* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [Historic Preservation Appeals Board on November 4, 2024] [00:00:19] I AM JD BARTEL, CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS BOARD MEETING IS TAKING PLACE AT THE CITY HALL ANNEX AT 900 BAGBY. ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO OTHER, NO LONGER A VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTION, HOUSTON TELEVISION, HTV OFFERS VIEWING OPTIONS VIA THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBPAGE BOARD ME, UH, BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND RESPOND BY REPEATING YOUR NAME AND SAYING, PRESENT WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME. I AM JD BARTEL, CHAIR, AND I AM PRESENT. DOUGLAS ELLIOT. ELLIOT. PRESENT TRUMAN M MUNSTER. PRESENT. ROB HELLIER HELLIER. PRESENT. LIBBY VIRA BLAND. VIRA BLAND. PRESENT, UM, AND INTERIM DIRECTOR. UH, IT'S ALL WRONG. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NICOLE BROSSARD. BROSSARD PRESENT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. UH, I DO NOT HAVE A CHAIR REPORT, BUT AS A CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON HOW, UH, THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED. ALL SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST FORM. TURN IT INTO THE FRONT DESK. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE HEARD IN PERSON. WHEN I CALL ON YOU. HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE STAFF WILL OPEN WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION. THE APPEAL BO THE APPEAL THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD. THE APPELLANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE NEXT AND WILL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION. I WILL THEN CALL ON ANY SPEAKERS WHO WISH TO COMMENT. WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL ALSO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY STAFF. THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL IF DESIRED. FINALLY, BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE TIME ALLOTTED. FOR SPEAKING, MAY I HAVE THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS. I'M NICOLE BROUSSARD, ACTING SECRETARY OF THIS BOARD AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD OR HPAB IS BEING CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT 900 BAGBY STREET IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE PUBLIC LEVEL OF THE CITY HALL ANNEX. SEE THE ONLINE AGENDA FOR DETAILS AND SPEAKERS GUIDELINES. HTV HOUSTON TELEVISION WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE AN OPTION TO VIEW THIS MEETING THROUGH THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6 OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM. THIS CONCLUDES MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THANK YOU. UH, THE PRIOR MEETING MINUTES WERE POSTED WITH THIS AGENDA. MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THESE MINUTES? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME WHEN YOU MAKE A SECOND. A MOTION OR A SECOND? VIRA BLAND. SO MOVED. ADMINISTER SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. PASSES. NEXT TIME IN THE AGENDA IS CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2024. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 3 7 0 8 AUDUBON PLACE IN AU AUDUBON PLACE, HISTORIC DISTRICT. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS STAFF PERSON JASON LAL. TODAY, PRESENT TO YOU, ITEM 1 3 7 0 8 AUDUBON PLACE AND UBON PLACE, HISTORIC DISTRICT. QUICK PROJECT SUMMARY OF WHAT OCCURRED ON MAY 7TH, 2024. APPLICANT'S REPLACE WINDOWS ON THE FRONT ELEVATION WITHOUT A PERMIT OR COA MAY 24TH, 2024. APPLICANTS BEGAN RECEIVING RED TAGS SIX FOR RED TAGS TO DATE AUGUST 14TH. APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOR A COA SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2020 24 AT THE HA HC MEETING. THE HEC DENIED THE COA AND ISSUED A COR. THIS UR STATES AS TROY PLACED ALL WINDOWS WITH WOOD, WIND, WOOD WINDOWS THAT MATCH THE MATERIAL STYLE AND LIGHT PATTERN OF WHAT WAS REPLACED. SEPTEMBER 20TH, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THE REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE HAHC AT THE SEPTEMBER 12TH, UH, MEETING DATE. SO HERE WE ARE TODAY TO CONSIDER THEIR APPEAL REQUEST. UM, FRIDAY, I DID GET A LETTER OF SUPPORT, WHICH I INCLUDE IN THE PACKET. THE APPLICANT'S MOLLY HAS PROVIDED MORE, UM, LETTERS OF SUPPORT WHICH HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO YOU. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT'S MOLLY COLLIER AND HER HUSBAND. [00:05:01] YES, WILLIAM HARDING ARE HERE TO SPEAK. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. UM, I HAVE A REQUEST. DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE, IN THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED JUST BEFORE, AND TODAY WE'VE NOT SEEN MANY IMAGES, SO CAN WE SEE SOME IMAGES OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING? YEAH, WE'LL PUT THAT UP ON THE SCREEN. I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAS PRESENTED SEPTEMBER 12TH. YES. MY APOLOGIES. I FORGOT TO PUT THAT IN THE PACKET. WE'RE GONNA BRING IT UP ON THE PRESENTATION SCREEN HERE MOMENTARILY. SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE RED OUTLINE BOX. THESE ARE THE WINDOWS THAT WERE REPLACED. YOU CAN SEE IN THE UPPER IMAGE, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS FROM THE INVENTORY PHOTO. WE GO TO THE NEXT PAGE AS WE GO THROUGH THE PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT. I DID WALK UP AND DOWN AUDUBON PLACE. I TOOK A PICTURE OF EVERY CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. AND WHAT I DID FIND IS IN THE CONTEXT, CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES DO SUPPORT THAT. IN THE UPPER S IS ALL THE WINDOWS, THERE'S MULTIPLE LIGHT PATTERNS. SO WHAT I SAW HERE, WHAT THEY DID, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID WITH A COA OR A PERMIT, THEY DID MATCH WHAT IS IN THE CONTEXT AREA, WHICH I FELT WAS APPROPRIATE. BUT THAT WAS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION. STAFF IS STILL GOING THROUGH RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL ISSUANCE OF THE COR AS I STATED EARLIER. BUT THESE ARE WHAT WERE, WERE REPLACED. OH, STOP RIGHT THERE. THIS IS FROM, UH, MAY 7TH WHEN WE GOT THE REPORT THAT THEY'RE BEING TAKEN OUT. STAFF TOOK THESE PICTURES. THESE ARE THE WINDOWS THAT ARE TAKEN OUT. SO YOU CAN SEE IN SOME OF THE IMAGES, THEY'RE INSIDE A TRAILER THAT WAS FROM THE HOUSTON WINDOW EXPERTS. IT WAS IN THEIR TRAILER. AND AS I UNDERSTAND, THOSE WINDOWS WERE HAULED OFF TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CONTEXT AREA. AS I STATED EARLIER, ALL THE UPPER SASHES HAVE MULTIPLE LIGHT PATTERNS ON EVERY CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. UM, THE, THE, THE C OF R THOUGH IS NOT ABOUT THE LIGHT PATTERN. YOU'RE SAYING THE, THE WELL, I MEAN, I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT ALSO KIND OF PROCEDURALLY WHAT'S HAPPENED. I MEAN, I'VE SAID BEFORE ON OTHER OCCASIONS, NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE APPEALING, UH, BEING GRANTED SOMETHING IN THEIR FAVOR. SO, UH, I THINK THAT IS BASICALLY ANYTIME, UH, YOU'RE GONNA ISSUE A C OF R IT SHOULD BE WITH THE ASCENT AND COOPERATION OR THE APPLICANT. IN MY VIEW, I, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A METHOD TO CONFORM OR FORCE PEOPLE TO DO THINGS A CERTAIN WAY. THE CITY CAN ACKNOWLEDGE OR, OR MAKE A DECISION THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THAT'S APPROPRIATE AND NOT ISSUE A CERTIFICATE. BUT YOU CAN'T COMPEL PEOPLE, UH, TO DO THINGS A PARTICULAR WAY. I MEAN, THAT'S MY VIEW OF HOW THE ORDINANCE IS SUPPOSED TO OPERATE. UH, AND SO, I MEAN, JUST THE PROCEDURALLY HAVING SOMEONE BE POSITIVELY GRANTED SOMETHING AND APPEALING, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE BECAUSE THERE, THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO GO OUT THERE AND MAKE THEM DO IT. I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN A FINDING THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE ORDINANCE BY NOT GETTING THE CFA AHEAD OF TIME AND BY DESTROYING THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC MATERIAL. UH, AND THAT'S, THAT'S HAPPENED. AND THAT'S ALL THAT'S HAPPENED. