* 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.
          [Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission on September 10, 2026.]
          [00:00:14]
          11TH, 2026. 
          TODAY'S MEETING OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION. 
          HAHC IS CALLED TO ORDER. 
          I AM COMMISSION CHAIR DAVID EK TO VERIFY WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          I WILL CALL THE ROLE THE CHAIR IS PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER JONES. 
          PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER CARL SMITH. 
          NOT HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAKELY PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER HILL IS NOT HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER COSGROVE PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER DEL PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER MARK SMITH. 
          NOT HERE. 
          SORRY. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWNING. 
          PRESENT. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER BROBECK PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER GARCIA PRESENT. 
          COMMISSIONER DAVIS PRESENT AND PLANNING DIRECTOR OF VRAN PRESENT. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          UM, I'M GONNA BEGIN WITH THE CHAIR'S REPORT AND I WILL JUST, UM, REITERATE THE SPEAKING RULES FOR THIS MEETING, WHICH WERE POSTED AT AND ARE AT THE, THE FRONT OF THE, THE FRONT TABLE ON THE SPEAKER FORM THAT YOU HAVE. 
          UM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, UM, PLEASE SUBMIT A SPEAKER'S FORM TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A SPEAKER. 
          UH, YOU CAN TURN IT IN TO THE STAFF MEMBER CLOSEST TO, UM, THE DOOR HERE IN THE CHAMBER. 
          UM, ONE RECOGNIZED SPEAKER AT THE PODIUM AT A TIME, AS YOUR NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE MOVE TO THE PODIUM, UM, OR, OR ANNOUNCE YOURSELF IF YOU WISH TO DECLINE. 
          UM, AT THIS MEETING, UM, THE APPLICANT IS ASKED TO, UM, TO SPEAK FIRST AND ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS CAN SPEAK FOR, UM, UP TO TWO MINUTES. 
          AND IF THERE ARE ANYONE SPEAKING, UH, IN OPPOSITION TO THE THE SPEAKER, THEN THERE CAN BE REBUTTAL OF ONE MINUTE. 
          UM, SO PLEASE, I KNOW I HAVE RECEIVED MANY FORMS HERE, BUT IF YOU CAN, UM, MAKE SURE YOU SUBMIT, UH, THOSE COMMENTS TO US, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT YOUR VOICE IS HEARD. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, HICK COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC. 
          I AM VON TRAN, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 
          WELCOME. 
          I HAVE TWO ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          THE FIRST ONE, UM, IS REGARDING THE MEETING NOTES THAT YOU WILL, UH, VOTE ON NEXT. 
          UH, SCRIVENER'S ERA WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE AUGUST 13 MEETING MINUTES. 
          THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN CORRECTED TO REPLACE THE TERM ABSTAIN WITH REUSE. 
          MY SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT IS THAT COMMISSIONER MARK SMITH CONCLUDED HIS SERVICE ON THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2026. 
          FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF HIS ONE YEAR TERM. 
          WE THANK COMMISSIONER SMITH FOR HIS COMMITMENT AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMISSION AND WISH HIM THE VERY BEST IN HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS. 
          IN CLOSING, IF YOU HAVE 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. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I BELIEVE WE WILL NOT HAVE, UM, THE MAYOR'S LIAISON REPORT TODAY. 
          SO I, I DON'T SEE MARTHA HERE IN THE ROOM. 
          SO, UM, WE WILL MOVE ON FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 13TH, 2026 HAHC MEETING. 
          MINUTES COMMISSION MEMBERS, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? GARCIA? UM, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ONE AMENDMENT UNDER E FOUR. 
          UM, THE LAST NAME, MY LAST NAME IS GARCIA, NOT IKA. 
          SO MOVED. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE, THE AMEND AMENDMENTS? MAY I JUST ASK THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE CORRECTION WAS? WHICH PAGE 
          [00:05:03]
FOUR? PAGE FOUR. 
          ITEM E 4 9 1 4 MAIN STREET. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, I MEAN REGARDING RECUSE VERSUS STATE THERE VERSUS YES. 
          DIRECTOR TRAN. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, IT'S IS ITEM E FOUR ON PAGE FOUR. 
          ABSTAIN SHOULD BE REUSE. 
          ITEM E 21, PAGE FIVE, SAME THING. 
          REUSE INSTEAD OF ABSTAINING. 
          AND SO DOES THIS INDICATE THAT MOVING FORWARD WE WILL REPLACE THE TRADITIONAL USE OF ABSTAIN WITH REUSE OR IS IT CORRECT? THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE, SO IS THERE A MOTION TO UM, ACCEPT THE REVISED AMENDED BROWNING? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? BLAKELY SECONDS. 
          BLAKELY SECONDS. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. 
          I APOLOGIZE. 
          THERE WAS A THIRD ONE ON PAGE TWO FOR THAT. 
          UM, ITEM D LET ME ASK LEGAL FOR JUST ADVICE. 
          UH, DO I NEED TO RECU RESEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION OR YES, I'D RESEND. 
          UM, OKAY, SO I HAVE, I HAVE ANOTHER AMENDED MOTION. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS? SO MOVED. 
          SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES WITH THE, UM, ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDED MINUTES? I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. 
          RONNIE MAKES THE MOTION. 
          SECOND BLAKELY SECONDS. 
          BLAKELY SECONDS. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? I HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE. 
          WAS THAT, UM, THAT D ELEMENT CHANGING MY ABSTAINING TO REUSE? OKAY. 
          I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT ANSWER, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          SO YOU GET AN I FOR ME . 
          OKAY. 
          AGAIN, UH, ANY OPPOSED MOTION PASSES. 
          AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON, UH, TO ITEM A, WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS, ONE OR MORE ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ONE MOTION AS CONSENT ITEMS. CHAIR. 
          OH, YOUR, YOUR LIGHT IS ON BUT THE SOUND IS NOT. 
          OH, THERE WE GO. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          CHAIR COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. 
          THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FOR ACTION PER STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATIONS IN ONE MOTION ITEMS A 1 15 0 5 TO LANE STREET ALTERATION ADDITION LOCATED IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST. 
          RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM A 2 15 0 5 2 LANE STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE LOCATED IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST. 
          RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 3 6 11 WEST 12TH STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST. 
          RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 4 6 11 WEST 12TH STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND A GARAGE APARTMENT LOCATED IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST. 
          RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 5 30 23 DEL MONTE STREET ALTERATION, ADDITION WINDOWS. 
          IT IS THE PROTECTED LANDMARK CALLED MR. AND MRS. JOHN P BULLINGTON. 
          HOUSE APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS ONLY THE REAR MAY BE REPLACED. 
          ALL ORIGINAL WINDOWS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS MUST BE RETAINED. 
          ITEM E OR SORRY, ITEM A 6 39 63 DEL MONTE STREET OR DEL MONTE DRIVE ALTERATION. 
          ADDITION LANDMARK BALDWIN RIDDLE HOUSE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT REMAIN AT THE EXISTING HEIGHT ITEM A 7 39 63 DEL MONTE STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A POLE HOUSE OF THE BALDWIN RIDDLE. 
          LANDMARK RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 8 11 0 2 WINSTON STREET ALTERATION FOUNDATION LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          RECOMMENDATION OF 
          [00:10:01]
APPROVAL ITEM A 9 10 40 WEST COTTAGE STREET ALTERATION ADDITION LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL OF COA ISSUANCE OF COR FOR WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT A COA AND A PERMIT ITEM A TEN NINE FOUR ONE OXFORD STREET ALTERATION DOORS, WINDOWS LOCATED IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH. 
          RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 11 316 EAST 18TH STREET DEMOLITION OF A GARAGE LOCATED IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST. 
          RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 12 16 50 COURTLAND STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST. 
          RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 13 816 WEST MILLWOOD DRIVE ALTERATION ADDITION LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 14 932 WEST TEMPLE STREET ALTERATION ADDITION LOCATED IN NOR HILL. 
          RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 15 11 39 WEST MILLWOOD DRIVE, ALTERATION WINDOWS LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION OF DEFERRAL BY STAFF. 
          ITEM A 16 3 0 3 HAWTHORNE STREET ALTERATION, ADDITION AND GARAGE APARTMENT LOCATED IN THE WESTMORELAND HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ITEM A 17 505 ARLINGTON STREET ALTERATION WINDOWS HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH RECOMMENDATION OF A PARTIAL APPROVAL DENIAL OF WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND ALLOWANCE OF FRONT PORCH AND RAILING ENFORCEMENT. 
          IN ITEM A 18 19 25 WASHINGTON AVENUE ALTERATION SIGNAGE LOCATED IN THE OLD SIX WARD HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          WITH THE RE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR ALL OF THE STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE PRECEDING ITEMS. WE ARE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK COMMISSION MEMBERS IF THERE ARE ANY ITEMS YOU'D LIKE TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. 
          AS ALL THE ITEMS ON THE LIST I'D BEEN INTRODUCED UNDER CONSENT, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEMS 1, 2, 3 AND FOUR. 
          1, 2, 3, AND FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          REQUEST TO PULL ITEMS 11 AND 12. 
          COMMISSIONER DAVIS. 
          UM, REQUEST TO PULL ITEMS 6 3 9 63 DEL MONTE AND NINE TWENTY FIVE WASHINGTON PLEASE. 
          MICROPHONE PLEASE. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, REQUEST TO POLL A SIX REQUEST. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          OKAY. 
          MAYBE DISTANCE ISSUE? YEP. 
          YEAH. 
          REQUEST TO POLL NUMBER A 6 39 63 DEL MONTE AND A 18 9 25 WASHINGTON. 
          GOT IT. 
          UH, REQUESTABLE. 
          A 14. 
          A 14. 
          COMMISSIONER ELL YOU HAVE NEED TO PULL A NINE. 
          A NINE. 
          COMMISSIONER BECK QUICK QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER DAVIS IF YOU WANNA PULL A SIX. 
          DO YOU ALSO WANNA PULL A SEVEN, SAME ADDRESS? NO. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. 
          IF ANYONE IS HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE REMAINING ITEMS, UH, AND YOU ARE, UM, YOU ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY AT THIS TIME TO ANNOUNCE THE PROJECT AND WE CAN PULL IT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. 
          AND I WILL, UM, JUST BRIEFLY CALL OUT THE ITEM NUMBERS THAT ARE STILL HOLDING ON CONSENT. 
          THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM FIVE, FOLLOWED BY 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, AND 17. 
          IF YOU SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THEN I WOULD NOT SAY ANYTHING AT THIS TIME AND IT'S LIKELY TO PASS ON CONSENT. 
          IF YOU, UM, HOWEVER, DO NOT, UH, AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THOSE ITEMS, ANY ONE OF THEM, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY NOW TO ASK THAT THEY BE PULLED. 
          OKAY. 
          NOT HEARING ANY, ANYONE WHEN SPEAK UP. 
          I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL THEN, UM, AGAIN, I'LL REPEAT ONE MORE TIME. 
          THE AMENDED CONSENT, UH, LIST, WHICH IS ITEM FIVE, ITEM SEVEN, 
          [00:15:01]
ITEM EIGHT, ITEM 10, ITEM 13, ITEM 15, ITEM 16. 
          AND ITEM 1718 EIGHTEEN'S BEEN PULLED. 
          AND WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED CONSENT LIST AND THE ASSOCIATED, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED, ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMENDED LIST? SO MOVED, BROUGHT BACK. 
          MAKES THE MOTION. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? GARCIA SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM A 5 30 23 DEL MONTE DRIVE A ONE A ONE. 
          OH, I'M, I'M, I'M SORRY. 
          UM, UM, APOLOGIES. 
          A ONE, YES. 
          WE WILL NOT BE HEARING A FIVE TO THIS MEETING. 
          UM, CHAIR, I WANTED TO CONFIRM A FIVE HAD APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          I, I MISSPOKE, SO, NO, NO, IT'S OKAY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM IF, IF YOU CAN ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE BECAUSE, UH, I, I KNOW THAT IF THEY, THEY WERE GONNA SIGN SHOW UP TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AND ASK FOR THE CONDITION TO BE, SO I JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPLICANT LOOKS LIKE, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE I, I JUST, I UNDERSTAND I DID NOT RECEIVE A SPEAKER'S FORM FOR ITEM FIVE, BUT, UM, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME JUST TO CONFIRM IF YOU ARE THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM FIVE, COULD YOU ANNOUNCE YOURSELF AT THIS TIME? SO I DON'T THINK THEY'RE IN THE ROOM, SO, UM, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          OKAY. 
          MAY I COMBINE ITEM A ONE AND A TWO PLEASE? UH, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          WE WILL VOTE SEPARATELY, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN REVIEW THEM UH, AS THE SAME AT THE SAME. 
          OKAY. 
          PRESENTATION. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          THIS IS STAFF PERSON YASMINE ALO. 
          I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ITEMS A ONE AND TWO AT 15 0 5 2 LANE STREET, A CIRCA 1930 CONTRIBUTING CRAFTSMAN RESIDENCE LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          THE PROPERTY HAS A 2,192 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY WOOD RESIDENCE, UM, SITUATED ON AN 8,799 INTERIOR LOT. 
          THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ALTERATION AND A TWO STORY REAR ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE ALONG WITH A NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED TWO STORY GARAGE AND GARAGE APARTMENT. 
          THE SITE CURRENTLY CONTAINS A NON-CONTRIBUTING ONE STORY GARAGE AND GARAGE APARTMENT MEASURING 37.4 BY 37.4, WHICH WILL BE DEMOLISHED. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. 
          THE PROJECT INCLUDES A TWO STORY ADDITION THAT ADDS 1,881 SQUARE FEET OF CONDITIONED SPACE TO THE EXISTING 1,299 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE. 
          THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WILL BE RAISED TO A FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT OF 32 INCHES AND THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT WILL BE MAINTAINED. 
          ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE INSET TO THE, SO THAT IT DOES NOT OVERLAP OR SIT DIRECTLY ON THE HISTORIC PORTION OF THE HOUSE. 
          THE ADDITION FEATURES A SIX OVER 12 HIP ROOF RIDGE HEIGHT OF 27 FEET AND SEVEN INCHES. 
          EXTERIOR CLADDING WILL CONSIST OF HORIZONTAL LAP HARDY SIDING WITH A FIVE INCH EXPOSURE AND ALL NEW WINDOWS WILL BE WOOD INSET AND RECESSED ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION. 
          A NON-ORIGINAL WINDOW WILL BE REPLACED WITH A WOOD WINDOW MATCHING THE ORIGINAL OPENING IDENTIFIED BY VISIBLE GHOSTING. 
          THE EXISTING NON-ORIGINAL FRONT PORCH SLAB AND METAL COLUMNS WILL BE REBUILT WITH PURIN BEAM CONSTRUCTION TONGUE AND GROOVE DECKING AND EIGHT INCH PAINTED WOOD COLUMNS. 
          IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED TWO STORY TWO CAR GARAGE WITH A 649 SQUARE FOOT, UH, SECOND FLOOR GARAGE APARTMENT. 
          THE GARAGE WILL BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THE FIRST FLOOR FOOTPRINT IS 680 SQUARE FEET OF WHICH 5 28 SQUARE FEET IS EXEMPT FROM LOCK COVERAGE BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE IS DETACHED AND CONNECTED WITH THE MAIN HOUSE ONLY BY AN UNCONDITIONED BREEZEWAY. 
          THE GARAGE WILL FEATURE, UM, HARDY SIDING WITH AN EIGHT INCH EXPOSURE SHING, UM, A COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF AND A SIX OVER 12 HIP ROOF. 
          THE RIDGE HEIGHT WILL BE 24 FEET, UM, AND NINE AND AN EIGHTH INCH. 
          THE COVERED BREEZEWAY WILL ALSO, UM, HAVE THE EXTERIOR STAIRCASE. 
          ALL NEW WINDOWS ON THE GARAGE WILL BE INSET AND RECESSED. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AT 
          [00:20:01]
THIS TIME I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I DO HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGN UP ON THIS ITEM AND THERE MAY BE MORE IN THE ROOM. 
          UH, THE FIRST SPEAKER WHO SIGNED UP IS, I BELIEVE IT'S JEAN PATTERSON, AND THE SECOND SPEAKER IS ANTHONY LEVITT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS JUSTIN PATTERSON. 
          OKAY, JUSTIN. 
          OKAY, DAVID. 
          SORRY, COMMISSIONER. 
          I THOUGHT THAT WAS GONNA BE A PROBLEM. 
          I SAW IT GET WRITTEN AND IT WAS A LITTLE MESSY. 
          I APOLOGIZE. 
          NOT A PROBLEM. 
          I AM HERE AS THE, UM, APPLICANT'S AGENT FOR 15 0 5 2 LANE. 
          WE HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH STAFF IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CUMULATIVE SETBACKS, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND OVERALL FAR AND LOT COVERAGE AS WELL AS CITY OF HOUSTON COVERAGES AS WELL. 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PREEMPTIVELY SHOW A PROBES FELT SURVEY OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          UM, DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. 
          IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, I KNOW SOME OF YOU KNOW WHO PROPS FELT ARE, SOME OF YOU MAY NOT. 
          UM, IN, UH, IN THE INDUSTRY, WE WOULD CONSIDER THEM TO BE THE BEST SURVEYING COMPANY IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON. 
          UM, AND WITH THIS SURVEY YOU CAN SEE APOLOGIES, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE MONUMENT WAS FOUND IN THIS CORNER UP IN THERE AND THE TWO MAGNETIC POINTS WERE FOUND IN THE STREET. 
          THIS GIVES THEM THE BEARING TO VERIFY PROPERTY LINES BASED ON RECORDED PLATS. 
          UM, I AM ALSO HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          AGAIN, WE'RE CLEARLY WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ANTHONY LEVIT. 
          SO I'M ANTHONY LEVITT. 
          UM, WE ARE, UH, CONTESTING THIS BECAUSE THERE'S, UH, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HISTORIC LOT LINES COMPARED TO WHAT PROBES FIELD CAME UP WITH. 
          UM, THE PROPERTY WOULD COME IN BASICALLY ANOTHER NINE TO 12 INCHES ON MY PARENTS' PROPERTY, GIVING THEM NO ROOM FOR AIR CONDITIONING OR ACTUALLY GETTING ACCESS TO THAT SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE. 
          AND IT'S, UM, WE HAVE YEARS OF PROPERTIES THAT WERE DEFINED DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT THESE GUYS DID. 
          AND BROOKSFIELD, I GUESS HAD GONE BACK A SECOND TIME AND WE JUST DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT THAT THEY'RE NOW TRYING TO GRAB LAND. 
          SO, AND I, WE HAVE RECORDS FOR YOU ALL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, PERHAPS YOU COULD PUT THAT ON THE DOCUMENT CAMERA AS WELL SINCE YOU, SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS, UM, THEY MOVE THEIR LOT, THEIR NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY PUT THERE. 
          SO THEIR MEDIAD LAND IN TWO ON THE PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WHICH MEANS THE 15 0 1 2 LANE LOSES ABOUT 12 INCHES. 
          THE HOUSE BEHIND THEM AT, I THINK IT'S 1511 OR SOMETHING, 15TH STREET. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE ADDRESS THERE. 
          I'M NOT FROM HERE, BUT THEY WILL LOSE, THEY WILL HAVE ABOUT 12 INCHES OUTSIDE THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSE IF HE GETS THE LAND THAT HE'S CLAIMING NOW. 
          BUT THAT HAS BEEN IN EVERYBODY'S SALES RECORDS TO DATE SINCE 2001 WHEN MY PARENTS BOUGHT THE HOUSE, WHEN MY SISTER-IN-LAW BOUGHT THE HOUSE, ACTUALLY. 
