

Um so um team the applicant has agreed to all stipulations, so um unless anyone has any specific questions, we'll go into a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion.

All right, sir.

Go ahead.

Mo motion to approve with all staff stipulations.

Second.

It's been moved in properly second.

Um would you like to add anything, sir?

Any further discussion?

No, sir.

All right.

Um hearts and minds clear.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

I Velasquez.

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Mazuka.

Ivada.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

So I.

Holland.

Aye.

Pet sir?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Item number 11, please.

You're welcome, ma'am.

Thank you.

Item number 11.

Item number 11 on the historic design review commission agenda, March 18th, 2026, 219 Therein Boulevard.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to number one repair and replace existing brick cladding and apply a lime wash after installation.

Number two, construct an approximately 96 square foot front porch.

Roof to feature cedar posts and shingle roof.

I think that was a typo.

Staff does not recommend to recommend approval to repair and replace the existing brick cladding or to construct an approximately 96 square foot front porch to feature cedar posts and a shingle roof.

We do have um our applicant Jose Moras here.

Um and you can okay.

All right.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Thank you so much for your time.

My name is Dorian Casitas, and this is my husband Jose Mora.

Uh we purchased this home uh 219 Thorne back in February.

And um we have done significant amount of uh remodeling as well as uh upgrades to the home to make it sustainable as well as functional.

Some of the items were not safe as the electrical, so we've had to upgrade all of those items.

I mentioned this uh because currently, as it stays today, the property has about 60 to 65 percent masonry or brick around the home.

To remove that, it would cost about 17,000 over our budget.

So what we had was is we had our contractor provide us a quote of how much it would be to remove the brick and restore it to the cedar pine, and it was around 30,000 versus 35,000, sorry, or keep it to the brick that it has today.

So because the home already has about 60 to 65 percent brick, it would be cheaper and more uh cost efficient for us to keep it with brick, although I do understand that the home is in a um you know historic area.

Uh we did drive around the area to identify other homes that are within brick standards too.

We're not asking for more than to just keep the brick if possible because of the cost um that is gonna impact our our budget.

We were hoping to um get this moving along as quickly as possible because we are under a loan and we're having to every day that passes by that we're delaying this uh modification or update is delaying the updates as well on the house.

And there are areas in what the brick fell on the front part that you could see that um have water damage, and that's causing a lot of the interior work to get stopped.

So for us, um we would really appreciate and uh your vote on a yes if we're able to provide the brick currently um as it would to restore and replace what we currently have, as this would be more cost efficient for us.

We've had to pull plumbing, we've had to do electrical, we've had to update the windows and the windows have been approved.

Thank you by um by uh I think it was by Brian before before he went on leave.

Um and as you that was another unexpected cost that we had to uh forego, and that was about 10,000.

Sir Sir, if you can speak, I need you closer to the mic.

We need to hear sorry, I'm Jose Mora.

So the windows were replaced as well, which was uh unexpected costs that uh we had to uh occur.

So that was about another $10,000 that we're already negative in this project.

Well, not project, but it's our personal house.

Uh we're trying to get this done as quickly as possible because we do have a newborn as y'all saw us earlier come in.

Uh we have a mother-in-law here, we have a newborn and a three-year-old, and we're just trying to move in uh to be our forever home.

Thank you.

Does that conclude your presenting of the case?

Do you have any questions?

Yes, I just wanted to add real quick those three houses that we provided that are are already bricked, that's just on the street right now, currently.

If you drive the two streets over, two streets back, there's much more how houses that currently have brick as well.

We just provided what is on the sh the street, the same street as our property.

But there is many other homes in the area that do have brick uh siding on all four sides.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for providing those examples.

Um I know we have no voicemails for this one.

So we'll start with questions from the commission.

Um so Commissioner Mazooka, do we have any questions for the applicant?

Currently is how much of the house is covered with brick?

60 to 65.

I say 65 because there are areas or that five percent where we're have we're gonna have to restore, not necessarily replace.

But the areas in the front of the home, those will have to replace to new brick.

Um, but it's around 60 to 65 percent.

And is that the white brick that I see?

Right, it's painted.

Yes, sir.

But yes.

Uh it's it's originally red, but they previous owner painted it white.

Yeah, there's areas that like it's all painted on there.