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S IT. SO, I MEAN, UH, THEY'RE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO, TO ACTUALLY, UH, DO WHAT THE CFR TELLS THEM TO DO. IT, IT, IT IS A PATH FOR THEM TO BECOME IN COMPLIANCE. SO THAT'S, I MEAN, MY FIRST PROBLEM WITH HOW THEY, THEY, THIS HAS COME UP AGAIN, WHICH HAS COME UP BEFORE. AND I GUESS MY VIEW HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN TO HEART BY THE, THE CITY STAFF. SO I, I THINK IT'S JUST, IT'S AWKWARD AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO, FOR 'EM TO BE APPEALING SOMETHING WHERE THEY'RE ACTUALLY GIVEN PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING A CERTAIN WAY. UM, AND, AND PEOPLE ARE OBVIOUSLY UNDER THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE IN FURTHER VIOLATION IF THEY DON'T ABIDE BY THE EXACT DICTATES OF THIS C OF R, WHICH IS JUST NOT THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS SUPPOSED TO OPERATE. SO I THINK THAT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS, THIS COMES UP, UH, MORE THAN ONCE. UM, I'M ALSO VERY, UH, SURPRISED THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH, UM, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF, DID THE HHC EVEN SEE THE C OF R IF THEY'RE JUST TOLD? I MEAN, I GUESS THEY DID THAT THEY SAW THIS PACKET. BUT I MEAN, TO ME, ANYTIME SOMEONE'S BEING DENIED SOMETHING, UM, IT, IT OUGHT TO BE SOMETHING THE HHC CONSIDERS, UH, IN, IN FRONT OF THE, THE [00:10:01] WHOLE COMMISSION. SO, UM, UH, OKAY. SO I MEAN, I DON'T, I, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE TEXT OF THIS, THE C OF R OBVIOUSLY FROM THESE LETTERS, THEY'RE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY'RE BEING REQUIRED TO REPLACE ALL THESE WINDOWS, WHICH FOR TECHNICAL REASONS ALSO I THINK IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF MEDIATION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, UH, UNDER SECTION 2 0 3, IT'S REALLY REQUIRES THAT, UM, USING AS MANY HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE OR SALVAGE MATERIALS AS RECENTLY AVAILABLE. IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S NEVER GONNA BE REASONABLE TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO FABRICATE A, A, UM, REPLICA OF, OF WHAT WAS THERE. IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION. SO, UM, AND SOME OF THE LETTER WRITERS ARE RIGHT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE WOOD. OKAY. IT WAS, THEY NEED TO LOOK THE WAY THEY'D DONE THE VIOLATION WAS DESTROYING THE OLD WINDOWS. THAT'S TRUE. THEY'RE GONE. IF YOU CAN'T REPLACE THEM, THEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY'VE DONE OR WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO, AND IF IT MATCHES AESTHETICALLY, THE LOOK AND FEEL, THEN THEY'RE ENTITLED TO GET A CERTIFICATE REMEDIATION AND GET ON WITH THEIR LIVES. SO, UM, THIS SEEMS TO HAVE GONE WRONG SEVERAL WAYS, IN MY VIEW. UM, AND I DON'T, UH, THE C OF A, I THINK IS CLEARLY DENIED BECAUSE OF DESTRUCTION OF HISTORIC MATERIAL. THE C OF RI WOULD NEVER ISSUE A C OF R WITHOUT HAVING THE, UH, APPLICANT'S CONSENT TO IT. IT IS A MEANS FOR THEM TO GET OUT OF VIOLATION AND TO GET ON WITH ANY PERMITTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, UM, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THIS EXACTLY, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T ISSUE A NEW C OF R. WE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, REVERSE THE C OF R. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF WE DO OR NOT, BECAUSE IT'S, LIKE I SAY, IT'S NOT A COMMANDMENT THAT GETS PUT ON PEOPLE ANYWAYS. AND WHEN I'M DRESSING MYSELF TOO. BUT IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION, OBVIOUSLY. I'M JUST EXPLAINING MY VIEW OF WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS AND, UH, IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD, KIM? YEAH, I, I WOULD DISAGREE ON THE STANDPOINT THAT I DO THINK THE C OF R IS ENFORCEABLE. UM, IT IS A WAY FOR THEM TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. I DON'T THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE CONSIDERS OR CERTAINLY DOESN'T MANDATE AT THIS POINT THAT IT BE AGREED UPON IDEAL. IF IT IS, ABSOLUTELY. BUT I THINK THE CITY HAS OTHER TOOLS AT ITS DISPOSAL FOR ENFORCEMENT FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, THAT IT WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE TO, TO REQUIRE THAT BE DONE. WOULD IT EVENTUALLY INVOLVE LEGAL ACTION? WOULD THE CITY UNDERTAKE ALL OF THAT? I DON'T KNOW. UM, I DON'T KNOW OF A CASE THAT'S COME UP SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE THAT WOULD RISE TO THAT LEVEL. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO TODAY IS REALLY CON, RECONSIDER OR TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF THE C OF A BASED ON THE FACTORS THAT THEY'VE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU, UM, IN, IN THEIR APPLICATION STATEMENT. AND I WILL SAY ALSO, PROCEDURALLY THIS CASE IS A BIT STRANGE BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, MS. MRS. HARDING SHOWED UP AT THE MEETING, APPARENTLY AT THE END OF THE MEETING, UM, WHEN WE BARELY, WHEN THERE WAS EITHER BARELY A QUORUM OR WE HAD ALREADY LOST A QUORUM. AND I SAY IT THAT WAY BECAUSE I WAS, I HAD TO LEAVE EARLY FROM THAT MEETING AT THE TIME WHEN WE HAD A QUORUM. SO, UM, I BELIEVE WE STILL HAD A QUORUM. BUT SHE CAME IN LATE THINKING IT WAS DOWN THE LIST ON THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, AND DIDN'T REALIZE IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. SHE THEREAFTER ASKED STAFF AND STAFF AGREED TO PUT IT BACK ON THE HAHC AGENDA WHERE IT WENT LAST MONTH, UM, WHERE THEY DEFERRED THE ITEM FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND REVIEW. AND I DEFER TO JASON TO, TO DESCRIBE WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN IN THAT DEFERRAL PERIOD. HOWEVER, BECAUSE SHE HAD ALREADY TIMELY FILED THIS APPEAL, WE DIDN'T WANNA LOSE THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR HER TO BE HEARD. IF YOU ALL WERE TO DECIDE IN HER FAVOR, IT, IT WOULD NOT BE OBVIOUSLY AN ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION AT THURSDAY'S HAHC MEETING. UM, OR YOU COULD DEFER IT UNTIL AFTER THE HHC MEETING AND, AND HEAR IT AT YOUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING IF YOU CHOSE. UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, I, I THINK WE'RE DEFINITELY NOT BEING ASKED TO RECONSIDER THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, AND THAT'S JUST, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO REVERSE THAT BECAUSE THE WINDOWS WERE DESTROYED. IT'S NOT GONNA BE APPROPRIATE TO DO THE WORK AND DESTROY THE WINDOWS. SO IT'S, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CFR HERE. AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE AGGRIEVED BY BEING GRANTED THE CFR, WHICH MANDATES THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL THE WINDOWS. AND WHY I THINK IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE HAS CLEARLY KINDA WHAT THE PENALTIES ARE. AND IF, IF THE C OF R BECOMES A MECHANISM TO ESSENTIALLY IMPOSE UNLIMITED COSTS ON SOMEONE TO, YOU KNOW, REBUILD A HOUSE IN SOME HISTORIC WAY, OR [00:15:01] NOT EVEN A HISTORIC WAY, A REPLICA OR USING THE SAME MATERIAL, THAT TO ME IS JUST, THAT'S FAR OUTTA THE BOUNDS OF WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL INTENDED FOR ANY KIND OF PENALTY PROVISION FOR THIS ORDINANCE. SO, I MEAN, I'M JUST GONNA HAVE TO ALWAYS DISAGREE ABOUT WHAT THE CFR IS SUPPOSED TO DO AND WHY IT NEEDS THE APPLICANT'S, UH, ASSENT OR CONSENT. BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION ALSO IS SUPPOSED BE GRANTED UNDER THE SAME, UM, TERMS, THE SAME STANDARDS AS A C OF A AND CFAS DON'T GET IMPOSED ON PEOPLE. THEY'RE THEIR REQUESTS FROM THE APPLICANT FOR APPROVAL OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY. SO I THINK A C OF R SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME WAY. AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY THAT'S THE CASE AND WHY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE APPEALED A C OF R BEFORE. AND IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT EQUIPPED TO, WE CAN DENY IT, AND THEY JUST GOTTA, THEY GOTTA START ALL OVER AGAIN. SO IT MAKES NO SENSE REALLY. IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T WANNA DO IT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN JUST KEEP DENYING IT. YOU KNOW, , THEY SAY THIS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GONNA GET INTO COMPLIANCE. THEY SAY, WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT. OKAY, THEN THEY, THEY GO ON AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN, UH, UH, VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY APPEAL. 'CAUSE WE CAN'T GIVE THEM RELIEF. YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, OVERTURN THE C OF R, BUT THEY'RE STILL IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. WE'VE NOT GIVEN THEM RELIEF. SO WE CAN, AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE THE RIGHT BODY TO RECRAFT THAT CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION OR CONSIDER ALL THE FACTS. SO, UM, KIM BROUGHT UP SOMETHING ABOUT THE ORDER OF THINGS. SO IT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS COMING THURSDAY. THAT IS CORRECT. AND THIS IS IN CONSULTATION WITH KIM MICKELSON. I'VE BEEN TALKING TO HER ABOUT THIS. AS SHE SAID EARLIER, THEY DID FILE THEIR APPEAL WITHIN THE 10 DAYS OF SEPTEMBER 12TH. BUT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT, TO YOUR POINT, MR. ELLIOT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE YOU IMP IMPLIED THAT STAFF NEVER REACHED OUT TO THEM AND INFORMED THEM OF THE DENIAL OF THE COI ISSUANCE OF COR. IN FACT, STAFF DID. THAT'S WHY THEY WERE COMING TO SEPTEMBER 12TH TO ARGUE AGAINST THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THEY JUST CAME VERY LATE AT THE TIME. AND THEY'RE GONNA ASK DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO RECONSIDER THAT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. BUT THEY DIDN'T COME. AND WHEN I CAME UP AND THEY SAID, OH, PUBLIC COMMENTS, CAN WE, AND THEY SAID, AT THAT TIME, WE HAD LAST FORUM, WE HAD DWINDLED TO SO FAR THAT THERE THEY COULDN'T BE RECONSIDERED. SO TALKING WITH KIM ABOUT THAT SAID, DUE PROCESS, LET'S GIVE THEM ANOTHER CHANCE. UM, SO WE PUT AS A PUBLIC REHEARING FOR OCTOBER, BUT WE DID LET THEM KNOW THAT'S WHY THEY'RE COMING TO THE SEPTEMBER 12TH. 