          SO WE JUST DON'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF I MAY ASK A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER, UM, UM, WHAT AGAIN, AND I'M WE'RE JUST SEEING THIS ON THE SCREEN AND THE, THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, UM, HAS THE DIMENSION ON THE PLAT CHANGED ON THE WIDTH OF THE LOT? IT HAS GONE DOWN SLIGHTLY AND SO I MAY HAVE TO ASK THE DIRECTOR IN TERMS OF PLANE DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE, THE, I MEAN, I KNOW SOMETIMES PINS MOVE AROUND IN THE, IN THE SOIL AND SO MM-HMM . 
          SURVEYORS HAVE TO LOOK AT MULTIPLE PINS TO TRY TO RECONSTRUCT THINGS. 
          SOMETIMES THE EARTH MOVES, BUT, UM, BUT GENERALLY THE PLOTS DON'T CHANGE IN SIZE. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT, IF WE COULD, IF, IF THAT CAN BE LOOKED AT OR ADDRESSED. 
          BUT DIRECTOR TRAN, CAN I DIRECT THIS QUESTION TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL? MM-HMM . 
          YES, OF COURSE. 
          IN MY EXPERIENCE, UM, CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RARELY GETS INVOLVED IN LOT LINE DISPUTES. 
          THERE MAY BE CIVIL 
          [00:25:01]
REMEDIES IN COURT THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU IF THAT LOT LINE IS CONTESTED, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TYPICALLY RELIES ON A, A SURVEY THAT'S COMING FROM AN ENGINEER AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE USUALLY GONNA GO WITH THAT UNLESS WE'VE GOT A COURT ORDER TO THE CONTRARY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY SIGNED UP? SO NOT HEARING ANYONE, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSION MEMBERS. 
          ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THIS APPLICATION? UM, COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR, UM, I HEARING WHAT, UM, LEGAL JUST CITED THAT THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T DEAL WITH LOT LINE DISPUTES. 
          CAN WE MAKE A JUDGMENT ON A DISPUTED SITE? LIKE IF, IF IT'S IN QUESTION, DOES THAT PREVENT US FROM MAKING OUR DECISION REGARDING NO MEANING? LIKE WOULD IT BE IF, IF IF THERE WAS A CONTRADICTORY SURVEY PUT FORWARD, WOULD WE NEED TO REVERSE OUR, GIVEN THAT THERE IS NO PENDING LITIGATION, THERE IS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE ANY OTHER DECISION BASED UPON INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS A PROPOSAL FOR A CERTIFICATE OF C OF A PROPOSAL FOR WORK ON THE PROPERTY FOR AN ADDITION AND ALSO A, A GARAGE, UH, ON THE SITE. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE, OUR PURVIEW. 
          RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER SIDE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH. 
          UM, DO, IS THERE ANYTHING IN OUR PURVIEW THAT RELATES TO LOT SIZES, BOUNDARY DISPUTES, ET CETERA? I'LL, I'LL ASK LEGAL AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE IS, BUT AGAIN, THE DETERMINATION TODAY FOR THE COA IS BASED UPON THE APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND YOU'RE LIMITED TO THAT INFORMATION AT THIS TIME. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          YEAH. 
          AND SO THE, UM, BEFORE I CALL MUCH COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, I MEAN WE'VE SEEN TWO SURVEYS AND HAVE SAID TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE, UH, HOW THAT GETS RESOLVED. 
          UM, PRIMARILY WHAT DOES COME BEFORE US IS A CERTAIN SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          LIKE FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION, LIKE FOR WHAT'S IN THE REAR AND BEING IT'S TWO STORY THEN THAT ALSO IMPACTS THE, THE DISTANCE IMPACTS THE DISTANCE NEXT DOOR. 
          THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE RESOLVE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CONTESTED SURVEYS THAT WOULD BURST IN INTO THIS BODY. 
          BUT WE DO HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN PUT BEFORE US FOR COMMENT. 
          SO WE STILL NEED TO TALK ABOUT BEYOND THE, THE SETBACK QUESTION THAT'S BEEN RAISED, THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS BODY IS REQUIRED TO MAKE ITS DECISION BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          LATER INFORMATION THAT SHARED THAT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED BY A COURT OF LAWS, NOT INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED WITH THAT IS NOT, YOU ARE NOT THE ARBITER OF WHERE THAT LOT LINE LIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAKELY FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER DAVIS. 
          YEAH, I, I GUESS I THINK LEGAL'S COMMENT MAYBE KIND OF PREEMPTS MY QUESTION, BUT, UM, I AM A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED THAT IF WE RULE ON A SETBACK THAT TURNS OUT TO THEN BE IF, IF IF, OKAY, IF WE HAVE REASON TO DOUBT THE INFORMATION WE HAVE ABOUT WHERE THE LOT LINE IS, THEN WE CAN'T MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT THE SETBACK 'CAUSE WE CAN'T UNDER, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S RIGHT. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, THAT, AND I'LL JUST, AND I'LL JUST OFFER, BUT WHAT WE CAN DO TODAY IS, IS THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US AND WHETHER IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A C OF A IS STILL SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS. 
          UM, COMMERS, WELL I CALL COMMISSIONER DAVIS FIRST FOLLOWED BY COSGROVE AND THEN COMMISSIONER SEIDEL, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? IT IT, IT, OKAY. 
          UM, FIRST THE HEIGHTS IS NOTORIOUS FOR HAVING LOT LINE ISSUES AND TYPICALLY THE BLOCK IS SHIFTING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AS YOU SAID, THE IT THAT'S STILL, UM, SO IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME AT ALL THAT THEY GOT A DIFFERENT SURVEY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT SURVEY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, UM, BASED UPON WHATEVER. 
          BUT MY ISSUE 
          [00:30:01]
IS, UM, IS THE MASSING AND IT'S VERY ATTRACTIVE. 
          BUT THE PORCH ROOF, UM, THE HEIGHT OF THE PORCH ROOF, THE, THE LINE IS SUCH THAT IT REALLY INCREASES, UM, THE MASSING WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE. 
          IT'S BIGGER THAN I THINK THAT IT IS, UM, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ROOF SITS THERE AND THE BALCONY THAT YOU HAVE ON THE, UM, GARAGE STRUCTURE. 
          SO THAT WAS MY POINT ON IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE. 
          SO I, I'VE PULLED THIS AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER DAVIS THAT THIS TO ME HAS SOME MASSING ELEMENTS AND THE WAY I INTERPRET THE ORDINANCE AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF DETACHED GARAGE. 
          IT IS CONNECTED ON THE SECOND FLOOR ACCESSIBLE VIA AN ELEVATOR FROM THE MAIN HOUSE. 
          AND AS SUCH, I WOULD CONSIDER IT AN ATTACHED GARAGE, EVEN IF IT IS DETACHED IN CERTAIN AREAS FROM THE MAIN STRUCTURE IN, IN THAT LINE OF THOUGHT, THE ONLY EXEMPTION WOULD BE HALF OF THE GARAGE. 
          AND SO I BELIEVE THAT WOULD PUSH IT WELL OVER THE FAR FOR THIS SIZE LOT. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE BECAUSE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE, YOU KNOW, WERE NOT INTENDED TO, TO MAKE A SINGLE STRUCTURE WITH A SHARED ROOF LINE. 
          THE, THE CONCEPT WAS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE IDEA THAT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE HEIGHTS WAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A DETACHED GARAGE AND THERE WAS A CLEAR SEPARATION BETWEEN THEM. 
          AND I BELIEVE WE'RE SEEING AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PROJECTS WHERE WE ARE CONNECTING EITHER VIA OUTDOOR SPACE, BUT THIS IS A MUCH MORE OVERT CONNECTION WHERE WE NOW HAVE DIRECT ACCESS ON THE SECOND FLOOR INTO THE GARAGE APARTMENT. 
          SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY WE'RE INTERPRETING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES DIFFERENTLY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AS FAR AS STAFF UNDERSTANDS, UM, CONNECTING THE GARAGE WITH A, WITH THE MAIN HOUSE THROUGH A UNCONDITIONED SPACE STILL MAKES IT DETACHED. 
          UM, THAT'S BEEN KIND OF CONSISTENT. 
          WE'VE SEEN EXAMPLES WHERE THEY WOULD CONNECT IT WITH A COVERED BREEZEWAY ON THE SECOND FLOOR, SO IT'S CONNECTED THROUGH A PORCH ON THE FIRST FLOOR. 
          AND THEN ON THE SECOND FLOOR THEY WOULD CREATE, UM, UH, COVERED OR UNCOVERED, UM, BREEZEWAY TO CONNECT THE MAIN HOUSE WITH THE GARAGE. 
          UM, I THINK I WANNA SAY FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS AGO WE HAD A, SOMETHING SIMILAR AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE ADDRESS WHERE, UM, IT WAS, UM, APPROVED. 
          SO IT'S BEEN, WE HAVE BEEN GETTING MORE OF THESE LATELY. 
          UM, AND THE ANSWER IS, WELL THIS IS ON CONDITION SPACE, I BELIEVE IT'S CONNECTED ON THE FIRST FLOOR, UM, WITH THE, WITH A PORCH ON THE FIRST FLOOR WHERE THERE'S LIKE A DINING TABLE AND THEN THAT, UM, OUTDOOR AREA THAT IS ON THE PORCH, THAT'S ON THE FIRST FLOOR. 
          AND THEN ON THE SECOND FLOOR THERE IS A STAIRCASE THAT, THAT'S THE UNDER, WHERE DOES THE ELEVATOR OPEN ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO, IS THAT CONDITION SPACE? I MEAN, 'CAUSE THE STAIRCASE GOES UP FROM THAT DIRECTION AND THEN BENDS AND GOES IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. 
          SO IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE STAIRCASE AT ALL, BUT THERE IS A DOOR THAT OPENS FROM THE ELEVATOR THAT OPENS DIRECTLY INTO THE DETACHED QUARTERS. 
          AND THAT'S THE ISSUE I HAVE IS THAT WE ARE MAKING A CONNECTION NOW AND VISUALLY THERE IS NO ANGLE YOU CAN SHOW ME OF THIS HOUSE THAT IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE GARAGE IS ATTACHED, THE ROOF LINE IS CONSISTENT ACROSS AT ALL, AND THAT, THAT IS NOT CREATING THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE MAIN DWELLING AND THE GARAGE THAT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, YOU KNOW, SO THAT, THAT'S MY ISSUE WITH IT. 
          SURE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER ELL FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BROWNING. 
          YEAH, MY FIRST COMMENT IS, IS JUST ON THE, THE SURVEY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A, A, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SAY IT, BUT A REPUTABLE SURVEY COMPANY THAT HAS GONE BACK TWICE. 
          AND SO JUST FOR THE GROUP, I, I DON'T, I MEAN THE LEGAL'S POINT 
          [00:35:01]
PLANNING IS USING LICENSED SURVEYORS INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE BOUNDARIES, LOT LINES, ET CETERA. 
          SO THAT'S JUST, I JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT TO THE GROUP THAT THEY'VE GONE BACK TWICE AND DOUBLE CHECKED IT AND STILL COME UP WITH THE SAME INFORMATION. 
          AND THEN I THINK THE ELEVATOR SECTION ACTUALLY OPENS UP TO THE BREEZEWAY THOUGH, IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY. 
          THERE'S THIS, RIGHT, THERE'S A SECTION DRAWING ON, ON PAGE, UH, 19 THAT'S PRETTY ILLUMINATING. 
          IS IT POSSIBLE TO BRING THAT PAGE UP ON THE DOCUMENT CAMERA EARLY ON THE, ON THE FEED? SO MAY I, UH, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NO, THERE'S NO SORT OF THERMAL BARRIER, UM, BETWEEN THAT ROOF AND ANY WALL BELOW IT, THE ROOF THAT'S CUT IN THE SECTION AND ANY WALL BELOW IT, IT'S JUST AIR BLOWS THROUGH THERE. 
          IS THAT THE PROPOSAL? THAT'S THE PROPOSAL. 
          WE UNDERSTAND, UH, THE DESIGNER IS HERE. 
          IF, IF HE MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION MORE ACCURATELY, IS THAT OKAY? I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT VISUALLY IT LOOKS CONNECTED, EVEN IF IT LOOKS BASICALLY LIKE A, A HALLWAY WITH WINDOWS WITH NO GLASS IN THEM. 
          LIKE IT'S THE OPENING THAT AND THEN THE ROOF COVERS THAT BREEZEWAY. 
          SO WE, THERE'S NO ANGLE AS COMMISSIONER COSGROVE POINTED OUT FROM WHICH THEY LOOK LIKE SEPARATE VOLUMES, EVEN IF THE THERMAL BARRIER MAKES THEM ENERGETICALLY SEPARATE. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER BROWNING FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BROBECK, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THE SURVEY ISSUE. 
          UM, I APPRECIATE THAT WHAT HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD TODAY WAS NOT KNOWN, UM, BEFORE, AND THAT INJECTS A NEW ISSUE INTO THIS. 
          UM, I APPRECIATE AND AGREE WITH LEGAL'S INTERPRETATION, UH, OF THE SURVEY ISSUE, BUT I WONDER WHETHER OR NOT IF ANYONE IS STILL CONSIDERING THAT, WHETHER IT'S A BIT OF A RED HERRING, UH, BECAUSE IF THERE IS A DISPUTE AND I HEARD 12 INCHES ON AT LEAST ONE, ONE SIDE OF THE LOT, WOULD THAT IMPACT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND FAR IF THE DIS IF UM, THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION WAS CORRECT? IF SO, THEN PERHAPS IF WE'RE DEALING WITH A FAR SITUATION OR A LOT COVERAGE SITUATION THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN THIS BODY'S PURVIEW WHEN THE ACTUAL SURVEY DISPUTE IS APPROPRIATELY A CIVIL REMEDY. 
          AS YOU, AS YOU NOTED, COMMISSIONER BROBECK, I'M HOPING TO GET CLARIFICATION FROM LEGAL. 
          WHAT I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY IS THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED SURVEY INFORMATION AND THEN SOMEONE FROM THE COMMUNITY HAS PRESENTED INFORMATION THAT DISPUTES THE SURVEY INFORMATION PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          AND YOU'RE TELLING US THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO US BY THE COMMUNITY, THEY HAVE TO LITIGATE IT FIRST. 
          THIS BODY DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN WHAT WE OFTEN REFER TO AS A BATTLE OF THE SURVEYS. 
          YOU HAVE A SURVEY THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR AND IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TODAY TO CONSIDER AND MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE APPLICATION BASED UPON THAT INFORMATION THAT'S PRESENTED. 
          THERE IS NO PENDING LEGAL LEGAL ACTION AT THIS TIME THAT REQUIRES YOU TO CONSIDER ANYTHING ELSE. 
          THE COMMUNITY HASN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS APPLICATION BEFORE TODAY. 
          SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THEY HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, SOLICIT THEIR OWN SURVEY INFORMATION? WHAT, WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT IF WE, IF WE START TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS WHEN WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT OVER SOMETHING AS SERIOUS AS SURVEY INFORMATION, HAMMERS START SWINGING AND THEN THERE COULD BE LITIGATION DOWN THE LINE THAT WE COULD HAVE HELPED PREVENT. 
          THAT'S MY CONCERN AND I JUST DON'T WANNA SEE US GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF THAT. 
          AND I HEAR YOUR CONCERNS, BUT AGAIN, YOU HAVE A REPUTABLE LICENSE SURVEY THAT WAS PRESENTED WITH THE APPLICATION. 
          I THINK YOU 
          [00:40:01]
NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS IN SETTING PRECEDENT THAT ANYTIME SOMEONE DISPUTES SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING THAT COMES BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, YOU DON'T WANNA CREATE A PRECEDENT THAT ANYTIME SOMEONE SAYS, OH WELL THE LOT LINE MIGHT BE OFF, AND THEN SUDDENLY YOU'RE HAMSTRUNG AND YOU CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS. 
          UM, AGAIN, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION THAT WAS PRESENTED. 
          IF AS A BODY YOU WOULD LIKE TO DEFER AND CONSIDER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, YOU CERTAINLY CAN DO THAT. 
          BUT AGAIN, THE LOCATION OF THAT LOT LINE NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED BY A COURT OF LAW, NOT BY THIS BODY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I KNOW COMMISSIONER JONES WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT, AND AND I'LL GO, I'LL COME BACK TO COMMISSIONER BECK. 
          CAN WE GET THE 3D SCHEMATIC PULLED UP FROM A ONE, I THINK IT'S ON PAGE 12, BACK 12 OF 24. 
          AND CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THE TOP RENDERING WHERE THE GARAGE IS AND THE PORCH? THIS IS WHAT I THINK IS A COMMISSION WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT. 
          YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT COMMISSIONER COSGROVE'S WAS TALKING ABOUT, DOES THIS GARAGE READ AS SEPARATE FROM THE STRUCTURE? AND ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS TOGETHER, I THINK ARE ADDRESSING COMMISSIONER DAVIS'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE MASSING AND HOW THE MASSING IS READING ON THE ADDITION AND THE GARAGE. 
          ONCE WE HAVE ALL THESE ELEMENTS CONNECTED TOGETHER, EVEN IF IT IS AN A BREEZEWAY, THE SIZE, THE FORMAT, HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THEM FROM THE FRONT OF THE RENDERING TO ME IS READING AS ONE SOLID MASS. 
          AND TO ME THIS IS THE ISSUE RIGHT NOW WITH, WITH THIS CASE BEFORE US. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BROBECK, UH, AGAIN FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKELY. 
          UM, QUESTION FOR THE GENTLEMAN FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT SPOKE A MOMENT AGO. 
          LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC, UH, UH, HEARING AT THIS TIME. 
          AND, UM, MR. MR. LEVITT, IF YOU COULD NCEE YOUR NAME IN, IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD. 
          UM, SIR, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, CORRECT? 15 ONE MY PARENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SINCE YOU HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS APPLICATION BEFORE NOW, CAN I ASK, IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO, UH, SOLICIT SOME SURVEY INFORMATION OF YOUR OWN TO, UH, RESOLVE WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE SOME INCORRECT SURVEY DATA FROM THE APPLICANT? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU SIR. 
          UM, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN AND COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, YOU HAD A QUESTION. 
          I GUESS SUPPOSE MY QUESTION NOW IS WOULD IT BE WORTH DEFERRING, UH, TO ALLOW TIME FOR LITIGATION TO HAPPEN? OR IS THAT TIMEFRAME TOO LONG FOR US? OR LIKE WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE BEST OPTIONS FOR THIS? YEAH, I MEAN I I THINK BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD TODAY FROM LEGAL IS THAT THE, THE ISSUE OF THE PROPERTY LINE IS NOT PART OF OUR DISCOURSE TODAY. 
          UM, AND THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES ABOUT MASSING AND ABOUT THE PERCEPTION THAT THE GARAGE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE DETACHED. 
          SO, UM, I WOULD SAY ONE COULD MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER THE PROJECT BASED ON WHAT IS BEFORE US AND PERHAPS SOME OTHER THINGS MIGHT SHAKE OUT IN, IN THE ENSUING MONTH. 
          BUT THAT'S, THAT'S IF SOMEONE BROUGHT THAT MOTION. 
          BUT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY POINTS OF DISCUSSION TODAY, NOT JUST ABOUT THE PROPERTY ISSUE, BUT ALSO ABOUT JUST THE GENERAL MASSING AND, AND PERHAPS A DEFERRAL MIGHT ALSO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE AND PERHAPS THEN MORE MIGHT COME OF THE OTHER. 
          UM, I, I JUST, I DON'T THINK WE CAN VOTE TODAY ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE, UH, IN A SINGULAR WAY, BUT I THINK THERE'S AMPLE AREAS TO CONSIDER DEFERRAL JUST BASED ON THE REST OF THE PROJECT BEFORE US. 