Okay, I uh that's my only question, and I think I'd have would prefer to see it in person before I'd make a decision, but um it's up to the rest of the commission.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Galloway?

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Glata.

Uh no questions right now, sir.

Thank you, Commissioner Chabiaso.

No questions at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

Yes, sorry.

I would I do would like is that the best picture we have in the front.

So I think what is the material right now?

It's the 105 siding.

Have you removed that and know that there's no brick underneath?

So when we uh so when we purchased the home, the brick had already uh fallen off of the front.

Um it has pretty much a lot of water damage throughout the front of the home.

Uh but in order to go back to pine siding, we would have to remove all the brick.

Uh get the house uh you know, hold on, just the front.

We're not talking about remove.

So there is a brick on the front.

Yes.

There is currently brick on the front, but it's uh fallen off majority of it.

So do we know if there is brick underneath, like majority brick on the front?

Oh, I see what you're asking.

So no, so that first layer that you're seeing is where um the the water backing for the brick was at, but all of that bottom part fell off.

So there you could still see some of the brick right there.

It's just right there, that little line right there.

But where you're the majority of the brick is is on the side.

So that L wrap that wraps around the house.

Okay, and I guess the staff is you believe the 105 siding is original, but we've not been out to the property physically.

I do believe that the 105 siding is original.

The sandborns didn't indicate any masonry.

Uh so that's how we're okay.

And and the staff is not like I guess that's the question, right?

It's what was original, is just the wine, the lime washing is not something we see historic, right?

Right, and the guidelines uh are pretty specific about not painting masonry.

Okay.

And we're we're willing to not do a lime wash.

We're just we we just would prefer to have brick uh because it's more cost effective for our budget, and uh you know it's just a better sounding house with uh brick on all four sides, but we're willing to not do a line wash.

And then on the front porch, if I'm really having a hard time understanding the pictures to so it's all flushed, so it would be like one big brick wall you suggesting.

Let me take you to the plan.

Yeah, we submitted a plan.

And I also wanted to mention that right before Brian went on maternity leave.

Um he went and actually walked the property.

So as we were walking, he did, he's like, Oh, I didn't realize that there was this much brick.

He did mention though that it wasn't original to the house.

He mentioned that the wood siding or pine siding is what he said would be what was original.

When we went and looked up for quotes, that's another reason why the material was so high.

Is that we're gonna have to restore all of that because the front part of the house doesn't even have that.

It just has the the brick barrier that was used to put the brick in there before.

So once you pull that out, I'm gonna have to install or well it was there when you came.

That brick barrier.

No, the 105 siding, right?

No, no, there was no wood.

It was just that that uh plywood, like that black barrier that's put before the brick is put on.

Because the house was already being worked on when you bought it.

Uh there was walls there that were missing.

There was and on that front porch.

So basically, you're just adding a front porch and not modifying.

No, we would be adding a front porch to the existing property.

And that there's a cement that's already laid out, and I believe that the original owner maybe wanted to do that, but didn't necessarily do that because you could see it.

Because you could see it.

So we just want to add a porch to that cement that's already it would just be a covering from uh the carport to the front of the house, basically, a porch just to be able to cover for the weather.

But yeah.

There is a existing porch that has been enclosed contemporarily, not by the same thing.

That's what it looks like, right?

So it was formerly in uh an open porch that was then enclosed, and so the request is to add a front porch to the formerly enclosed front porch.

Okay.

I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mammon.

Uh no questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Uh for staff.

If there's there is brick existing.

Uh even at the you know, one foot above the ground on the corner.

Correct.

Does that not in somehow legitimize their request as an existing uh uh returning to the most recent?

I guess that would be up for you all to ultimately decide, right?

But the guidelines are pretty specific that when there's an opportunity, non-historic material should be removed to expose the original material.

Okay.

So that's how we've arrived at this recommendation.

Okay.

And to the applicant, um the the wood that's there, that's what you're saying that can the contractor said to replace that wood with new wood to do it properly that it would cost more than putting the brick?

So right.

So what would have to happen is that they would have to remove the brick, the 60 percent brick that's on the room.

No, just the front.

I'm just talking about just the front.

Just the to replace it to what we're doing.

Well, no, that if they terminated the brick where it terminates on the sides, then we're only talking about the front, right?

Right.

Did they talk to you at all about that?

