Good afternoon, everyone.

Time is now 302 p.m.

I'd like to call to order this historic design review commission for Wednesday, May 20th, 2026.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'amin.

Present.

Savino.

Here.

Velasquez.

Here.

Galloway.

Here.

Mazuka Givada.

Here.

Groob Draviaso.

Here.

Holland.

Present.

Fetzer.

Here.

And Gibbs.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please?

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

Can necessite escuchar esta junta in espanhol.

Thank you.

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 in the river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

And considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for a 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 an 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 permits.

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.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um we as staff don't have any announcements today.

I just want to note we have two commissioners that are on virtually.

Anne Marie, could you just test your microphone real quick?

Can you hear me?

I can.

Thank you.

Uh so uh with no announcements, uh Mr.

Chair, we could uh take action on last meeting's minutes.

Mr.

Chairman, uh move for approval of the meeting minutes from May 6, 2026.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Any further discussion.

Mayor Roll Hall, please.

Ma'aman.

Aye, Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye.

Galloway.

Aye.

Givada.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Aye.

Holland.

Aye.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, if y'all could direct your attention to the screen.

Uh, as you can see, we have a number of individuals that have signed in to speak uh in person for items on the consent agenda.

So we'll roll through those.

Uh also want to note that we have uh a handful of uh requests that have comments uh that are in your packets, uh whether in the form of letters or the transcribed voicemails.

Uh so what we'll do now is we'll work our way through uh items that are on the consent agenda where there are individuals that have signed in to speak.

Uh and I'll just say now I apologize if I misread or mispronounce anyone's name.

Uh so for agenda item number three, three ten South St.

Mary's, we have, I believe Darlene Bruceari uh is here to speak in person.

I'd like to remind speakers as they're coming up to speak that your time is limited to two minutes.

Once you hear the timer go off, your time is up.

So please um please be respectful of that.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Darlene Bruce Art and I live in the Brady building downtown.

I'm here in support of the Tower Life change.

And I appreciate the opportunity to speak in positive nature of this change.

I feel that this is one of the most iconic buildings in the whole city, and I feel that Jordan Foster and all the visionaries that have worked dedicatedly to make this happen.

I appreciate all I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Wait, one more thing.

Go Spurs, Spurs.

All right, thank you.

Next, we'll have uh public comment for item number four.

That's 1023 North Pine.

This is Ella Austin.

Uh, first will be Anthony Verfailey.

He'll receive four minutes.

Tiffany Holliday will be yielding her time.

Chair, members of this commission, uh, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

I'm here because I'm concerned about the safety of children and seniors who will use Ella Austin every day.

Ella Austin Daycare will serve about 80 children, yet the drop-off, the proposed drop off on Burrowson holds only seven vehicles.

A day care drop off isn't quick.

Children must be unbuckled, gathered, and safely handed off.

It takes time, especially during peak hours.

That same small loop also serves a senior center where people may need extra time or assistance.

So we're asking young children and seniors, two vulnerable groups, to share limited space at the busiest time of day.

And just 400 feet away, Bowden Academy adds even more traffic and congestion.

When the loop fills, and it will parents will do what they have to do.

Stop in the street, unload children, and navigate traffic on foot.

The site design prioritizes proximity to curbside drop off in a way that functionally incentivizes street parking over on-site spaces.

This creates real risk.

Children stepping into traffic, limited visibility, and unsafe crossings.

Not because families are careless, but because the design leaves no safe alternative.

It's unsafe and it's preventable.

I'm asking you to require a drop-off design that actually matches how people behave in real life, not how we hope they behave on paper.

Because the design that forces children in the street is not safe, and we can do better.

Thank you for your time.

So we have Phyllis McNair, she will receive two minutes.

Yes, good afternoon.

I am Phyllis McNair with uh Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association.

I am the present president.

Uh we would like for you to disapprove these uh plans.

They came to us on Monday, the city department, but there was still some questions that we had to address.

And uh the thing about the five, they said this is the final design, but we still had questions on some of those designs.

And so we would like to uh have it disapproved until they come back and speak with us a little bit more.

The uh changes that they made, we did not know about them.

They did not send us any updated uh drawings, and so the last ones that we have had is the 2024, and so we want to be more current, and we want to make sure that the things that the neighbors have addressed and asked for, that they would be considered.

Uh that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Next is Beverly Watts Davis.

She will receive six minutes.

Victor Kiroga and Victor Zuniga will be yielding their time.

Good afternoon, you all.

It's good to see you again.

I'm Beverly Watts Davis, and I'm actually the chair emeritus of the L Austin Board of Directors.

And I'm here to you today because after almost a year of planning with the great input, we hosted a meeting with Cops Metro and the L Austin Board.

We hosted a meeting with the neighborhood groups and the board with the Government Hill with four different neighborhoods surrounding Ella Austin.

And we came back, we we thought we had agreement on the things that we wanted, only to find out at the very end that none of those things were incorporated.

One of the key things that was spoken about was where the circular drive is.

And what's really important to note is the way that the configuration is right now was an agreement between the San Antonio dependent school district, the city's traffic people, and this is this was 30 or so years ago, but all of all of those people came together and Ella Austin to make sure that we did not crowd up the streets and be bad that this wonderful asset ends up being a bad neighbor for the very neighborhood it's in.

If you all knew we're there between seven in the morning and 9 30, and between 2 30 in the afternoon and six, you would create a parking lot where there's not already increased sidewalks.

Having children, when they drop off their children, they don't just drop off the cars and the kids run in.

We're talking about early head start children.

They get out, they go in, they check their, you know, they check their students in, and we also have a very, very large, one of the largest growing uh uh segment of our population who are grandparents raising their grandchildren.

And we again, Ella Austin has not had this support of bond funding, it's a 135-year-old building.

The one thing that these designings do, and I'm so sorry to say this, but I'm just saying this, I've already preyed on it.

But I just want you to know when you look at the design of this, and you look at it is shameful.

You're taking a building, they completely gutted it, they totally deleted all the youth development space that we had.

They added, they did add uh four new uh class uh uh rooms for child care, but the senior center, which we all voted in to have, we get absolutely nothing.

There's no renovations, not even going to be fixing the bathrooms.

That they're doing the same thing on the inside, and we have 23 million dollars was allocated.

They said that some of it went to a new roof.

Well, I have to just tell you all years ago, maybe seven years ago, the city of San Antonio allocated a half a million dollars for the roof.

You know what we got for that?

It was a patch job that within two days of when the person finished, it was already leaking through the ceilings into our offices.

So now we're gonna pay again for something that's already been paid because they have said, well, we have to cut things because of the tariffs.

And my my point to you all is to say, this reminds me of redlining, and I will honestly say, I'm gonna say this into the record.

If Ella Austin was next to places on the northwest side where the homes were 3400,000, I guarantee you they would have never moved an entrance to the back of a building to compete with all the things that the neighborhood should have.

For the next 50 years, we're gonna ask a whole neighborhood to have to wait for the streets to clear up in the morning and in the afternoon.

Who does that?

And especially when the current design was already constructed the way it was constructed through because of agreement with the school district and the city of San Antonio and the neighborhood associations.

So it was built to accommodate everything, but you're gonna take it and move it to the back and block up a whole street.

That makes Ella Austin a negative asset for the very neighborhood it serves.

It's not right, and we're asking you to please hold this because there are things that they completely gutted out of our pantry spaces.

We're a community center.

We have been that lifeboat for seniors and people for so long, they totally gutted and just said they're not gonna do it again.

The place where we offer, you know, canned goods, we feed seniors every week.

The whole senior center, which was supposed to have a yoga room and exercise room, we are getting none of that.

The only thing they're gonna do is paint the walls.

This is what after a $23 million dollar bond election.

And I do have to say that the unfortunately Mr.

Shandon is here, and he's been representing the city, but he was not with us during this time.

We've already been through this.

The councilman is in agreement with us, and we just ask you all to please to please do this.

This is because we have to live with this building for another, we hope a hundred another hundred and thirty-five years old years.

Ella Austin is an icon in this community, and it has to it has to serve the need.

It cannot be just a building they slapped up there.

We haven't there.

We're going to have an auditorium, and guess what?

There's no seats in the auditorium.

None.

So once again, have us come back to the drawing board.

You all, I would I would be here fighting for you if this was your neighborhood.

Once again, we have a neighborhood that's been impoverished, a neighborhood that's majority minority, and and and we've had four meetings.

And the reason why Dignity's came out the way, same with compliments.

They called and said, What the heck is going on?

We've already had all these meetings.

We already thought we had moved, made sure that the that the that the entryway was fine.

We've already done this, and it was just all ignored, and the only thing that remained from all the four meetings we had with the neighborhood cop metro, the churches, etc., was the expansion of the child care center to add four different rooms.

We're not even redoing the bathrooms.

It's just you all it's insane.

Twenty-three million dollars has to get you more than that.

And most importantly, most importantly, Ella Austin is a resource for the community.

You cannot position it to then be a negative asset that's going to affect the standing and the livability of Ella Austin and all the people who have to come in and out of the children we take care of.

80 people trying to get their kids in and out of place is ridiculous to put the entrance where it was.

We object to the owners deviating from the plans previously approved by the HDRC on December 17th and proceeding with construction from a different design without seeking approval for the changes.

We object primarily to the large solid back wall of the new covered patio fireplace structure facing Madison Street, which is not in compliance with the previously approved plan.

We ask for a return to the approved plan for the back wall, which included open areas flanking the fireplace.

These openings help to reduce the visual impact of the large structure while being high enough to give privacy to the owners.

As a compromise to asking for a total reconstruction of the building adhering to the previously approved plan, we can agree to items one and two in the new design request, but oppose item three, describing and closing the two open areas flanking the fireplace.

The openings were filled in after originally being present in the new structure, and therefore can easily be added back.

You can see the red arrows on the photograph of the structure where those openings were filled in.

None of the proposed drawings and renderings submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation for approval are from the perspective of Madison Street.

Clearly, the unapproved changes were focused on the pool perspective and privacy and did not take Madison Street context or historical appropriateness into consideration.

Although it technically qualifies as a rear structure by code, the shallow front yard makes it part of the Madison Street front yard.

Neighbors and visitors all experience this structure as the front of the property.

The house and garden are located in a prominent corner lot, Madison East Johnson, and are therefore highly visible to all who live and visit King William Historic District.

The close placement of the building to Madison Street, allowed by code, makes it even more critical that the design reflect historic sensibilities as much as possible.

You can see the photo of the street view.

We strongly support the staff's stipulation that a landscape plan to screen the street facing facade of the covered patio fireplace structure be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a new certificate of appropriateness.

Hopefully, well-designed landscaping will help soften the impact of the structure while also restoring a degree of privacy and shade lost to the removal of several large trees on the property before construction.

For all these reasons, we hope the new landscape plan will not be simply administratively approved.

We ask that the HDRC have an opportunity to review the landscape plan to assure plantings offset the scale and magnitude of the structure.

Landscaping is impermanent and unenforceable after installation, and therefore may not always provide screening for the large street facing wall, which makes it all the more important to return to the originally approved, less imposing back wall with open spaces flanking the fireplace to face Madison Street.

Thank you for the service to your service on this commission and for hearing our concerns today.

Rick Casey, he will receive two minutes.

Other speakers are discussing the appropriateness of the structure in question.

I would like to briefly address two matters process and precedence.