          PLEASE, IF YOU HAD ANOTHER QUESTION OR I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION. 
          WELL, LEMME JUST ASK COMMISSIONER, UH, BROWNING IF HE, HE, HE WANTED HIM SAY AND SHARE SOMETHING FOR THIS APPLICATION DISCUSSION. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I MEAN THE COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER BROBACK AND COMMISSIONER BLAKELY ARE, ARE WELL FOUNDED. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S NO WAY TO SAY THAT THEY AREN'T, BUT I APPRECIATE LEGAL'S PERSPECTIVE HERE AND AS A LAWYER, I MEAN, UH, WE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN OUR OWN GUARDRAIL GUARDRAILS, 
          [00:45:01]
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          I MEAN IF THERE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUY A FUTURE DISPUTE THAT FEELS LIKE IT SHOULDN'T BE THE CASE. 
          HOWEVER, IT ISN'T OUR ROLE OR EVEN A JUDGE'S ROLE TO MAKE SURE THERE CAN NEVER BE ANOTHER DISPUTE. 
          AND THAT'S WHY THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES LIKE CIVIL REMEDIES THAT LEGAL ALLUDED TO, TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          SO IF THERE IS A PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE, WHICH ARE ALWAYS NASTY IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM, UM, THEY'LL FIGHT THAT OUT IN THE, IN THE COURTS. 
          UM, WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS INTERESTING TO ME, AND I KNOW STAFF THAT CAN'T HANDLE OR ADDRESS THIS CURRENTLY. 
          UM, 'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A DISPUTE THEN DO WE HAVE A FAR CUT LOCK COVERAGE ISSUE? IF IT FALLS OUTSIDE OF THOSE ISSUES, THEN SOME OF THOSE MASSING COMMENTS, AND I KNOW MASSING IS ALSO A SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT THAT MIGHT RAISE A DIFFERENT ISSUE. 
          SO SOMEONE RECOMMENDED DEFERRAL. 
          THAT WASN'T WHERE I WAS COMING WHEN I FIRST READ THE MATERIALS. 
          THAT STAFF DID SUCH A GREAT JOB PREPARING, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE BOTH OF THE ISSUES RAISED MIGHT WARRANT A DEFERRAL MOTION AND I THINK YOU WERE ABOUT TO MAKE IT AND I WOULD SECOND THAT. 
          NEVER HEARD A MOTION SECONDED BEFORE IT WAS MADE BEFORE , BUT IT MAY, IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED. 
          UH, BUT ONCE OR TWICE ONLY  WELL, I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER, UM, AND, AND SPECIFICALLY TO ASK THAT THE, WE'D LIKE TO SEE A SCHEME THAT SHOWS US VISUALLY A SEPARATE ATTACHED GARAGE. 
          UH, AND THAT ADDRESSES THE HEIGHT ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A SECOND FOR BROWNING. 
          IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. RICHARD SEL ANY, I MEAN I, MY ONLY, MY ONLY COMMENT IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS, YEAH, I THINK IT WAS THREE MONTHS AGO AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER PROJECT EITHER IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THAT CLOSE TO WHERE WE APPROVED A GARAGE THAT WAS DETACHED BUT CONNECTED WITH A BREEZEWAY. 
          AND I'M JUST, I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH CONSISTENCY HERE. 
          LIKE I, I I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE, THE WHAT, WHAT DO WE ACCOMPLISH BY DEFERRAL HERE? I, I'M, I I THE, THE LOT, THE, THE BOUNDARY SURVEY CLEARLY IS NOT IN OUR PURVIEW. 
          THAT HAS GOTTA BE SORTED OUT ELSEWHERE. 
          WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT HERE TO DECIDE THAT. 
          UM, SO I'M JUST KIND OF PUTTING THAT OFF TO THE SIDE IN TERMS OF THE DETACHED GARAGE THAT IS VISUALLY CONNECTED. 
          , I'M JUST, I'M, I WANT US TO GET SOME CONSISTENCY. 
          THAT'S ALL I'M, I'M AFTER. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAKE. 
          YOU HAD ALSO A COMMENT. 
          I WOULD JUST SAY FROM AION RESERVATION STANDPOINT, OFTEN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS FELT TO RESIDE IN THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING. 
          SO THE APPEARANCE OF AN ATTACHED OR DETACHED GARAGE MATTERS. 
          UM, SO THE, THE BREEZEWAY, I'M NOT SURE WHICH, UH, PRIOR PROJECT YOUR APPLICATION YOU'RE REFERRING TO, BUT UM, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO HAVE A BREEZEWAY AND SOME OF THEM WILL GIVE THE VISUAL IMPRESSION THAT MATCHES WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THAT GIVES THE IMPRESSION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND OTHERS LIKE THIS ONE, TECHNICALLY THE AIR FLOWS BETWEEN THEM, BUT VISUALLY WE CAN'T SEE IT. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S WHY SOME FEEL THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA, THE CRITERIA OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER BROBECK THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL ABOUT, ABOUT THIS MOTION AS WELL, MR. CHAIR. 
          WE'RE IN DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW, CORRECT? WE'RE IN DISCUSSION, COLONEL? YEAH. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER DEL, I UNDERSTAND PRECEDENT'S IMPORTANT. 
          UM, DO YOU REMEMBER IF THE OTHER PROJECT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WAS IN THE SAME DISTRICT? 'CAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. 
          I DO NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          IF IF IT WAS, I'D BE KINDA LIKE YOU HAVE A POINT, BUT UNLESS WE KNOW FOR SURE YOU MAY NOT, BECAUSE I'M SURE YOU UNDERSTAND NEIGHBORHOODS VARY DRAMATICALLY AS, AS FAR AS WHAT'S COMPATIBLE IN ONE PLACE VERSUS THE NEXT. 
          MY QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION IS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO ITEM NUMBER, UH, ITEMS HERE. 
          ITEM ONE AND ITEM TWO. 
          UM, MUCH OF THIS DISCUSSION FOR THE MASSING IS AFFECTING ITEM TWO, BUT IT'S STILL CONNECTED TO ITEM ONE. 
          SO, UM, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND I NEED TO CALL THE VOTE FOR THAT. 
          'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT HAS BEEN MADE AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT MOTION TO DEFER HAS BEEN MADE FOR 
          [00:50:01]
BOTH ITEMS ONE AND TWO. 
          AND THAT, CAN THAT OCCUR IN ONE VOTE OR DOES THAT REQUIRE TWO VOTES? IF, IF, IF, IF THIS WERE TO BE SUCCESSFUL? I THINK IT WOULD BE CLEANER IF WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE VOTES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, I WOULD JUST ASK, UH, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, IF WE COULD RESTATE YOUR MOTION FOR IN THIS CASE. 
          UH, FIRST ITEM ONE, IT'S TRICKY BECAUSE THE POINT HAS TO DO WITH THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. 
          UH, BUT ANYWAY, THE MOTION IS TO DEFER THE APPLICATION AND TO ASK THE CLIENT TO, OR THE APPLICANT TO, UH, TO PURSUE A SCHEME IN WHICH THERE IS MORE OF A VISUAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE HOUSE. 
          I BELIEVE A, AN ISSUE WAS RAISED ABOUT, ANOTHER ISSUE WAS RAISED ABOUT THE MASSING OR THERE WAS A ISSUE OF THE HEIGHT. 
          MR. DAVIS MADE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE, THE, THE SIDE PORCH AND THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF ABOVE THAT PORCH AND WAS VERY, UM, IT WAS MORE AGGRESSIVE IN, ITS, IN ITS, UM, VISUAL IMPACT IS WAS HER POINT. 
          UM, SO THAT, SO BUT COULD YOU STATE, THIS IS FOR ITEM ONE. 
          FOR ITEM ONE AND COMMISSIONER BROWNING, DO YOU SECOND? I DO, UH, THE MOTION TO DEFER FOR ITEM ONE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION TO DEFER. 
          AYE AYE AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ALL OPPOSED? AYE ELL OPPOSES. 
          IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM TWO? I'LL MAKE A MOTION MR. BROBECK MOTION TO DEFER. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? COSGROVE SECONDS. 
          ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION TO DEFER? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ALL OPPOSED? AYE. 
          MR. SEIDEL OPPOSES. 
          AND WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM THREE. 
          I'D LIKE TO ASK TO COMBINE A. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO, UM, THE AGENT FOR ITEM A FIVE, UM, IS HERE AND SHE WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF SHE CAN PULL IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, MY, MY QUESTION FOR LEGAL IS DO I NEED TO RESEND THOSE THE APPROVAL? YOU, YOU WILL HAVE TO RESCIND YOUR APPROVAL AND ASK FOR ANOTHER VOTE TO PULL IF THAT'S THE, THE WILL OF THIS GROUP. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, IS THERE A COMMISSION TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESCIND THE, THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR ITEM FIVE? SO MOVED. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. 
          SO WILL YOU PROCEED WITH ITEMS THREE AND FOUR TOGETHER? YES. 
          AND, AND THEN WE WILL NOW WE WILL NOW ADD THE ITEM FIVE TO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION AND BE DISCUSSED. 
          SO. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          PLEASE PROCEED. 
          CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ITEMS A THREE AND A FOUR. 
          THE ITEM IS 4 6 11 WEST 12TH STREET. 
          THIS SITE IS A 4,400 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT. 
          THIS LOT WAS ORIGINALLY CLASSIFIED AS CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY, BUT A PREVIOUS OWNER APPLIED FOR DEMOLITION, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE HOUSTON PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD IN NOVEMBER OF 2012. 
          IT IS, UM, NOW A NON-CONTRIBUTING VACANT LOT WITHIN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY SINGLE, UH, FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED TWO STORY GARAGE CONNECTED TO THE MAIN HOUSE BY AN UNCONDITIONED STAIRCASE. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. 
          THE TWO STORY RESIDENCE WILL FEATURE PAINTED SIDING, A BRICK WATER TABLE, STEEL WINDOWS, AND A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF. 
          590 UH, SQUARE FOOT SCREEN PORCH AREAS ARE INCLUDED ON THE FIRST FLOOR. 
          THE MAIN HOUSE WILL BE 1000, UM, 118 SQUARE FOOT ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 859 SQUARE FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR. 
          IT WILL HAVE A RIDGE HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY 27 FEET, SIX INCHES AND A MAX EVE HEIGHT OF 20 FEET. 
          A DETACHED TWO STORY GARAGE IS PROPOSED AT THE REAR OF THE LOT. 
          THE GARAGE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, UM, WITH SAME, UH, STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF. 
          IT INCLUDES 439 SQUARE FEET ON THE FIRST LEVEL 
          [00:55:01]
AND 439 SQUARE FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR GARAGE APARTMENT. 
          BOTH EXCLUDED UNDER THE 5 28 EXEMPTION FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. 
          THE GARAGE ROOF WILL REACH A MAXIMUM RANGE OF 26 FEET. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND HAS NOT RECEIVED, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE. 
          I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, THIS TIME I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I DO HAVE TWO SPEAKERS HAVE SIGNED UP. 
          THE FIRST IS DYLAN, KYLE. 
          OKAY. 
          THE OTHER SPEAKER IS GARRETT. 
          IS IT ALLEN OR IS IT CALLAN? THEY SAID THEY'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          IF THERE ARE ANY, BUT THEY DON'T WISH TO SPEAK. 
          OKAY, UNDERSTOOD. 
          UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, I'LL JUST ASK IF THERE ANY, ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE ELECTED TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON THESE ITEMS? PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF AT THIS TIME. 
          IF NOT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, COMMISSION MEMBERS. 
          ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF ABOUT THIS APPLICATION? COMMISSIONER COSGROVE? UM, I PULLED THIS ITEM BECAUSE I, I MEAN, I LIKE THE DESIGN. 
          IT'S DEFINITELY A PRODUCT OF ITS OWN TIME. 
          I MEAN, I, I, THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS I LIKE ABOUT IT, BUT STILL IS NON-CONTRIBUTING. 
          IT NEEDS TO MAYBE BORROW A LITTLE FROM THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND THAT WINDOW IN THE FRONT IS A LITTLE OUT OF PLACE OR CHARACTER WITH THE WINDOW PATTERNS WE SEE IN THE HEIGHTS. 
          SO THAT WAS REALLY THE ISSUE. 
          AND I WOULD ALSO, JUST AS AN ASIDE POINT OUT THAT THIS GARAGE IS ALSO ATTACHED VIA THE ROOF LINE, ALTHOUGH VISUALLY IT IS VERY DIFFERENT IN MASSING FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, IN THIS CASE THERE IS A, YOU CAN READ THE GARAGE IS DETACHED AND IT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR AS IF IT IS THE SAME MASS AS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, BUT MY REAL ISSUE WAS, WAS MAYBE A LITTLE DISCUSSION ON THE, ON THE, THE WINDOW. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. 
          ONE, UM, IS THERE A SITE PHOTO IN THE APPLICATION? UH, ON PAGE SIX OF 17? IN WHICH ONE IS THIS A FOUR? I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. 
          THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SEEM TO SHOW DIFFERENT. 
          DO THEY SHOW THE SAME BUILDING, DIFFERENT BUILDINGS? DO THEY SHOW THE SITE? I I CAN, CAN YOU POINT? SURE. 
          SO, UM, ON PAGE SEVEN, THIS IS LIKE GOOGLE STREET VIEWS AND UH, THE SITE IS, UM, TO THE LEFT OF, UM, THE FIRST IMAGE. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE IT HERE ON THE PRESENTATION. 
          UH, THE SECOND IS JUST OPPOSITE THE STREET. 
          UM, IT'S THE FENCED PROPERTY. 
          PAGE SEVEN IN A FOUR, UH, A THREE. 
          I'M, I'M TALKING ABOUT A THREE. 
          I CAN GO TO A FOUR AND FIND THE IMAGE FOR YOU. 
          NO. 
          SO AGAIN, UM, ON PAGE SIX, IT'S THAT FENCED PROPERTY NEXT TO, UM, THE HOUSE ON THAT. 
          IS THE FIRST PHOTO NOT SHOWING HERE I'M GUESSING? OR CAN YOU GO BUT THIS IS, THIS IS IT. 
          THIS IS FROM THE OTHER SIDE. 
          UM, SAMANTHA, CAN YOU GO TO THE, ARE THERE MORE PHOTOS? DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UH, NO. 
          CAN I THINK IT'S THE PAGE BEFORE THIS ONE? I'M SORRY, PAGE WHAT? PAGE SIX IN MY A FOUR. 
          I JUST, IT SAYS CONTEXT AREA, BUT I MAYBE WE JUST WEREN'T PROVIDED WITH THE SITE PHOTO. 
          IS THAT, SO, SO IF YOU, UM, AGAIN, THIS HOUSE TO THE, THAT IS WHITE ON THE RIGHT, THE PROPERTY IS THE FENCED YARD NEXT TO IT WITH THE PLACE UP. 
          OKAY. 
          HERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN, AND I'M SORRY IF YOU NEEDED MORE CLEAR SITE PHOTOS, UM, I'LL MAKE SURE I DO THAT NEXT TIME. 
          BUT THIS IS, IT'S A, IT'S 
          [01:00:01]
A FENCE. 
          IT'S THE FENCED PROPERTY THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN THIS IS A GREAT PHOTO, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE PACKET, SO I WAS JUST CONFUSED. 
          UM, AND MY OTHER QUESTION IS IN A THREE, IS THERE AN ANALYSIS OF THE RIDGE HEIGHT RELATIVE TO THE HEIGHT OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS? I HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IT'S TALL, BUT I DON'T SEE THE SECTION DIAGRAM FOR THE HOUSE IN A THREE. 
          THE WAY I SEE FOR THE GARAGE IN A FOUR, THERE IS NOT, UH, BUT THERE'S, UM, THE 3D VIEW SHOWS AN APPROXIMATE WITH THE PROPERTY THAT IS NEXT TO IT MM-HMM . 
          AND TO ME IT LOOKS VERY HIGH. 
          SO CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT THE RIDGE HEIGHT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE, THE GUIDELINES ABOUT RIDGE HEIGHTS IN THIS AREA? SO, UM, THE RIDGE HEIGHT THEY HAVE IS, UM, 27 FEET AND SIX INCHES. 
          UM, THE MAX THAT THE GUIDELINES WOULD RECOMMEND IS 30 FEET. 
          UH, THIS PROPERTY IS AT THE EDGE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, WITH A LOT OF NON-CONTRIBUTING, UM, STRUCTURES AROUND IT. 
          SO WE DO CONSIDER IT AN ATYPICAL LOT. 
          AND, UM, THAT'S WHERE WHAT, UH, STAFF RECOMMEND BASED THE RECOMMENDATION ON TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          COMMISSIONER BROBECK, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES. 
          SO THE, THE PUBLICLY POSTED PACKET FOR THIS APPLICATION HAS 29 PAGES IN IT. 
          AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN TONIGHT HAS 22. 
          CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE? I'M SORRY, WHICH ITEM? UH, A, I'M SORRY, A THREE. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING WHAT YOU HAVE IS LESS OR MORE WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR TABLETS LOOKS TO BE 22 PAGES OR I'M, I'M SORRY. 
          I WOULD, MY APOLOGY, I WAS PAYING ATTENTION TO THE 22. 
          THE, THERE'S A COUNT IN THE LOWER RIGHT ON WHAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLETS. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL PAGES PASTED TO THE END THAT ARE NOT NUMBERED. 
          YES, THESE ARE, UH, PART OF THE APPLICANT'S DOCUMENTS AND I GUESS, UM, THEY WERE NOT NUMBERED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          THAT SETTLES IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          AND AS A JUST A QUESTION OR POINT OF DISCUSSION, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE APPLICATIONS THAT WE ARE SEEING ON THIS SCREEN MAY BE CONDENSED DOWN FROM WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED OFFICIALLY. 
          IS THAT, THAT THAT IN ORDER TO, TO STREAMLINE THE, THE DRAWINGS AND MAKE THEM VISIBLE AND, AND ALL THAT, THAT IN, IN SOME CASES WHAT WE SEE MAY BE SLIGHTLY LESS THAN WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PUBLICLY POSTED AND HAS BEEN, UH, THE WEEK, THE WEEK BEFORE. 
          SO, UM, UM, GENERALLY WE WON'T SEE NEW INFORMATION HERE, BUT WE, BUT WE MIGHT SEE LESS INFORMATION THAN WHAT IS STILL OUT THERE. 
          THE POWER POUND, THE POWERPOINT IS MORE CONDENSED AND HAS MORE KIND OF JUST WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED. 
          UM, BUT THEN THE IPADS HAVE THE EXACT, UH, DRAFTS MINUS THE DRAFT WATERMARK. 
          OKAY. 
          'CAUSE I CAN NOTICE LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS THAT ARE MUCH EASIER TO READ FROM HERE, LIKE THAT THEY'RE, UH, SO IT'S, IT'S, UM, THE SCALE IS, IS MUCH EASIER TO DISCERN INFORMATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, THIS ITEM? THE ONLY DISCUSSION HAS BEEN ABOUT THE FRONT WINDOW BEING ATYPICAL OF THE GENERIC, YOU KNOW, ABSTRACT PATTERN OF THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPORTIONS OF THE HOUSE. 
          IT'S VERY NARROW AND TALL. 
          IT DOESN'T MATCH THE PROPORTIONS OF THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES IN THE CONTEXT AREA ANALYSIS, WHICH ARE MORE WIDE AND LOW. 
          UM, AND MOSTLY SINGLE STORY, OR AT LEAST THEY DON'T GIVE THAT SAME IMPRESSION OF JUST KIND OF EXTRUSION STRAIGHT UP IN A RECTANGULAR BLOCK WITH A TALL PITCHED ROOF. 