'CAUSE THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS GOING TO BE. NOW GOING TO THIS WHOLE, YOU KNOW, APPEALS FOR PUBLIC REHEARING, AGAIN, WE'RE FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS ALWAYS IN CONSULTATION WITH KIM. SO THEY APPEALED, WE FILED IT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS STATE GOING ON RIGHT NOW, BUT AS DUE PROCESS, SO THEY COULD BE HEARD. 'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET THAT CHANCE IN THAT SEPTEMBER. WE PUT THEM ON THE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER AND THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE AND THEY SPOKE BEFORE COMMISSION, BUT THEY DEFERRED IT. SO WE'RE STILL PROCEEDING FORWARD WITH THIS ONE. NOW, I THINK WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION JUST LAST WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AGO. WHAT IF THIS SHOULD GO BACK TO COMMISSION? WELL, WE'LL PUT THEM ON THIS THURSDAY'S AGENDA. IF YOU, THE BODY OF APPEALS DECIDES THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO COMMISSION AND LET THAT DECISION, IT'S ON THIS THURSDAY'S AGENDA, AND THEN THEY'LL STILL HAVE THEIR DUE PROCESS TO APPEAL THAT DECISION. SO MY, MY CON I'LL ADD, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, I, I'LL ADD, WE CAN THEN AT THAT TIME, PERHAPS ADDRESS MR. ELLIOT'S CONCERN WITH THE C OF R ISSUE VERSUS THE C OF A, UM, AND MAYBE GET A CLEARER DECISION FROM COMMISSION. MY CONCERN IS IT APPEARS THAT THE, UH, THE REVIEW AT THE HHC IS SOMEWHAT AN INCOMPLETE, AND WE SHOULD BE REVIEWING THINGS THAT HAVE HAD THEIR DETERMINATION COMPLETE BEFORE IT COMES HERE. AND WE WOULD BE MAKING A DETERMINATION WITHOUT THEIR COMPLETE PROCEDURAL RESPONSIBILITY ON THAT PROJECT ARE REFERRING TO WHEN THEY'RE REHEARD IN OCTOBER ON THAT THEY HAVE, BECAUSE OF THE QUORUM LOSS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IS FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE ALL WE KNOW ALL KNOW THEIR MEETINGS GO LONG, UM, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A QUORUM FOR THE FIR ORIGINAL INITIAL REVIEW AND THEN HAVING A DEFER, AND THEN THEY CHOSE TO DEFER IT. SO THEY MADE AN ACTION TO DEFER IT TO THIS MONTH, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE AN INTENTION OF REVIEWING IT THIS COMING THURSDAY. AND WE TECHNICALLY SHOULD HAVE, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE, WHY THIS IS HERE BEFORE US TODAY, BECAUSE OF THE, THE WAY THE LEGAL ORDER OF THINGS FOR NOTIFICATION OCCURS. BUT I FEEL LIKE WE ARE SORT [00:20:01] OF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCESS INSTEAD OF IN THE PROPER ORDER OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS PROGRESSED. I'M NOT SURE IF, IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT. YEAH, I, I I THINK COMMISSION COULD CHOOSE TO HEAR IT TODAY BASED ON THE FIRST DECISION, WHICH WAS JUST STAFF RECOMMENDATION, NOT A, YOU KNOW, AND THEN, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY HAHC OR SEND IT BACK, YOU KNOW, OR WAIT FOR A FINAL DECISION BY HAHC BASED ON THE PROCEDURAL, UM, UNUSUALNESS OF, OF THIS PROCEEDING. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT I, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE COME FORWARD TO SPEAK TODAY, I WOULDN'T NEGATE THEIR ABILITY TO SPEAK TODAY, BUT I QUESTION WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH IT, CONSIDERING THE HHC HAS ALREADY SET FORWARD RESPONSE TO DO IT THIS THURSDAY, BECAUSE THEY CHOSE A DECISION TO DEFER IT, IF I MAY ADDRESS THAT. OKAY. SO WHETHER YOU DEFER IT BACK TO THEM OR NOT, THE APPLICANTS ARE STILL GONNA APPEAL THIS DECISION. WE'RE GONNA BE RIGHT BACK HERE AGAIN DISCUSSING THE SAME ISSUE. YOU ARE EN EMPOWERED TO MAKE A DECISION. WE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW HAHC WILL RULE. OKAY? OKAY. LET, LET'S BE CLEAR. OKAY? IT, IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH HAHC THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AND LET THEM VOTE. DON'T, DON'T TRY TO PREDICT WHAT OKAY, A JUDGE OR JURY OR A COMMISSION WILL DO. I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL, UH, ISSUE IN THAT HERE AT THE APPEALS BOARD LETTER. WE DIDN'T EVEN GET A FULL STAFF PACKET WITH THIS APPEAL THAT CAME TO US. WE HAD NO FURTHER BACKGROUND THAT A FEW STATEMENTS BY AND LETTERS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED HERE AT THE LAST MINUTE. WHEN I GO THROUGH TO LOOK AT A CASE, I LOOK AT THE WHOLE HISTORY OF WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON, THE FULL STAFF REPORT AND THE ACTIONS OF THE HAHC IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT A POSITION, WHAT I FIGURE WE NEED TO DO AS AN APPEALS BOARD. AND I FEEL THAT THE MATERIALS WE HAVE TODAY ARE INSUFFICIENT. WHAT MATERIALS ARE YOU SAYING ARE MISSING? I'M GONNA SAY I WAS ABLE TO FIND THE HAHC STAFF REPORT ONLINE. ALL YOU REALLY HAVE TO DO, AND IT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE IF IT WOULD'VE BEEN ATTACHED TO THIS, AND I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS, IS DO AN INTERNET SEARCH ADDRESS, HAHC, AND YOU'LL, IT'LL BRING UP THE STAFF REPORT AS LONG AS IT WILL A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. I DON'T FEEL LIKE I NEED TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU, . WELL, LET ME ADDRESS THAT. THEY APPEALED THE SEPTEMBER 12TH DECISION, NOT THE OCTOBER 10TH. IT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE TO ME. WE DIDN'T HAVE A FULL STAFF PACKAGE. IT HAS IN HISTORICALLY BEEN ATTACHED TO OUR MATERIALS, AND FOR SOME REASON WE HAVE A DEPARTURE FROM THAT. AND I ASK THE STAFF THAT WE NOT DO THAT AND GO BACK TO HOW WE HAVE DONE THINGS PREVIOUSLY AND ATTACH THE FULL STAFF REPORT TO THE DOCUMENT SO WE HAVE A COMPLETE HISTORY OF WHAT'S GOING ON RATHER THAN I, AS A COMMISSION MEMBER HAVING TO GO SEARCH FOR STUFF. WELL, AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, I APOLOGIZE, I FORGOT TO PUT THAT STAFF REPORT IN THE PACKET, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE I DID PUT IN THE PACKET. I UNDERSTAND. BUT THE, I FORGOT, IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF A PACKET THAT I CERTAINLY REVIEW AND I WOULD MATCH OF MY OTHER COMMISSIONER'S REVIEW AS WELL. AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S 'CAUSE IT WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH I'VE NEVER, NEVER, I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER HAD AN APPEAL OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA BEFORE, BUT I ASSUME HHC BEFORE THEY PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, HAD SOME KIND OF STAFF REPORT, AND THAT WAS A THING WE WERE MISSING. WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT. SO, QUESTION FOR ME OR FOR ROMAN? YEAH, I WAS, AND IT MAY BE KIND OF, UH, IRRELEVANT AT THIS TIME, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS. YOU DID THE TOUR OF THE CONTEXT AREA PRIOR TO MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION, AND YOU SAW THAT UPPER WINDOWS, UPPER SASHES WERE OFTEN DIVIDED LIGHT MM-HMM . UM, SO WAS THE REASON FOR DENIAL BECAUSE THEY CHANGED THE LIGHT PATTERN OR BECAUSE IT WAS SOMEWHAT OF A DIFFERENT MATERIAL? I THINK IT WAS A MIX OF ALL THEM. UH, I, AGAIN, LET ME, I NEED TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, IS WHEN THIS WAS DISCUSSED BY STAFF, I WAS NOT IN TOWN. SO THIS WAS A STAFF DISCUSSION THAT WAS MADE WHEN I WASN'T PRESENT. SO ROMAN WAS PRESENT. HE CAN SPEAK TO THAT. SO LET ME TURN IT OVER TO HIM. THANK YOU. UH, YEAH, IT WAS PRIMARILY BECAUSE, AND WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, WHEN WE HAVE REMOVAL OF ORIGINAL MATERIAL, STAFF DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THAT THE WINDOWS THAT WERE IN THE HOUSE BEFORE THE INSTALLATION WERE ORIGINAL. SO ONCE WE HAVE, WE HAVE NOTHING TO GO WITH. WE HAVE TO ASSUME THEY WERE, AND THEREFORE DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA TO REPLACE [00:25:01] THEM. SO IT'S PRIMARILY THAT ALL THAT ORIGINAL MATERIAL, AND IN THIS CASE, EVEN A LITTLE STEP FURTHER, UH, WHEN, UH, WHEN JASON WENT TO THE SITE AND HE TOOK THOSE PHOTOS THAT YOU SEE, THOSE ARE ALL WHAT APPEARED TO BE HEMP TO HIM TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOWS. AND I, I WOULD ARGUE THEY WERE TOO. SO THE, THE STAFF IN THIS CASE RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE C OF A BECAUSE THE WORK THAT WAS DONE DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A C OF A. IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE SEE AN APPLICANT COME FORWARD AND WANNA REPLACE WINDOWS, AND WE KNOW THE WINDOWS ARE IN GOOD CONDITION OR A REPAIRABLE CONDITION, WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND THAT THEY REPAIR THEM. AND SO IT DIDN'T MEET THAT. AND SO THEN THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ISSUE A C OF R TO PUT THOSE AT THE TIME. IN FACT, AND I'LL GO TO THE HAH G'S DECISION, WHEN THEY MADE THEIR DECISION, THEY ACTUALLY HAD A SENSE FROM DISCUSSIONS THAT ALL THOSE ORIGINAL WINDOWS MAY IN FACT HAVE BEEN, UH, ACROSS TOWN AT A WINDOW RESTORATION COMPANY ALREADY TURNED OUT THEY'RE NOT. BUT WE, WE WON'T, I DON'T WANNA GET INTO THE WEEDS, BUT I REALLY NEED TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION, UH, COMMISSIONER ELLIOT RAISED ABOUT WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY AND HOW WE GOT HERE. AND IF I COULD ASK THE, UH, GUYS IN THE BACK TO REFER, OH, SORRY, I DIDN'T, MR. HELLER. I DIDN'T, I, DID I NOT ANSWER THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? UH, DID, DID I ANSWER THAT PART OF IT? YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. CAN I ASK THE GUYS IN THE BACK TO FLIP TO THE TV SCREEN? I JUST WANNA SHOW THE PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE WORK FROM. UM, I'M SORRY, RIGHT HERE. THAT'S FINE. YEAH. THE, UM, THE THING IS THAT THE, THAT THE, WHEN YOU HAVE WORK DONE WITHOUT A C OF