I've lived in the King William neighborhood with one break for more than 45 years.

That one break was in Houston, whose development culture is very different.

In Houston, every modest house in King William and many grand ones would have been demolished and replaced by now.

So I'm very appreciative of the value of historic preservation and the historic guidelines.

The first is that neighbors in the historic district must devise ways to be on top of issues such as this early, such as this early in the process, and to be aware of developments as matters progress.

We became aware of the construction when it was well underway, only to find out that it varied substantially from a preferable design approved by the staff.

Not surprisingly, neighbors were not aware of the changes.

Then we learned that the staff had approved the changes, if appropriate landscaping was designed.

The lesson regarding process is that either neighbors need to find a better way to stay on top of changes in plans, or the commission needs to find a more effective way to keeping neighbors informed.

The lesson regarding precedents is that rulings from the HDRC appear to be advisory.

The unfortunate precedent set here gives us to understand that, as some people have long said, it is easier to get forgiveness than to get permission.

The wisdom of iconic architect Frank Lloyd Wright also comes into play here.

He famously said a doctor can bury his mistakes, but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines.

Thank you very much.

Michelangelo Sabatino, he'll receive two minutes.

Greetings.

I'm a newcomer to the city.

I'm the new director of the School of Architecture and Planning.

And so I I just wanted to offer some comments that you'll see in the image coming up.

You know, when if you're when this neighborhood was plotted in the 19th century, there were no cars, and the street meant everything because you walked on sidewalks.

It wasn't sort of the automobile uh neighborhoods, neighborhoods designed around the automobile.

When you look at this image, you are basically looking at the gazebo from the pool, but what you are not seeing is the entire street, which is behind where that sunny sky is.

So basically, when this uh gazebo was designed, they were not thinking about what it would look like from the street, and that's the whole point here.

Uh, we are concerned about what it looks like from the street and the sort of abundance, the garden like quality of King William, the prominent corner on which this uh house sits makes it even more important.

Uh and we are confident that our neighbors would agree that the more beautiful their house is, the more uh curve appeal will have, and more they can resell it when they want to leave the neighborhood.

So, our our advice is uh to really not just like promise landscape, but be uh forced to have a real landscape plan, and these two openings if they can come to the point where you can actually see through and it's not like a full wall.

Well, well, at the same time, you know, everyone wants a little bit of privacy to just make sure that there's a sense of airiness to this gazebo, which has always been in the history of architecture a garden pavilion, meant to be, not a garden shed.

Thank you very much.

Sean Campbell, she will receive two minutes.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sean Campbell.

I live at 524 King William in Council District 1.

I'm currently on the King William Association board, and since January have been serving as the chair of the architectural advisory committee, along with three other King William board members and three members of the King William Association.

I'll shorten the architectural advisory committee to AAC.

I wanted to introduce myself today and comment on 433 Madison item 12.

There is a formal letter in your notebooks.

Two members of the AAC met with King William neighbors this past Saturday to hear their concerns and then met with the homeowners during our regular AAC meeting Monday evening.

As a result, the AAC supports items one and two to modify the previously issued December certificate of appropriateness as presented by the OHP staff.

Regarding item three, the um the initial COA approved in December had cutouts on both sides of the fireplace chimney.

What has been built is a full wall.

The AAC would prefer to see the cutouts put back so it reads more as an outdoor fireplace than a privacy wall.

In talking with the homeowners, their vision of landscaping the wall will include tall evergreens, layered hedges, and a piece of artwork the AAC agrees would soften to the effect.

Either way, thank you very much.

Uh Margaret Leeds, she'll receive two minutes.

Good afternoon, Commission.

I'm Margaret Leeds.

I live at 308 King William.

And I've loved the King William Historic Residential Neighborhood since 1968.

And I visited my sister and her husband Charlie Catrell there for thirty years.

And when I retired, I was able to purchase my home.

And I've lived there for the past 28 years.

And in that process, I saw lots of changes in those 60 years, lots of changes in King Williams, some of them really wonderful renovations of homes that drastically needed help to save them.

And I love that.

On the architectural advisory committee, I agreed with many of the things that were approved, and some I thought, uh, why?

Doesn't meet with my taste, but then my taste is not the ruling factor here, and thank goodness sometimes.

Um I am hoping that that our neighbors on Madison will be able to configure the landscaping and the walls of that structure so that it fits in more appropriately in our estimation at least with the rest of the neighborhood.

Thank you for considering this request.

Well, next here public comment for item number 13, 1315 East Paran.

Uh Jane Henry will receive four minutes.

Brady Alexander has yielded time to her.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jane Henry.

I'm president of Mission San Jose Neighborhood Association.

And I'm here to deliver comments on Joel's collision at 3406 Roosevelt Avenue.

I'm sorry, uh this is item number 13, 1315 East Parin.

Uh 3406 Roosevelt will be the first item on individual.

Um the Joel's collision is 3406 Roosevelt.

That's item that's item 14, item 13 is what we're on now, 1315 East Parin.

Oh, I thought that was postponed.

No, ma'am.

3134 Roosevelt's postponed.

Oh, okay.

Okay, change change gears.

Okay.

Yes, the house.

Um, we haven't got a clear picture of whether this house intends to be constructed in place of the house that sits there already or behind the house because there is a concrete slab located behind the house in the yard in the backyard.

Um I remember when this um when this case came up a couple of months ago for review by HDRC.

Um, some of the comments um from the commissioners were that um it looked the the design submitted looked more appropriate for uh somewhere near uh uh some suburb on the north side um because they had the garage, I think it's a double garage, flush with the front facade of the house, which is totally uncharacteristic of this neighborhood, and so they were advised to push it back or put it around the back.

And as far as I've seen from what is submitted, uh nothing has changed.

Uh the garage is still flush with the front of the house, but again, we're not clear whether the house in front is to be demolished and replaced by this um this house, uh the the proposed house, or um, or if the proposed house is going to go behind it.

Does anyone can anyone clarify that for us?

We can you're just giving comments, ma'am.

We're not in discussion for that yet.

Just go ahead and finish your comments and then we can go from there.

Oh, okay.

Um, we don't think it's appropriate for to replace the house that is already there.

Because it's a neighborhood of front porches and parking around the back.

So those are our concerns.

And they've been voiced before when this came up before.

So that's that's all I have to say.

Any questions?

She has comments now, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioners.

Um, if you can direct your attention back to the agenda that's on the screen, um the consent agenda items are there, we can pull those or take action as needed.

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

Yes, sir.

I'd like to pull item number four item number four.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to pull item number or items number 12 and number 13.

12 and 13.

Any other items?

Hearing none, may I have a uh motion for the balance of the consent agenda, please?

Yes, sir, Mr.

Chair, I make a motion uh for the balance of the uh consent agenda with all staff stipulations less item four twelve and thirteen.

That was staff stipulations.

So is that was that with stop stipulations?

Did you say that?

Thank you.

It's been moved and properly second.

Any further discussion?

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am and I.

Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

I Galloway.

Aye.

Ivada.

Aye.

Group.

Commissioner Group.

Aye.

Travieso.

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 741 West Ashby, 310 South St.

Mary's, 523 Divine, 112 San Arturo, 240 East Summit, 612 Labor, 539 East Weesech, and 415 FERD.

Your case has been approved and you do not need to stay for the remainder of this hearing.

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

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

I will pull up item number four, uh 1023, North Pine.

This is Ella Austin and Capital Delivery Staff is here in person.

Thank you.

Can the applicants step up to the podium, please?

I'm with West East Design Group.

I'm one of the designers for the Yellow Austin project.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Fetzer.

Yes, um.

Disconcerting comments by uh citizens, the fact that um uh the design doesn't address concerns that they had had through several uh public meetings.

Um and one specifically is the the drop off for the uh users of this facility uh being uh basically creating a hazardous condition.

Can you shed some light on uh the sequence of events and how decisions were made that uh from what we've heard hasn't followed what the the users wanted uh the facility to uh become.

Um yes, uh I will try.

Um I I myself was also not involved very early on in the process.

Um but I I will say that the roundabout that was there before um is no longer there because we're providing more amenities on the site, as you can see.

We're uh providing open lawns for children to play on.

We're providing a an area, staging area for food trucks for people to gather and congregate.

Uh we're providing a workout area as well.

Um, so we're not completely eliminating the loop just because we we decided to do that.

It was just to provide more amenities, uh, which I believe were things that were requested by the community.

Um we did consider the entrance to the senior center and the child care center, and we because we're so limited in space, we have the existing gym that will remain.

We have the senior center that that will remain, and obviously the main building.

We have a very little area to work with for the drop-off loop.

Uh we tried expanding and making that as big as we possibly could.

Um we also had to request a variance for a drop-off loop.

We're not technically allowed to do that.

Uh we need a certain distance from the intersection of the streets to have a drop-off loop.

So uh us having or even having the opportunity to have one is um is good for us.

Uh but we do understand the concerns of the community.

The city has informed us that um they will look at different options to see what we can do to rectify that in terms of the programmatic elements that were said not to be received.

Um, we're actually packing the main building, which is the original building.

Uh the first floor where we're providing nine classrooms, we're providing a dining hall for seniors, we're providing a training kitchen for the community.

We are providing um office spaces, conference spaces, uh, and offices in the second floor.

We are doing cosmetic upgrades to the um auditorium.

If the budget allows, we are looking to um provide seating as well.

We don't want to be leave the auditorium without any seating.

Um, so we're not entirely stripping everything away.

I think the only thing that uh is not happening at the moment, just given the budget constraints, are the senior center.

But we've been informed that as soon as uh the funding becomes available, the senior center will be on the docket for for uh for the Ella Austin uh community center.

Okay.

Um Edward, you have a an existing site plan so we can see the existing uh parking driving drive through the site and how it's changing to the new I think so.

There's like there's uh one here.

The at the moment this layout does not comply with the required parking that we need, and so that's part of the reason why we're eliminating that as well, and so that we can get more parking.

Um we're also providing additional parking right next to the gym adjacent to the gym that will also be enclosed.

Uh we also received comment regarding the dumpster enclosure.

We understand that is not the preferred place for it.

We will also work with the community on that to see what works for them and what's a good location.

Um so we want to be responsible designers, and as such, we we're willing to work with the community to get that, but we respectfully request that we do obtain the certificate of appropriateness so that we can continue work.

Otherwise, this will continue to delay the project.

This will continue to eat up funding if we don't start this soon, and so we're trying to avoid that as as much as possible.

That's all at the moment.

Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am.

I don't order, ma'am.

Mr.

Chair.

One moment, please, sir.

Uh, that's all for the moment.

Thank you.

Um one moment for Commissioner Velasquez.

I'm good, Commissioner Sumino.

Oh, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, okay, I was attending the two or three community meetings a few years ago.

So I've kind of followed how this is developed.

A few questions.

Is the McTechnical arts building demolished already?

No, the the bar, the demoed building, the the building that was approved for demolition on the north side, where your drop off loop is.

Oh, those physical quote, no, we have not touched that building.

Okay.

Um I am uh let's see.

So the drop-off loop was something that was approved early on in the conceptual drawings of the community.

Um now the concern about dropping off kids and the manner by which kids get young kids get dropped off, why would they go through that drop-off, that circular drop off, when a parking lot would be more appropriate for the adult to stop the car, get out, accompany the child in into the building and it for intake, and this reverse order at the end of the day.

Why um could the early childhood drop-off or you know, um drop off actions occur in that parking lot on the south?