          I HEAR THE, UM, STAFF'S EXPLANATION THAT'S ON THE EDGE AND MAY NOT NEED TO, UH, HARMONIZE SO MUCH WITH THE CONTEXT AREA, BUT I REMAIN CONCERNED BY THE COMPARISON, NOT BY THE CONTEMPORARY DETAILS SO MUCH AS THE PROPORTIONS. 
          SURE. 
          AND I COMMISSIONER SEIDEL YOU QUESTION, UM, OR COMMENT? YEAH, JUST TO COMMENT ON THAT. 
          I MEAN, ACROSS THE STREET WE'VE GOT VERY 
          [01:05:01]
SIMILAR SCALING IF YOU WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. 
          I MEAN THAT'S SIX 14. 
          UM, BUT I, I DO HAVE A, I I THE LARGE WINDOW IN THE FRONT TO, TO ME O IS AN ISSUE ONLY BECAUSE OF WHAT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE, THE NEW, NEW CONSTRUCTION HIGHLIGHTS OF THESE STRUCTURES BEING SORT OF, OF THEIR OWN. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT PART OF THE ORDINANCE TO BUILD NEW CONSTRUCTION HOUSES THAT ARE IDENTICAL OR MIMIC, UM, EXISTING STRUCTURES. 
          SO I, UM, I'M IN AGREEANCE, I APPRECIATE THE OVERALL, BUT THERE IS A PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT DOES ADDRESS ORIENTATION OF WINDOWS AND DOORS. 
          AND SO THAT'S THE PART THAT I'M KIND OF HUNG UP ON BECAUSE THE GENERAL DESIGN, I MEAN, I'M, I'M ALL FOR IT'S GREAT. 
          I GOOD, GOOD LUCK ON THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF THAT BIG OF A STEEL WINDOW IN HOUSTON. 
          THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM. 
          UM, BUT I JUST, I THAT, THAT I'M, I'M STRUGGLING WITH ONLY BECAUSE Y'ALL KNOW ME BY NOW. 
          IT SAYS IT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THE ORIENTATION OF THE WINDOWS AND DOORS SHOULD BE SIMILAR AND I DON'T SEE A LOT OF THAT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          AND I, I THINK THE PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS THAT I THINK WE WELCOME AND THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION WELCOME WORKS OF OUR TIME SO THAT ONE COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S NEW AND OF OUR TIME THAT'S, BUT STILL THE ISSUE IS SCALE SO THAT IT'S NOT USUALLY SCALE IS KEEPING IT, YOU KNOW, NO LARGER THAN SIMILAR HOMES OR HOMES WITHIN THE PEER SIGNIFICANCE. 
          SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE, UM, NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AROUND IT AS MUCH. 
          THE, THE ISSUE I THINK IS THE WINDOW, WHICH THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IS STILL REQUIRES HAVING BASICALLY PUNCH WINDOWS OF SOME TYPE OF ABSTRACTION. 
          AND SO IF, IF THIS WERE TWO WINDOWS WITH A STACKED ABOVE EACH OTHER WITH A SMALL WOOD PANEL BETWEEN THE TWO, FOR INSTANCE, ONE MIGHT SAY THOSE ARE TWO PUNCHED OPENINGS. 
          BUT, UH, TO ME THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE PART FOR THE COMMISSION TO, TO DISCERN, UM, THE, THE, THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE. 
          MAY WE ASK THE QUESTION OF THE DESIGN TEAM? OKAY. 
          I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, PLEASE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO ALSO I'LL CALL ON MR. DYLAN KYLE AND IF YOU COULD RE RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD. 
          UH, DYLAN KYLE. 
          AND THIS IS GARRETT CALLEN. 
          UH, WHAT'S THE QUESTION? SORRY. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, SO THE, THE QUESTION IS, IS IS THERE AN OPTION FOR CREATING A DIFFERENT READING OF WINDOWS ON THE FRONT OF THIS HOUSE? I MEAN, IS THAT ABSOLUTELY. 
          UM, I THINK THE QUESTION FOR ME IS, UM, UH, NOT SO MUCH THE, I I MEAN I'M THINKING WHEN, WHEN YOU MENTION PUTTING A SPANDREL PANEL BETWEEN THE WINDOWS, IT'S STILL A CURTAIN WALL BETWEEN THEM. 
          IF YOU DO THAT, IT'S ACTUALLY MORE OF A CURTAIN WALL TO ME. 
          SOME, IN SOME WAYS I STILL THINK THIS IS A PUNCHED WINDOW. 
          IT'S A, THE, AND I IS EVERYONE CLEAR THAT THAT'S A SCREEN PORCH? THAT THOSE ARE NOT WINDOWS ON THE SIDE? OKAY. 
          SO THERE ARE SMALLER WINDOWS BEHIND THEM, LIKE, LIKE WOULD TYPICALLY BE, BUT I JUST WORRY THAT, UH, IT, IT, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD MATCH WHAT'S THERE IN THE HEIGHTS. 
          I THINK IT'S CLEARLY TANK TAKING THE VERNACULAR LANGUAGE AND PLAYING WITH IT. 
          UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I THINK ARCHITECTS SHOULD DO. 
          UM, IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A LANGUAGE FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE AND UH, I WORRY THAT IF I PUT PUNCHED WINDOWS ON THAT BECAUSE OF THE PROPORTIONS OF THE HOUSE, THE NARROWNESS IT, UM, IT STARTS LOOKING, UH, I DUNNO WHAT THE WORD IS EXACTLY. 
          I I DIDN'T LIKE IT. 
          I I JUST COULDN'T FIND ONE I LIKED. 
          THERE IS A, UH, WE HAD SOME ON THE CORNERS. 
          DO WE HAVE THAT PICTURE? YEAH, YOU CAN KINDA SEE IT BLACK AND WHITE. 
          OH, THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ENLARGE THE MIDDLE UPPER PICTURE. 
          SO WE HAD, WE TRIED THAT FOR A WHILE AND THAT DID HAVE A, NOT SO MUCH A SPANDREL PANEL, BUT A, A HORIZONTAL MOLD THAT BROKE THE TWO WINDOWS. 
          I THINK, UM, I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO DO THAT AGAIN, LIKE THE, THE HORIZONTAL MOLE. 
          I WORRY ABOUT THE SPANDREL. 
          'CAUSE THE SPANDREL SUGGESTS TO ME A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAN VERNACULAR. 
          SO I DON'T, I'M NOT REALLY WANTING TO DO THAT. 
          BUT, UM, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? LIKE 
          [01:10:01]
IF YOU GO BACK TO THE, THE CURRENT DESIGN? UH, YEAH, I THINK THAT I SAY AT THE HEIGHT OF THE, UM, TOP OF THE SCREEN PORCH, THERE COULD BE A, UH, A WOOD MOLE BETWEEN TWO STEEL WINDOWS. 
          SO IT WOULD BE A STACKED LIKE TWO, TWO WINDOWS THAT ARE STACKED ABOVE EACH OTHER. 
          YEAH, I I, I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          I DON'T, I DIDN'T REALLY WANNA PUT A SPANDREL PANEL, BUT I THINK THE, THE TWO STACKED WINDOWS SEEMS FINE. 
          I MEAN A A A WINDOW AND A A TRANSOMS KIND OF THE SAME THING. 
          SO THAT SEEMS VERY NORMAL TO ME. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I I JUST WANNA SAY I, I DON'T, UM, I'M NOT REALLY LIKE, LIKE QUESTIONING THE DESIGN. 
          OH NO, IT'S BEAUTIFUL. 
          NO, I GOT THAT. 
          YEAH, I THINK WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO TIE IT BACK TO BECAUSE IT'S OUR JOB IS NO, IT'S, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE ORDINANCE. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          NO, I GET, I GET I TOTALLY GOT THAT. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          I JUST , I LOVE HOUSES. 
          I MIGHT DISAGREE WITH THE ORDINANCE MAYBE. 
          UM, SO , YEAH, IT'S, IT UNDERSTOOD. 
          IT JUST SAYS, YOU KNOW, NEW BUILDINGS CAN RELATE TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS BY BEING SIMILAR TO THE ARRANGEMENT OF WINDOWS AND DOORS ON THE FRONT OF CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS. 
          SO LEMME GO TO THE PRECEDENT PICTURES THAT WE PUT IN. 
          SO THE PURPLE HOUSE IS NOT CONTRIBUTING. 
          UM, I DON'T, I THINK IT IS CONTRIBUTING. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S, IT APPEARS TO BE, I MEAN I FIND THAT PRETTY SIMILAR. 
          I MEAN, IT HAD, HAD, ALL WE HAVE DONE IS TAKE THE, UH, PART BELOW THE WINDOW OUT. 
          SO I THINK IT'S, UM, TO ME, I'M, I'M, I'M A LITTLE WORRIED THAT IF THE ORDINANCE IS THAT SPECIFIC, THAT YOU CAN'T TAKE A PANEL OUT BELOW A WINDOW, THAT IT'S, UM, IT'S MAYBE, UH, GONNA END UP TYING THE HANDS OF PEOPLE TRYING TO DESIGN BUILDINGS OF THEIR TIME IN A WAY THAT MAKES THEM NOT FEEL GOOD. 
          THAT, THAT'S MY CONCERN. 
          BUT, UM, IT'S NOT THAT I'M AGAINST ORDINANCES THOUGH. 
          I MEAN I, I, I LIKE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          I JUST, I THINK IT SHOULD SEEM ENOUGH DIFFERENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FOR STAFF? OR IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION COMMISSIONER DAVIS MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL? OKAY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? GARCIA SECOND. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE. 
          ALL OPPOSED? JONES? OPPOSED? OKAY. 
          COSGROVE OPPOSED? BROUGHT BACK? OPPOSED. 
          OKAY. 
          THREE OPPOSES THE REST. 
          THE REST ARE, I THINK I HAVE TO OPPOSE. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IDEL OPPOSES. 
          SO WHERE DOES THAT PUT OUR COUNT? OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          AND UM, UM, WE NEED TO ALSO VOTE ON THE ITEM FOUR THOUGH, UH, WHICH IS THE GARAGE, WHICH I DON'T THINK HAD ANY ISSUES. 
          UM, IS THERE A VOTE? IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM FOUR? COSGROVE MOVES TO APPROVE ITEM FOUR JONES SECONDS. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. 
          AND NOW WE WILL, UM, NOW OPEN UP ITEM 5 30 23 DEL MONTE DRIVE. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          ITEM A FIVE. 
          THE ITEM IS 4 30 23 DEL MONTE DRIVE, WHICH IS A PROTECTED LANDMARK. 
          UM, IT'S A CIRCA 1938 CONTRIBUTING GREEK REVIVAL RESIDENCE LOCATED IN RIVER OAKS. 
          THE HOME IS A TWO AND A HALF STORY, 6,568 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE SITUATED ON A 26,775 SQUARE FOOT LOT. 
          THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR ALTERATIONS, ALONG WITH A TWO-STORY REAR ADDITION DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT AND PRESERVE THE ARCHITECTURAL HIERARCHY OF THE HOME STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. 
          THE REAR EDITION RETAINS THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC CORNER OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT WITH ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION INSET TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING FORM AND HIERARCHY. 
          THE ADDITION IS BASED ON DOCUMENTED BIRDSALL BRISCOE DRAWING THAT REFLECT HIS ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURAL INTENT, PRESERVING THE SYMMETRICAL COMPOSITION AND OVERALL HISTORIC CHARACTER WHILE ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE. 
          THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO REPLACE ALL EXISTING WINDOWS WITH CUSTOM MADE, DOUBLE HUNG, 
          [01:15:01]
UH, COUNTERWEIGHT, INSULATED WOOD WINDOWS DESIGNED TO REPLICATE THE HISTORIC PROFILES AND APPEARANCE. 
          ALL NEW WINDOWS WILL REMAIN INSET AND RECESSED. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. 
          ONLY THE REAR, UH, WINDOWS MAY BE REPLACED. 
          ALL ORIGINAL WINDOWS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON THE FRONT INSIDE ELEVATIONS MUST BE RETAINED. 
          STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE, AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER WHO HAS SIGNED UP FOR THIS ITEM, UH, WHICH IS NADIA, UM, PALACIOS LAUDER. 
          NADIA PALACIO. 
          LOUDERBACK. 
          THANK, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US. 
          UH, WE HAVE SOME LETTERS FROM OUR BUILDING, UH, SCIENCE CONSULTANT. 
          WE EMAILED THEM TO STAFF YESTERDAY. 
          UM, BUT SHE RECOMMENDED THAT WE BRING PRINTS TO DISTRIBUTE. 
          SO I DUNNO HOW YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT. 
          UM, THE, THE GIST OF THE LETTER, UM, IS, UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONED A FORENSIC ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, AND WE ARE REQUESTING REPLACEMENT OF THE WINDOWS TALKING CAMERA 'CAUSE OF TWO REASONS. 
          UM, REASON NUMBER ONE IS THAT THE HOUSE SUFFERS FROM EXTREME MOISTURE. 
          AND OUR GOAL IS TO PRESERVE THE HOUSE FOR MANY GENERATIONS TO COME. 
          AND THE MOISTURE IS A REAL PROBLEM FOR THE RESILIENCY OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          UM, ALL OF THE WINDOWS SWEAT EVERY SINGLE DAY, UM, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO SWEAT IF WE DON'T REPLACE THEM WITH, UM, INSULATED GLASS AND, UM, PROPER WEATHER STRIPPING. 
          UM, FORTUNATELY WE HAVE ACCESS TO A MANUFACTURER THAT CAN DO A REPLICA OF THE HISTORIC WINDOWS, UH, DOWN TO THE PROFILE, AND WE CAN MAKE THE SASH DEEPER TO ALLOW FOR THE DEPTH, UM, OF THE PROFILE. 
          SO FROM THE STREET, YOU WILL NOT NOTICE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAS INSULATED GLASS. 
          THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY WE WANT TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS IS BECAUSE OF SAFETY. 
          THE SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS COME ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SILL. 
          UH, THESE WINDOWS DO NOT MEET CODE. 
          IT, THEY JUST CANNOT MEET CODE. 
          THESE WINDOWS ARE IN THE BEDROOMS, UM, OF TWO OF THEIR DAUGHTERS. 
          THEY ARE SMALL CHILDREN. 
          GLASS THAT IS A QUARTER INCH THICK, BREAKS VERY EASILY. 
          UM, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE PUT A PLEXIGLASS INSERT ON THE WINDOWS. 
          WE CONSIDER THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE THAT WOULD CONTINUE, THAT WOULD CAUSE EVEN MORE CONDENSATION. 
          WE'RE GOOD TO GRANT THE SPEAKER ADDITIONAL MINUTES. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          I'M IN FAVOR. 
          PLEASE PROCEED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, SO THE, THE INSERT WOULD ACTUALLY CAUSE IT WOULD EXACERBATE THE CONDENSATION. 
          SO WE LOOKED AT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE TALKED TO OUR BUILDING SCIENCE CONSULTANT. 
          AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IF WE WANT TO SAVE THIS BUILDING, THEN THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS WITH LIKE, FOR LIKE, AND THE SAFETY CONCERN IS A REALLY BIG DEAL BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IT WILL NOT PA UH, PASS, UH, CODE INSPECTION. 
          AND THE SOLUTION PROVIDED BY, UM, THIS BODY, UM, WOULD ACTUALLY BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH OF THE BUILDING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          I GO SIT DOWN. 
          YOU CAN, YOU, YOU MAY SIT DOWN. 
          YES. 
          AND, UM, AND WHILE I HAVE THE PUBLIC, UH, HEARING OPEN, IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF NOT SEEING ANYONE OUT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF, UH, FROM COMMISSIONERS? UM, UH, HAS ANYONE LOOKED AT THE HOUSE CONDITION OF THE, THE FRONT AND SIDE WINDOWS THAT ALSO LOOKED AT THE CONDITION FOR REPAIRABILITY AND OTHER ASPECTS OF THE, OF THE, OF THESE WINDOWS? UM, SO NO. 
          UM, THEY PROVIDED US WITH, UH, PICTURES AND, UM, THE AGENT DID SAY THAT THE WINDOWS ARE NOT IN BEYOND REPAIR CONDITIONS. 
          UM, AND SO THEY PROVIDED US WITH, UM, A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION FOR THE WINDOWS. 
          BUT THEY DID MENTION THAT SAFETY IS THEIR NUMBER ONE REASON AND, UM, WISH TO COME AND GET A CHANCE TO COME AND SPEAK TO YOU. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          COMMISSION MEMBERS. 
          ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR? UM, I'M APOLOGIES. 
          UM, I'M LOOKING THROUGH THE DETAILS HERE. 
          I'M HEARING WHAT WAS SHARED. 
          I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ ALL OF IT, OF COURSE 'CAUSE IT'S HAPPENING REAL 
          [01:20:01]
TIME. 
          BUT, UM, IF THE WINDOWS ARE GOING TO BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE, FOR, LIKE, WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON NOT TO DO THAT IF VISUALLY THEY'LL STILL LOOK THE SAME? OR DID I MISS A DETAIL ON THE FACT THAT THEY WILL VISUALLY BE DIFFERENT IN SOME WAY THAT AFFECTS THE HISTORIC QUALITY? SO THEY, THEY WILL LOOK THE SAME? WE'RE NOT DISPUTING THAT FACT, BUT IN THE CRITERIA, CRITERION NINE TALKS ABOUT, UM, DESTROYING SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL MATERIAL MM-HMM . 
          AND SO IF, IF THE WINDOWS ARE NOT BEYOND REPAIR, UM, WHICH IS THE LANGUAGE THAT IS USED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL THAT ALLOWS REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS, IT, IT IS HISTORICAL MATERIAL. 
          AND SO STAFF FELT THAT, UM, IT DID NOT MEET CRITERION NINE. 
          AND, AND THAT IS WHY WE RECOMMENDED THAT THEY KEEP THEM, BECAUSE THEY DID SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT BEYOND REPAIR AND, BUT THEY CHOOSE. 
          THEY WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE THEM FOR OTHER REASONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION PLEASE HERE. 
          UM, IN THAT REGARD, UM, JUST BECAUSE THIS IS MY, UM, FIRST TERM HERE, I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE PRECEDENT IS FOR RESILIENCY TYPE MATTERS. 
          I KNOW THAT WINDOWS ARE OFTENTIMES THE THING THAT WILL TRIGGER SOMEONE WANTING TO GET RID OF A HISTORIC HOME AND THESE KIND OF ISSUES, MOLD, MOISTURE, SAFETY BEING ONE ADDITIONAL ONE. 
          THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THIS PARTICULAR ONE. 
          WHAT'S THE PRECEDENT WITH APPROVING WINDOWS THAT ALLOWS FOR THE HOME TO BE MAINTAINED SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DESTROY HIS HISTORIC HOME BECAUSE OF A LACK OF WINDOWS? NOT THAT THIS HOME WOULD BE DESTROYED, OBVIOUSLY  THAT'S NOT AT RISK HERE UNDER UNDERSTOOD. 
          UM, THERE IS NOT A PRECEDENT FOR, UM, JUST THROWING AWAY WINDOWS THAT ARE IN GOOD WORKING ORDER. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT. 
          AND IT CAN BE REPAIRED. 
          UM, THERE ARE WAYS TO ADD WEATHER STRIPPING. 
          THERE ARE WAYS TO ADD, UM, INTERNAL LIKE INTERIOR OR STORMING DOSE, WHICH, UM, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN PUSH ON, BUT THEY WON'T, THEY WON'T GIVE, IF YOU PUSH ON THEM, UH, THEY'RE RE THEY'RE REMOVABLE. 
          THEY CAN EITHER BE GLASS OR UH, UH, ACRYLIC. 
          THEY CAN HAVE, YOU CAN FILM THE GLASS TO BE WITH, WITH A, A LOW E COATING GLASS. 