Did they talk to you about the possibility of uh completing just the front in the wood, redoing any right parts, doing it right, doing the door right and all of that.

Did they give you that option?

Well, it would change the elevation of the front.

So the front already is the way it's built out in.

I think that one of the images you could see at the elevation is for brick.

So they would have to readjust that to now do wood siding, which is going to cost us more.

Well, let me ask you, is the house on concrete or is it on posts?

It's on post.

Is the concrete is the brick around the house on a separate little concrete ledge by itself?

Yes, it is, sir.

Okay.

Well, just I I if if there's brick there, my my tendency is to I uh uh in the past to to say that if there was brick there, that is uh actually an option available to you all.

But just so long as you know that when you have a separate foundation for the brick, sometimes the house moves and the brick doesn't or the brick moves and the house doesn't, so it it may be your best option to do the front as pretty as you can possibly do it in the way that it would have been done, but uh I'll pass the microphone.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Holland.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Fetcher.

Yes.

Uh can we put up the photo of the front elevation again?

That one, yes.

So it looks like on the enclosed porch, which has the black felt paper on it.

Correct.

Um behind that black felt paper, do you know what material is there?

There's nothing there.

It's just the studs.

Just the studs.

Okay.

And then there's a remnant of brick down near the porch.

Right.

Yes.

So a question for staff.

Is it conceivable that enclosing that porch uh was clad in brick?

Uh conceivable.

Conceivable.

So there's remnants of brick there.

So that modification has some historic value, or it speaks to the history of the house.

Would it be reasonable to assume or conjecture that that part of the enclosed porch be re-clad in brick?

Let's see if I can handle this one.

Um can I just reframe this?

Because you see these request requests in other uh ways as well.

So say a house originally had wood siding and at some point they put aluminum siding in like the 70s.

What the types of requests you normally see is okay, the aluminum siding is damaged, I can't replace it with something that's the same, so they want to pull it off and go back with a new covering.

And so we then have to review that new covering and consider whether or not that's appropriate considering that we know that the original materials are there.

So this is the same thing, um, although the stakes are a little bit higher, I agree, because the brick is probably a more expensive material than you know, a false siding.

Um but yes, our recommendation is where it's been exposed to preserve the original original materials that we can see now.

There's no requirement to remove additional portions of brick, and then you all can consider sort of the validity of going back with matching brick based on the previous alteration.

Okay, thank you.

Um the brick is cheaper to keep than to replace it to the wood siding.

So that's the that's the dilemma that we're in as owners because the contractor is quoting us a lot higher because the brick is going to take the demo, and even the one that's not getting removed, we have to remember again that there's a five-inch overhang on the whole front of the house where the brick has fallen that is now has to get readjusted, insulation has to get redone, all of that that was not budgeted for on this loan that we got because we were thinking that we could just re-do it with the brick originally.

So for us as homeowners, the cost to make it to a wood siding would actually hurt us.

And so I'll just so we're all on the same page, say one more thing.

Um so again, we're not requiring that existing sections of brick that are in place now be removed, but we do know you want it to match, because that's a normal thing to want, right?

And so I think we all understand that.

Um I also just want to put it out there and make sure that you have explored this with your contractor that the brick was secured to the framing in a way where you're not going to lose additional sections because I believe these did fall off on their own with the previous owner, so it's just something you might want to consider.

For sure.

Question for the applicants.

Um I know you want to move the project along, but um would you be willing to have a site visit by the some of the commissioners next week, and then you come back the week after that for uh consideration of the case so that we can get a full understanding of uh the details at the house.

Uh next week.

We could do a staff, could we do a side visit next week?

Next available, yes.

Next available, which would be next week.

I don't know.

Oh yeah, because we're both so we're both on parental leave and we both have to go back to work.

Um we have a new part, yeah, new board and all that stuff.

So I don't know.

I'd have to get back to the outside.

So you have somebody that you trust, we're not going outside or anything like that.

You have someone who trusted their own property?

Okay.

Yeah, I I can let maybe the contractor may be aware and give you guys a date.

Um we're looking at doing it.

I can try a motion to kind of keep the option open.

That'll work, but there's no that we're we're looking to do this as quickly as possible.

We we're gonna say where you're at, and so we're trying to get this done.

Um and we can do a site visit next week, and like you say you don't have to be present for that.