Yes, absolutely.

If if if they are willing to park and walk towards the child care center or child care entrance or through the main lobby, absolutely.

Because it sounds like if folks are dropping off in in the circular drive and then the overflow goes into the street and they're getting out of their car to remove the kid, that is basically parking.

Right.

That is not so perhaps would um would it work in your plan to limit the drop-off to seniors and other types of um other uh users?

Yes, ma'am.

Is that possible to do?

I think so.

I believe so.

Yes, we can discuss that with our client, we can discuss that with the community to make sure that we're okay with that.

But yeah, we can limit the usage of that drop-off for special occasions.

Relocate the kids, the very young kids elsewhere.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um currently in your design, what is being proposed for security on that north side?

Can you explain the fencing and the gate configuration for that drop-off?

Yes, ma'am.

So um at the moment we have uh vertical bar vertical bar fencing all around the site, uh with the exception of the east side where we have brick pillar fencing.

Uh that brick pillar fencing has been demolished, uh, but we uh our design is calling for that fencing to be rebuilt as it was.

So we're not changing it.

We're just rebuilding it.

Um we are replacing some of the Cheng Link fencing, uh, particularly um at the upper corner uh where the gym is, which is the the uh northwest side.

Um that's gonna receive new fencing to match the existing perimeter fencing, which is eight foot high at the moment.

So the entire site will have perimeter fencing.

The drop off loop will have swing gates that will be closed after hours so that no cars go in there when no one's around.

Um and so that's how we're handling that.

Okay, and one more question before I allow the others to um have their questions.

Uh what is the specification or the action for restoring cleaning, repairing brick on all of the facades, especially the east facade of the auditorium entry where we have paint.

Is that coming off?

Yes, ma'am, that is the intent.

We are intending to clean, wash, um, and actually protect the the new brickwork or not new brickwork, but the restored brickwork.

Uh we're planning on repointing any of the cracked areas.

Uh we have certain areas that that need some some repair.

Uh so we're planning on that.

And we're also planning on using an anti-graffiti coding uh so that if more vandalism occurs, we can at the very minimum clean that off.

Okay, thank you.

I may have more questions later.

Thank you.

Commissioner Groove, I'm coming to you next.

Um Commissioner Velasquez, sir.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

I know all these uh considerations are are real important.

I think it's also probably important to put in the context of the L Austin early.

When the community was a very different place, and the amenity served the community that had no amenities.

Had no services.

So the problem that y'all find yourselves in is changing community, but the needs of the people inside of the building are very different than probably that very community.

Or at least with respect to the those that are receiving early childhood education and seniors.

Um which raises a question for me.

I'm trying to understand what's happening here.

The thing that's very confusing is uh the president of the association is here, yet it seems that the client is the city of San Antonio.

That is correct, yes.

So where's the where where in this is how how I think we all want to see that there's a solution, right?

But how how do we see a solution if the city is the client?

Which means that the criteria probably has been met, but the criteria is different than the operating entity.

If the if you all are are you all operating the city operates it?

Yes, no, we're not offering that.

Oh, I understand.

So there's an intervention inside of your who your client is that they're they're taking the lead in this meeting with the community, yes, sir.

Yeah, so you're so your function plan, which is uh taking it consideration drop off and all of that.

Was your is your client happy with that?

Yes, sir.

So I i if by any chance, Mr.

Chair, you I well, I guess I'll wait till we get into discussion or are we in discussion?

Okay, I'll wait till we get into discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

So along that side, um I don't understand how relocating the the drop-off circle only for kids.

I mean, you can't restrict it for certain ages, even if you remove it, if the entrance is right there, people are gonna still gonna park on the street and walk a child over.

So, and and I understand you're saying you want to work with it, so where would you well how would you handle that?

Well, again, we're limited with space.

Um we would have to provide studies and show how cars can maneuver around.

Um we do provide accessible routes to the entries of the child care center and to the main lobby, and so we're trying to separate kids from walking onto the drive itself and actually using the sidewalks to get to the entrances.

And so that's how we would pull children away from that drive.

What's the whole purpose for the the drop-off loop?

Uh just to have seniors and kids a bit closer.

Uh those who need uh to be a little bit closer to the front entrances, uh, it's there.

So it's it's more of a convenience fact, a convenience factor.

Okay, so but if it's causing so many issues, and then second, when you said you're willing to relocate the dumpster, I guess it's more community comment than than uh guidelines.

Where would you relocate it?

Well, we are actually thinking about moving it south on the within the same parking lot.

I know the community is requesting for the not the dumpster enclosure, but the dumpster containers to be along the street in the right-of-way so that a side loader can pick them up.

That's what was there before.

It doesn't look very nice.

Um actually Google Maps has images of the dumpster container right up against the sidewalk.

And so we do not want to do that again.

Yeah, no, and so and when you said this is funded by bond money, and when when is the deadline?

What how fun how does that function?

It is provided by bond money.

I don't know what the deadlines are or because you said that delaying could affect funding.

It affects funding because no work is getting done and there's a GC on site at the moment.

And he's charging by the day.

Correct.

Okay, because you're saying you want to work with the community, but we have to approve something, so we can't if we approve something and then you go over the community for something else, like it's it's mostly goes the other way around.

You work with the community first and then you come to us.

And I don't how would you work that out?

Uh, are you willing to do it that way?

We we have um we actually met with the community on Monday.

And so now we're here in front of you.

Okay, I don't have any further questions.

Thank you, ma'am.

You know you're not you're good.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, so I'm gonna offer other commissioners um questions.

I mean, Tom asked questions before we go into a second round of questions.

So, um, Commissioner Garway?

Mike, I'm just I'm trying trying to follow up on Commissioner Velasquez.

Uh like the like who at the city is uh is your client?

Like, is is this a certain department or that kind of thing, and are they here today?

They are here today, and it's the capital delivery department.

I don't know if this is the appropriate time, but I'd love to hear from that department uh what at some point.

Can the representative come up from the please?

You can step aside for a moment, sir.

Good afternoon.

I'm Crystal Gonzalez, assistant director with Capital Delivery.

So the client department that we're supporting is Department of Human Services.

So in conjunction, we're basically managing the project, the consultant, uh, and the project manager, but the client department will oversee the project um once it's completed.

Good afternoon, Melody Woosley, director of the department of human services.

Um Ella Austin falls into our list of properties.

We leased the what we were until construction started leasing the facility to the Ella Austin Community Center nonprofit.

Thank you, Commissioner.

You can ask your question.

How can you tell me a little bit about how there's such a big difference between the where the city and the designer is at and then where the community is at?

Um I'd love to hear like how, you know, I I'm aware of like there was meetings years ago and that kind of stuff, but um we're now at a point where I believe we're getting charged per day um for the project, and there seems to be a large divide.

So, like you said, there have been a number of community meetings over the years.

West East facilitated conversations with um stakeholders and community members, and then the design was created.

It's uh one of the things that was um high priority for Ella Austin was additional child care rooms, and that pretty much took up the bottom floor of the center, other than the auditorium, and so those nine classrooms, 10 classrooms actually is an expansion of four classrooms over what was there before.

Um, and that's that's something that we agree is important to the community.

So I believe we're in agreement there.

We also wanted to improve the security for children, and by locating the entrance to the child care center at the north side with a drop of off-loop, we believe that that is more secure, so that only families and children that are using the center would be going into the center.

It would not be accessible to the rest of the community that's using the gym or the senior center or the auditorium.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I've I have further questions, but I'll let the other commissioners go.

Thank you, Commissioner Mammon.

Thanks.

Uh two quick questions uh for design, probably.

Um the so the the new entrance is gonna be on that north side, correct?

Is the current entrance where uh on this image here, just kind of in the middle of the property?

No, the so there's two entrances.

One is for the child care center, and I'm gonna step over to the screen here in just a minute.

So the main lobby to the main building is right in here, so that's the parking.

I mean, I'm sorry, that's the entrance, and the parking for that is here.

We have walkways that lead you all the way back to the child care entrance, which is here, but we also have our sidewalk accessible routes here.

So the child care entrances here and the main lobby entrance.

In the new design, correct, and in the old in the current the uh it's it's where this circle is in the middle, correct?

Yes, sir.

Uh the the entrance to the main building remains.

The entrance to the child care center is I I believe it was somewhere in here.

That's good.

Uh so if if can we go back to the new design uh project?

There was discussion about maybe moving the drop-off to the south parking lot area, but that would be that would force then the walk for child care to go to the north side, correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And then second question, you you mentioned right now is not in the budget for a new senior center.

Uh is if there is budget for future senior center, is it going in the spot where current senior center is or where would it go in the design?

That is correct.

That is the intent.

Current spot.

So so that would be raised and then built up there.

Right, and we're strategically working around it for that reason.

No other questions, sir.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna ask the remaining commissioners if they have any questions before we go to the second round.

So um Commissioner Givata?

No questions right now, sir.

Thank you, Commissioner Travies.

Yes, I have a question regarding who oversees the care of the roof and then that the leak.

Uh it seems like we're spending a lot of money and getting very little benefit from that expense.

Who in the is it a city or is it you?

Who who does uh or who is responsible for overseeing the project once the work has been completed?

That would be us.

Yes, sir.

We so we have been contracted to do construction administration, and so we're gonna be out there making sure that the installer, the subs install it for our specification for our contract documents.

Um we will require whatever testing is necessary to make sure that the building is not leaking and the roof is actually performed.

Okay, so your thoughts on why it's re it's leaking after it's just initially been installed.

Uh actually, yes.

Um a lot of the leaks are actually coming from the openings, not necessarily from the roof.

Uh we do see some um some of the cocking up on the termination bars, uh a little brittle and cracked, and so some water may making its way through there as well, but it's mostly through the windows, the parapet caps, and the door openings where we're seeing water intrusion.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Holland.

No questions, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Going to round two.

Um Commissioner Savino.

Um okay, so if the senior center is in the future, um may we assume can you say that the design for the original senior center that was approved and presented during after the charred series, is that the senior center we would be looking at, or will you be returning with a different design?

I want to say that that is the plan that we want to use what was originally proposed.

Things change, but that's not been communicated to us.

So as of right now, the intent is to um build what was proposed originally.

Okay, okay, and then um I think the situation of the drop off is not gonna be solved right here today.

So thank you, Ms.

Ryan.

Thank you.

Commissioner Galloway.

Um I'd like to continue to discuss like engagement with the community, and I think that they said that you led that.

Um can you or if I'm correct if I'm correct, um, could you tell me a little bit about those meetings?

Like how long ago did they happen, how many participants you can ballpark it?

So I wasn't directly involved in any of those meetings.

Um, but the client and my previous colleagues, the ones that were involved had mentioned some of these meetings.

Um my understanding is that the only part of the scope that's not really being fulfilled is the senior center.

Everything else we're meeting what the community asked for.

I understand that the drop-off loop at the moment is um a bit of an issue, uh, but I think based on what I'm listening hearing, based on what was told to me by our client by our my team, um we're meeting most of the programmatic um elements that were discussed or are promised.

Could you give me an estimate of how much the general contact contractor costs per day?

Like how much money is go going out?

I I cannot no is there anybody from the city that can give us that number?

Uh I can tell you that we did have it's a lump sum, it's a lump sum contract with a contractor, so we're not um you know looking at that per day, but based on the 14 month schedule and 17.8 million dollars, I mean you can do some general math on on what that would be, but a lot of that uh construction is is materials and um you know they have not uh invoiced us for for just time on um on the site, right?