          SO YOU CAN ALSO REFLECT HEAT. 
          AND FROM AN ENERGY STANDPOINT, FOR INSTANCE, UH, SIMILAR HOMES LIKE THE GREEN REVIVAL HOME IN GALVESTON, IT WAS KNOCKED DOWN BY HURRICANE IKE, UM, IN FACT BECAME THE FIRST LEE PLATINUM HOME IN AMERICA. 
          AND IT WAS AN OLD VICTORIAN, AND IT, THEY, THEY KEPT THE WINDOW. 
          SO IT'S YOU, YOU CAN, BY ADDING STORM WINDOWS AND ADDING WEATHER STRIPPING AND A FILM, YOU CAN MAKE IT VERY ENERGY EFFICIENT. 
          UM, GENERALLY, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE MOISTURE CONDENSING BE BETWEEN THE TWO, TWO FILMS. SOMETIMES CONSULTANTS WILL PUT A PORT IN THE OUTER WINDOW. 
          UM, THE WAY THIS COMMISSION HAS LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH THE CONDITION, OR CAN THEY BE REPAIRED IF WE, IF YOU ALL DETERMINE THAT THEY'RE REALLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S A REALLY BEYOND THE PALE TO, TO, YOU KNOW, IF A VERY DIFFICULT REPAIR, SOMETIMES YOU, THERE CAN, THE, THE PRESIDENT IS STILL LEAN TOWARD ALLOWING REPLACEMENT. 
          UM, IN THIS CASE, WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE, THE SINGLE PANE GLASS AND WANTING TO USE DOUBLE INSULATED GLASS. 
          AND THERE ARE WAYS OF MAKING A SASH THAT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE USING WOOD AND AND WEIGHTS AND SO ON. 
          BUT EVEN THEN, YOU, I GUESS YOU COULD EVEN CONSIDER REPLACING THE SASH, BUT KEEPING THE FRAME AND THE JAM, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCES HERE. 
          UM, BUT GENERALLY WE'RE TRYING, AGAIN, IT'S ABOUT HISTORIC FABRIC, TRYING NOT TO, UM, THROW THESE THINGS AWAY. 
          UM, THERE ARE MANY CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING AROUND THE WORLD NATIONALLY, AND OF COURSE IT'S, IT'S ONE OF THE ONGOING QUESTIONS AND CONVERSATIONS THAT THIS BODY WILL HAVE IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND, AND FOR ALL, ALL TIME. 
          I THINK SO. 
          UM, SO WE, WE HAVEN'T, BUT, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE HAPPENING. 
          SO I DO HAVE COMMISSIONER DAVIS, UH, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER ELL WHO WANTED TO ADD A COMMENT OR, AND YOU CAN, YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR, MY QUESTION'S NOT ABOUT THE WINDOW. 
          SO WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, YEAH. 
          UM, I MEAN, YOU CAN ASK ABOUT PRECEDENT. 
          YOU KNOW, 10, 12 YEARS AGO, WE, WE WERE, WE WERE GETTING APPROVAL TO REPLACE ALL SASHES ON HISTORIC HOMES. 
          WE, IT WAS JUST A KIND OF A STANDARD DEAL, REGARDLESS OF THE CONDITION OF REPAIR. 
          UM, AND I, I, THIS IS A, THIS IS A, A, UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A, A A DIFFICULT SPOT BECAUSE IF, IF, IF THE HOME IS EXPERIENCING WHAT IS, WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE, IN THE FORENSIC REPORT, EVENTUALLY THOSE WINDOWS ARE GOING TO BE DAMAGED TO A POINT WHERE 
          [01:25:01]
THEY NEED REPLACING. 
          NOT TO MENTION THE, UM, ALL OF THE OTHER, UH, COLLATERAL DAMAGE THAT COMES WITH, UM, BAD WINDOWS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, IF WE'RE DOING A BRAND NEW ADDITION, WE'RE, WE'RE CONDITIONING BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION SPACE THAT'S GOTTA BE ACCOUNTED FOR. 
          AND THEN TRYING TO HAVE A CONTINUOUS, UH, CONDITION SPACE WITH A VERY, VERY BAD, UM, OLD WINDOWS TO ME IS ONLY SAYING EVENTUALLY SOMETHING EVEN WORSE IS GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE THE RE REMOVAL OF PROBABLY EVEN MORE HISTORIC MATERIAL WITH MOLD OR ANY OTHER UNNECESSARY DETERIORATION. 
          WHEN, IF WE WENT BACK TO, I ALWAYS GO BACK TO THAT SASH REPLACEMENT 'CAUSE IT'S WHAT WE USED TO ALWAYS DO, AND IT REALLY HELPED US FROM A BUILDING STANDPOINT, LIKE IN KIND FROM THE STREET, UM, HISTORIC, UM, LOOK AND FEEL WAS PRESERVED. 
          AND THEN ON THE INSIDE OF THE HOME, WE WERE ABLE TO, UH, CONDITION IT PROPERLY AND, AND SAVE IT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. 
          TO THE APPLICANT'S POINT. 
          IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS TO PUT THESE THINGS TOGETHER AND MAKE 'EM LAST A LONG TIME, THAT REPLACING THE WINDOWS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE GOING TO GO TO THE POINT OF PUTTING IN EXACTLY THE SAME THING. 
          IT'S NOT EXACT, OBVIOUSLY, 'CAUSE IT'S SWITCHING THEM OUT, BUT THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING TO PUT, YOU KNOW, UM, ALUMINUM WINDOWS WITH, WITH NO DIVIDED LIGHTS IN THE FRONT. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM THE STREETS GONNA LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY PRESERVING A HISTORIC HOME FOR A LOT LONGER TIME. 
          THAT'S MY COMMENT. 
          COMMISSIONER SEIDEL, YOU'RE COMMENT UP WITH THE SASH REPLACEMENT, OR I THINK SASH BACKS WERE YOU USED, KIND OF INDISPENSABLE AND SOME OF THOSE EARLY YEARS, BUT, UM, BUT IN THAT CASE, THE JAM REMAINED THE, THE, THE SILL THE JAM REMAIN. 
          IT WAS JUST THE OPERABLE SASHES THAT WAS REPLACED. 
          AND, AND FOR, FOR YOUR EXAMPLE, FOR REFERENCE, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          WE HAVE DIFFERENT WINDOW STYLES HERE. 
          I MEAN, WE, WE HAVE DIFFERENT TYPE OF WINDOW IN THIS SCENARIO, BUT MY MY POINT REMAINS THE SAME IS THAT, UH, ENABLING US TO PRESERVE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE BY THOUGHTFULLY AND RESPECTFULLY RELATED TO THE HISTORIC LOOK AND FEEL, PUT MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT AND NEWER PRODUCT IN THERE REALLY HELPS PRESERVE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER DAVIS, YOU'RE A DIFFERENT COMMENT FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, I BELIEVE. 
          YES. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. 
          UM, AND IT DOESN'T RELATE TO THE WINDOWS AT ALL. 
          I DON'T SEE HOW BIG THIS ADDITION IS. 
          IS THERE SOMETHING THAT STATES HOW BIG THE ADDITION IS? AND NOT THAT ANYTHING TURNS ON IT, I JUST COULDN'T FIND IT. 
          OH, THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE? MM-HMM . 
          YES. 
          I, I, I DID NOT PUT THAT ON THE FIRST PAGE. 
          UM, MAY WE ASK THE, UH, ARCHITECT TO COME IN AND SPEAK ON THAT? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME TO ASK A QUESTION. 
          WE'RE LOOKING IT UP, UP. 
          I I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER MEMORIZED. 
          WHILE WE'RE LOOKING THAT UP, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR COMMISSIONER BLAKELY TO ASK YOU A QUESTION OR MAKE YOUR COMMENT? YES. 
          UH, I WANT TO TURN TO THE SAFETY ISSUE, UM, BECAUSE I MEAN, WE ARE, AS A DELIBERATIVE BODY ALLOWED TO, WE ARE ASKED TO CONSIDER THESE APPLICATIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, RIGHT? SO, UM, WHEREAS ORDINARILY WE WOULD LOOK AT WINDOWS AND HAVE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, WAIST HEIGHT OR HIGHER. 
          UM, BUT HERE WE HAVE A CASE IN WHICH THE WAY THE HOUSE IS USED, UM, MEANS THAT THERE'S SORT OF HIGH ACTIVITY IN ROOMS WHERE THE WINDOWS GO ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR. 
          SO, UM, I SEE THAT THE SOLUTION PROPOSED IS, UH, NEW WINDOWS 
          [01:30:01]
WITH TEMPERED GLAZING. 
          UM, BUT I GUESS, UM, AND I, AND I'M INCLINED TO WANT TO MAKE SOME KIND OF ALLOWANCE FOR SAFETY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT I, I THINK COMPASSION WOULD HAVE US DO THAT AND NOT, LIKE WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN THE HOUSE AND, AND TO, WE WANNA HONOR THE INTENTION OF THE OWNERS TO, UM, TO CARE FOR THE HOUSE AS THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO. 
          AND SO NOT MAKE IT PAINFUL, UH, FOR THEM TO KEEP LIVING THERE. 
          UM, I, I GUESS I WANNA GO TO THE, UM, SORT OF PLEXIGLASS OR GLASS INSERT OPTION BECAUSE, UM, IT SEEMS TO ME, FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S AN OP, THAT'S A PATH THAT WE RECOMMEND TO, UH, OWNERS OF HOMES IN LET'S SAY GLENBROOK VALLEY, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ALL ALUMINUM WINDOWS, WHERE SOME THE SAME ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS ARISE. 
          AND I'VE NEVER HEARD, I'VE, I'VE ONLY HEARD OF THE INNUENDO TYPE, UH, SOLUTION SPOKEN OF IN THE HIGHEST TERMS. SO IF IT, IT IS TRUE THAT THOSE, UM, ACRYLIC INSERTS DO ACTUALLY CAUSE CONDENSATION. 
          UM, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING THAT. 
          AND IT ALSO SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE A GOOD SOLUTION FROM THE SAFETY POINT OF VIEW. 
          SO IT WOULD BE CONS, BOTH CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE ASKED OWNERS TO DO IN THE PAST, UH, TO PROPOSE THIS AS A WAY OF KEEPING THE HISTORIC MATERIAL. 
          AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ADDRESS POTENTIALLY THE SAFETY CONCERNS BY ADDING THIS BARRIER THAT KEEPS PEOPLE FROM CRASHING INTO THE WINDOW. 
          UM, BUT MAYBE SOMEONE WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THOSE INSERTS THAN I DO COULD SPEAK TO THE SORT OF POTENTIAL INHERENT DANGERS, UM, BECAUSE THAT ISN'T LIKE JUST KEEPING THE BAD WINDOWS. 
          THAT IS LIKE KIND OF PARTNERING THEM TO HELP THE HOUSE TO PERFORM BETTER. 
          I, I CAN JUST SAY, AND I, I CAN DIRECT YOU TO BILLINGS ON THE RICE CAMPUS WHERE YOU WORK, UM, UH, LIKE AT MAX HILL HALL, WHICH ALL THE, ALL THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS ARE INTACT, AND THEY ALL HAVE AN INTERIOR STORM WINDOW, WHICH IS ACTUALLY GLASS AS OPPOSED TO ACRYLIC, WHICH, 'CAUSE YOU CAN, YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF GLASS OR ACRYLIC, UM, THEY ARE AIRTIGHT, SO THEY, THEY, THEY WORK FROM A, AN ENERGY STANDPOINT THAT IN THAT PROJECT WAS A LEAD GOLD PROJECT, FOR INSTANCE. 
          BUT, UM, I WOULD JUST SAY FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, SOME APPLICANTS DON'T WANT THE LOOK OF, OF, OF THE STORM WINDOW. 
          SO THAT'S PART OF THE, WHAT MANY APPLICANTS, YOU KNOW, BRING TO US. 
          SO IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF, UM, THE WINDOW CAN BE MADE VERY ENERGY EFFICIENT. 
          YOU CAN ADD WEATHER STRIPPING, YOU CAN ADD A FILM TO REFLECT DIRECT SUNLIGHT, FOR INSTANCE. 
          AND, UM, THE SAFETY ISSUE IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAT'S BEEN RAISED UP. 
          AND WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS THAT THE WIND IS GO TO THE FLOOR, WHICH IT KIND OF TELLS YOU THAT WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD TO RAISE, YOU RAISE THE WINDOW UP TO GET ENOUGH AIRFLOW BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT BEFORE AIR CONDITIONING. 
          SO, UM, I THINK THAT'S THE, THE, THE, THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE THANK YOU, THE FACT THAT THE WINDOWS GO TO THE FLOOR, BASICALLY, I THINK THAT'S THE OUTLIER ISSUE THAT WE DON'T NORMALLY SEE AS YOU, AS YOU POINTED OUT. 
          AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE SAFETY ISSUE. 
          AND, UM, WE, WE HAVE THE NUMBER, IT'S 660 SQUARE FEET, THE FOOTPRINT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IT IS, THERE'S A SECOND STORY ABOVE IT, BUT THE SECOND STORY DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY. 
          SO THERE IS A ONE STORY GARDEN ROOM ADDITION, AND THEN THERE IS A LARGER ROOM. 
          UH, WE HAVE VISIBLE, UM, EXISTING CORNERS PRESERVED, UH, SO THAT YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE OLD BUILDING WAS. 
          UM, WE HAVE CLEAR DEMARCATION, YOU KNOW, OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IN ADDITION, UM, WHEN WE SPOKE A WHILE BACK WITH YASMIN REGARDING THE WINDOWS, UH, ONE COMMENT CAME UP, UM, ABOUT REMOVING AND SAVING THE WINDOWS. 
          AND WE ARE CERTAINLY VERY HAPPY TO DO THAT. 
          UM, WE'RE NOT, WE DON'T WANT TO DESTROY HISTORIC MATERIAL. 
          SO IF WE CAN TAKE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THERE, SAVE IT, STORE IT, AND IT COULD BE PUT BACK. 
          I MEAN, I KNOW THAT IN THE STANDARD, THERE IS A THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE REASON WHY YOU PRESERVE THE CORNERS, THE REASON WHY YOU WANNA A DEFINITION BETWEEN THE HISTORIC AND THE NEW BUILDING IS THAT, OR THE ADDITION, AT SOME POINT YOU COULD GO BACK AND YOU COULD COMPLETELY REMOVE THAT ADDITION, AND THEN YOUR HISTORIC BUILDING WOULD BE PRESERVED. 
          SO WE COULD SAY THAT TOO. 
          YOU KNOW, WE COULD COMMIT OURSELVES TO SAVING THESE HISTORIC WINDOWS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, ARE IN GOOD SHAPE, WHETHER STRIPPING IS FALLING ON SOME, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF IMBALANCE TO, UM, COMMISSIONER'S POINT THAT FOR A HOUSE TO PERFORM, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE EQUAL. 
          UM, AND SO THE WINDOWS NEED REPAIR. 
          NOT 
          [01:35:01]
ALL OF THEM, YOU KNOW, ARE IN GREAT CONDITION. 
          UM, BUT WE COULD COMMIT OURSELVES TO SAVE ALL OF THEM SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT DESTROYING IT. 
          BUT THEN WE GET TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF SAFETY. 
          UM, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER EK, TO YOUR POINT OF HAVING WINDOWS THAT ARE AIRTIGHT, THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT A GOOD THING IN A BUILDING THAT IS NOT AIRTIGHT. 
          THESE HOUSES LEAK. 
          THEY NEED TO BREATHE. 
          SO IF WE PUT AN ACRYLIC INTERIOR STORM WINDOW THAT MAKES THAT PARTICULAR UNIT AIRTIGHT, THEN YOU ARE GUARANTEEING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DESTROY THAT HOUSE. 
          IT WORKS IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH DIFFERENT PARAMETERS, BUT IT DOES NOT WORK IN A HOUSE THAT LEAKS EVERYWHERE, THAT DOESN'T HAVE INSULATION ON THE WALLS, YOU KNOW? UM, AND SO THE ISSUE OF SAFETY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR US AND FOR MY CLIENT. 
          UH, WE CANNOT RETROFIT THE SASHES BECAUSE TEMPERED GLASS IS HEAVIER AND IT IS THICKER. 
          SO THE CURRENT SASHES WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE, THE WEIGHT AND THE THICKNESS OF TEMPERED GLASS. 
          UM, AND ALSO WE WANT TO SAVE THE HOUSE. 
          SO WE DO NOT WANT TO DO INTERIOR STORM, UM, WINDOWS, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE COUNTERACTIVE TO PRESERVING THE HOUSE, BUT WE CAN COMMIT OURSELVES TO SAVING EVERY SINGLE HISTORIC WINDOW THAT WE REMOVE, WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT YASMIN BROUGHT UP, UM, A WHILE BACK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I DO HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER JONES, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BROBECK. 
          CAN WE HAVE COMMISSIONER BROBECK GO FIRST? I NEED TO RETHINK MY COMMENT HERE. 
           QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          , I AM GONNA REOPEN THE CLOSED HEARING AGAIN. 
          SORRY. 
          AND IT'S JUST ONE WINDOW, THAT'S THE ISSUE, RIGHT? NO, IT, THE, THE FOUR WINDOWS IN THE FRONT ARE BEDROOMS AND ALL FOUR OF THEM HAVE SAFETY CONCERNS, OR THEY ALL GO TO THE GROUND. 
          OKAY? YES. 
          SO ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE FOUR WINDOWS FOR SAFETY MATTERS, WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE? WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE FOUR WINDOWS, CORRECT? NO, THAT WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTABLE. 
          I, I CAN TELL YOU FROM A PERSONAL ANECDOTE, I LIVE IN THE HEIGHTS. 
          MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN TWIN, UH, 1926. 
          IT'S A HUNDRED YEARS OLD. 
          AND RECENTLY MY SON BROKE HIS BEDROOM WINDOW AND HE WAS NOT EVEN, YOU KNOW, BEING RAMBUNCTIOUS OR ANYTHING, HE WAS IN HIS BUNK. 
          THAT'S NOT EVEN A WINDOW THAT GOES TO THE FLOOR. 
          HE WAS IN HIS BUNK BED, THREW HIS FEET UP IN THE AIR, HE BROKE THE WINDOW, AND THEN I BROKE THE WINDOWS AT THE CLOCK TOWER BY KNOCKING ON THEM. 
          I HAVE TWO SCARS HERE ON MY KNUCKLE QUARTER, QUARTER INCH THICK GLASS BLOOD ALL OVER THE SIDEWALK. 
          IT, IT IS A REAL SAFETY CONCERN. 
          AND SO SKIPPING THOSE FOUR WINDOWS, THOSE ARE CHILDREN BEDROOM WINDOWS. 
          I PROBABLY ASKED MY QUESTION POORLY, I APOLOGIZE. 
          OKAY. 
          , ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE FOUR WINDOWS, SO THAT YOU COULD PUT IN THE MATERIAL YOU, THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO, PROVIDED THAT THE FRAME IS A REPLICA OF WHAT'S THERE MM-HMM . 
          WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE? UM, UM, I WOULD HAVE TO CONFER WITH MY CLIENT. 
          UM, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A BEDROOM IN THE BACK THAT YOU DON'T SEE FROM THE STREET, THOUGH I KNOW THAT SOMETHING IN THE BACK IS NOT SO MUCH OF A CONCERN, BUT THE PRIMARY BEDROOM HAS EVERY SINGLE WINDOW ALSO GOING DOWN TO THE FLOOR. 
          SO OUR SAFETY CONCERNS ARE EVERYWHERE. 
          NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TROUBLE BECAUSE NOBODY SEES IT. 
          UM, BUT WE WOULD LIKE, WE WOULD LIKE ALL THE WINDOWS, YOU KNOW, THAT GO DOWN TO THE FLOOR, UM, THEY'RE EVERYWHERE. 