A, ACCORDING TO THIS WORDING, AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME HERE, BUT I'M GONNA STEP BACK. WELL, I CAN'T DO THAT EITHER. UH, JASON, COULD YOU, UH, ZOOM IN A LITTLE THERE ON B SO THEY HAVE AN OPTION THEY CAN ISSUE WHEN THEY HAVE A CASE LIKE THIS. THE COMMISSION MAY ISSUE A C OF A FOR THE WORK THAT'S DONE, KIND OF JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, FINE, IT'S DONE. HERE'S A C OF A, OR THEY CAN ISSUE A C OF R, WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF A C OF A. AND WITH THAT C OF R THERE'S WIDE RANGING OPTIONS AS IT STATES HERE, THEY CAN ISSUE A C OF R TO, UH, PUT IN RECLAIMED OR SALVAGED MATERIAL OR TO BUILD IT BACK, WHATEVER THEIR OPTION IS THAT. AND SO IN THIS CASE, THEY ISSUED THE C OF R. UM, WE DO PUT, WE DID PUT THIS ON COMMITTEE. I RESPECT THAT WE, I MEAN, IT MAKES GOOD SENSE THAT IF WE'RE GONNA DO A DENIAL THAT WE, WE HAVE IT ON, UH, ON OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. THERE'S NO PROBLEM THERE. BUT, AND WE HAVE HAD APPEALS ON, I BELIEVE, ON CONSENT ITEMS. SO IN THIS CASE, THEY DENIED THE C OF A AND ISSUED THE C OF R AND SAID, PUT BACK ALL THE WINDOWS NOW TO THE WORDING OF WHAT THE APPEALS BOARD CAN DO, WHICH I HAD ON ANOTHER TAB THERE. BUT THE APPEALS BOARD MAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HAHC. IN THIS CASE, YOU COULD REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE DENIAL OF A C OF A, AND YOU COULD ISSUE A C OF A TODAY FOR THE WORK THAT SHE'S PERFORMED, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT SHE ASKED TO DO. UM, TO ME, THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT THIS BOARD EITHER REVERSES OR AFFIRMED. IN THE PAST THOUGH, THIS BOARD HAS ALSO, UH, KIND OF REVISED A DECISION. AND AS A, AND I, LEGAL SOMETIMES SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT, THAT THIS BOARD HAS A, A PLACE AND A ROLE AND IT CAN MAKE DECISIONS. AND SO IT HAS MADE DECISIONS TO SLIGHTLY REVISE A DECISION OF THE HHC REGARDING A C OF R OR C. BUT THE ORDINANCE IN, IT'S, IN WHAT IT STATES IS IT CAN BE REVERSED OR AFFIRMED. SO A REVERSAL IN THIS CASE COULD BE, UH, ISSUANCE OF A C OF A BECAUSE THEY DENIED A C OF A, OR IT COULD BE SOME OTHER THING. BUT FOR US, TO ME, IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, IF THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO INTERPRET, UH, COMMISSIONER ELLIOT, BUT IF, OKAY, WELL THAT'S, IT'S NOT A WAY THAT'S WRITTEN IN THIS ENGLISH, THAT'S IN THIS ORDINANCE. . OKAY. WELL, UH, KNOWING THE WHOLE HISTORY OF HOW THIS EVEN GOT IN THE ORDINANCE, OKAY, THAT GIVES ME A PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT IT IS. AND THE ISSUE AT THE TIME, WHY THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE CERTIFICATE OF MEDIATION PROCESS WAS THE HHC WAS CONFRONTED WITH CASES MULTIPLE TIMES WHERE SOMEONE HAD DONE WORK WITHOUT A A, A C OF A, UM, AND THEN THEY COME UP AND WANT TO GET A C OF A, AND THEY'VE ALREADY DESTROYED HISTORIC MATERIAL. THEY'VE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF IGNORED THE ORDINANCE. AND WE FELT KIND OF ABSURD GRANTING A C OF A TO PEOPLE THAT HAD IGNORED THE ORDINANCE AND CLEARLY DESTROYED HISTORIC MATERIAL THAT LEFT PEOPLE IN LIMBO WHERE THEY COULD NO GET, NOT, COULDN'T GET PERMITS. THEY WERE FROZEN FOREVER. AND THAT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE TO PUT PEOPLE IN A PERPETUAL PUNISHMENT OF BEING ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED THE ORDINANCE AT ONE TIME. SO WE SAID, WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THAT? WELL, LET'S HAVE A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE WHERE EVEN AFTER A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED AND HISTORIC MATERIAL [00:30:01] HAS BEEN LOST, LET'S HAVE A PROCEDURE WHERE THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND GET THEIR PERMITS. WE'RE GONNA TRY TO, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE AS POSSIBLE GIVEN THE CONDITIONS AS THEY EXIST NOW, MATERIALS ALREADY BEEN LOST, AND THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO GO GET PERMITS. IT WON'T GIVE THEM ACCESS TO TAX CREDITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'LL BE ACKNOWLEDGED THEY DID NOT GET A C OF A, THIS IS A, A FIX TO LET THEM GET ON WITH THEIR LIVES AND, AND NOT BE IN A PERPETUAL PUNISHMENT SITUATION. SO TO HAVE IT REINTERPRETED AS ANOTHER MEANS OF, OF, OF REMEDY OR, OR MAKING PEOPLE GO BACK AND, AND REDO THINGS EXCLUSIVELY, THAT DOES NOT, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF, OF WHY IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. SO, UM, AND WHEN I READ IT, I KNOW IT DEFINITELY DOES SAY THAT THE COMMISSION MAY, AS A CONDITION REQUIRE REPAIR, RECONSTRUCT, OR RESTORE. IT'S ABSOLUTELY WHAT IT DOES SAY. BUT THAT ALSO SAYS, YOU KNOW, MAY, AND, AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE, THE GENERAL RULE THAT CERTIFICATES OF MEDIATION SHOULD BE GRANTED UNDER THE SAME STANDARD, UH, AS CFAS, I LOOK AT IT IN THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS VERY MUCH A, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO IT. THEY WANT TO GET A CERTIFICATE SAYING THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS CONSISTENT. SO I LOOK AT THAT AS AN OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK OF HOW THIS WORKS. THERE'S NO PART OF THIS ORDINANCE WHERE, UM, THE, UH, THE COMMISSION TELLS YOU WHAT TO DO. I MEAN, EVEN IN C OF A, IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY EITHER. IT'S THE APPLICANT IS, IS ASKING AND THERE'S A DIALOGUE AND, YOU KNOW, A A, UH, A SORT OF A MEDIATION OF, OF, OF DIFFERENT GOALS AND, AND INTERPRETATIONS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S GOTTA BE SOMETHING THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY AND THE COMMISSION SAYING, THAT'S OKAY. SO IT IT, FOR IT TO COME THE OTHER WAY IS, TO ME, DOES CONTRARY TO WHAT, HOW THE ORDINANCE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. AND THAT'S WHY I READ THAT ONTO THE C OF R PROCESS TOO. NOW, YOU KNOW, UM, OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT IN THE CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I'M A, YOU KNOW, A CITIZEN HERE WHO'S ON THIS COMMISSION, BUT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS FOR YEARS. OKAY. AND SO I, IT, AND WAS GIVING THE BENEFIT OF MY EXPERIENCE WITH IT. AND I THINK ALSO WHAT'S IN FAIRNESS TO APPLICANTS ALSO. UM, SO ALL, ALL THAT ASIDE, I WILL SAY ALSO THAT, UM, EVEN BY THE OWN TERMS HERE, THAT YOU'RE RELYING ON REPAIR, RECONSTRUCT, OR RESTORE DOES NOT MEAN FABRICATE REPLICA. AND I WILL NEVER EVER THINK IT MEANS THAT. SO ANY CFR THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE TO FABRICATE SOMETHING NEW OUT OF MATERIAL THAT THE CITY STAFF PREFERS, I WILL NEVER THINK IS AN APPROPRIATE INTERPRETATION OF THIS. EVEN IF I'M WRONG ABOUT MY, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED CONSENT OR WHATEVER, I THINK YOU'LL JUST BE BY YOUR TERMS ASKING TOO MUCH. AND, AND MOREOVER, IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION IF YOU'RE PUTTING IN A NEW THING, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT COULD BE CONSISTENT, YOU KNOW, BUT I AGREE, I WE DON'T, WE DON'T REQUIRE PARTICULAR MATERIALS THAT PART'S TRUE. AND ON THAT PART OF THAT SENTENCE IN THE ORDINANCE, IT EVEN DOES SAY REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE. IT SAYS THAT IN THERE. SO, ABSOLUTELY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY. UM, AND, AND, BUT I WOULD SAY IT STILL BRINGS THIS BEFORE, AND I, I FEEL BADLY THAT THERE'S PEOPLE HERE THAT HAVE COME TO SPEAK, AND I GOT IN HERE, BUT I ONLY GOT IN HERE JUST TO CLARIFY, WE BROUGHT IT TO YOU BECAUSE IT, NOW, I KNOW THAT THE WORDING MAY NEED SOME WORK BECAUSE MAYBE THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT FALLEN IN LINE WITH WHAT, UH, THE INTENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BACK THEN WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS CREATED. BUT AS IT SITS TODAY, THERE WAS A DECISION, HHC THAT MAY BE AFFIRMED OR REVERSED, AND WE'RE HERE TODAY, THAT'S ALL. WELL, I, I'M SORRY FOR HOGGING THE TIME HERE. I, I'LL, I'LL SHUT UP EVENTUALLY, I PROMISE . BUT IT, AND IT ALSO VERY MUCH TROUBLES ME THAT YOU SAID YOU, THAT HHC THOUGHT THE ORIGINAL MATERIALS WERE AVAILABLE TO BE REINSTALLED, AND THAT WAS THE C OF R. THEY GRANTED, I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL. SO, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT EVEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. HOW DID IT GET, YOU KNOW, TRANSMUTED INTO A, YOU KNOW, UH, CONSTRUCT NEW WOOD WINDOWS? I MEAN, AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE TEXT OF THE C OF R. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS APPROVED. UM, THAT'S VERY, VERY TROUBLING. UH, I, I WILL JUST SAY I'M STILL DISTURBED A LITTLE BIT BY THE, WHAT WE HAVE SORT OF AS AN INCOMPLETE ACTION ON HHC AS FAR AS OUR REVIEW, BECAUSE THEY HAVE MADE A DECISION TO DEFER IT TO THIS MEETING. AND SO SOME OF THESE ITEMS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING MORE THAN LIKELY WOULD'VE BEEN, WOULD BE DISCUSSED ON THURSDAY, AND THEY COULD POSSIBLY CLARIFY AND RECTIFY A LOT OF THIS MATTER. UM, AND I FEEL BAD FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME TODAY. WE'RE ALSO VOLUNTEERS, SO WE'RE NOT GETTING PAID TO BE UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT YOUR PROJECT EITHER. SO, , BUT I'M, I'M DISTURBED BY THE, THE, THE, AND I KNOW WHY WE'RE OUT OF ORDER, BUT IT SEEMS KIND OF OUT OF ORDER. AND I, THE DATES ARE, JASON, WOULD YOU PLEASE JOIN ME UP HERE? THERE WAS A DECISION OF THE HAHC, UH, [00:35:01] THE DECISION WAS MADE AT SEPTEMBER 12TH. I UNDERSTAND. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE APPEALING. BUT AGAIN, AS I SAID BEFORE, WE'RE GIVING THEM DUE PROCESS. THEY CAME TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE LOST QUORUM. AND I KNOW WE'VE ALLOWED APPLICANTS TO RECONSIDER AN ITEM DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT WE LOST QUORUM. SO TALKING WITH KIM, WE GAVE HIM DUE PROCESS. WE GAVE HIM PUBLIC REHEARING. THAT'S WHAT WE DID, RIGHT? WE GAVE THEM, WE'RE GIVING THEM EVERY AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY. MR. CHAIR, MATT, REQUEST THAT SINCE WE DO HAVE GUESTS HERE TODAY THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, THAT WE GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. YES. I ALSO, FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANNA CALL OUT THE NAMES OF THE LETTERS THAT WE HAVE. WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM JAY AND JOE BOSTIC. WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM RACHEL KAUFMAN AT SEVEN 11 MARSHALL RECEIVED A LETTER FROM BIANCA SILVA SOLIS AT 7 0 5 MARSHALL. AND WE, AND WE HAVE, OH, THIS IS JUST A LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION. UM, I HAVE SEVERAL, OH, AND THEN MARIE MARCEL AT, AT, UH, 3 7 0 1 AUDUBON PLACE. UM, WE GOT, WE HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS. I MEAN, I PULL 'EM, I PULLED THEM OUT OF ORDER IN THAT THE TWO APPLICANTS I PULLED FIRST AND I PUT 'EM IN THE ORDER OF WHERE I GOT THEM. SO THE FIRST APPLICANT THAT WAS ON THE TOP OF THE LIST IS THE FIRST SPEAKER. UM, MOLLY HARDING, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME IN THE, IN THE MICROPHONE FIRST. MY NAME IS MOLLY HARDING. I'M THE APPLICANT. UM, I WOULD LIKE, UH, MY HUSBAND AND I BOTH SIGNED UP, BUT MY HUSBAND WAS PLANNING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF BOTH OF US, IF THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. SO WE HAVE, UH, WILLIAM HARDING. UH, GOOD MORNING. UH, MY NAME IS WILLIAM HARDING. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND, UH, CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS, UH, ON THIS MATTER. UM, JUST WANNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. WE MOVED TO THE HOUSE IN 22 AND INTENDED FOR THAT TO BE KIND OF OUR FOREVER HOME AS WE BUILT A FAMILY. UM, WHEN WE MOVED IN, WE KNEW THE PROBLEM. THE WINDOWS WERE A BIT PROBLEMATIC. THERE WAS EXTERIOR, A LOT OF WOOD ROD. THERE WAS A LOT OF WATER AND PEST PENETRANCE THROUGH THE WINDOWS. WE HAD THAT REPAIRED BY TWO DIFFERENT REPAIRMEN THREE TIMES. UH, WE ALSO FOUND THAT THE HOME, AS YOU KNOW, THESE OLD HOMES ARE REALLY ENERGY INEFFICIENT. UM, OUR HOME WAS SIGNIFICANTLY SO, WHERE WE USED ABOUT TWO AND A HALF TO THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF, UH, POWER AS YOU'D EXPECT FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND OUR HOME IS A, A SMALL HOME, JUST, UH, 1900 SQUARE FEET. UM, THIS ALL CAME TO A HEAD, UH, OVER AS AFTER WE HAD OUR SUN OVER THE SUMMER IN THE WINTER WITH THE EXTREME TEMPERATURES. SO IN THE SUMMER, OUR PARTS FOR OUR HOME WERE HIGH EIGHTIES. UH, REALLY THE PROBLEM WAS THIS WINTER IN FEBRUARY WHEN IT GOT SO COLD, UH, FOR THREE DAYS, WE COULDN'T GET OUR HOME, UH, ABOVE 60 DEGREES. SO WE HAD AN INFANT SUN. UH, I WENT TO WORK. MOLLY HAD HIM IN ONE ROOM WITH TWO SPACE HEATERS, JUST TO KEEP HIM WARM. 'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO KEEP THEM WARM AT THAT TIME. UM, SO DESPITE THE REPAIRS, AND WE HAD MESSED WITH INSULATION, WE'D MESSED WITH THE HEATING, WE'D MESSED WITH THE, UH, UH, OTHER PARTS OF THE HOME, TRY TO INSULATE IT. UM, BUT WE STILL HAD THE SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT I CONSIDERED UNSAFE. UM, TO REMEDY THIS, UH, JUST LOOKING AT THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WE DECIDED TO LOOK INTO REPLACING THE WINDOWS. UM, IN SELECTING A COMPANY, WE, WE FOUND ONE THAT VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT THEY WORK IN HISTORIC OR OLD NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, AND AFTER WE TALKED TO THEM, UH, THEY GAVE US SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF HOUSES THEY WORKED ON, UH, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND SO WHEN THEY EXPECTED THE WINDOWS, THEY TOLD US THEY WERE IRREPARABLE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. WHEN WE DISCUSSED PERMITTING WITH THEM, UH, THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULDN'T, WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT IF WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF THE HOME. UM, AND THIS WAS SAID BY, WE HAD TWO COMPANIES GIVE US QUOTES. BOTH OF 'EM SAID THE SAME THING. UM, SO WE WENT AHEAD WITH THE REPLACEMENT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS, IT WAS A GOOD COMPANY THAT WE'LL BE USING. UM, THEY WERE EXPERTS IN THEIR, IN THEIR FIELD. UM, I CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORIC COMMITTEE AT THE DAY OF INSTALL. SO ALL THE WINDOWS HAD BEEN REMOVED. UM, THE NEW ONES WERE BEING INSTALLED. AND, UH, JASON WAS CALLED TO, TO LOOK AT THE HOUSE AND, AND TOLD US WE WERE OUTTA CODE. UM, AND OF COURSE, I WAS A BIT STUNNED, UH, BECAUSE, UH, I THOUGHT THAT WE SELECTED A GOOD COMPANY AND, AND, AND THEY WERE EXPERTS IN WHAT THEY DO, AND THAT THEY KNEW THE LOCAL REGULATIONS. UM, TO GET TO THIS POINT ABOUT THE HISTORIC COMMITTEE HAVING SOME OF OUR MATERIAL. SO A COMMITTEE MEMBER HAD TOLD, HAD SEEN THE WORK GOING ON, ASKED JASON TO COME. HE ALSO CALLED THIS THIRD PARTY COMPANY, PLUM ALLEY, TO RETRIEVE SOME OF THE MATERIAL. UM, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS HAPPENING. IN FACT, I DON'T THINK JASON KNEW THAT WAS [00:40:01] HAPPENING. SO, PLUM ALLEY APPARENTLY TOOK SOME OF OUR WINDOWS, DIDN'T TALK TO ME, EVEN THOUGH I WAS THERE THE WHOLE TIME. AND WE ONLY FOUND OUT THAT THEY HAD THEM AT THE OCTOBER MEETING. SO THE SECOND MEETING, UH, WHERE IT WAS TOLD BY THE COMMITTEE MEMBER WHAT HE'D DONE. UM, SO I PERSONALLY, I THOUGHT THAT WAS UNPROFESSIONAL. AND I THINK IT, USING A COMPANY IN THAT WAY, I THINK IS A, IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. BUT, UH, IS, I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF PERSPECTIVE FROM OUR SIDE. UH, WE BOUGHT THE IN-HOUSE HOUSE WITH THE INTENT TO STAY. WE'RE NOT RENOVATORS, WE'RE NOT HOUSE FLIPPERS, WE'RE NOT INVESTORS. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT CRIMINALS. IF WE'D KNOWN ABOUT THESE ORDINANCES, IF WE'D BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS, WE WOULD'VE DONE WHATEVER THE COMMISSION ASKED US TO DO. UM, THE PROCESS SEEMS TO BE A BIT UNRELIABLE, THOUGH. WE'VE TALKED TO NEIGHBORS SINCE WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS, WHO'VE EITHER HAD COMPANIES GO OUTSIDE OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS. WE'VE HAD SOME FOLKS GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND ARE GIVEN, UM, THE, THE COA TO REPLACE THEIR WINDOWS WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS LIKE VINYL. UH, SO IT SEEMS TO BE AN UNRELIABLE PROCESS. AND THEN IT GOES BACK TO, UH, HOW OFTEN DO HOMEOWNERS ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, OR CHANGING WINDOWS? IT'S REALLY NOT THAT OFTEN. I'M CERTAINLY NOT AN EXPERT IN, IN LOCAL REGULATIONS, AND YOU HAVE TO RELY ON THESE CONTRACTORS TO TELL YOU WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE BECAUSE THEY DO THIS EVERY DAY. UM, I FEEL LIKE THIS COMMISSION'S PUT US, THE HISTORIC COMMITTEE IS PUTTING US IN THE POSITION OF A SCAPEGOAT WHERE THEY'RE ASKING US TO, UM, NUMBER ONE, REPLACE THE EXIST, REPLACE THE REPLACED WINDOWS, AND TO ALSO FILE A LAWSUIT MOSTLY ON THEIR BEHALF, BECAUSE THERE'S WINDOW COMPANIES WHO ARE CLEARLY, UM, EVADING THE PERMITTING PROCESS. AND IT'S A KNOWN PROBLEM. UM, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS, A COMMITTEE WANTS HOMEOWNERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, THERE SHOULD BE A, A PROCESS IN PLACE WHERE THEY EDUCATE THE NEW OWNERS OF THESE HOMES AS TO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO IF THEY NEED WORK DONE ON THEIR HOME. UH, SO IN SUMMARY, I'M JUST GONNA SAY WE REPLACED NUMBER ONE. WE LOVE THAT HOUSE. WE'LL LET YOU FINISH. SO , OKAY. UH, UH, WE LOVE THAT HOUSE. WE BOUGHT IT FOR, FOR US TO BE A, A HOME FOR OUR FAMILY. UM, THE ONLY REASON THAT WE WENT AFTER CHANGING THOSE WINDOWS, WHICH IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE, WAS TO MAKE THAT HOME SAFE. UM, WE MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO FIND A, A REPUTABLE COMPANY, AND WE WERE DECEIVED. UM, AND, UH, UH, I'LL SAY THIS ONE OTHER THING. SINCE INSTALLATION, WE'VE SEEN ENERGY, UH, THE ENERGY THAT WE USE IN OUR HOME GO DOWN 28% PER MONTH, WHICH EQUATES TO 840 KILOWATT HOURS PER MONTH, WHICH COULD HELP, THAT COULD PROBABLY POWER A SMALL HOME. AND AGAIN, MY HOME IS NOT THAT BIG. UM, AND I JUST WANNA MENTION AND THANK THE FOLKS SITTING BEHIND ME WHO CAME TO, UH, TO SUPPORT US AFTER WE KIND OF TOLD THEM THE STORY. UM, I'M HAPPY TO READ SOME OF THESE LETTERS INTO THE RECORD AND, AND, UH, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE FOLKS WHO CAME TO SUPPORT US TODAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? UM, I REALIZE THAT YOU GUYS MAY NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION TODAY, BUT I ASK YOU IF THERE'S ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY THAT YOU COULD. WE DID HIRE A COURT REPORTER. IT IS COSTING US OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPEAL. AGAIN, WE HAVE OUR NEIGHBORS HERE, WE BOTH HAD TO TAKE OFF WORK. IF THERE'S ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY YOU CAN MAKE A DECISION, AND AGAIN, I KNOW YOU, WE CAN'T SAY WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD DO ON THURSDAY, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I THINK THEY WILL DO, AND I CAN TELL YOU, WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK HERE AND WE WILL BE PAYING ANOTHER THOUSAND AND SOMETHING DOLLARS AND TAKING OFF WORK. JUST ASK IF THERE'S ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY THAT THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED, IF WE COULD DO SO. THANK YOU. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF BASED ON THAT PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, IS IT COMMON PRACTICE FOR THE HISTORIC COMMISSION TO PREEMPTIVELY ENFORCE CODE ON THESE PROJECTS TO THE POINT THAT THEY'RE HIRING A COMPANY TO RETRIEVE MATERIALS? I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE HIRING A COMPANY. IT'S JUST IN COLLABORATION. THIS PERSON, RACHEL PAXTON, OWNS PLUM ALLEY. SHE RESTORES WOOD WINDOWS. TO CLARIFY IN THE STORY, ONE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO LIVES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT SAW THAT THE WINDOWS WERE BEING, UM, PULLED OUT, CALLED THE STA, CALLED THE OFFICE, AND I HAPPENED TO BE OUT DOING A SITE VISIT. I WAS SURVEYING NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT UPDATING. SO I WAS ASKED TO GO DOWN THERE. I DIDN'T KNOW A COMMISSION MEMBER HAD CALLED IN. I WAS JUST TOLD TO GO TAKE A LOOK. I FOUND THAT THE WINDOWS WERE BEING REPLACED AT THE TIME. I WAS NEVER INFORMED THAT THEY ASKED, NOT HIRED, BUT ASKED IF THEY COULD GO BUY AND PICK UP. NOW, I WILL SAY THIS, A COLLEAGUE OF MINE, WE DID GO OUT 13, 40 15. ON OCTOBER 15TH, WE WENT [00:45:01] TO THAT STORE TO ONLY SALVAGE ONE. ALL THE REST WERE IN THE TRAILER OF THE HOUSTON WINDOW EXPERTS AND HAULED OFF. SO I HOPE THAT CLARIFY AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT, IT WAS NOT A HISTORIC COMMISSION ACTION. IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE ACTION OF A, AS NOTED, A COMMISSIONER WHO LIVES IN THAT DISTRICT WE'RE NOT AWARE, AND COMMISSION CERTAINLY DID NOT TAKE ACTION TO, TO MAKE AN CAUSE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO HAPPEN. OKAY. OKAY. THE, UH, FIRST, UM, NON APPLICANT SPEAKER THAT SIGNED UP WAS JAY BOSTIC. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE. GOOD MORNING. I'M JAY BOSTIC. UM, MY LETTER WAS SUBMITTED EARLIER. IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO READ IT, I CAN, IF YOU'VE ALREADY READ IT, I CAN JUST SPEAK. UM, THIS IS MY SECOND TIME HERE, SO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME, UM, SPEAK. I AM NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS, SOMALI AND CHRIS. AND WE SHARE A UNIQUE HISTORY IN THAT WE ARE BOTH THE FIRST BUYERS OF OUR HOME EVER, BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT BY THE SAME FAMILY AND KEPT FOR FIVE GENERATIONS. UM, I PARTIALLY BLAME MYSELF THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY, BECAUSE I REALIZED THAT AROUND 1940 TO 1950, OUR WINDOWS HAD BEEN REPLACED AND THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TRUE LIGHT. AND IN FACT, THEY WERE PUT INTO WHAT I THINK IS CALLED A ONE OVER ONE. WE FOUND THE PAPER FROM THE 1920S FROM THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE. I SHARED IT WITH MOLLY AND CHRIS BECAUSE WE HAVE NOW A, UM, FEDERALLY DESIGNATED, UM, HISTORIC HOME BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, AS WELL AS BY THE TEXAS COMMISSION, WHICH IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PLAQUE, I'VE BEEN WAITING A YEAR ON MINE. SO I WOULD LOVE TO GET THAT. UM, I SHARED IT AND MOLLY SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS, UH, INTERESTING TIMING. WE'RE HAVING ALL THESE ISSUES. THEY'RE LEAKING. WE HAVE THIS BABY. UM, AND SO THAT KIND OF STARTED THE TRAIN GOING. UM, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT, UH, THE ONE FOR ONE OF WOOD VERSUS ALUMINUM VINYL. AND, AND AT THE TIME, UH, THE HARTINGS THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE DOING WHAT, WHAT THEY SHOULD DO BY GETTING IT TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY. UM, I, I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO SHARE THAT CHRIS HASN'T ALREADY TOUCHED ON, BUT THERE IS ONE THING I WANNA SAY, AND I, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HEAR, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN NEIGHBORS WITH THEM FOR THREE YEARS AND THEY'RE NOT NATIVE HOUSTONIANS. I AM. AND IT'S BEEN SO GREAT LIVING NEXT TO THEM AND SEEING THEM SAY, WE'RE COMMITTED TO THIS HOUSE. WE WANNA RESTORE IT TO WHAT IT COULD BE. IT WAS LEFT IN A BIT OF DISREPAIR BECAUSE IT WAS A RENTAL HOME PRIOR TO THIS, AND IT WAS SEEN AS AN INVESTMENT VEHICLE AND NOTHING ELSE. AND THEY'VE REALLY COME IN AND, I MEAN, JUST THE LITTLE TOUCHES THAT THEY'VE DONE BOTH ON THE INTERIOR AND THE EXTERIOR TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THE HOME. UM, MOLLY'S GONNA KILL ME FOR SAYING THIS, BUT UH, YOU KNOW, MOLLY A COUPLE YEARS AGO WENT THROUGH A HIGH RISK PREGNANCY. SHE DELIVERED A PREEMIE. I'VE NEVER SEEN HER CRY. I'VE SEEN HER CRY TWO TIMES. AND IT'S ABOUT THESE WINDOWS. THIS HAS BEEN SUCH A BURDEN ON THEM, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT PROCEDURALLY WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW, BUT THIS HAS JUST TRULY HAUNTED THEM. AND IT HAS BEEN SO HARD TO SIT AS THEIR NEIGHBOR AND SEE THEM TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, TRYING TO HIRE THE RIGHT COMPANY. AND THIS FEELS SO PUNITIVE. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU FOR HEARING US OUT. OUR OTHER NEIGHBORS ARE GONNA SPEAK. OUR OTHERS THAT COULDN'T TAKE OFF WORK WROTE LETTERS, BUT IT'S REALLY SCARED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. HAVING THAT, YOU KNOW, 10 BY 10 SIGN ON THE FRONT GATE, I THINK HAS ALMOST DETERRED. PEOPLE WANTING TO COME IN AND SAY, HEY, I WANT TO PROTECT THE VALUE OF THIS HOME. I WANT TO RESTORE IT TO, SO IT'S GONNA BE HERE IN A HUNDRED YEARS. I KNOW IT CERTAINLY SCARED ME. UM, OUR WINDOWS SHAKE LIKE CRAZY EVERY TIME WE HAVE ANY TYPE OF STORM. I HAVE SONS THAT ARE 13 AND 14 AND CONSTANTLY ARE COMING IN MY ROOM, WHICH YOU WOULD THINK AS TEENAGERS, THEY WOULDN'T. UM, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE HAVING A ONE-YEAR-OLD AND GOING THROUGH THAT. AND SO I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I DO CONSIDER THAT, THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU HELP THEM MOVE ON WITH THEIR LIFE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN FINANCIALLY BURDENSOME AND IT'S JUST BEEN SO TAXING ON THEM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I HAVE A CARL PIERCE. HELLO. UH, MY NAME IS CARL PIERCE. I'M A, A NEIGHBOR, AND, UH, MY WIFE IS HERE AS WELL. UH, ANNE-MARIE MARCEL. UM, I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE, OF THE APPLICANTS. AND I, I JUST REALLY DIDN'T HEAR A WHOLE LOT ABOUT THIS OTHER THAN MY WIFE TALKING TO ME ABOUT IT YESTERDAY. AND I FELT COMPELLED TO COME AND SPEAK TO YOU, MAINLY DUE TO THE NATURE OF SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT OCCURRED WITH THE COMMISSION AND THE PREDATORY NATURE OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN WITH THE WINDOWS AND WITH A VENDOR AND WITH OTHER THINGS. UM, WE, WE'VE, UM, WE RECENTLY SPENT $40,000 JUST TO REPAINT OUR HOUSE BECAUSE IT, IT'S AN OLD HOUSE AND IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK TO DO. UH, WE DO PLAN TO, TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS. WE'RE STARTING TO GO WITH A HEAT PUMP AND, AND OTHER THINGS TO BE ENERGY EFFICIENT. WE ARE PLANNING TO, TO REPLACE THE [00:50:01] WINDOWS, AND IT JUST REALLY FEELS LIKE A SCARY VENTURE RIGHT NOW. AND SO, AGAIN, I'M SPEAKING, UM, IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANTS AND, UH, AND, AND REALLY WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN MAKE SOME CHANGES TO HOW THE COMMISSION IS RUN OR AT LEAST TO SOME OF THESE ACTIVITIES. THANK YOU ANN MARIE MARCIO ON. HELLO, MY NAME'S ANN MARCEL. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, AND THAT WAS MY HUSBAND. UM, YOU HAVE MY LETTER, UM, WHICH, UM, EVERYONE HERE HAS ALREADY SAID MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I COULD REPEAT. AND SO I JUST DEFER EACH TO MY LETTER. MAINLY I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THESE WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS. UM, AND AS YOU CAN TELL IN MY LETTER, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT WE LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW. IT'S MONTROSE, WHICH IS VERY HETEROGENEOUS. UM, A LOT OF HOUSES ARE IN DISREPAIR AND FALLING APART, AND PEOPLE ARE OUT OF CODE AND DEED RESTRICTIONS, ET CETERA. AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING THEIR BEST, SUCH AS THE HARDINGS, TO MAKE A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE HAVE MORE KIDS THAN WE HAVE EVER HAD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S WONDERFUL. BUT NOW THEY'RE BEING TARGETED, WHICH IS VERY HARD TO SEE. UM, AND IT'S BEEN, I CAN, I KNOW IT'S BEEN HORRIBLE ON THEM AND COSTLY, BUT I JUST GOT HER, UH, HEARD ABOUT THIS RECENTLY. AND IT MAKES ME NOT WANT TO BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE A WONDERFUL A HUNDRED YEAR OLD HOME THAT WE'RE BARELY GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN FINANCIALLY. AND TO HEAR ALL OF THIS GOING ON IS JUST HEARTBREAKING, AND ESPECIALLY SEEING ALL THE OTHER PROBLEMS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, UM, I'M JUST HERE TO SUPPORT THIS APPLICANT AND HOPE THAT NO FURTHER HARM IS DONE TO THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, THE MAJORITY OF THE, ACTUALLY FACTUALLY THE MAJORITY OF THE PRO THE PROJECTS THAT COME BEFORE US ARE WINDOW RELATED, AND WE'VE SEEN SIMILAR THINGS IN GLENDO COURT. MM-HMM . HOW IS THE WAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN HANDLED DIFFERENTLY THAN SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE HAD IN GLENDO COURT WHERE THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITHOUT, UH, CONSENT THROUGH THE COMMISSION? FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT DIFFERENT. WE, UM, THIS, THE APPROACH TO WINDOW REPLACEMENT WITHOUT A PERMIT, WITHOUT A C OF A IS PRETTY SIMILAR. WE OFTEN GET A CALL FROM A NEIGHBOR. UM, WE MIGHT EVEN GET A CALL WAY AFTER THE FACT. THIS PARTICULAR TIME WE GOT A CALL WHILE THE WORK WAS GOING ON, AND STAFF HAD THE TIME TO GO BY. OFTEN IT'S A 3 1 1 INSPECTOR WHO GOES BY. UM, AND THEN REGARDLESS, WE HOPE THAT THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL THEN COME FORWARD AND APPLY FOR A CFA 'CAUSE THAT BEGINS A DIALOGUE. AS COMMISSIONER ELLIOT, UH, TALKED ABOUT THAT, I'M REALLY EXCITED TO HAVE A DIALOGUE AND THEN WE TRY TO GET THE PERSON THERE. SO THE DECISIONS, UM, JUST VERY IMPORTANTLY ABOUT WINDOWS, AS YOU'RE SAYING, I, I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. UH, WE HAD A WORKSHOP WITH HAHC, UH, WITH THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. AND THE TOPIC OF WINDOWS IS GOING ON ACROSS THE NATION DUE TO THE REASONS THE APPLICANT STATED SUPER EXTREME FREEZING TEMPERATURES FOR LONG NUMBERS A DAY, SUPER HOT DAYS, YOU NAME IT. UM, SO NEW YORK CITY IS BASICALLY, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, ELIMINATED THE REVIEW OF WINDOWS IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS. DENVER, UH, HAS A NOVEL OF ITS PLACE. DENVER HAS A POLICY NOW THAT IF THE WINDOWS ARE DEEMED TO TO BE, UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE PHRASE THEY USE, DEEMED TO BE, UH, A SPECIALTY WINDOW OR A UNIQUE, OR A, UM, A NOVEL WINDOW, THEN THAT WINDOW, THEY'LL WANT TO PRESERVE IT. BUT IF THE WINDOW IS A STANDARD STYLE, THEY'RE OUT OF THE WINDOW BUSINESS TOO. SO I JUST WANNA SAY THAT IT'S RELEVANT TO THE CONDITION AND WE AS A TEAM ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT AS WELL. AND I WANT TO GO BACK AND IF THEY COULD PUT THE DECISION, THE SCREEN BACK UP. UH, THERE WAS A DECISION AT HHC, AND I WANNA SAY THAT WHAT, FROM WHAT YOU HAVE THE MINUTES, BUT I WAS IN THE MEETING AS WELL. AND IT SEEMED THAT THE DECISION TO DENY THE C OF A WAS BASED ON THE POSSIBILITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS AND OR THE THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GONNA HAVE SOMEONE REBUILD THEM. UM, THEY WINDOWS ARE NOT ACTUALLY THERE. AND ALSO THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE UPPER STORY WINDOWS THAT THE APPLICANTS IN THIS CASE PUT A, UH, UPPER STORY WINDOW THAT HAS, UM, A DIFFERENT LIGHT PATTERN THAN THE ONE OVER ONE. BUT ONE OF THE APPLICANTS WHO JUST SPOKE, WHO LIVED NEXT DOOR, HE PROVIDED HIS REPORT, A HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE DID NOT HAVE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION MEETING. BUT IT DOES SHOW THAT THAT UPPER STORY WAS A MULTI LIGHT WINDOW. UM, SO THEIR DECISION TO DENY THE C OF A SEEMED TO ME TO TAKE THOSE TWO THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION AND PERHAPS NOT LEAN ENOUGH ON THE FEASIBILITY OR THE, UH, REASONABLENESS. AND SO YOU COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION FOR THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE [00:55:01] A DECISION AND THINK DIFFERENT ABOUT THAT DECISION. UM, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, IF I COULD SAY THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU MAY DO THAT, YOU MAY REVERSE IT OR YOU MAY AFFIRM IT, OR YOU CAN DO A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. CAN I ASK THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU JUST REFERRED TO ABOUT THE WINDOWS, IS THERE A WAY OF SHOWING IT ON THE SCREEN? SO THE 'CAUSE IS, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT? THE PICTURE OF THE UPPER STORIES? YES. I'VE ONLY HEARD ABOUT THAT TODAY. IS THAT IN A REPORT THAT WE HAD? IT'S IN MY LETTER, IT'S EXHIBITS A AND B. IF YOU COMPARE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE, THE TRUE LIGHT, CAN YOU PULL HIS EXHIBIT A AND B TO THE, THE TRUE LIGHT MOVED TO A ONE OVER ONE. SO FOR THE, FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, IF YOU COULD SHOW IT ON THE SCREEN SINCE WE'VE REFERRED TO IT. DOCUMENT CAMERA, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK IN THE SPEAKER. THANK YOU. UM, WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR RESEARCH TO BECOME FEDERALLY DESIGNATED BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WE HAD TO SUPPLY A LOT OF INFORMATION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP PICTURE FROM THE NEWSPAPER IN THE 1920S, YOU WILL SEE TRUE LIGHT WINDOWS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOME TODAY, YOU CAN SEE THEY WERE MOVED TO ONE OVER ONE. SO AS WE STARTED DOING RESEARCH, WE REACHED OUT TO THE ORIGINAL FAMILY THAT WE HAD BOUGHT FROM, IT WAS THEIR GRANDPARENTS' HOUSE, AND SHE SAID, YES, A REMODEL HAPPENED BETWEEN 1940 AND 50. SHE WASN'T SURE, BUT SHE KNEW IT WAS IN THAT DECADE. AND SHE SAID, WE SWITCHED OUT THE WINDOWS AND ALSO ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, OUR PORCH IS NOW AN ENCLOSED SUNROOM AND THEY ALSO PUT WINDOWS IN THERE. HOWEVER, IF YOU FLIP TO THE NEXT PAGE, YOU CAN SEE THANK YOU ON THE BALLROOM, AND YOU'VE GOTTA KIND OF LOOK, THE BALLROOM ON TOP IS STILL THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS THAT ARE THE TRUE LIGHT PANES. THIS IS WHAT I BROUGHT UP TO MOLLY, AND I SAID, LOOK, THESE HAVE BEEN SWITCHED, THESE ARE NOT. AND THEN THAT'S WHEN MOLLY AND CHRIS SAID, OH, WELL, WHEN WE GO TO CHANGE 'EM, WE WON'T DO ONE OVER ONE. WE'LL PUT 'EM BACK TO WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE. I HOPE THAT HELPS. I WILL JUST FOR THE RECORD SHOW, THIS IS REFERENCING A DIFFERENT HOUSE THAN THE ONE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY. IT IS REFERENCING THE DIFFERENT HOUSE, SAME BUILDER BUILT WITHIN A YEAR OF EACH OTHER. OKAY. UH, AND IT'S OWNED BY THE SAME FAMILY UNTIL WE BOUGHT IN 21. THEY BOUGHT IN 22. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO FOR THE NON-ARCHITECT GUY WHO'S HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF HARD TIME FOLLOWING THIS HERE, UM, THE, THE WINDOWS THAT THE C OF R IS ASKING THEM TO REPLICATE ARE ONES THAT LIKELY WERE, UH, REMODELS FROM THE FORTIES OR FIFTIES. AND THE ONES THEY ACTUALLY PUT ON THERE, THE PATTERN MATCHES WHAT WAS LIKELY THERE ORIGINALLY. IS THAT CORRECT? AND RELATES TO OTHER BUILDINGS? WELL RELATES, I ACTUALLY, THE, FROM SPEAKING TO THIS GENTLEMAN, UM, I UNDERSTOOD HIM TO SAY THAT WE THOUGHT WE KNEW FOR CERTAIN AT THAT UPPER STORY, BUT IT, IT'S ACTUALLY AN INFERENCE AT THE NEXT DOOR PROPERTY. OKAY. YEAH. ALRIGHT. BUT STAFF ALSO DID THE SURVEY SHOWING MULTIPLE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SHOWED THIS TYPE OF DETAILING IN THE THOROUGH WINDOW CONFIGURATION. YES. CHAIR THOROUGHLY. AND IT WAS SHOWN EARLIER TO TODAY IN THE MEETING. YES. YES. UM, I, WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN, AS ROMAN HAS POINTED OUT, AND EVERYONE NOW KNOWS, IS WHEN YOU DO, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO REPLACE WINDOWS IN A HISTORIC, UH, DISTRICT. GENERALLY WHAT IDEALLY HAPPENS IS YOU WORK WITH STAFF AND, UH, WINDOW PEOPLE , AND YOU MAKE AN INDIVIDUALIZED, UH, UH, CONSIDERATION OF EACH WINDOW, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S REPAIRABLE OR IF THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO MITIGATE THE, UH, TEMPERATURE ISSUES AND THE INSULATION ISSUES. IF THEY REALLY ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR, OR SOME OTHER ISSUE IS GOING ON WITH THEM, IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET A C OF A TO REPLACE ALL THE WINDOWS. THAT'S TRUE. SO, UM, UH, HOWEVER, THAT ANALYSIS WASN'T DONE BECAUSE, UM, YOUR CONTRACTOR DID NOT DO THE RIGHT STEPS. YOU ALL, UH, ARE ARE VICTIMS OF THAT, BUT ALSO DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT TO BE AWARE OF THE, OF THE ORDINANCE. SO WHEN THAT OPPORTUNITY IS LOST, WE SORT OF, I, I WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, UH, REVERSING THE DENIAL OF C OF A, BECAUSE LOSING A LOT OF HISTORIC MATERIAL IS, IS, IS KIND OF A BIG DEAL IN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION WORLD, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW IF THEY REALLY WERE APPROPRIATE CANDIDATES FOR REPLACEMENT. UM, SO I, I WOULD'VE A HARD TIME DOING THAT. AND I'M, I'M TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TODAY? AND, AND, UM, UH, UH, THE C OF R TO ME IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, WE COULD REVERSE, BUT THAT DOESN'T, UH, FIX YOUR PROBLEM. AND IF CHEMISTS SAYING WE CAN GRANT A NEW C OF R HERE TODAY, THEN I IMAGINE WE CAN [01:00:01] CONSIDER THAT. I BELIEVE THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS SET UP IS THE HHC HAS THE EXPERTS, IT WORKS WITH STAFF. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE ALL THESE FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION. NOT, NOT US AT THIS SORT OF, UM, LITTLE BIT, SLIGHTLY MORE AD HOC WAY. BUT I'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT BECAUSE I, I MEAN, I, I THINK, HONESTLY, YOU ALL, I DO THINK SOMETIMES THE C OF R PROCESS IS USED A LITTLE BIT PUNITIVELY. UM, AND, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE ORDINANCE MORE EFFECTIVE. UM, AND IT CAN SEEM TO COME DOWN HARD, UH, ON CERTAIN PEOPLE. UM, THAT'S ALL I'M GONNA SAY RIGHT NOW. UH, I HAVE A COMMENT, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE TO BRING THIS UP, BUT TO ROMAN'S POINT AND TO THESE CONTINUED, UH, MEETINGS, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME THAT WE'RE CALLED IT IS TO DISCUSS WINDOWS. IS IT IT, HOW, HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT REQUESTING THAT? I DON'T KNOW, A SUBCOMMITTEE OR SOMEONE IS FORMED TO LOOK AT AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE OR AN AMENDMENT TO THE WAY THAT WE PROCEED IN OUR WINDOW REVIEWS SO THAT WE CAN TRY TO REMEDY THIS? WELL, ROMAN CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THIS BETTER THAN I WITH WHAT'S ALREADY BEING DONE ON COMMISSION AND WITH STAFF. EXCUSE ME. WE ARE APOLOGIZE. UH, WE ARE, WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF HHC AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS ALONG WITH SOME OTHER ITEMS WE SHOULD ADD MAYBE A MEMBER OR TWO OF THIS BODY AS WELL. UM, THE, THE THING IS THAT WE DID FE WALK OUT OF THAT WORKSHOP THAT WAS HELD BY THE, UH, NAPC WITH A, A MORE SENSE OF AN URGENCY TO MAKE A DECISION AND TO MOVE FORWARD. UH, IT TAKES SOME WORK AND, UH, COMMISSIONER ELLIOT SAID, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PROPENSITY, THERE'S A, THE, THE NORM IS TO BE VERY HIGHLY PROTECTIVE OF HISTORIC FABRIC OF THE BUILDINGS AND TO MOVE FROM THERE, TAKE SOME EFFORT. I DON'T THINK I'M ANSWERING IT AS WELL AS YOU NO, I, I UNDERSTAND. I MAYBE I JUST WOULD MAKE THE COMMENT THAT, UM, I LOST IT IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT I WAS SAYING. UH, I WAS GOING TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT IT FEELS LIKE THIS'S A RECURRING ISSUE. AND I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT, THAT'S WONDERFUL, BUT IF WE CAN'T MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING VERY SERIOUSLY DIFFERENT ABOUT THE WAY THAT WE EDUCATE HOMEOWNERS AND THE ENTITIES THAT ARE OVER THESE HISTORIC DISTRICTS. I THINK IT HAS TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER, IF NOT BOTH, BUT SOMETHING ISN'T WORKING IN THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I, I'D SAY, I THINK STAFF AND COM, HISTORIC COMMISSION HAVE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THAT THERE IS A WINDOW SUBCOMMITTEE. THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE GONE OUT TO GLENBROOK VALLEY IN PARTICULAR TWICE FOR, UM, VARIOUS WORKSHOPS AND INFORMATION SESSIONS, AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT WAYS TO DO THAT. AND WE ARE ALSO, UM, CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO, UM, THIS PART OF CHAPTER 33 FOR THE COMMISSION TO KIND OF CLARIFY AND UPDATE SOME THINGS. AS YOU WORK THROUGH IT, YOU SEE WHAT DOESN'T WORK. SO, UM, WE ARE LOOKING AT VARIOUS, A VARIOUS AVENUES FOR THAT. AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR MYSELF, IT ANGERS ME WHEN THERE ARE THOSE OUT THERE, UNLESS THEY START INSTALLING WINDOWS THE WEEK BEFORE, THEY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO PULL A PERMIT AND THEY'RE LYING TILL, AT THE VERY LEAST I'D SAY GO ON THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU AND, AND WRITE A SC COMPLAINT WITH THEM, A DISPUTE. THEY'LL EITHER ADDRESS IT OR THEY WON'T. AND IF THERE'S ENOUGH OF THOSE DONE, I'M NOT GONNA NAME THE NAME, BUT THERE IS A LARGE COMPANY WHO ADVERTISED ON TELEVISION A LOT WHO HAD THEIR MEMBERSHIP REVOKED BECAUSE OF, UH, UNSETTLED RECURRING DISPUTES. DOESN'T DO YOU, MAY GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF GRATIFICATION, BUT IF ENOUGH PEOPLE START DOING THAT WHO'VE BEEN THROUGH YOUR EXPERIENCE, PERHAPS IT'LL SLOW DOWN A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THAT'S COMMON. EVERYONE'S TOLD BY THEIR CONTRACTOR, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PULL PERMITS. YOU CAN ALWAYS CALL THE CITY OF HOUSTON PERMIT CENTER AND THEY MAY TELL YOU PAINT YOUR HOUSE, YOU NEED A PERMIT. BUT, UH, THAT'S NOT TRUE. BUT THEY, THEY FIND OUT FOR SURE, EVEN ON THEIR WEBSITE, CLEARLY SAYS WINDOW REPLACEMENTS BECAUSE OF ENERGY CODE REQUIREMENTS, NOW THE WINDOWS HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT ENERGY CODES. WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT I, I'M HAVING TROUBLE FINDING IT IN HERE. SO WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF THE REMEDIATION? YEAH, IT'S SHOWING THEY'RE ON THE SCREEN. YES. IT'S REPEATING WORDS. IT'S HARD FOR US TO READ. SO IT'S [01:05:01] LIKE, 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S REPEATING VERBATIM WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS. OKAY. YOU BLOW IT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO THEY CANNOT EXECUTE THIS REMEDIATION THAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING. 'CAUSE THE WINDOWS DO NOT EXIST. AND WELL, IT SAYS REPLACE WITH, I MEAN, BUT I'M, I'M JUST WONDERING NOW IS, IS THIS STILL REC THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE WHAT WAS REPLACED IS ACTUALLY THE MOST HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE, ARE YOU ASKING MY PERSONAL OPINION? WELL, I'M ASKING IT DOES, IS STAFF STICKING WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION? THAT WAS THE SAME RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS GIVEN WHEN THEY HAD A PUBLIC REHEARING ON OCTOBER 10TH. I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE, THE LIGHT PATTERN IS ACTUALLY PERHAPS HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE. I HAVE A NOTE TO MYSELF HERE TO DISCUSS BEFORE ONE OUR MEETINGS AT TWO 30 TODAY, THAT I WAS GONNA DISCUSS WITH STAFF POSSIBLY THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO A C OF R FOR WORK COMPLETED. BUT THAT'S JUST IN MY NOTES. I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT IT, IT'S SOMETHING WE, OKAY. WELL, I MEAN THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE GONNA DO THAT, UM, UH, YEAH, AGAIN, I THINK PROCEDURALLY IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN TO HHC, BUT I'M, I'M AWARE THAT, UH, WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE PEOPLE JUMP THROUGH EVERY SINGLE HOOP IF THEY'RE CUT TO IT, IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY GONNA CHANGE THE RECOMMENDATION. UM, AND YOU'LL LET US, I MEAN, I, I WOULD MOVE TO GRANT A C OF R FOR THE WORK AS DONE, BUT, UH, I, I MEAN, PROCEDURALLY IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE RIGHT WAY TO GO. BUT IF, IS THAT A MOTION? WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW. I WANT, I WOULD, I WOULD ADD THAT I, I CAN'T REMEMBER, THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP A GLEN VALLEY, IS WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CASES GO THROUGH GLENBROOK VALLEY THAT WERE ADDRESSED DIFFERENTLY THAN THIS ONE. SO THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP GLENBROOK VALLEY. 'CAUSE WE'VE HAD EASILY FIVE CASES. MM-HMM . OF COMPLETE WINDOW REPLACEMENT IN GLENBROOK VALLEY. UH, CODE ALLOWS THE, THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING. I THINK YOU DO HAVE DIFFERENT EVIDENCE THAN WAS PRESENTED OR WAS KNOWN TO STAFF EVEN WHEN THEY WERE MAKING SOME OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. A MOTION? UH, YEAH, I THINK THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I'D LIKE TO SECOND IT. DID THAT COUNT AS A MOTION WE GOT? OKAY. YEAH. GOOD. DON'T WANT TO RESTATE IT SINCE WE EDIT. ALRIGHT. UH, I, I MOVE, WE, UM, I, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO SAY? AFFIRM OR DENY OR WHAT? I, WE DENY THE, OR WAIT. REVERSE THE C OF R ISSUED BY THE HHC AND INSTEAD GRANT, UH, C OF R FOR THE WORK AS BUILT. YEAH. SECONDED. UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. FIERA BLAND. AYE. UPMINSTER AYE. ELLIOT. AYE. ER AYE. BARTEL AYE. MISSION. MOTION CARRIES. UH, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MINUTES OF THE OH, WE ALREADY DID THAT, DIDN'T WE? MINUTES? YES. YEAH. YES. UH, THIS IS OUT OF ORDER FROM THAT OTHER I MADE THE MOTION. OH, THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I REMEMBER. YEP. IS THAT THIS IS OUT OF ORDER FROM THAT ORDER. I DON'T WANT THAT MUCH COFFEE. . UM, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? OH, UH, PROPO, UH, CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE 2025 HPAB MEETING SCHEDULE COMPLETELY OUTTA ORDER. MOST ARE MONDAYS WITH ONE EXCEPTION FOR THURSDAY. TRAINING THE PENALTY ON MY BIRTHDAY. , WE'LL BRING CAKE. UH, I, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS MEETING SCHEDULE. I SECOND. ALL IS IN FAVOR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. ADMINISTER. AYE. ELLIOT. AYE. BILL OR AYE. VERA BLAND. AYE. BARTEL AYE. MOTION CARRIES. UH, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? UH, ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? I WILL ADJOURN TODAY'S MEETING, UH, ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2024. THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR COMING. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.