So we're looking for we're looking to move forward with an approval so they can begin that work as to not cause any further delays and escalation.

I mean cost of materials goes up continuously.

Um so we're looking to uh to deliver a great product to the community, and it is what they asked for in those community meetings that we have held since 2022.

Um we met with Ella Austin board last week, and and I was blushing at at their praise of the product that we presented to them last week and shocked to hear that they're no longer or at least one member is no longer happy with that.

Um so we have continuously uh worked with the community to deliver a product that they um can love and enjoy for for uh another 135 years.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Mammond, second round questions?

No other questions, chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Lasquez.

Yes, sir.

For for the city, just a uh and I don't want to give you the impression that I'm the question has to do with with uh the how you run the business or what the business is, but I think it's important to understand the constraints in the design.

Uh is the city managing aspects that L Austin's not managing in the facility?

Like do is there a is there a lease base with uh uh organizations that are not uh a single contracted organization like El Austin?

Uh I think Melody can better um answer that.

So as far as tenants in the building, it's you know our lease is with Ella Austin and El Austin alone.

Um now L Austin would subcontract space to other organizations, but and so I don't know exactly what the percentage would be that was um operated by Ella Austin, operated by other entities.

But but would it be uh a close assumption that you all are managing the development uh for L Austin?

I mean for the leasehold holder.

Well I would say with capital development, I mean, right now we're managing the process for the city because it's a city-owned facility.

Okay.

Um, but with the input of L Austin and the community that will you know use the building almost exclusively.

Understood, and and I'm remembering that this the demolition of the building on the north was done to facilitate exactly where we are today, right?

With respect to the design.

Right, to be able to have that open space and that building also was um not in good shape.

Well, and it was a big it was a difficult discussion then the demolition of this building.

Yeah.

And a lot of respect to the the design firm.

I know that they're I can see you even there cracking your head to answer the questions that that seem that maybe the situation is the product of a very complicated solution.

Because I'm I'm even I mean, some of the architects on the board I think are also looking at the project and trying to figure out how they would do it.

And um I'm no different, it's a very difficult project.

Thank you.

I appreciate your answer.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion if you don't have yes, sir.

Okay, um Commissioner Holland.

Second round question, sir.

Real questions for me, sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Group.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner um.

No questions right now, sir.

Commissioner Travieso.

No questions at this time.

Thank you, Vice Chair Petser.

Yes, question for uh city staff.

Um we've heard that y'all are willing to continue discussions with the uh community and the tenant uh to come to some resolutions on how the site uh is going to work.

Um and there's also issues of getting work started uh dealing with uh water infiltration into the buildings and getting them weather tight so that uh the interior work can then proceed.

Um would you be willing to um accept a an approval for work on the buildings themselves with a continuation on the uh design and development of the site.

Yes, we would.

That is our main focus is to get started on the building, which is the interior work.

Uh we have thought about a couple of options.

You know, we've gone back to the drawing board, so to speak, just looking at that internally.

Um, but but I do urge that if the changes that we make will be a cost to the project, um, and we'll take away from the other elements that were important to the community, the green space providing not that um vehicular movement through the site, but that community um and an area for them to gather free of cars and traffic, um, and that would you know really just remove that almost completely.

Right, but in the general sequence of construction on a project, you get the buildings done first, and then you uh work on the site work.

Absolutely.

And so having further discussions, having giving y'all more time and the community more time to uh review what's been proposed, what your new thoughts are uh I think might be in the best interest of uh the entire project.

As we appreciate that, uh we have been working on this project for several years with m with a many community meetings, um, and we feel that uh um that there are a few opinions that have shifted, and I don't I d I I fear that that's gonna continue to happen until we get back to the current design, which is well the current configuration, um, which is not wasn't the intent of the project at all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I'll ready for your motion, sir.

Mr.

Chair, with with strong consideration for the scarcity of resources, particularly in these days, but more importantly, with respect to municipal projects with large scale investments.

Sometimes uh promptness is the most wise thing to do.

I want to make a motion to approve with staff stipulations.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

It's been more than properly second, but I started just discussion.

Mr.

Chair, I I've spent many hours at this location, but I would say many years ago, not today.

And I spend a lot of time in um non-profit owned or managed city facilities, and the the availability of resources is very scarce these days, and I I would say that there's anything that's being proposed that hasn't been before this commission before, particularly with respect to the north side of this site.

Um improvements can be done two ways.

Improvements can be done in a way where we have before us an improvement that is that most people that are familiar with the site can say is much needed.

And on the other hand, uh when resources are available, that's a good time for changes to be proposed.

But to assume the availability of funding for changes today really risks the possibility that an investment that may only come around every 30 to 50 years, that that it's it's not critical that these funds are are put to work today, particularly at a time when the dollars is changing value so quickly.

I know how hard that is, so it's a thing of heart more than it is of uh being able to say that your opinion is right or your opinion is wrong, but I think we know that that uh this is an opportunity to get your work done, and hopefully with fingers crossed and with a good firm like the uh West East, that uh they're listening and if if uh new daughters come available, um, I'm sure that uh that that people will be open to changes.

But uh, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am.

You're out of order, ma'am.

Unless you're actually addressed at the podium, ma'am, that's when you can speak, ma'am.

This is it.

My fault, Mr.

Chair.

I I did look at her and uh uh I apologize.

Thank you.

Uh but uh so those are my comments.

I I'm hopeful that this can get done, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Would the second like to comment?

My comments were followed.

Uh my colleague really, I'm more concerned with timelines and um and decisions that were made in the past, and and uh I'm I'm concerned with holding up project rather than moving forward.

So I would be in favor of moving forward on this project with staff stipulations.

Thank you.

Um give every um commission opportunity to speak.

Um Commissioner Groove, any further comments?

No, I know I just wanted to say I agree.

I I actually after hearing, I think the second speaker, um, I also understand that this now I understand that this has been in the public for a long time and public minds some are more vocal than others, and I think they've done the due diligence.

And, you know, if if this does cause problems on birdless and of the traffic, I think there is a stipulation about signage, and one of the requests is you know the signage, and I think um Commissioner Savina had asked, you know, make sure you make this drop off signage or entry or whatever it is that flows the best, and then I agree the container should not be there.

I think that the stipulation that staff has there is because of the placement of the container.

So if you don't want that displacement, that stipulation maybe the placement of the container should be somewhere else.

Thank you.

Commissioner Guevada.

No comment right now, sir.

Thank you, Commissioner Travieso.

Thank you, Commissioner Savino.

Yes, so many comments, so little time.

Um the process that occurred a couple of years ago, a few years ago, the public process was I thought pretty robust, pretty well attended.

It was um advertised or presented as a district two, not specific to the neighborhood.

The neighborhood has different uses of that property than those people who live in other neighborhoods but are still in district two.

So the seniors that come to this uh location as well as the young uh children from uh for early childhood care would come from uh neighborhoods beyond.

So that's why this is primarily a district two um effort.

Um I had first heard about individuals or um talk about removing the drive already a year ago.

So I guess I still have a question, lingering question for the city and anybody else working on this.

Why did it take a whole year to come back and you know for us to begin to review this?

We should have been reviewing this already months and months ago, but alas, here we are.

Alas, here we are.

Um I am concerned about the the financial aspect and that's why um I too was disappointed that the senior center could not be included because when you see the senior center um new construction, you see the whole thought of this new campus that is more permeable from more streets and more green, one would understand how that drop-off would work, and it wouldn't be the only place where people would enter the site.

There would be many points of entry, right?

So when you see the suite of buildings and places, it makes sense.

Um I think we lost a lot by taking out the senior center and the uh site work around that.

So um uh this is this is a tough one.

Commissioner Galloway, I just want to say that I um I understand this facility deeply because I officed here for four years, uh three to four years, and um I understand the need of this facility for the community.

I watched parents' grandparents drop off their kids.

I watched community members come in and have meetings in the conference room.

Um I watched, you know, uh when it rained real hard, the roof would leak, right?

Um, and things like that.

So I understand how important that is.

Um I the problem I have with approving this right now is that there is a the city continues to struggle with deep intentional civic engagement.

And um, you know, like the thing with the drop-off circle, um, you could turn that into more green space, and then I've seen several schools have drop-off circles in the parking lot where you just put out some cones, they drive in.

If they want to park, they park.

If they want to go around, somebody's there to meet them, they and they take the kit and that kind of thing.

This just doesn't seem like it's that hard.

Um, but um, you know, I think that um to close my my remarks, you know, um we are discussing work in a historic black and Latino neighborhood in the city, and we should be absolutely prioritizing and listening to them.

Um, and that is why I'm a solid no vote on this.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Mammon.

The the only comment I have on site work and talking that through in the future, uh in doing the building work right now is because there's a shift of the entrance to the north side that's dictating this new drop-off location too as well.

So relocating that to the south side or or to the other larger parking lot would really change the safety of drop-off and the utilization of that.

Um I think it's complicated too because of the multi-uses of this facility of um you know daytime for students within community as well and seniors uh who just use it at different times than when the students are going to be dropped off.

Uh so the the drop-off location, while not ideal in size or or forcing it onto that one street, uh, I think is the only logical the way that the plan is laid out.

Um I will be supporting this motion.

Thank you.

Thanks to everyone who commented on you, another one.

Um, give me one moment, please.

Um, let commissioner group go and then I'll pull you back in.

Commissioner Group.

We can't hear you, Commissioner Group.

Sorry.

Uh, because we're in discussion, that was very um I thought Mr.

Galloway's Commissioner Gower's comments were very valid.

I'm also coming from a person who's got some personal experience with this building.

Um since you're not supporting the motion as it is, would there be a way?

I'm trying to see, like, you know, we go for vote.

If it doesn't pass us, what's the next step?

Like we need to have this discussion before just voting and not, and then another motion goes on the table that fails to, and then we're stuck.

So is there a way out of this?

The city says they've had enough community engagement.

The seven community members say they don't.

Is this approving my commissioner Fetzer maybe?

So did the solution say we're partly approving something, or is the drop-off loop just the issue and we don't approve the drop off loops?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner.

I I would support uh Commissioner Fetzer's uh, you know, uh recommendation earlier of like sub of approving the majority of this, but like continuing the conversation on things like the uh the you know roundabout uh drop off and some other things that are ongoing.

Um I just am not gonna support blanket as staff recommended.

Are you good commissioner group?

And Mr.

Chair, one moment, sir.

Are you good, Commissioner Group?

Yeah, he answered my question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Chair, I I um I heard the comments that uh Commissioner Fitzer had a while ago if Commissioner Fitzer wanted to alter the motion.

I would be open to that because I think I uh come from what I heard from him a little earlier I could see how that would be worked out.

Well Commission Fesser has word now so go ahead sir yes um I will not be supporting the motion as is so I'm gonna offer an alternate motion um to approve the work on the restoration of the buildings uh to get them uh weather tight and so the interiors can start uh being worked on uh that is where the majority of the dollars are gonna go for the project anyway uh it would allow the contractor to uh really start working on the the site and then uh continuation on the uh site work uh with further and uh with the city and the the other stakeholders having further uh discussions to uh come to some consensus second it's been moved and properly second I am very confused so if we look at the items on the agenda which of the items one through six are being approved in this motion item number six only item number six not item five uh well since five is part of the building does uh adaptive reuse then I could see approval of items five and six with continuation on uh one two three and four and you wouldn't allow them item number two either construction fence there's already construction fence um I think with with further with further possible development of the site the fencing and perimeter uh protection may be changing so I put that on continuance.