          UH, THE, THE ONES IN THE, IN WHAT USED TO BE THE SLEEPING PORCH, THOSE ARE NOT ORIGINAL, THAT THAT WAS ENCLOSED IN. 
          SO IT'S REALLY, UM, THE FRONT TO BEDROOMS. AND THEN THE PRIMARY BEDROOM HAS WINDOWS THAT GO DOWN TO THE FLOOR. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN. 
          I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. 
          UM, CAN I GIVE MY COMMENT? YES, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          MY ONLY ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT WE DO HAVE WINDOWS WHO, THAT HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 1938 AND HAVE GONE THROUGH HOW MANY HURRICANES AND HOW MANY EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          AND I DO THINK THERE'S A COMPROMISE HERE WHERE WE CAN SAVE SOME OF THE HISTORIC MATERIAL, YET ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE APPLICANT. 
          ARE YOU PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION? 
          [01:40:03]
I, I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER BROAD BECK'S APPROACH, WHICH, UM, MAINLY ALIGNS WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT ADDRESSES THE FOUR WINDOWS OF CONCERN ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHILDREN'S BEDROOMS, UM, THAT THOSE CAN BE REPLACED WITHIN THE CON THE PURVIEW OR THE WITH STAFF'S, UM, OVERSIGHT. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? I THINK SO. 
          I JUST NEED TO ASK FOR THE SECOND, AND THEN I CAN GO TO THE DISCUSSION. 
          BUT IS THERE, IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I'M CONFUSED. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          HERE SOME CLARIFICATION. 
          SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT ONLY THE REAR WINDOWS CAN BE REPLACED, RIGHT? SO ANYTHING WE SEE FROM THE STREET CANNOT BE, BE REPLACED. 
          MY, UM, AMENDMENT TO THAT IS THAT THE FOUR WINDOWS OF CONCERN ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHILDREN'S BEDROOMS CAN BE REPLACED GIVEN THE GUIDELINES LIFT LISTED IN THE REPORT, AND WITH SOME OVERSIGHT WITH STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT MATCHING WINDOWS ARE SELECTED. 
          ARE YOU GOING TO ASK FOR THE SAME, WE CAN ASK FOR ALL THE WINDOWS TO BE SAVED AS WELL. 
          SO, SO THIS ALSO CONCERNS SOME SIDE WINDOWS THAT WERE, UM, UM, IN THE, UH, FOR THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATION. 
          SO ARE THERE SIDE, ARE THERE ISSUES ON THE SIDE WINDOWS AS OPPO IN ADDITION TO THE FRONT ONES? I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT SPOKE, I'M SORRY. 
          I SAID I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT SPOKE MOST ABOUT THE KIDS' BEDROOMS. I MEAN, IT NOW HAS INTRODUCED THAT THERE ARE OTHER WINDOWS THAT GO FLOOR TO CEILING, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T, THE REAR OF THE HOUSE DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY A FULL SCHEDULE OF EVERY WINDOW AND ITS DIMENSIONS, I MEAN, IN RELATION TO WHERE THEY ARE IN THE HOUSE. 
          SO, SURE. 
          AND I WILL SAY I HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE, THE MOTION. 
          I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMPROMISE, BUT I WOULD NEED TO KNOW WHICH WINDOWS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND HOW MANY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, TO SAVE US TIME BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION, SHOULD WE HAVE A, AN OPEN MOTION ON THE TABLE SO THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING SOMETHING? I STILL NEED A SECOND TO THE MOTION AS I, AS I STATED, GINGER, SORRY. 
          YES. 
          UH, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS BY BAL BRISCOE ARE AT THE HOUSTON HISTORY RESEARCH CENTER, AND ANYONE CAN CONSULT THEM. 
          THEY HAVE THE WINDOW SCHEDULES WITH THEM, AND AS A, UH, BIRDS ALL BRISCOE DESIGN PROTECTED LANDMARK FROM THE THIRTIES, THE WINDOWS GOING TO THE FLOOR IS A PURPOSEFUL DESIGN. 
          UM, THEY WERE MEANT TO BE LIFTED, SO YOU COULD WALK OUT, I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS, BUT, UM, THAT'S NOT AN UNUSUAL FEATURE, THAT'S A PURPOSEFUL, UM, DESIGN WITHOUT AIR CONDITIONED HOME. 
          UM, THIS WAS TO ALLOW BREEZE. 
          SO, UM, IT IS HISTORICALLY, YOU KNOW, ACCURATE AND PART OF THE DESIGN. 
          JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          STILL LOOKING FOR, UM, A SECOND TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS. 
          I'M CONFUSED BY THE MOTION BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, UM, BUT WITH THE PROVISO THAT WINDOWS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BE KEPT. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND IT SEEMS THAT, UM, MAYBE A CONSENSUS, UH, AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS IS THAT, UM, OWING TO THE SAFETY ISSUES, THAT THE CONDITIONS JUST BE LIFTED. 
          SO THAT, WELL, THAT THAT'S NOT THE MOTION. 
          THE MOTION WAS ONLY LIFTED FOR THE FRONT FOUR WINDOWS THAT WERE IN THE CHILDREN'S BEDROOMS. OR I'LL JUST SAY, I'LL JUST, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY ANY, ANY OF THE WINDOWS IN THE CHILDREN'S BEDROOMS THAT GO TO THE FLOOR. 
          AND THE ONE THING THAT WASN'T STATED, WHICH COMMISSIONER SEIDEL IS, IS ALL VERY AWARE OF, IS THAT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ANY WINDOW THAT'S WITHIN LIKE 18 INCHES OR OF TWO FEET UP 24 INCHES OF THE GROUND HAS TO BE TEMPERED, RIGHT. 
          OR BE LAMINATED FOR SAFETY. 
          SO, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE, YOU KNOW, IT IS REALLY SINGLED OUT. 
          THEY LIKE TO REPLACE ALL THE WINDOWS AS, AS THEY STATED, BUT THEY, THEY SPECIFICALLY STATED THESE WINDOWS THAT GO TO THE FLOOR, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THINGS CAN GET BUMPED EASILY. 
          [01:45:01]
AND, UM, THIS TYPE OF GLASS THAT'S IN THE WINDOW, WHICH THEY CAN CHANGE THE GLASS TO TEMPERED AS WITHIN THE EXISTING WINDOWS TOMORROW, THEY, THEY, YOU CAN GET GLASS THAT'S TEMPERED AND GO IN THE CURRENT WINDOWS. 
          BUT PART OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING IS JUST TO HAVE IS, IS, IS CONSIDERATION FOR THESE WINDOWS, WHICH ARE, WHICH ARE NOT YOUR NORMAL WINDOWS, BUT THEY ARE NORMAL FOR A, A BIG HOME THAT WAS BASED ON CROSS VENTILATION AND, UH, AT A TIME BEFORE AIR CONDITIONING. 
          BUT IT THE, BUT THE MOTION WAS JUST FOR THE, THE WINDOWS IN THE BEDROOMS THAT GO TO THE FLOOR ONLY, AND NOT THE OTHER WINDOWS IN THE FRONT OF THE OR SIDES OF THE HOUSE. 
          HAVE WE SEEN ELEVATIONS OF THE SIDES AND THE OTHER WINDOWS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY? CHAIR, CHAIR, BUT CHECK, HOW ABOUT I WITHDRAW MY MOTION SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND, AND THAT WAY WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE MORE. 
          OKAY. 
          FAIR. 
          MAY I, UM, EXPLAIN SOMETHING HERE? MAY I PLEASE? OKAY. 
          SO, UM, THE BLUE WINDOWS ARE THE ONES THAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO BE REPLACED. 
          THE RED ONES ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF THE ADDITION THAT IS BUILT, AND THEN THE GREEN ONES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GONNA BE REPLACED, UM, LIKE RETAINED. 
          UM, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE MOTION WAS THE FOUR, UH, WINDOW, LIKE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, TWO WINDOWS ON EACH SIDE OF THE GREEN DOOR, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT, UH, THE MOTION WAS, IS TO, UM, THOSE CAN BE REPLACED. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THAT FIFTH WINDOW ON THE SECOND FLOOR, IS THAT IN THE SAME ROOM AS ONE OF THE FOUR? BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED AS WELL. 
          UM, IF IT'S THE SAME ROOM, THEN IT'S THE SAME ISSUE. 
          YES. 
          IT DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY DOWN, BUT IT'S CLOSE. 
          I WOULD RECOMMEND ALLOWING THAT ONE ALSO TO BE, I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE WINDOW TO THE LEFT OF THAT WINDOW. 
          YES. 
          THE FAR, THE FAR THAT ONE, WHICH IS NOT ONE OF THE FOUR IN THE MOTION. 
          SO, BUT IT WOULD BE VISIBLE, PRESUMABLY. 
          YES. 
          THERE NEEDS TO BE A, SORRY. 
          NO, I'M SORRY. 
          LET, IT NEEDS TO BE A QUESTION. 
          LET'S ASK, I'M SORRY FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          I'M SORRY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE, WE ARE NOT SHOWING THE FLOOR PLAN FOR SECURITY REASONS, AND WE RAN THAT BY JASMINE, BUT WE HAVE A STAIR HOLE IN THE CENTER, AND THEN WE HAVE BEDROOMS HERE ON THE SIDE. 
          SO THE WINDOWS THAT ARE MARKED, UH, LEFT AND RIGHT, THEY BELONG TO THE SAME ROOM. 
          AND AS YOU TURN THE CORNER, THEN ALL OF THOSE WINDOWS BELONG TO THE SAME ROOM. 
          SO THE, THE PROBLEM IS EXACTLY AS YOU'RE SAYING, IF YOU CHANGE ONE WINDOW, YOU DON'T CHANGE THE OTHER, AND THEN ONE AROUND THE CORNER, YOU STILL HAVE THE SAFETY PROBLEM. 
          SO AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THEM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A ROOM ALL TOGETHER AND ALL OF THOSE WINDOWS ARE IN THAT ROOM. 
          YEAH. 
          FOUR WINDOWS PER ROOM. 
          SO I, I THINK THAT IF I'M, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT, I THINK EVERYONE HERE IS JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE RIGHT MOTION, BECAUSE CLEARLY WE'VE GOT AN APPLICANT WHO'S TRYING TO COMPLY AND CHECK THE BOX FOR SAFETY, AS WELL AS, UH, PROTECT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE BY NOT, UH, UM, UH, ADDING, UH, OR NOT PREVENTING MOISTURE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          BEST WAY I CAN SAY IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WHAT, WHAT WINDOWS DO YOU NEED TO REPLACE? BECAUSE IF YOU CAN CALL THOSE OUT AND, AND IS IT ALL THE BLUE ONES STILL SPEAK? YES, IT WOULD BE ALL THE BLUE ONES BECAUSE ONCE WE INTRODUCE, UH, WINDOWS THAT HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF GLASS YES. 
          AND WHETHER STRIPPING, AND IF WE DO NOT GO THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THEM ARE EQUAL, THEN WE ARE STILL CREATING THERMAL IMBALANCES IN THIS STRUCTURE. 
          SO IT CANNOT BE A PATCHWORK REPLACEMENT. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE A COMPLETE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO THE RESILIENCY OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I WAS TRYING TO GET YOU TO SAY THAT, BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE GOTTA UNDERSTAND IS IF WE SELECT A FEW TO REPLACE, WE CAN, THEY CAN ACTUALLY INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. CORRECT. 
          YOU, YOU CAN'T, IF YOU GOT SUPER OLD THIN WINDOWS, YOU CAN'T REPLACE AND TIGHTEN UP SIX OF THEM AND LEAVE THE REST. 
          IT, IT'S, IT'S AN EVEN, IT'S EXACERBATING THE PROBLEM. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          SO I THINK WE EITHER NEED TO SAY, APPROVE, UH, MOVE TO APPROVE THIS REPLACING ALL OF THE WINDOWS BECAUSE WE HAVE AN APPLICANT WHO'S TRYING TO KEEP THE HISTORICAL STYLE TO IT. 
          THAT'S THE, 
          [01:50:01]
I'M TRYING TO OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION ON THAT CONSIDERATION. 
          COMMISSIONER, UH, UH, ESCOBAR, UM, AS AN ENGINEER, I AGREE. 
          AND AS THIS PERSON WHO'S CERTIFIED IN SUSTAINABLE BUILDING, THIS PATCHWORK BECOMES MORE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE RESILIENCY. 
          I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. 
          UM, I, I DO HEAR THAT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS, BUT FROM MY EXPERIENCE WITH, UM, HISTORIC STRUCTURES, UM, IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, YEAH, THE, THE FACT THAT YOU NEED TO THE PRO THE, THE HOUSE TO BREATHE IS, IS VERY RELEVANT HERE. 
          AND I'VE, I'VE SEEN THAT DONE THE OPPOSITE WAY RECENTLY, AND THERE'S BEEN A PROBLEM WITH, UM, A COMMERCIAL BUILDING BEING DONE WITH WINDOWS THAT DON'T ALLOW, UM, THAT, THAT, THAT BREATHING OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          UM, MY QUESTION FOR FOLKS HERE WHO KNOW MORE THAN ME ABOUT THE PURPOSEFULNESS OF SAVING THE WINDOWS AND WHAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THAT AND WHAT THAT GAINS US MATERIALLY JUST TO HAVE THEM AVAILABLE, OTHER THAN THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO PUT INTO OTHER HISTORIC HOMES FOR RENOVATIONS. 
          BUT IF THEY'RE PROBLEMATIC HERE, THEY MAY BE PROBLEMATIC ELSEWHERE FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. 
          . 
          UM, SO I'M CURIOUS, UM, I, I AGREE WITH WANTING TO SAVE HISTORIC FABRIC, HISTORIC MATERIALS. 
          IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF HISTORIC CHANGE, CHANGE TO A HISTORIC STRUCTURE, SPECIFICALLY A PROTECTED LANDMARK, THE HOUSE NOT BEING MATERIALLY CHANGED, IS THE, ARE THESE WINDOWS REALLY GOING TO DRASTICALLY CHANGE THE INTENTION OF THIS PROTECTED LANDMARK, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT. 
          UM, AND I'M, I'M LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK EITHER WAY TO HELP ME CONTEXTUALIZE, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU , COMMISSIONER COSGROVE. 
          I MEAN, I, I, I THINK TO ME, THERE'S NO POINT IN TAKING THE WINDOWS OUT AND SAVING THEM AND REPLACING THEM. 
          THAT DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING. 
          I MEAN, I HEAR THE APPLICANT AND I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS, BUT FOR ME, I JUST GOTTA LEAN BACK TO THE ORDINANCE. 
          AND THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT, THAT UNLESS THEY'RE DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR, THEY CAN'T BE REPLACED. 
          AND THAT, AND THAT, THAT'S WHAT IS THE DRIVING THING HERE. 
          THEY BOUGHT A HISTORIC HOME. 
          IT HAS OLD WINDOWS. 
          THIS ARGUMENT COULD BE USED AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE, IF WE ALLOW ONE PERSON TO START REPLACING THE WINDOWS, THEN EVERYONE CAN MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT THAT THE WINDOWS IN THE HEIGHTS ARE THIN AND THEY COULD BREAK. 
          AND I MEAN, YEAH, MY KIDS PUT THEIR HAND THROUGH THE WINDOW. 
          WE GOT LOTS OF STITCHES GROWING UP. 
          I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S JUST, I FEEL LIKE THE ORDINANCE SAYS THEY CAN'T DO IT, AND, AND WE'RE HAVING THIS LONG DEBATE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY GOING AGAINST WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS. 
          UM, AND AT SOME POINT YOU JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT YOU BOUGHT AN OLD HOUSE, MR. BLAKELY. 
          I, I WAS JUST GOING TO OFFER A SCENARIO. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CERTAIN SOCIETIES FOR THE PRE PRESERVATION OF ANTIQUITIES WHERE THEY WILL TAKE A HOUSE AND THEY'LL REFURBISH IT, AND THEN IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO VISIT. 
          AND, UH, SO WHEN HOUSES HAVE A KIND OF SIGNIFICANCE, UM, SUCH AS THIS ONE HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE, UM, SOMETIMES THEY, THEY DO BECOME SORT OF LIKE TREATED LIKE MUSEUM OBJECTS, RIGHT? SO IF YOU SAVE THE WINDOWS, YOU OPEN, YOU LEAVE OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE, UH, SOMEONE COULD, UM, COULD, COULD SORT OF RESTORE THE HOUSE THAT WAY. 
          UM, I THINK AS TO THE QUESTION OF, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU BOUGHT AN OLD HOUSE, I HEAR THAT, AND YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN IT. 
          UM, I MEAN, ONE, ONE, UH, I, I DO THINK THAT THE SAFETY ISSUE, IT'S GONNA COME UP WITH A HOUSE THAT ISN'T ONE OF THOSE SORT OF PRISTINE, UM, PRESERVED OBJECTS, RIGHT? SO I GUESS IF WE THOUGHT, OKAY, UM, WE'RE GONNA STICK TO THE ORDINANCE, MAYBE A MORE STRICT, UH, UH, PATH FORWARD WOULD BE TO SAY, OKAY, REPLACE THE, THE GLASS WITH TEMPERED GLASS, BUT KEEP THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS. 
          LIKE IF YOU, IF YOU CAN PUT TEMPERED GLASS INTO THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS, AND WOULD THAT ADDRESS THE SAFETY ISSUE OR, UM, SHE SAID THEY'RE, THEY'RE TOO HEAVY. 
          UM, AND THEY WOULDN'T, YOU, YOU CAN PUT SAY, UH, TEMPERED GLASS IN THE WINDOW. 
          UH, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO PUT INSULATED UNITS, WHICH ARE DOUBLE TWO LAYERS OF GLASS WITH AN AIRSPACE IN THE MIDDLE. 
          THEY, THAT IS HEAVIER. 
          AND IT DOES REQUIRE A, UH, THICKER JAM, A S ASH. 
          THE, THE DEPTH HAS TO BE INCREASED TO, TO, UM, ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL THICKNESS BECAUSE SINGLE PANE GLASS IS, IS 
          [01:55:01]
MUCH THINNER. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, THIS, WHAT WHAT'S DIFFERENT STILL ABOUT THIS APPLICATION FROM MOST OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE SEE IS THE FACT THAT THE GLASS GOES TO THE FLOOR AND IN THE CODE, UH, GLASS THAT GOES TO THE FLOOR FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS TO BE TEMPERED OR LAMINATED. 
          AND SO, UM, I MEAN, THERE, THERE IS A HEIGHTENED SAFETY ISSUE WITH LIKE THESE BEDROOMS THAT GO TO THE FLOOR, WHICH IS NOT TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO SEE, UH, DAY IN, DAY OUT. 
          UM, AND THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, IT DOES ALLOW FOR A PATCHWORK THAT THAT'S SORT OF THE WAY THE ORDINANCE WORKS. 
          AND THERE, THERE ARE MANY BUILDINGS THAT HAVE SINGLE PANE GLASS, I MEAN, INCLUDING THE CAPITAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. 
          I MEAN, IT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. 
          BUT, SO JUST TO, TO CLARIFY OUR OPTIONS THEN, EITHER WE INSIST ON THE PATCHWORK IN WHICH THE FRONT WINDOWS ARE NOT CHANGED, OR WE ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL THE WINDOWS WITH TEMPERED GLASS SOLUTIONS, OR WE INSIST ON INTERIOR STORM WINDOWS OR SOME SOLUTION. 
          ALTHOUGH I THINK THE, THE COMPELLING CASE HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THAT, UM, BY THE APPLICANT. 