We just need to be able to view the outside so we can you know have a clear understanding.

Um side visas visit is always available, okay?

So by the motion that I'm gonna do right now does not impede we you can't have a site visit.

So um as it is right now.

I'm gonna move as uh staff recommended with a stipulation that brick be you know re-add added or repaired where you can find proof that it was there originally.

Okay.

And one more stipulation um and and repair or replace wood where we think originally was a wood facade.

Okay.

What just to clarify, you said where brick was previously or originally?

As you say previously.

Okay.

And so I can confirm I've I've seen it, like this used to be fully clad in brick.

So that's what the motion would allow for.

Yeah.

The front used to be fully clad in wood, yes.

Yeah, it fell off about a year and a half ago.

Perfect.

So that keeps the option to do it.

Oh, maybe and one last stipulation, no lime wash, as as it is right now.

At this point, I don't even care about the porch.

I really let me let me make sure that my commissioners understand the motion and then I'll make some clarifications.

Was there second?

Is there a second?

Yes, sir.

The second second step.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Okay, so your request initially was to replace all of the brick all around the house, right?

So we're asking you to not just repair and replace, but not fully have to do the whole house.

Okay.

We're not asking you to do the whole house.

On the front, if you find that and a staff is you know, because of the space that's around the windows and underneath the roof, where you find that there was brick, this motion is allowing you to put brick on.

Also where there is currently wood as we see in the pictures.

A site visit, if you have any, you work with staff.

If staff says, you know what, we don't see that there was brick there, or you have that discussion, you can ask for a site visit, we can come and we can come back.

We're not approving for you to do the whole house or replacing everywhere.

Um and then we're not approving as it is right now the front porch, you can come back with that if you want, or we can go for a site visit to discuss that.

All right.

So uh so just so I and we're now in discussion, right?

Yes.

And we're now in discussion.

So just so I understand, just to make sure that I give them the right direction too.

So the home had brick all the way around when we purchased the home.

You'll work with staff to clarify where and all that before any contractor do any work.

Okay.

Is that okay?

Yes, uh, Mr.

Chair, I I want to ask the Sure, okay, sir.

Um Steph, can you go to page 27?

I'm sorry, I need clarification on your motion because there's a there's a couple of requests, right?

The porch addition and then the exterior brick application.

So as it is right now, the porch is not approved.

And the original application said to repair and replace all brick cladding of the entirety of the structure, that is not being approved either.

So that's why I said I move as staff recommended with the three stipulations.

Were they clear?

So to approve a staff recommended.

Well, they didn't recommend approval.

Okay.

Your motion said to allow brick where it was known to previously exist, and so I clarified that we knew that this house was previously fully clad in brick, including the front and the porch.

Yeah.

And so your motion would allow them to not follow staff's recommendation.

Yeah, but I understand that the request was they wanted to do the whole house, and we're just really concerned about the front, right?

So but the motion is if you already know I didn't think in the I didn't think that there was brick where the wood is right now.

So but you're saying that house used to be all brick.

So yes.

Yes, and if you're the second understands that that she said not not the word original, but the word where it previously was.

And they want to ask you a question.

Uh the page 27.

Oh this wall here, it had brick and they took the brick off.

It fell.

It fell.

I got you.

But yes, that all the house had brick.

So so the motion, the motion was made already, and you know, I think it's supporting y'all's investigation, and apparently, I mean there's always a possibility that we would go and visit.

But you really need to take very seriously that the brick fell off for free.

And you have the wall exposed the way that it is.

Typically, a brick wall is a a component of the wall in itself.

In this circumstance, the brick wall is a separate add-on and will move at different rates than the wall will.

Uh possibly the reason it fell off because it wasn't tied to the wall, which is uh potentially the way all of it is done, and that's wrong.

Very, very structurally wrong.

So you'll you should take some time and really think about uh maybe learn to to see the beauty in the wood.

Um brick is nice, but brick is done as a particular way, and this is not done that way.

Okay.

Mr.

Ch, if I may add on something to clarify, I actually do agree with Commissioner Velasquez.

So this motion also lets you leave where wood is wood.

So if you have wood currently, there's nothing wrong with having wood in the front, bricks on one side or on another side.

There's nothing wrong with that.

It's very common.

If you also walk around your neighborhood, you will find it.

He has a very, very good point.