Okay.

We can hear you commissioner.

Thank you.

Um second did you want to comment uh I approve okay thank you thank you all right um hearing nothing else can we have discussion comment um so i I think you can work on stuff for the building but I don't know how much of the project is dependent on the entrance of that building shifting completely to the north side then unless we address you sir um did you have set the question yeah so so that it's a question for everybody to consider but also if the designer has an answer for that okay sir so so the only request we would make uh for the site uh the the most important one is the uh permission to demolish the physical cultures building um that's the building on the north side where the drop off loop is at the moment um that building is in really bad shape um and it's holding up some of the utility work uh that we need to work out um to get the main building up and running so sir hasn't that already been approved already for that no sir we need the certificate of appropriateness to demolish the physical cultures building i can I can clarify so the demolition was approved in 2023 with the stipulation that the site plan including the replacement be approved by the commission uh so this is why we are reviewing the site plan today Mr.

Chair we're we're in discussion right yes sir mr chair i i want to uh for from a real from my perspective there's a realistic uh scenario here that we're we're we're on the commission and part of the motion requires an assumption of something.

And I I just can't see in my head that that that there that there that anybody has given us a privilege to an assumption that what we're proposing will actually happen.

We we know that we can stop something and prescribe a better solution, but we don't have any any guarantee that after we stop it that we'll reach that goal.

And there are projects that we can we can see that we're looking toward uh a solution that that satisfies everybody's needs, but and the project has been here for a couple of years that they've been working on this project.

There is a breakdown, there seems to be a breakdown.

I don't understand the breakdown between the client and the client's agent.

In my mind, the client would have been El Austin and the agent would be the city, even if it's in a lease circumstance, because at least that would be the sensible lease agreement because the program has to satisfy the needs of the L Austin.

So to get to a point where that is done in a way that seems sensible, it's not just the work that needs to be done on the site, it's also a much larger picture.

And if it doesn't happen, the real bad circumstances over there that are architectural, site grading, all those different things that anybody that goes to meetings there knows it I almost feel like to vote positively, not that it's not a good motion, but in terms of the motion making an assumption that I would feel really bad if nothing ever happened over there.

So that's why I I feel like yeah, the the project got ahead of itself in some way, but it does seem that improvements, qualif qualified improvements are up against the wall.

So I won't I can't support the motion.

I thought it was just gonna be about some site considerations, but we're even talking about not demolishing the building.

We're not talking about something that we had vigorous conversation about before with respect to the mobilization of the north side of this site.

So I I would be more in in um support of uh of an alteration to the origin to the original motion that took into consideration the greatest concern of the community that was about traffic patterns.

And Commissioner Gallagher, I mean, I I would think that I know that he wants a better solution than somebody going out there putting cones, but if it was relegated to the west-south side of this property, then everything else could happen if it's just about traffic flow.

Um, but along the lines of what fellow commissioner here was saying with respect to uh and even Commissioner Savino about multiple points of entry, well why um uh uh sacrifice the northern entry that's already has a solution there at least there's one now there could be more uh but to just assume that there's gonna be dollars available or that the dollar value's not gonna change or that the contractors are not gonna uh fall off a ladder and they have to get a new contractor and all the confusion there, all the things that could possibly happen.

I think it would be very unwise for us to do anything that stops more than 75% of what is being proposed in front of us.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

I'm gonna um if any of the commissioner has any comments they'd like to make, I'll um please indicate that to me.

If not, we're gonna move to a vote on this.

Mr.

Chair, would it be appropriate to amend the substitute a motion to accept or to also include the demolition of the technical arts building?

Is that how that happens?

Yes, I will amend my amended motion to include the demolition of the technical arts building.

That's a second and second stand.

Mr.

Chair, can ask for a clarification.

Does the demolition mean that the new construction in that environment um happen?

Is it not just a demolition, but that they're gonna do what they were doing up there as new construction?

I think that that based on what we've heard today that that has some concerns with the community and the the tenant, and uh putting the the new entry to the uh early childhood center at that north end does not preclude that north side becoming a pedestrian entry, not necessarily a vehicular entry, uh to provide that multiple points of access to the site.

So I think um until there's further discussion between the city and the uh stakeholders uh that drive should also be kept in a continuance.

Just one point of clarification from the movement on the continuance.

Can we have uh date certain of how long you want those items continued?

Um I guess this is a question for the applicant and the city.

How long do you think it would take for y'all to meet with the stakeholders and come back with an alternate proposal for the site?

Well, obviously, we would have to go through the motions of um uh examining what we can do.

Um we would have to uh put some new design layouts together, present those to the city, have the city review those.

We would have to present those to the community.

Um I would again I would I would have to discuss this with our client, but um I'm thinking somewhere between four and six weeks so the um date certain middle of July that that would be the next uh commission meeting that would allow them time to do that.

So is that the um the second meeting second meeting in July for the record that's July the 15th?

July 15th, second occurs.

Thank you.

All right, thank you everyone for your discussion, for your comments for your question.

Thank you for the community, thank you to the applicant, thank you to the city.

May I have a roll call please on the alternate substitute motion?

Ma'am and Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez.

Um, Galloway?

I group, aye.

Do I have yes or in?

Fetzer, aye.

And Gibbs, hi, motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Thank you.

Can I have item number 12, please?

I don't think that much.

The applicant's here in person.

Uh, if the applicant could come to the podium now.

Hi, I'm the homeowner.

Can you please introduce yourself, please, sir?

Sure, uh Willie Hernandez.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabino.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Hernandez, for staying.

And um, you heard that your community members um comment on the alterations um and you also see staff stipulations for the other two items.

Um do you have a response or do you have some thoughts about those?

Yeah.

Um, where to begin?

Yeah.

Um, so this is part of a very significant project.

Okay, so we bought the home um almost a year ago.

It had been left unkept for about three years.

Nobody had lived in it.

So it's a pretty significant structure, and so we bought it with the full intent of re-bringing it back to life in its historic nature.

So the first thing we did was we engaged with the OHP for advice and guidance.

We had multiple communications, uh we had on-site meetings to talk about some of the things that we would be doing along the way, uh, both with the structure as well as the outside.

And so at each step of the way, we kind of brought them into the vision and got their guidance because there were some things that we just didn't know how to handle, things like pulling out the stucco and what would happen with the the rock underneath.

So, you know, this is part of a very long process with a lot of steps.

So the the outdoor, you know, it's all been approved.

Um, we're here because we missed the variance change, you know.

So we we accept that.

Once the structures were going up, I think along with the contractor who sees these, and we can start to see, you know, you don't you can't anticipate the full vision when you're looking at it on paper.

And when you start to look at it, you you can start to see the potential um exposures that it it had.

And there were a few things that struck us about the wall.

Um one was the invasion of privacy or where the potential for that.

Yeah, I mean I think our um our my colleagues behind me are right.

This is an expert uh a community where people experience it, and that means that they stop.

That means they stare, that means they take pictures, and the space behind this wall, it's a personal space, and we will have children there.

We will have elderly people, and so knowing that people can see right in, that struck us as the wrong solution, and so we did fill it, and we felt like that was the better solution.

Now, I do appreciate the visual from the street and and every step of the way, and and I go through that whole narrative to show you how deliberate we have been to recreate the historic nature of the home inside and out.

And so the next phase of this would be a landscape plan that would be in line with the community standards.

In fact, several months ago, in anticipation of this, we reached out to the OHP to say, hey, what's the guidelines?

What should we be thinking about?

What kind of plants would be permissible in this space?

So with that guidance, we can now start to think about what a landscape plan would be.

What I would say is this conversation has accelerated the portion of that discussion as it relates to the visual in front of that wall.

And so I we've submitted a plan.

I don't know if it's something that we can pull up, but basically it it hides the wall, and so the wall in the end does not get seen with the landscape plan.

So there's a lot of green, a lot of uh plants that are uh all Texas native, and so we think the visual actually is good from Madison.

I'm sorry, yeah, yeah, from Madison.

Okay, so um the front of your house sits back 24 feet from Madison, and there's an additional 16 feet, right?

So that's about 40 feet back.

Um to the privacy concern, um if landscape you're you're implying that landscape is your solution.

Well, partially it's the wall.

Are the wall?

Yeah, but it's also the landscape.

The landscape is an additional, yes, because there will be segments and right right now.

If you look in it, I think um the neighbors put up a photo of it in its current state, you can see there are sections that are still visible because there is no landscape yet.

So there would need to be landscape on each side of it as well, but the pri okay.

Um the questions I have are about the use of that are not relevant to this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions for this applicant?

Yes, sir.

Um, was your contractor or your yourself not aware that any significant changes to the structure needed to come back for review?

Yeah, we we just missed that.

Our contractor is here.

It was part of a conversation that we had.

We frankly just didn't know that that would be material enough of a change to come back to the process.

So when it was revealed, uh there was a communication with the OHP.

Um we were very transparent about it.

We said, Well, look, as we look back at everything that we've done, we can only see the two things, the posts and then the wall that is in question.

So, everything that we're talking about today came out in that conversation.

So then we came together with them, we talked about it, we showed them, you know, caught them up on what we were doing and the rationale as to why.

Um, and I think they do support the the new um design of it, but yeah, we just we just frankly missed that.

Well, um, I think putting up a solid wall, um for the reasons you stated, I think is a major change to the original design.

And I think it materially affects the impact on the street view.

And there are uh decorative elements on the existing house.

There are railings and some fock work on the the rear of the house where there is um patterns and uh elements that could possibly be incorporated into those openings build it like it was approved previously and then come in with some sort of grillage or screen or something that's not a solid continuation of the wall that might be uh an opportunity for that privacy more privacy that you're looking for and not completely relying on the the vegetation is that something you would consider uh investigating so um a couple things one I I do believe that the that the design that we put forward does comply with the guidelines as as it is with the solid wall but second we we've we've gotten conflicting advice on how much to match the new structure with the historic structure some is they want more alignment and some say no it's got to be inferior to it.

So the more that we go to match it that is that in is at least by some advice um against the guidelines so I mean th there are a lot of different ways I think that we could design this and we could imagine redesigning it but the the structure that we put in front now does comply with the guidelines.

Well except it's contrary to what was previously approved.

Right and that's why we're here we we've got a a proposal and there's yes matching exactly what's on the house is frowned upon in terms of new construction but there is precedent on the existing house for open grill work.

True most of it's out of wood but uh but some sort of contemporary grillage uh screen that's uh somewhat open um might be uh more appropriate than this solid wall uh in terms of uh the street front uh view okay I think no matter what the wall looks like in the end the intention is to cover it with the landscaping and so I mean I it it it would be another significant investment of time resource money to do this and I don't see where it benefits because in the end the vision would be to have landscaping the other option would be to just return to what was approved will we can withdraw that part of it and you know then we're not talking about landscaping because there is no landscaping provision.

Unless you want to add landscaping for your own yeah that's something that we would consider right okay thank you.

So you just made a comment sir about um there it would be no benefits um the benefits of course is that's um vice chairfessor mentioned it's going back to the original design that was approved okay and so and then adding the vegetation or the landscaping um would you know hopefully enhance that but um that's pretty much what we are now and which is why the stop order was placed in there.