          BUT I MEAN, ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS ON THE TABLE? WELL, I JUST, I'M GONNA SAY, I, I THINK THAT, UM, THERE ARE MANY HISTORIC HOMES THAT USE THE INTERIOR STORM WINDOWS THAT DO NOT HAVE AN ISSUE, THAT DO NOT EVEN HAVE A MOISTURE BARRIER IN THEIR LEAD PLATINUM. 
          SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT THAT'S A, THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT'S A, THAT'S AN OPTION. 
          THAT'S THAT CLIENT IS ASKED FOR. 
          UM, TYPICALLY WE, WE, I'LL JUST SAY THIS, WE DON'T MANDATE EXTERIOR STORM WINDOWS. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT IN OUR ORDINANCE. 
          AND SO WE ARE REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE HISTORIC FABRIC AND WHETHER OR NOT WE, UH, WILL ALLOW IT TO BE REMOVED AND, AND IF IT'S REPLACED, WHAT, WHAT WILL REPLACE IT? THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          UM, BUT IT'S, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY AND WHATEVER THE CONSENSUS IS FOR THIS APPLICATION IS, IS WHERE, IS WHAT WE NEED TO GET TO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TODAY. 
          , MR. BROWNING, I, I NOTE THAT WE ALL UN UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING. 
          AND NOW THERE SEEMS TO BE A GROWING CONSENSUS TO CHANGE THEIR MIND. 
          AND WE RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT, I GUESS STAFF RECEIVED IT TODAY TO, UH, OR OR LESS AGO. 
          I APPRECIATE WHY IT WASN'T IN THE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED PACKET BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT YET. 
          BUT THIS DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN WHAT SOMEBODY HAS COME UP AND SAID TO, TO UNDERMINE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS ALL WE HAVE, WOULD STAFF BENEFIT FROM A DEFERRAL MOTION TO PROVIDE TIME FOR IT TO CONSIDER THIS NEW DOCUMENT AND WORK WITH, UH, THE ARCHITECT ON POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS? OR WOULD STAFF PREFER THIS TO MOVE TO A VOTE TODAY? THANK YOU FOR ASKING. 
          UM, I THINK THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE WINDOWS ARE BEYOND REPAIR. 
          AND EVEN THOUGH WE UNDERSTAND RESILIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY, UM, BECAUSE IT'S A HISTORIC, UM, HOME AND A PROTECTED LANDMARK, OUR HANDS ARE TIED WITH THE ORDINANCE. 
          AND SO I, I THINK DEFERRING WILL NOT, UM, CHANGE THEIR RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I, I TOOK SOME TIME TO, I COULDN'T READ EVERY WORD 'CAUSE IT'S A PRETTY LONG DOCUMENT, BUT I READ IT, AND WHAT I READ IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID. 
          AND I NOTE THAT DURING THE DISCUSSION, THE UNSUPPORTED DISCUSSION THAT THAT WAS PROVIDED, THE EXPLANATION MOVED FROM LEAKY WINDOWS TO A SAFETY ISSUE, AND GOSH, IT'S A KID'S BEDROOM, AND DON'T WE ALL CARE ABOUT KIDS? AND WE DO THAT. 
          HAVING BEEN SAID, COULD, WOULD NOT EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO COMES BEFORE THIS BODY SAY, WELL, MY KIDS ARE THERE AND I NEED HEIGHT AND SAFETY. 
          WELL, YOU BOUGHT A H HEIGHTS HOUSE AND COMMISSIONER KOGER BROUGHT THAT POINT UP, AND I FIND IT VERY PERSUASIVE. 
          I ALSO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE PIVOTING EXPLANATION, WHICH I FOUND TO BE  UNPERSUASIVE AT BEST AND POTENTIALLY NOT CREDIBLE. 
          UM, SO FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES, IF STAFF DOESN'T WANT A DEFERRAL MOTION, THEN I THINK SOMEONE SHOULD MAKE A MO MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          I'D BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. 
          I HAVE A COMMENT FROM COMMISSIONER BROBECK, MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF 
          [02:00:01]
RECOMMENDATION. 
          I'LL SECOND IT. 
          ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ALL OPPOSED? AYE. 
          NAY, COMMISSIONER DAVIS, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY OR NAY? LET ME, LEMME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. 
          THE MOTION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVING THIS C OF A, THEY CAN REPLACE ALL OF THE WINDOWS SAVED FOR THE FRONT FLOOR. 
          NO, THE MOTION WAS THE WHAT WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH THEY CAN REPLACE THEIR REAR WINDOWS, BUT NOT THE FRONT OR SIDE WINDOWS VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          SO THE SIDE WINDOWS, LEMME SEE, ONLY THE REAR WINDOWS MAY BE REPLACED. 
          ALL ORIGINAL WINDOWS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS MUST BE RETAINED. 
          I'M IN FAVOR. 
          OKAY, SO THERE ARE TWO, TWO VOTES OPPOSED TO THE MOTION. 
          DID I GET THAT CORRECT, COMMISSIONER? OH, SORRY, . 
          I DID NOT NOTICE THAT. 
          SORRY. 
          THIS IS, UM, THIS IS A STRUGGLE OF LOGIC FOR ME. 
          UM, AGAIN, I I MEAN, I'LL JUST SAY I, I THINK THAT THE, THE VOTE SHOULD BE BASED ON THE ORDINANCE AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING INTERPRETATION ORDINANCE. 
          THAT'S WHERE I'D HAVE TO AGREE, AGREE WITH THE MOTION. 
          I THINK THAT EACH OF YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION TO UNDERSTAND AND, AND HOW YOU LOOK AT THAT. 
          SO IT'S NOT, THIS IS NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE NECESSARILY. 
          UM, BUT, BUT I THINK THE, THE ORDINANCE IS STILL THE GOALPOST THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND HOW WE'RE INTERPRETING IT. 
          AND EACH OF US, AS YOU, AS YOU CAN WELL BE IMAGINED, ARE COMING FROM THIS FROM DIFFERENT ASPECTS. 
          THEREFORE, WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT TAKES ON THAT. 
          I WILL, UM, AGREE WITH THE MOTION TO APPROVE WELL INTERNALLY DISAGREEING WITH THE BUILDING SCIENCE OF IT ALL. 
           , WE'LL LET YOU WORK THAT OUT. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S MAYBE A POLICY ISSUE TO TAKE UP AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES. 
          AND I'D LIKE TO COMMISSIONER DAVIS. 
          YEAH, TO RESCIND MY NAY BECAUSE I, NOW THAT I HAVE THAT, IT'S BEEN STATED IN THE WAY THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO, I WANNA CLARIFY THAT I OPPOSE, JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT I CAN'T RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE ARCHITECT'S INTENTIONS. 
          UM, I'M, I'M NOT AN ARCHEO, AN ARCHEOLOGIST, SO, UH, AND I SORT OF ACKNOWLEDGE THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THE WINDOWS GOING TO THE FLOOR, UM, AND THE INDIVIDUAL CASE THAT MAY PUT DIFFERENT PRESSURES ON US. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          THIS IS STAFF PERSON TERRENCE JACKSON. 
          ITEM A ZERO SIX AT 39 63 DEL MONTE DRIVE IN THE BALD IS THE BALDWIN DALE HOUSE LANDMARK HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          THE 5,768 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS A CONTRIBUTING LANDMARK PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1940. 
          STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,302 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION WITH 651 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, UM, ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 651 SQUARE FEET, PRIMARY BATHS AND CLOSETS ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO THE MAIN HOUSE. 
          THEY PROPOSED TO MATCH THE EXISTING BRICK OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, MAKE THE RIDGE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO MATCH THE FRONT EXISTING GABLE CONSTRUCT. 
          A 372 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING COVERED FIRST, FIRST FLOOR PORCH ON THE SECOND FLOOR. 
          ON THE SECOND FLOOR. 
          THEY PROPOSED A SECOND, A STANDING SCENE COPPER ROOF, AND THEY, TO MATCH THE EXISTING WOOD SIDING WITH THE SIX INCH REVEAL, ALL NEW WINDOWS WILL BE 
          [02:05:01]
INSET AND RECESS. 
          AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AT THE EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT, REMAIN AT THE EXISTING HEIGHT. 
          THE DESIGNER SLASH ARCHITECT IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, THIS TIME I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, I DO HAVE, UH, MARTHA BUTTE, WHO IS SIGNED UP AND IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS, AS WAS MENTIONED. 
          UM, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK, UM, AND THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME. 
          SO IF ANYONE ELSE IS IN THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF NOT HEARING ANYONE. 
          I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOW AND SEE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION, MEMBERS OF STAFF FOR THIS APPLICATION. 
          COMMISSIONER DAVIS? YES. 
          UM, WHAT, UM, YOU HAVE ON HERE THAT, UM, WHERE IS IT THAT THE ALTERATION DESTROYS HISTORICAL MATERIAL? UH, BY MODIFYING THE HEIGHT OF THE RIDGE OF THE ROOF, RIDGE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. 
          WHAT HISTORIC MATERIAL ARE YOU REFERRING TO? UH, REFERRING TO THE FRAMING OF THE ROOF, UH, THE ROOF DECKING. 
          UH, IT'S JUST PART OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. 
          SO THE ORDINANCE, THE 33 2 0 2 SAYS WE DON'T REGULATE INTERIOR CHARACTERISTICS EXCEPT WHERE THEY CHANGE AN EXTERIOR FEATURE. 
          UM, IF WHAT IS BEING REMOVED IS ROOF FRAMING, THE EXTERIOR CHANGE HERE IS THE RIDGE LINE AND THE ROOF PROFILE, WHICH IS CRITERION FOUR, NOT CRITERION NINE. 
          THE ROOF RIDGE LINE IS AN EXTERIOR FEATURE, BUT THAT'S, BUT WE'VE GOT TWO THINGS GOING ON HERE. 
          YOU HAVE DESTRUCTION OF, OF ORIGINAL MATERIAL, CORRECT. 
          AND THE MOVING AND THEN THE RIDGE LINE WANTING TO MAKE THE RIDGE LINE STAY THE SAME. 
          RIGHT. 
          THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. 
          SO WE CAN DISCUSS THE RIDGE LINE. 
          UM, AND IF I'M DISCUSS, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RIDGE LINE, YOU AREN'T DEFINING WHICH, UM, WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT THE EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT REMAINS AT THE EXISTING HEIGHT, THERE ARE SEVERAL RIDGE HEIGHTS ON THIS PROPERTY. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND SO IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE, UM, WITH THE EXISTING HEIGHT. 
          BUT WHAT I'M MISSING IS I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT TELLS ME HOW MUCH BY HOW MUCH THE THEY ARE PROPOSING TO RAISE THAT ROOF LINE. 
          IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 12 INCHES, I'M NOT SURE WE REALLY CARE. 
          IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEVERAL FEET, THEN YEAH, I THINK WE CARE. 
          THAT'S A DECISION FOR YOU TO MAKE. 
          UH, THAT'S A DECISION FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE. 
          AND THAT WAS, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM, YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT'S HIGHLIGHTED, WHERE IT'S BEING REMOVED, AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO SEE WHERE IT'S BEING PROPOSED. 
          BUT THERE'S NO EL THERE'S NO, THERE ARE NO NUMBERS ATTACHED TO THIS AT ALL. 
          SO CAN YOU TELL ME BY HOW MUCH THAT RIDGE IS PROPOSED TO BE RAISED? OKAY. 
          IT WASN'T, UH, SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 
          I IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE ARCHITECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, ASK MARTHA BUTTE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. 
          AND IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME. 
          SURE. 
          MARTHA BUTTE. 
          UM, THE REAR OF THE HOUSE WE'RE PUSHING THE BEDROOM WALLS OUT AND SO THAT MADE THE RIDGE GO UP. 
          WE'RE PUSHING IT OUT NINE FEET. 
          IT'S A STEEP PITCH. 
          I'M RAISING IT PROBABLY 14 INCHES. 
          I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM LEAVING THE EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT EXACTLY WHERE IT IS AND WHERE THE ROOF GOES OUT OVER THE BEDROOM EXTENSION, I WILL SIMPLY ADJUST THE SLOPE. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM FOR ME EITHER WAY. 
          I'M PERFECTLY FINE LEAVING THE EXISTING RIDGE HEIGHT ON THE STRUCTURE THE WAY IT IS NOW. 
          AND WHEN I DO MY ADDITION IN THE BACK, I CHANGE THAT PITCH SLIGHTLY FOR THE FOOTAGE I'VE ADDED ON THE BEDROOMS. AND FROM THE FRONT, THE RIDGE, THAT GREEN LINE UP THERE NEVER CHANGES. 
          IT STAYS EXACTLY THE SAME. 
          THAT VERY TOP LONG SKINNY ONE. 
          SEE ON THE BOTTOM, THE BOTTOM PICTURE, HE HAS THE GREEN LINE THAT GOES FROM THE GABLE END TO THE LEFT. 
          [02:10:02]
YOU CAN REMOVE THAT. 
          I'LL LEAVE THE RIDGE EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS AND ADJUST THE PITCH IN THE BACK. 
          YOU'RE GOOD TO GO? I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          I MEAN, IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO MY ARCHITECTURE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THAT'S GREAT THEN. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT I, I DO THINK THAT THIS, UM, IS, UH, GOES UNDER NUMBER FOUR AND NOT UNDER DESTRUCTION OF ORIGINAL MATERIAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. 
          I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR A MOTION COULD BE SHARED. 
          COMMISSIONER GARCIA. 
          SO APOLOGIZE. 
          MOTION FOR THE APPLICANT PLEASE. 
          UM, MRS. MARTHA B AND A STATEMENT AS WELL. 
          SO, SO MARTHA, UM, I, I COMMEND YOU FOR HAND DRAWING THESE. 
          IT'S VERY SELDOM WE SEE OLD SCHOOL HAND DRAWINGS. 
          YEAH, I ACTUALLY HAD TO, UH, RANDALL GAY ACTUALLY HAD TO PUT THE PRESENTATION TOGETHER ON THE COMPUTER AND ALL THAT JAZZ. 
          'CAUSE I LIKE DON'T DO IT, BUT HE TOOK MY STUFF AND HE DID MY SHOT. 
          THIS, IT'S LOST ART. 
          SO JUST CONFIRMATION THAT YOU'RE NOT REQUESTING A RIDGE HIGHER THAN ANY OF THE EXISTING RIDGES ON THAT HOUSE. 
          NO. 
          EVEN THE, THE LONG GREEN ONE THAT I'M HAPPY TO REVISE IT IS NO HIGHER THAN THE INITIAL GABLE FRONT. 
          OKAY. 
          EITHER THANK, THANK YOU. 
          THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU AGAIN. 
          IS THERE A MOTION I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE APPLICANT'S ACCEPTANCE TO DO SO? IS THERE A SECOND? CAUSE PLEASE? SECONDS. 
          I'LL, I'LL GIVE IT TO BLAKELY. 
          UM, TOSS UP. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ALL OPPOSED. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM NINE. 
          ITEM A ZERO NINE AT 10 40 WEST COTTAGE STREET IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, THE 2,255 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS A CONTRIBUTING CRAFTMAN PROPERTY. 
          IT'S CONTRIBUTING CRAFTMAN STYLE PROPERTY. 
          CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1930 STAFF RECOMMENDS A DENIAL OF A COA AND ISSUANCE OF THE COR. 
          THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING ROOF FRAMING, DECKING, UNDERLAYMENT, AND SHINGLES. 
          REPLACE HISTORIC ROOF FRAMING WITH TWO BY SIX RAFTERS, DEMOLISH, AND REPLACE THE FRAMING AND ROOF OF AT THE PORCH GABLE WORK COM. 
          THE WORK WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT A COA AND PERMIT. 
          PLEASE SEE THE PHOTOS STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF A COA ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT A COA AND PERMIT. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU AARON. 
          I I, I PULLED THIS BECAUSE I I JUST HAD SOME, I I NEEDED SOME CLARIFICATION ON. 
          YES, SIR. 
          CLEARLY IF THEY DID THIS WITHOUT A, A C OF A, WE GOT AN ISSUE. 
          THAT ENTIRE ADDITION WAS IT WAS THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED? I JUST, I CAN'T REMEMBER EVERY YES SIR. 
          IT WAS SO, SO THE, THE, THE, THE REAR EDITION WAS PART OF A PREVIOUS C OF A, CORRECT. 
          THEY JUST DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING RELATED TO THE EXISTING ROOF. 
          NO, SIR. 
          AND THEY DECIDED TO REPLACE IT, TEAR IT OFF AND REPLACE IT? YES, SIR. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UH, I DO, I DO, I DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT I WANT, SO IF I, IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO JUST GET INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC FOR, SO WE KNOW WE CAN DELIBERATE ONCE, UM, AND NOT TWICE. 
          SO I, I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGN UP FOR THIS ITEM. 
          UM, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC, UH, COMMENT AND THAT'S VIRGINIA KELSEY. 
          I AM VIRGINIA KELSEY, I'M A RESIDENT IN NOR HILL. 
          I WALK BY THIS HOUSE EVERY DAY. 
          THEY FIRST TOOK OFF THE PORCH AND THEN THEY, I WENT BY ONE DAY IT WAS ALL THERE. 
          WENT BY. 
          THE NEXT DAY THE ROOF WAS GONE. 
          I CAME BACK THE EVENING. 
          THE ROOF HAD BEEN REFRAMED. 
          YOU KNOW, THIS SEEMS TO BE A INCREASINGLY COMMON THING FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN AND SAY, OH, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE MUCH EASIER JUST TO TEAR OFF THE ROOF OR TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE. 
          IT WOULD, BUT THAT'S DESTROYING HISTORIC MATERIAL. 
          AND I THINK WE NEED TO START SENDING A MESSAGE TO THESE PEOPLE TO THAT THERE'S CONSEQUENCES FOR THESE ACTIONS OF DESTROYING THE MATERIAL. 
          YOU KNOW, IT MAY SEEM VERY SUBTLE, BUT YOU DO NOTICE A ROOF THAT'S OLD AND SLOPED AND A LITTLE CATTYWAMPUS AND IT HAS A DIFFERENT CHARACTER THAN ONE THAT'S PERFECT AND, AND ROBUST. 
          AND I EMBRACE THE CHARM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, 
          [02:15:01]
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF SO, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF NOT HEARING WHEN I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, AND NOW, UH, COMMISSIONER DEL, YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR STEPH OR IS THAT YOUR O YOUR IS YOUR O SO NO PROBLEM. 
          SO COMMISSIONER COSGROVE HAS A QUE A COMMENT, UM, QUESTION. 
          DID WE APPROVE A REPLACEMENT OF THE WINDOWS? UH, I, I DO NOT RECALL THE COA, UM, I MEAN, CAN WE CHECK WITH YOU? UH, I WAS TOLD FROM SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WE DID. 
          OKAY, YES. 
          WELL, POINT OF ORDER. 
          WE SHOULD CONFIRM THAT FROM A NEUTRAL SOURCE BEFORE WE, WE ACT ON THAT. 
          I'M SURE WE CAN ASK STAFF TO LOOK UP THE PREVIOUS C OF A SECONDARILY IT'S COMMENT. 
          IF, IF IT IS IN FACT THAT WE APPROVED, REMOVING AND REPLACING THESE WINDOWS, THAT'S WHERE MY ISSUE LIES ON THE CONSISTENCY. 
          WE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT YOU BOUGHT AN OLD HOUSE, DEAL WITH THE WINDOWS, MAYBE A CONVERSATION FOR A DIFFERENT, UH, PLACE. 
          CERTAINLY, AND AGAIN, I DON'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFICS FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT IF THE APPLICANT CAN MAKE THE CASE THAT THE WINDOWS ARE NOT REASONABLE TO REPAIR, THEN THIS BODY HAS ALLOWED FOLKS TO CHANGE THEIR WINDOWS PER THE ORDINANCE AND THE, AND THE SORT OF THE WHITE PAPER THAT WAS CREATED. 