You're you've changed windows, you've changing walls, and this is a house on Pierre Beam that will move.

So what your contractor is quoting you is also not correct.

You want to make sure that you also get a quote for how much would it be just to refurbish the wood that's there existing.

So just as an advice.

Did you have a comment?

Um I think there's a lot of components when you're purchasing a home, and one of those, especially because this is an older home, it's not like your traditional, you know, going out and purchasing a brand new house with pool tea or something like that.

So the way the loan works today is that we provide them an upgraded version of what we're looking to make modifications on that home.

Some of those are the electrical and the plumbing that windows, all those things that we pulled permits for and got it updated.

Along with that, there's also that because when we walked the house, we saw the brick there, we also understood it as that's what the home had existing.

So that's also creating a layer complex for my husband and I to figure out with how that's gonna work with them because when we got the house appraise, because the house was bricked all around originally, and maybe we're just a one-off case or this something that you guys as a council can consider for the future.

But as you're purchasing a home in a historic neighborhood, when somebody's going to walk it, you have a limited time to close on that house.

So we that's what we did, and we closed off based on what the house had, and the house originally had brick.

So when the finance came through, they're expecting brick.

So I am gonna have to now go if this doesn't, you know, follow those guidelines that you guys are requesting now to talk to them on how that's gonna look like, and I don't know what the outcome will be of that.

So I just wanted to mention that here today.

So if I understand you correctly, so we're stating that we acknowledge that the brick fell, right?

And so the house was a uh uh appraise, or you know, you got the loan based on that.

If you want to go back and put brick in, you can go ahead and do that.

Okay, but we're saying that that's not necessary because we see you know where it is now.

So you were talking about cost earlier.

That's gonna add cost for you.

So are you you you you follow on?

I totally understand.

Oh, okay.

Yes.

And I think the other thing that I wanted to mention is that there's a cement barrier that is at the bottom of the house that's all around, and it's the same cement barrier structure that this the house is on today.

So I the way it was built, um, and we had it like looked at by two different contractors.

Um they told us that um it it was actually better than what they anticipated for the time frame of that house, and they did recommend that if it would same thing that if we went with the brick it would be cheaper.

But yes, they did tell us all homes in Pierre and Beam, we understand that will shift.

And we do understand that with the years, we're probably gonna have to add you know, some some masonry in there to make sure that it's like cracking or cement or so.

We are aware of that.

Um they didn't tell they told us that we should see that anywhere from 15 to 20 year mark because uh it takes longer for that to happen in that type of home.

So they did make us aware of that.

Um, but at this point it was more of like the actual cost itself for the house and then the surveys that came out based on what we were financed for.

So um along with the structure of the house and having to change out the elevation, um, it's just little things that we weren't we accommodated to the historic guidelines to the best that we could with the loan in a short amount of time.

So we're hoping that this is just one of those things that we're able to put back to the home, and then I agree with uh uh Commissioner Velasquez that he's saying that you know we should go back and consider, and I am gonna take that feedback back to the uh contractor to see and ensure that hey, you know, if this is really like something that we can consider to look at the the wood, then and use what we can, how much would that be?

I think the demo cost is what's costing us more for the brick than it is than the actual wood siding itself.

They they're all about the same price as far as um materials go.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Velasca, is you good, sir?

Yes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Holland?

All right.

See no other.

All right.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

I Velasquez?

I.

Galloway?

I.

Group.

Aye.

I.

And Gibbs.

I motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

So just work with staff.

Um, I mean you have I think you have some leeway here.

Well, I know you have some leeway here based on the motion here.

So just really consider that because you know, we're we're sensitive to what you're speaking of.

And so, and then there's adding additional costs that are unnecessary, you know.

So just think about that.

All right, bad enough.

Yeah, the windows were out.

We're a big a big lump, but no, we appreciate it.

Um but just so I'm clear, we're able to if the brick was in the front, we are able to put brick back up in the front, correct?

Correct.

Anywhere where it fell, we're able to put back brick as well.

If you choose to, but there's wood there.

So okay.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

That was the last case.

One last thing.

Go ahead.

Feel free to ask staff if you want to have a site ERC site visit by some of the commissioners.

Okay.

To look at the conditions, maybe make some other observations or recommendations.

But uh you're welcome to do that as well.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was the last case on the agenda.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.