So I understand you know what your comments are as far as the having a solid wall for privacy and things in nature, but again, that's not what was approved.

So in order to try to come to um an understanding about not only what the guidelines call for, but what the is you know aesthetically pleasing as well as you know um achieving what you're looking for on the privacy side, then that's pretty much where we are at the moment.

So I just want to make sure we're we're clear on that.

Yeah, we're we understand that.

Thank you.

Other questions for this applicant.

Mr.

Chair, I'd be prepared to make a motion if there are no more questions.

Go ahead, ma'am.

I'd like to make a motion to um approve items number one and number two, and to uh deny item number three, with a second with a stipulation that item number three is reverted, the object is reverted to its originally approved form as shown in slide 15 of 15.

Second.

It's been moved in properly second, Commissioner Sabino.

Uh well, it's it's it's clear.

Um when we look at what was approved.

I originally saw this months ago and thought, well, okay, that tall wall is meeting the fence that sits behind.

And so there's some relationship between barriers in that front yard along Madison.

Um when you engage that wall with this columns to the side, when you increase the height and totally enclose it, it becomes a completely different structure.

And I think the the neighbors have it so right about the experience on the street and what it's like to be a pedestrian in this neighborhood.

And I give a lot of credence to that.

But then also on the pool side, um, I wouldn't I think there are other ways to address the privacy, and I think you began to do that with the landscape.

Commissioner Holly, yeah.

Thank you.

I just I you touched on it earlier.

Um in the conservation society touched on it earlier, but this neighborhood is uh an open walking neighborhood, and so everybody participates in uh each other's yards, and so you know, part of part of living on top of each other like that is you you do see into each other's yards, and so um I I see the neighborhood show up in opposition.

It's it's clear that they've got this one right.

And if it's me and I'm gonna live there, I'm gonna want to be on the same page in the same team with my neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Groove, I see you off camera.

Are you here?

Do you have any comments?

Okay, moving on to um Commissioner Gibata.

No comments right now, sir.

Commissioner Traviesa, no comments at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner Galloway.

No comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Mannman.

I just appreciate the comments from the neighborhood and their their uh perspective on this.

Uh I agree with fellow commissioners that going back to the uh originally approved plan is appropriate.

Thank you.

Commissioner Belasquez, no comment.

Thank you, Vice Chair Petcher.

Uh no additional comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am and I.

Savino, aye.

Velasquez.

Aye.

Galloway?

Aye.

Kivada.

Aye.

Commissioner Group is absent from the screen.

Javi eso?

Aye.

Holland.

That's her?

Hi.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Item number 13, please.

Um the applicant is here in person, Mr.

Toreau.

Could you please come up to the podium?

Please introduce yourself, sir.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Jose Shiro, um, owner of 1315 East Pyrene.

Thank you for having me today.

Thank you.

Commissioner Saveno.

Yeah, thank you for um sticking around again today.

Yes, sir.

Um, um to the community's concerns about the property, existing property in its current state.

Can you tell us uh what's on the property right now?

Yes, ma'am.

So uh there is an older home um on the property right now in a dilapidated condition that will be um deconstructed uh once we get the permit uh approved, um and that uh deconstruction uh is uh pending and just waiting for the approval.

Okay, okay, and staff was that approved by how was that demolition approved?

Uh deconstruction was approved instead of demolition.

She was asking staff.

Oh I apologize.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm trying to find it in the findings.

I know that this case has gone before in the HTRC at least a three times now.

Um so let's see, okay.

So finding E.

The existing structure located at the address received a determination of non-contributing status on September 16th, 2025, and deconstruction approval on October 8th, 2025 and approved by the C per the UDC, the historic hold on the demolition will not be resolved until replacement plans have been reviewed by the development services department.

I'm sorry, and approved by the historic and design review commission, and I've received a permit from development services department.

The immediate surrounding context features houses of various styles and construction periods as well as large tracts of undeveloped land, um etc.

Also to uh a note to the um neighborhood group, there there is a concrete pad at the back, but I believe it's for a basketball court, if I remember correctly.

Yes, that is correct.

Uh per the previous uh site plan, the slab in the back is for a play area for my son.

Um to be a uh basketball court and where he will most likely learn how to ride a bike and you know do all the things that children should do.

Trying to keep them out of the streets since the streets here are gonna be narrower than most.

So uh having a safe area in the back was gonna be the best option for us.

Okay.

Thank you.

I was I wanted to clarify that for the public.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Velasquez.

Um so just so that we could remind ourselves you came before the uh commission previously, right?

Yes, sir.

That is correct.

Um the previous uh time that I was here was with uh builder A.

Um, builder A has been um released and builder B has now uh stepped in.

Since Builder A had the original plans um that I could not bring over to Builder B, um Builder B now has new updated plans, but using the stipulations from the original plan with the garage being set back, uh I believe it's three feet from the front of the home with uh a few other things that were taken into consideration.

Reducing the width uh the width of the home stayed the same just because that was approved prior, okay.

So I tried to keep as much of the home as consistent as possible with the new builder trying to find something that had a same similar balance than what was previously um approved with the stipulations.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mammon, anything, sir?

None.

Commissioner Galloway, anything, sir?

No, no, thank you, sir.

You have a motion, please.

I do have one more question, Mr.

Go ahead.

Um, on this application, uh, he's requesting the certificate of appropriateness, which is a final move before he can get permitting.

Um however, staff is requesting or is recommending conceptual approval, and we've given conceptual approval to a previous design.

Can we now that the design has changed, the builder or the designer has changed?

Can we have a second conceptual approval?

Yes.

Uh conceptual approvals non-binding.

So um if the commission saw fit to uh motion for conceptual approval for this design that would allow the applicant to move forward work with staff, incorporate comments and feedback, and then come back to you when everything's resolved in a final state.

Then I'd like to move uh for conceptual approval with all the staff.

Oh second, Mr.

Chair, yeah.

And um with a with an emphasis on the site plan, you know, right now this is just a a house of box floating in space.

We don't know where it's going to land relative to your neighbors.

If I may, um, so in the one moment, please, sir.

So um just um the the setback and how it is cited can make the difference between an appealing new neighbor of this, you know, uh size versus a real intrusion on the on the historic character of the street.

And mr.

Mr.

Chair for my as well comment.

Oh, making a second.

I do a second, okay.

Gotcha.

Okay, good.

Well, Mr.

Chair, uh, one of the reasons why I asked the applicant uh whether he had been here before was just to confirm that that uh with respect to some comments that have been made.

Uh we had vigorous conversation and dialogue in the last uh time that they were here, and one of the things I I hope is not forgotten that this segment of Pyron is an area that has received over the course of decades several contemporary uh expressions.

So what could seem as a suburban home, there this is the street that introduced that into this area.

So it's not out of character.

As a matter of fact, it steps a little bit further into a historic context, but at its base, it it is a bit of a suburban home, but when you're familiar with that street, uh there's several with parking garages and all of that.

And it was it is that area where at some point in the 80s uh people had a little bit more money in the south side that that there were a few that were there, and uh, you know, uh what it was it called uh uh uh chasing the Joneses or competing with the Joneses that that that emerged in this area.

So uh just so long as we don't forget that that at that time we were uh aware of that.

That's why that project uh was had received uh uh the approvals that it did, and now that he's come back, he's done the right thing and and in the conceptual.

Um I just want to make sure that that's on the record so that uh we are not challenging this alteration to the original uh as a um uh you know as a as a bad mark because his other contractor left.

Uh thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

Um Commissioner Holland questions, I mean comments by the applicant.

No, no questions or comments, thank you.

Thank you.

Checking again for Commissioner Groove.

Okay, um, Commissioner Gibata.

No questions or comments, sir.

Thank you, Commissioner Sharvieso.

No question.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Sabino, any final?

No further questions, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Galloway.

No questions, thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Mammon.

No comments or questions.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Fetzer.

Yes, I'll be supporting the motion for conceptual approval and uh with the staff stipulations and encourage the applicant to uh consider.

We had a DRC this last week, and there were some uh design discussions, uh especially about the roof pitch and some of the extent of the stonework around the sides of the building.

Uh, encourage you to study those with your uh designer and uh builder as you come uh forward with your final plans.

Thank you, sir.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am and I Savino.

Aye.

Velasquez?

Aye, Galloway, aye.

Givata?

I.

Aye.

Holland.

Its sir.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you all.

Ghostburst, go source, go.

All right, um, item number 14, please.

Sorry about that.

The computer is wanting to freeze up.

Uh agenda item number 14, HDRC case number 2026 091 3406 Roosevelt.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to one install fencing and walls around the property.

Rod iron fencing will be installed along the north and south property line.

Masonry wall will be installed along the west property line, parallel to Woodhole Drive and Roosevelt Avenue, and along a portion of the southern facade adjacent to the neighboring structure.

The proposed wrought iron fencing and masonry walls will replace chain link fencing.

Two to perform exterior modifications to the two existing structures on site, including the installation of new facade materials, the construction of entrance canopies and painting.

Three, to enlarge an existing side addition and construct a rear addition to an existing metal building.

Four to install landscaping materials that include the installation of ground cover and shrubbery, and five install a wall sign on the front facade of the southern structure.

The application documents include the installation of two pylon signs with internally illuminated cabinets.

These signs are prohibited by the UDC section 35678 and are not eligible for a certificate of appropriateness.

Staff recommends approval of items one through five based on findings A through H with the following stipulations.

One that fencing and walls not exceed six feet on site per the UDC section 35514 is noted in finding C, and that the proposed solid wall not extend past the front facade of the southern building on site.

Two, that a detailed landscaping plan be submitted to OHP staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

Three that final material specifications be submitted to OHB staffer review and approval.

If alterations are proposed or approved by the commission, four that a signage package be submitted for review and approval by the commission is noted in finding G.

Signage should not exceed 50 square feet unless approved by the commission.

Five, that a lighting plan and specifications for lighting on site be submitted to OHP staff review and approval.

Lighting should not result in light pollution, and an archaeological investigation is re is required.

The project shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations regarding archaeology as applicable.

Coordination with local indigenous groups regarding archaeological scopes is encouraged but not required.

The applicant, Javier Gonzalez, is here in person.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so Chairman Gibbs.

Esteemed members of the commission and the distinguished staff members.

The last time we were here, uh we had a good this round discussion which had just come off a presentation to the uh the neighborhood committee.

There was a I think well-founded comment that hey, we don't have presentation materials, it's hard to see all these things together.

So we've since put those together, and uh I ideally to help frame your consideration and your discussion moving forward, like to break each one of these items individually and have you look at them that way ideally.

Uh some of them do have some crossover, so we can talk about that.

But I want to remind you uh Joel, the new neighbor in the in the neighborhood.

Uh bought this property, he sought to improve it, uh, has done, I think, a really good job, uh, but he didn't follow the process.

Uh he didn't come to HTRC, didn't go to the neighborhood, he didn't pull permits and he's got halfway through uh a building uh construction project without all that.

So he has since gone through the process in talking to the neighborhood and talking with the councilwoman and talking to development services.

They had to do rezoning, so they lost some of their uh non-conforming rights and so forth.

Uh, and so all that brings us to here we are today, a little more than a year when he first started uh the the process when he got the stop work order.

Uh so what we hope to accomplish today.

If we can uh take these one by one, if you can go to the next slide or two for the overall, there you go.

This uh this view shows uh the context and how important it is that we get this right, that we're right by uh at the at the foot of the mission San Jose property uh and the addition that he started without permission uh is along the back of the longer building, which if you're gonna place uh an addition that is not uh is minimally impacting the site, that's where you want it.

Uh he also uh wants to, as part of the project and and the engineer that designed his his uh his is building, uh, extend the porch over up and high, uh which you see depicted there.

Now, just as a quick note, we did have a nice DRC meeting where there's some really good, I think, uh uh comments that came through we studied those uh alternate uh concepts of a lower canopy that's more human scale and so forth uh it doesn't hide the sign we're we review we we reviewed those with Joel pardon me uh and and he he he did not accept those he he's he's got uh I think he's got all the steel he's got all the masonry he's got everything ready to go he's he's owned it for over a year so his path of least resistance from a cost standpoint uh is to keep going with the with what with what he's got so that given uh that that is a given what he is wanting to do to offset some of those things is to extend the uh masonry in the form of a fence uh particularly on Roosevelt and on the wood hull or mission San Jose side where you see it the most which is a good gesture and from our first DRC meeting uh it soften that uh with landscaping uh that is a I think uh a good move on his part it does enhance things he he he he not uh he didn't have a this wall as part of his original project but he sees that as a concession and a tip of the hat to the mission and to the neighborhood and so forth that to really do this in a quality way.

We talked with the neighborhood about having sandstone as a more appropriate material but given the cost and so forth the yeah and the year without operation he he can't sustain the additional cost.

So so we're showing split face masonry uh across the full thing uh and that's what he's got now just a little bit of sidebar since we're talking about the uh the the wall there is a an existing pole and frame on the wood hull wood hole side uh which originally he wanted to put a sign there but in this discussions and through the process and with the neighborhood and with our uh recommendations he he'd like to forgo that because that's a more sensitive side uh in lieu of that he'd like to have ideally more than 50 square feet of signage uh uh on on the front of his building in particular that one that you see there is 50 square feet and then he wants to utilize an existing pole uh where you see the one there it doesn't have to be exactly that one uh this might be a good time uh uh if I can try your patients can we show some street views uh the the neighbors uh and I think I said this last time the neighbors uh uh signage is akin to a NASCAR it's got a sign every you know 10 feet uh the neighbor just passed that uh originally originally from the street view had a smaller uh probably 50 square foot sign and now it's it's an enormous its signs gone crazy now those are non-conforming probably not done with the uh through the process that that we are all observing here uh it's it's a it's a it's a problem in the neighborhood uh but you can see this side this building here um as well now uh so we've talked about the the the addition we talked about the the the wall and now the signage uh the the the porch you can see there which is not built yet uh that that that's ideally what he'd like to do that's what he has at his other property and it's part of the design and materials he's already purchased uh as part of the uh expansion in the back which is a uh a paint spray booth uh he has to have these exhaust uh uh stacks that you see there and there is a very specific TEC uh TECQ code on the height and the separation between them and so forth and we have a letter from uh the installer and uh can get one from TCQ as well that says that this is the industry standard it's not inexpensive and this is the best thing anything less than this would be uh not appropriate to be hazard to to the employees potentially the neighborhood and anything different would be considering that those exist today would be cost prohibitive so he he couldn't afford to do the wall for instance if he did that.

Uh is what he's telling us.

So the lighting, I think the lighting is a much more easily managed thing that we're talking about low wall packs that have the the cutoff, so you don't we don't have light pollution.

So they'd be all on the building or behind the wall.

They're not sticking up high, and not not creating that phototopic syndrome where you're eyes is going to you know go to it.

Can you show the nighttime view please?

Uh yeah, it's really soft uh softened uh feel.

Now I do uh have something to report since we last met.

Uh CPS has gone out there and moved relocated poles that were on private property onto the right-of-way.

So that that that's some stuff that we're seeing out there.

There are some guy wires and things like that that that I think are problematic and people can trip over them or back over.

So we're trying to protect those with landscaping also, unless they're they're they're changing.

We don't know what exactly what CPS is doing.

Uh did I go through all the all the items that we requested?

Uh I do believe so.

Uh we've talked about the walls, we've talked about the additions front and rear, we've talked about signage.

Um, so the landscaping uh uh the applicants happy to uh to to get a landscape architect to design his plan, bring that to you guys or to staff before the the certific certificate of appropriateness is issued.

Um in meeting with the neighborhood.

I wish we had more time and more money.

The client has already stretched as it is.

He did uh you know, kick in some more uh time and money for us to do these renderings and go through the process in dealing with the neighborhood.

Uh we think that we find them to be very, very amenable considering what we've been through and how this this kind of went through without their input.

So I think we've caught up pretty quickly.

Uh that being said, I think there are several other issues that are not in the purview of the HDRC that might come up, like fire access and you know uh heading parking and all these other things that that uh you know are are you know the things that the project must bear uh and and go through the process uh upstairs here in the plan review, but but they're not they're not HTRC uh items.

So with that, uh I hope you can take each one of these one by one.

Uh if things aren't aren't aren't uh quite what they ought to be and the commission feels like like it can't be approved.

Ideally we'd like to have the building edition approved so that can go through its process of completion of design through the engineer and review upstairs and everything else we can kind of talk through it.

We're already doing that with the signage of the landscaping anyway.

Uh so that being said, uh I would ask that you uh give this your your very best consideration.

Uh he is putting dollars uh up where where it counts, and I think that's gonna make the world a difference.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Have a seat, please.

I'll take those speakers, please.

Uh yes, um Jane Henry is signed in to speak.

Uh she'll receive six minutes.

Uh Brady Alexander and Pres Prisciliana Cabral have yielded time.

I did not yield time.

Sorry about that.

Uh Jane Henry is here.

She'll receive four minutes.

Um Prisciliana Cabral has yielded time to Miss Henry.

After Miss Henry, we'll have Brady Alexander, and he'll have two minutes.

Okay.

Um good afternoon.

My name is Jane Henry.

I'm president president of Mission San Jose Neighborhood Association.

Um I live about a block and a half from this, well, two blocks from this location.

Um, the architect who is only hired at the end of March by Joel, um, met with our uh executive board and uh three members of the um San Antonio Conservation Society in April, right before just before two days before the April 15th uh meeting here.

At that time, at that meeting we discussed all kinds of things.

Um, however, at that time he did not have any new drawings.

Um ready to begin.

Number one of great importance in our neighborhood is um there has been no archaeological study done on this before construction was done.

They we have not heard anything about um the the owner wanting to or intending to uh conduct an archaeological study.

Um there has been um we he's made no arrangements for that that we know of uh the OHP already um uh identified two um two archaeological sites in this area in that immediate area, and it's um very sad that they could indeed right now be under the new concrete that he poured for that 2500 square foot addition behind uh this this main entrance that you see.

All of this was done without without permits, as you know, and sadly the city did not respond quickly enough, uh despite our many, many, many warnings until the whole thing was completed.

Um now getting back to what needs to be done.

Uh I'm glad that at the DRC review uh with with the applicant um uh in the last couple of weeks, that um the committee members brought up the idea that the the issue of the smokestacks, which you see do not appear in that uh illustration right there, but they are there and they are very large and ugly, industrial.

Uh really um not the kind of thing you want to see when you go to a World Heritage Site, Mission San Jose, uh National Park.

It's very intimidating.

Um it's not pedestrian friendly, it's not friendly at all.

Um he and I he was quoting from the Texas administrative code on uh auto finishing facilities that I provided him.

Um he did not mention the alternative, which I uh pointed out to him, which is um, which is an internal recirculation system.

He isn't I asked him can that why don't they use that?

He's not presented any arguments why the owner cannot install that.

If it's cost, I'm sorry.

If the materials that are required, the quality materials that are required to enhance the World Heritage and the mission uh the mission San Jose and the National Park.

I'm sorry.

He should have thought of that before he started building all this stuff.

It's not our responsibility, it's his responsibility to try and make a silk purse out of a sow's ear now.

That is his assignment.

Thank you.

And the electrif electrified fencing was not mentioned, and I'm sorry to hear that, because that is of grave concern in this location where pedestrians walk past every day, cyclists.

And there will be big yellow signs saying electrified fencing, 7,000 volts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Uh Mr.

Brady Alexander, two minutes.

And it's um what's been going on with it, uh, the lack of communication with the neighborhood association, etc.

Um, if this were in King William, we wouldn't be here.

Wouldn't be happening.

If this was located uh a little bit further north of town, um wouldn't be happening either.

There are no missions north of town.

The Comanches and the Apaches uh saw to that.

Uh now the city of San Antonio is doing more damage than those Indian groups ever did trying to get rid of the missions, and it is really sad to see that the plan around Mission San Jose is a light industrial business park model.

This is inappropriate for the area.

It was passed through zoning.

Um Joel knows where to put the money, he knows where to make the campaign contributions to uh lame duck council people.

Um it's this is San Antonio's history, corruption, desecration of historical features.

It's it's really sad, but this is authentic as you can get.

And if y'all want to rubber stamp it, well, y'all are going right along with history.

Um, it's a sad history, it's pretty disgusting, really.

Um, I'm not used to it not being from here.

Um it's it's really sad.

You can see it in other towns where they do care.

Uh, this project has just been uh endless patronizing euphemisms, changes, um, putting basically putting the cart before the horse, trying to build stuff unpermitted.

Uh, this process should have started at this commission before anything was done, but it didn't.

This is too important to put through as is.

It needs further review.

This sets a precedent for what is going to occur.

This is the closest commercial property to Mission San Jose, and if this is allowed, get ready.

Everything else is too.

Yes.

Thank you, thank you.

All right, we'll start with questions from um commissioners.

So, you know, context uh discussion, one moment, please, Commissioner Group.

Come on, up, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to some of the issues brought up.

Uh the uh archaeological uh survey that's a requirement.

We we don't contest that that has to happen.

Uh so that's number one.

Number two, the the exhaust stacks, not smoke stacks.

They're a requirement.

Uh as I said earlier, we're we're not the experts on that, and so what we have from the the manufacturer installers of what we have is industry standard.

Anything else is prohibitive from a cost standpoint.

Now we could talk about you know, hey, these things are unsightly.

Uh, we do meet the view shed uh requirement.

If you see them from someplace else, you don't like it, the code doesn't call for that.

Of course, you're sitting where you sit, you can evaluate those things.

Uh we did have a discussion with uh the client where we could screen these uh uh exhaust I was gonna say smoke stacks exhaust stacks, but that that would draw more attention and be more of a visual heavy element to draw your eye to it, and that's not what we want.

Uh Miss Henry pointed out in this view here, you don't see the smokestack.

Well, that's an architectural model, and so the the reality is if you're standing in the middle of the street, you don't see it.

Uh can you go through some of the other images?

Because you we we are not hiding it, it's there.

Yeah, they're there.

Some other reuse, I think it's the straight model.

Yeah, see there you go.

Now you can see them, they're there.

Uh, make no mistake, but when you're out there, there's so much else going on.

And and uh you know the gentleman's correct, yeah.

This is the closest commercial property to the mission, and I think what needs to be ideally considered here is that there is a living neighborhood with commercial uh businesses up and along uh Roosevelt, and that has to they have to coexist.

And so what we're doing, it is industrial.

We're not trying to hide that fact either.

We're trying to soften it and really make it appropriate where it's up against the mission, uh, and let it be what it needs to be.

By comparison, I think we're setting a very good precedent for others developing up and down Roosevelt that can have a softened landscape, have something that's a little bit more appropriate and more emphasis in terms of dollars and effort on the sides that are most critical and viewed from the mission.

So uh that's all I have.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Commissioner Group.

Yeah, uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just have a question.

Maybe it's more for staff.

Um, as it is right now with its deputations compared to what's presented today, that that would all comply minus the signage.

Is that correct?

Uh no, not quite.

I mean, there are a few things.

Uh, for instance, the applicant is requesting um maybe one of these renders will show it a little better.

Uh certain heights for the walls.

The walls are requested at eight feet tall guidelines, say six feet tall.

Uh so there wouldn't need to be two.

Which all the other eight, but which false?

I believe the applicants requesting that all of them be eight feet tall.

Okay.

Can we get back to verification?

Because it's not in the plans, is it?

Okay.

Do you do you have add or do we ready to pull up the applicant?

It was eight, right?

Yes, that the applicants are requesting eight feet tall.

Staff is recommending six feet tall to be consistent with the UDC and the guidelines.

Okay.

And then on the signage, one of the stipulations is they have to come back with the sign this package, keeping in mind that's my uh, can they get with our approval today with the articulations?

Can they move forward with their project and get a C of A, or do we have to approve a sign package before they get the CRA?

The signage could be separate from the building elements.

Staff is saying that if the applicant is requesting more than 50 square feet, or that the applicant's installing signage that a total signage package be brought back to the commission.

The applicants noted there's a there's an ideal situation where there would be more than 50 square feet.

Uh so commission's approval would be needed for that.

But it does not hinder them to get a C of A today.

No, not for the other elements.

The commission could take action on any of the request items and separate those from others if wanted.

Well, we can keep the stipulation there, right?

Because the stipulation still says they have to come back to the HRC.

Correct.

Okay.

I have no further questions right now.

Thank you, Commissioner Holland.

It was a question for the applicant, which is specifically, and forgive me if this was already answered, but on staff stipulations, are there any of these specifically that you take exception to um other than the signage one?

I know that you're asking for larger signage.

Would you would you be willing to work with staff and have a six-foot six foot wall?

Thank you, Commissioner Holland.

Uh actually we had a really good observation made at the DRC where uh Commissioner Savino said, Hey, I I I'm seeing a drop in the elevation.

So if we were to start at the low side, make it eight foot, work our way back up to the building or come to some alignment in the coursework of the masonry where it's it's not quite eight feet up uh close to the building, we could do that, and so uh we're amenable to to the six feet if that's what uh the commission believes is most appropriate.

We're trying to do something a little bit taller, and we discussed that with the neighborhood to obscure any visuals of the wreck cars and whatnot behind that wall.

We're trying to minimize the impact of that onto the mission.

But uh six feet is great.

If we can get that approved, we can move move on down the road and get our work done.

If if anything taller than that is approved by the commission, the the applicant would still need to go before the board of adjustment to get that okayed because it can't be taller.

So the coach says that it has to be six foot or or less.

So there's a whole whole process with that.

So in answer to your question, sort of, and I like uh Commissioner Savino's idea where we'd start on the low side and work our way up and find some alignment there.

It likely would still be taller than six foot uh at that low side, though.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Giovanni.

Uh yes, is there any update on any archaeological investigations at any of the levels?

Local state.

Staff doesn't have that, it's stipulated.

Uh we have a city archaeologist on staff.

Um the applicant would hire uh a firm to handle that and they would coordinate that review with the city archaeologists.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Chavez.

No, no additional questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Savino.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, um, question for the applicant.

Yes, at the DRC, we did discuss the uh exhaust stacks required for the operations, and um knowing that there are several alternatives out there, um, direct and localized ventings and where you place them.

Um, and also the fact that mechanical services and appurtenances on rooftops are in the guidelines or part of our purview, and I'm sure if we had seen this case before they were installed, we would have something to say and some comments and suggestions.

So, with that in mind, have you discussed at length alternative venting systems with your clients?

We are GRG are not thermal dynamic uh engineers couldn't begin to tell you what what's required.

We have uh engaged in and healthy discussion with Joel, and he's brought in.

In fact, I can send uh I can forward you an email right now from the manufacturer.

So it it what we're hearing uh from his expert is this complies 100% with all the requirements uh and it it's you know it is what it is, it's it's there.

It complies with TCEQ for their minimum standards of operation for that uh classification.

Um, but also when you go to a vendor, uh you're getting their perspective on their product.

Have y'all have you considered um consulting with a mechanical specialist, uh mechanical engineer who specializes in this, this is this is uh more specialized than most MEP engineers would have any clue.

Uh and therefore it's a specialty and has to be installed by licensed people and designed by licensed people.

Uh so uh we we haven't taken the discussion further because Joel uh feels that that he's expended the the time the money and so forth to comply with TCEQ.

Now it if it's something that the uh commissioner feels adverse to, I I suppose you you can have a stipulation to revisit that or look at that, but but I I feel he's firm in his in his statement that this is industry standard, it's it's actually quite a bit of money.

And if you go down the street, as I believe the neighborhood association has, if I may complete my thought, uh older uh, not that much older, but older uh similar uses up and down uh military uh don't have what this is.

It's not as tall.

This is the latest and greatest.

So thank you, sir.

Commissioner Galloway.

No comments, Commissioner Mammon.

No question, Chair.

Commissioner Velasquez.

Uh no comment, Mr.

Chair, but I'll make a motion.

Not yet, sir.

Um, Vice Chair Petser.

Yes.

Um I don't know if this is for staff or for the applicant.

The drawings uh that show the the fence, the block fence, and the uh dumpster enclosure on sheet 23 lists the height of those walls as six feet.

Uh there's been discussion or requests for eight foot.

Uh is that just a verbal request, or is that actually been put into the application?

It I'll let the applicant clarify.

Uh we've been it's been noted multiple times that that the preferred height is eight feet, but I'll I'll let Javier clarify.

I I believe and we can look right now.

I think the application request is for eight foot, and then there's a stipulation from staff saying six is what we support.

Okay, and then you had said that the uh the owner was offering some additional solid fencing uh block fencing around the property.

Could you can we look at a site plan and uh identify exactly the the length of that block wall that he's sure sure?

Can you go to the colored site plan?

Uh so I believe if you zoom in, push this okay.

I don't know if you guys can see the the cursor here, or my my red dot here.

This is masonry, masonry, broad iron gate, masonry, masonry stops right there, and then we pick up again with a little bit of masonry here and all the way down here.

If you look at the renderings, we come out to about in line with this building where all their mechanical uh pardon me electrical service comes into the building, not very uh nice to look at.

So we've got a tall masonry wall there, eight foot is is requested, and then from that point forward we have a low four-foot wall.

Okay, thank you.

Um and to follow on uh question by Commissioner Savino.

Um this may be be B B D B beating a dead horse, but uh yes, one manufacturer of an exhaust system has their design, and the one that it has been installed has these uh stacks.

Uh are there other manufacturers for other types of systems that would have wall exhaust or lower profile that would still meet TCEQ uh requirements?

I I would imagine th there could be, but I couldn't speak to that with any authority or any experience.

It's not what we do.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Velasquez.

I'll take your motion, sir.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion and let me try to work my way through this.

A motion to approve with staff stipulations, if it pleases the commission, I'd like to say six feet from the most shallow with respect to the height of the wall, which would mean that the wall could get bigger, provided that the topo changed.

If it's not the the pleasure of the commission here, then I'd like to change that on the on the motion and and just say six feet at maximum.

Do I get a feeling from anybody here?

So um Commissioner Velasquez, I don't know.

I'm gonna ask you to just make a little bit clearer.

Well, it would be all with staff stipulations, right?

But what I want to make clear is that this is your motion, so that it's not well, you know, please say, what is your motion, sir?

So we all right.

Well, let me just let me just make my gamble here.

Uh staff stipulations, wall not to exceed six feet in height.

Uh removing the uh uh staff stipulations, including that the sign is gonna have to come back and and be compliant, and um I'd like to add to the motion that the applicant pursue um further exploration on uh solutions for the exhaust system, and of end of motion, I believe that end of motion.

I'll second.

Thank you.

Um so before we go on um for legal, is that is that clear enough?

It is okay.

Thank you.

Okay, sir.

Mr.

Chair, I I just want to say something about the smokestacks, I mean the exhaust things, and be because it brings to mind uh I've spent a lot of time downtown Fiesta at that building on the corner of the new building, and uh from the highway from the street.

I just can't help but seeing all the mechanical that's on top of that building that I just breaks my heart.

But I I do want to say that that there is something about the exhaust pipes on this building that provide a statement of honesty, and and there's something lost in in architecture where you know it's it's always this lie, uh, or or it's a true statement.

And this the exhaust vents, they they give this nondescript building this this kind of a real low pitch building, an identity, like like a mustache or like or like earrings, however you want to look at it, it it it adds to the aesthetic.

So I I I can appreciate uh the the uh uh desire to to uh define it in the category of what is ugly in the world, but I don't think that it's ugly.

I think it's actually very beautiful if they're done right in in the composition of that of that building and and its ability to speak about what it does.

The other thing I'd like to say is that if you start there and you move south on Military Drive, which is the block that this building belongs to, it's all within the character of what it is going south.

And you know, you go further south, you get into the junkyards and you get into flea markets and all these things that other sides of town are really ashamed of, but we on the south side that that's home to us, and uh this isn't character with it, particularly the strength of the small business and the ability for this area to continue to draw revenue for the area.

Um I would just ask the the applicant that you're really missing an opportunity if you don't find a way to get a stone that is very similar to that mission.

You're really missing a great opportunity.

Uh so I would encourage that as well.

But thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

Uh thank you.

So I just I'm gonna prove I'm gonna, I mean uh support the motion that's six feet.

I do agree, Commissioner Velasquez, that might be some options below it.

Or the package says six feet.

I want to be clear.

I think everywhere it says six and doorways you know a little over six and that's kind of what we see on the drawing so let's keep it at six and then the applicant can always come back with you know a variation or something but I think six is also what we've always approved um regarding this most tax I was wanting to recommend you know ask our commissioners that there's a certain purview and we cannot require them to go to other experts and we are not experts in that area I think visual and what the guidelines is where we're going with it and I think Commissioner Velasquez you're asking the applicant you know minimize the visual impact great that would be great thank you I think on the signage I would not be against seeing 50 square foot on the front of the building and a small pilot given the location of the building and what's in in the neighboring properties but then I'll let the applicant come back with a specific signage package.

Thank you Commissioner Holly no comments for me thank you thank you Commissioner Gavata no comments right now sir thank you Commissioner Trevias sir no comments at this time thank you Commissioner Sabino no comments thank you Commissioner Galloway no comments Mr.

Chair Commissioner Mammon no comments thank you Vice Chair Fetzer no comments thank you could I um I'm sorry I didn't quite hear commissioner Velasquez you mentioned signage in your motion could you just clarify what what was that with staff stipulation for signage with staff stipulations with the understanding that they were going to come back and submit a staff package.

A sign master plan thank you may have a roll call please ma'am aye Savino day Velasquez aye Galloway ayevada aye group aye so aye holland ayezer and Gibbs aye motion carries motion carries thank you thank you everyone um that was the last case on the agenda um time is now five thirty three and we are adjourned thank you everyone