          WE USED TO REPLACE ALL THE SASHES ALL THE TIME. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, YOU HAVE YOU HAVE A STATEMENT OR QUESTION OR COMMENT? IF WE AWARD A CA SEA OF R, ARE WE KIND OF LEGITIMATING WHAT WAS DONE? WELL, THERE, THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF, UM, WELL, I, I, THAT'S LEGAL IN TERMS OF THE, THE PENALTIES FOR THIS CASE. 
          UM, THERE, THERE'S SOME PERMIT ISSUES OR PERMIT FEES I THINK THAT, THAT ARE INVOLVED. 
          UM, MY QUESTION FOR, FOR STAFF IS SIMPLY THAT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN IT WAS REFRAMED, IT WAS REFRAMED TO MATCH WHAT IT WAS, AND THAT'S CORRECT. 
          BEEN ALTERED OR IT'S NOT BEEN REFRAMED TO BE A TALLER RIDGE, FOR INSTANCE, OR A DIFFERENT RIDGE. 
          AND AS, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, UM, THE ACTUAL ADDITION WAS BUILT ACCORDING TO THE C OF A 'CAUSE. 
          THAT'S NOT ALSO NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. 
          I MEAN, YES, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          IS, UH, THE, THE, THEY MATCHED THE ROOF PITCH. 
          UM, LIKE I SAID, THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING MISSING IS THAT THE HISTORIC MATERIAL IS, UH, NO LONGER THERE. 
          UM, AND JUST I THINK YOU ASKED THE, THE, THE PENALTY SO TO SPEAK, IS THAT ONCE ISSUED A COR, THEY ARE NOT, THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE TO RECEIVE TAX CREDITS. 
          I, ANY, ANY WORD ON THE OTHER, THE OTHER INQUIRY ABOUT THE ORIGINAL C OF A AND THE WINDOWS, UM, STAFF IS LOOKING, IS LOOKING UP THE WINDOW QUESTION. 
          I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NINE. 
          OKAY. 
          AS WRITTEN. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWNING SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? A AYE. 
          ALL OPPOSED? ABSTAIN. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE AN INTEREST. 
          COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU RECRUIT RECUSING FOR A SPECIFIC REASON? YES, I'D LIKE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS IN FRONT OF STAFF. 
          IF WE CAN'T GET IT TODAY, I'M GONNA ABSTAIN. 
          AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT ACT THAN RECUSING. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          KHER JONES. 
          ONCE WE LOOK UP THE WINDOW ISSUE, CAN'T THIS BE BROUGHT FORTH IN FRONT OF US AGAIN FOR ANOTHER COR SO WE CAN ADDRESS THE ROOF ISSUE AS THE COR AND THEN TO ADDRESS WINDOWS AT A, IN A SEPARATE MOTION AS A SEPARATE COR? I THINK WE'D HAVE TO RESCIND WHAT WE JUST APPROVED TO ADD THAT CONDITION TO THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, CAN WE AGREE TO COME BACK AND RE REVISIT? 
          [02:20:01]
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO MAKE APPLICATION TO REQUEST THE COR IF THEY REMOVE THE WINDOWS ILLEGALLY. 
          YOU'RE SAYING IT'D BE AN AUTOMATIC C OF R? YEAH, THEY WOULD'VE POINT OF ORDER MOTION WAS MADE. 
          IT WAS SECONDED. 
          WE TOOK A VOTE. 
          WELL, I MEAN, I'M NOTS. 
          I'M NOT AWARE. 
          WELL, I'LL THANK YOU MR. SHA, DO YOU LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT OR IT LOOKS LIKE WERE Y'ALL, UH, STAFF, DID YOU FIND THE C OF A WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE. 
          IT'S, IT'S LIKE A CORRUPTED FILE, SO YEAH, IT WON'T OPEN. 
          SO ALL, UH, WE'LL HAVE TO OKAY. 
          GET BACK WITH YOU, I GUESS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IT'S A DISPOSED MATTER. 
          WE HAVE TO MOVE ON. 
          LET'S MOVE ON. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S DISPOSED BASED ON YOUR VOTE THOUGH. 
          UM, BECAUSE NO, YOUR VOTE, I MEAN YOUR VOTE HAS TO BE FOR OR AGAINST UNLESS YOU CAN RECUSE THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I'M STATING THAT THAT IS NOT ACCURATE. 
          WELL, I, I'LL DEFER TO LEGAL. 
          I MEAN WE'VE HAD FIVE MEETINGS, ONGOING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS ASPECT. 
          YEAH, YOU NEED, YOU NEED A BASIS FOR RECUSAL. 
          RESPECTFULLY, I DISAGREE. 
          IT'S BEEN STATED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT NUMBER ONE, THEY'VE NEVER COUNSELED ANYONE THAT THEY CANNOT ABSTAIN. 
          UH, AND NUMBER TWO, THERE IS AN OPINION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT ANYONE SITTING ON A COMMISSION IN THIS STATE CAN ABSTAIN. 
          THAT'S THE LAW. 
          I REPRESENT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND OUR OPINION IS THAT YOU NEED A REASON TO RECUSE USE. 
          THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS GIVEN ME MULTIPLE OPINIONS ON THIS ITEM. 
          BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU AT ANOTHER TIME. 
          FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS COMMISSION'S VOTE, WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 11. 
          UH, SORRY. 
          THE, THE WINDOWS WERE APPROVED IN THE PREVIOUS COA BY THE WAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          STAFF PERSON, SAMANTHA DELEON STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE AN ITEM OUT OF ORDER AND TAKE AND, UM, PRESENT ITEM 18 IN FRONT OF ITEM A 11. 
          IS THERE A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW THIS, UH, TO MOVE ITEM 18? SO MOVED. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? PLEASE PROCEED WITH ITEM 18. 
          EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER BUSICK. 
          I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS, THIS PROPERTY RECUSE REC. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          THIS IS STAFF PERSON EMILY RYAN. 
          ITEM A 18 AT 1925 WASHINGTON AVENUE IN THE OLD SIX WARD HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          THE THE 17,820 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IS A CONTRIBUTING INDUSTRIAL STYLE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED CCRA 1920. 
          THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NON ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN AND A NON ILLUMINATED MARQUES SIGN DISPLAYING THE TENANT'S NAME ON THE NORTH STREET FACING SIDE OF THE BUILDING. 
          THE BLADE SIGN WILL SIT PERPENDICULAR TO THE NORTH STREET FACING SIDE OF THE BUILDING. 
          BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND STORIES, THE MARQUES SIGN WILL BE SITUATED DIRECTLY ABOVE THE FRONT ENTRY SEQUENCE. 
          NO SIGNAGE WILL HAVE ANY FORM OF ILLUMINATION. 
          APPLICANT WILL PURSUE IN A SEPARATE FUTURE APPLICATION. 
          THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND THE OLD SIX WARD DESIGN GUIDELINES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. 
          I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AT THIS TIME I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP, MUSTAFA CAMILLE. 
          HE WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TO THE COMMISSION? I'D HEARING YOU NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. 
          ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THIS ITEM FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS? COMMISSIONER DAVIS? OKAY. 
          UM, THE REPORT SAYS VERY CLEARLY THREE TIMES THAT THE SIGNAGE IS NOT ILLUMINATED. 
          UM, THE, BOTH THE FABRICATION DRAWINGS REPRODUCED IN IT 
          [02:25:01]
ON PAGES 12 AND 13. 
          CALL FOR A DEDICATED 120 VOLT CIRCUIT WITH A GROUND WIRE WITHIN FOUR FEET OF EACH SIDE. 
          WHAT IS THAT FOR IF IT'S NOT BEING ILLUMINATED? UH, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED DRAWINGS, UM, SHORTLY BEFORE THE DEADLINE JUST DESIGNED TO REMOVE THE ILLUMINATION. 
          THEY WANTED MORE TIME TO CONSIDER BECAUSE IN THE OLD SIX WORD DESIGN GUIDELINES, THEY CAN ONLY DO EXTERNAL ILLUMINATION AND THEY NEEDED MORE TIME TO BRAINSTORM IT. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY, UM, WERE ABLE TO TAKE THE, THOSE, UM, ASPECTS OF THE DRAWINGS OUT IN TIME. 
          UM, AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK IF THIS IS APPROVED IS THAT A CONDITION THAT THE FASTENERS GO INTO THE MORTAR JOINTS AND NOT INTO THE BRICK FACE. 
          I CAN, UM, ASK THE APPLICANT. 
          I THINK THEY WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT. 
          HE SAYS YES. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE YOU ONLY HAVE ONE. 
          THE SIXTH WARD HAS OTHER CRITERIA FOR THESE SIGNS, BUT YOU ONLY PUT ONE IN HERE. 
          UM, AND THE, I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THIS, BUT THE BLADE SIGN IS NINE SQUARE FEET AGAINST A SIX FOOT CAP. 
          I MAY, I MAY BE PICKING THAT UP INCORRECTLY, BUT, UM, AND THEN A MARQUEE BACKBOARD IS 36 ENGINES AGAINST A 24 INCH. 
          UM, AND I COULD BE, I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THE, BECAUSE THE, THEY DIDN'T REPRODUCE THOSE PARTICULAR PARTS OF THE SIXTH WARD, UM, THING. 
          BUT SO FOR THE BACKBOARD, I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE OVER. 
          UM, THERE WAS, WE WANTED TO LEAVE IT OPEN TO COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY DID HAVE LETTERING ABOVE THE BACKBOARD AS WELL AS THE BACKBOARD ON HOW, UM, YOU GUYS WOULD DECIDE. 
          UM, BECAUSE THE OLD SIX WARD ISN'T VERY SPECIFIC ON HOW WE WOULD COUNT EITHER TWO SEGMENTS OF THE SIGNAGE. 
          BUT I ALSO THINK, UM, IF THAT YOU WANTED TO MAKE THAT A COM UH, CONDITION AS WELL, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE OVER THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE BACKBOARD. 
          AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, WHY WAS THIS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IF YOU KNEW THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION AND SHOULD THAT NOT HAVE BEEN PUT IN THERE FOR US TO LOOK AT? UM, AGAIN, THE DRAWINGS WERE SO, UM, WE'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE DESIGNER AND THEY HAVE MADE A LOT OF CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS THAT WE WERE FOCUSING ON THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS THAT COMMISSION HAD PUT FORTH LAST TIME. 
          AND, UM, THERE'S JUST SOME DISPUTES ON SOME OF THE VERBIAGE IN THE OLD SIX WAR GUIDELINES. 
          AND, AND I THINK DIRECTOR TRAINER LIKE TO ALSO ADD, ADD TO THE, TO THE CONVERSATION. 
          UM, SO COMMISSIONER DAVIS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. 
          WE'LL BE MORE COGNIZANT OF YOUR COMMENT. 
          UH, WHEN THERE ARE SIZABLE DIFFERENCES, UM, IT COULD POTENTIALLY, IT SOUNDED LIKE EARLY ON ALL THE ITEMS WERE REQUESTED TO BE ON CONSENT, SO TAKEN. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          IT'S NOTED OF YOUR REQUEST. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR MOTION? I I, I GOT A QUE SO COMMISSIONER SEL, SORRY, I'M JUST, I MAY BE MISSING SOMETHING IN THE, IN THE PRESENTATION HERE, ARE WE EVALUATING TWO SIGNS? YES. 
          THERE, THERE'S A BLADE SIGN AND A SIGN THAT'S SORT OF LIKE A MARQUEE, FLATTENED MARQUEE THAT'S ON THE BUILDING. 
          HMM. 
          THE PRIMARY COMMENT FROM THE LAST MEETING WAS THAT IT WAS INTERNALLY LIMI ILLUMINATED, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED. 
          IT HAS TO BE, THE LIGHT SOURCE HAS TO BE ON THE, ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE, OF THE SIGN. 
          UM, AS WAS THE CASE WHEN THE, WHEN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS IN ITS PRE OF SIGNIFICANCE. 
          AND SO THEY REMOVED THE LIGHT SOURCE ENTIRELY, WHICH IS, WHICH NOW MEETS, MEETS THAT ASPECT, I'M ASSUMING, UH, LET'S, LET'S SAY THAT THEY HAVE A FAVORABLE VOTE TODAY ON WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED AND THEY COME BACK WITH AN EXTERNAL ILLUMINATION PROPOSAL. 
          WOULD THAT BE AN AA OR THAT COME BACK TO US AS WELL IF THERE'S A CHANGE TO THIS APPLICATION? LET ME ASK STAFF. 
          I THINK EVERYTHING IN OLD SIX WARD. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          THERE'S NO AAS IN OLD SIX WARD. 
          SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF THEY DO, I GUESS TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER DAVIS' QUESTION ABOUT IF THEY WERE TO REVISE AND PROVIDE LIGHTING THAT WOULD BE EXTERIOR, UM, IT WOULD STILL COME BACK TO US AT THAT TIME AND WE, WE'D SEE IT AGAIN. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAKELY. 
          HI EMILY. 
          UH, WHY ARE THERE, SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THIS IS LIKE AN ALUMINUM SIGN WITH THIS SORT OF SLIDE IN LETTERS. 
          UM, BUT IT'S NOT ILLUMINATED. 
          YES. 
          IT'S NOT ILLUMINATED. 
          THEY TOOK OUT THE ILLUMINATION. 
          [02:30:01]
SO LIGHT WOULD HAVE TO SHINE ON IT FROM OUTSIDE IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE SEEN. 
          YES. 
          AND THEY TOOK THE ILLUMINATION OUT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE SIGNAGE UP AND THEY WANT MORE TIME TO BRAINSTORM, UM, EXTERNAL ILLUMINATION IDEAS. 
          AND MAYBE, ADAM, WHAT IS THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS BUILDING? UH, THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED CIRCA IN 1920. 
          SO FROM WHAT I KNOW AROUND THIS TIMEFRAME, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. 
          I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE THAT SIGN WITH THE SLIDE IN LETTERS, IT'S A BIT OF A COMPROMISE BECAUSE IT USUALLY, THOSE ARE ELIMINATED. 
          I'VE NEVER SEEN A SIGN LIKE THAT IS, THAT'S NOT ELIMINATED FROM LIKE BACKLIT. 
          AND I ALSO ASSOCIATE IT WITH LIKE A LATER PERIOD IN TIME. 
          SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, ARE HAVING THE CLIENT SORT OF TWIST THEMSELVES INTO PRODUCING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T, THAT HAS A VERY LIKE, AESTHETIC OF SORT OF DEFAULT AND ACCOMMODATION RATHER THAN A STRONG IDENTITY IN ITSELF. 
          AND THE OTHER THING THAT CONFUSES ME IS THE REDUNDANCY OF THE SIGNS. 
          IS THAT OTHER SIGN, LIKE ALREADY THERE AND THEY'RE JUST GONNA PUT THEIR NAME IN IT? OR IS THERE A LOGIC BEHIND HAVING SO MANY SIGNS THAT CAN ONLY BE SEEN FROM, YOU KNOW, THE SAME ANGLE? LIKE TWO OF THEM CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ONE SIDE AND THREE OF THEM CAN BE SEEN, OR I, I DUNNO. 
          WHAT IS THE, THE SORT OF STRATEGY OR DESIGN OR COMMUNICATION STRATEGY OF THESE SIGNS? UM, WELL, FROM THE ORIGINAL SUGGESTION IN THE OLD SIX WARD DESIGN GUIDELINES, UM, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A CAVEAT THAT THE BLADE SIGN MUST BE PERPENDICULAR TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. 
          SO THEY ORI IN THEIR ORIGINAL DESIGN THAT THEY HAD FOR LAST COMMISSION, IT WAS ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND THEY DECIDED TO MOVE IT TO THE SIDE. 
          UM, WE CAN ASK, UM, THE APPLICANT, UM, FOR MORE CLARIFICATION ON THE DESIGN LOGIC, IF YOU LIKE. 
          SURE. 
          THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          SO IF MR. MUSTAFA, CAMILLE COULD COME AND ADDRESS THE QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSIONER AND I'LL, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO, FOR HIM TO DO. 
          SO. 
          IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICRO IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UH, IN THE PAST APPLICATION WE HAD THE SIGN, THE BLADE SIGN ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND AS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE, IT CAME BACK TO US. 
          THAT HAS TO BE PERPENDICULAR TO THE BUILDING ON THE FACADE, THE FRONT FACING FACADE OF THE WASHINGTON AVENUE. 
          SO WE ADJUSTED THE APPLICATION AND THE DESIGN TO HAVE IT ON THE, ON THE FRONT OF THE FACADE. 
          AND NOW WE HAVE A, A DIFFERENT COMET AT THE TIME, BUT TO ME IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE 'CAUSE IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO ANOTHER SIGN. 
          EXACTLY. 
          WE DECIDED TO KEEP BOTH SIGN BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO HAVE BOTH SIGNS, UM, ON THE WASHINGTON AVENUE ONE ON, ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. 
          HOWEVER, ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING WAS NOT APPROVED, SO WE DECIDED TO MOVE IT ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. 
          BUT WE DO NEED TO DESU THE TWO SIGNS ALSO. 
          WHY DO YOU NEED THE TWO SIGNS ALSO? I'M SORRY, THE TWO SIGNS. 
          ONE THAT IS FACING FROM EAST TO WEST OF WASHINGTON AND ONE ON THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS FRONT OF THE BUILDING FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. 
          SO VISIBILITY WOULD BE, UH, APPARENT FROM THE THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING LEFT, RIGHT, AND FRONT. 
          BUT THEN WHY HAVE TWO SLIDE IN SIGNS? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALMOST FLAT. 
          I SEE THAT THERE'S A SLIGHT ANGLE, BUT THERE SAY THE SAME, LIKE SAME, THE SAME INFORMATION IS THERE. 
          CORRECT. 
          IT, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU CONCEDE, YOU CONCEDE THAT THIS IS NOT A DESIGN LIKE THIS IS BECAUSE YOU WANT THE SIGNS AND WE ASK THEM TO BE ALL LIKE THE ORDINANCE SAYS THEY ALL HAVE TO BE ON THE FRONT. 
          SO YOU PUT THEM ON THE FRONT, BUT THEY DON'T WORK AS A DESIGN TOGETHER. 
          UM, WASHINGTON AVENUE RUNS EAST TO WEST AND WE NEED VISIBILITY FROM EAST SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE. 
          THAT'S WHY THE SIGN IS ANGLED. 
          UH, AND THE ANGLE HAS BEEN SHORTENED TO MEET THE GUIDELINES. 
          DIRECTOR TRAN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A COMMENT? THANK YOU. 
          UH, I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO CLARIFY WHETHER THE ORDINANCE STATES THE NUMBER OF SIGNS. 
          IS THERE A PROVISION THAT LIMITS THE NUMBER OF SIGNS THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THIS PORTION OF THE CONVERSATION? THANK YOU. 
          STAFF PERSON, ARSLAN. 
          UM, THERE 
          [02:35:01]
IS NO NUMBER. 
          THE LANGUAGE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS IS THAT ALL SIGNS APPROVED NEED TO BE 25 SQUARE FEET. 
          AND UNLESS, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S AN S THERE, UH, BUT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC NUMBER. 
          THIS IS TALKING THE ORDINANCE. 
          I'M, I'M, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE OH SIX WARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, SO I'M GONNA CLOSE THE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR IS THERE A MOTION TO TEST? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          MR. BROBECK. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ALL OPPOSED? OPPOSED. 
          BLAKELY. 
          OPPOSED. 
          OKAY, WE CAN DO THE NEXT TWO TOGETHER. 
          THEY'RE THE SAME. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          THIS IS STAFF PERSON JACQUELINE BROWN. 
          IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ITEMS A 11 AND A 12 TOGETHER AS THEY'RE LOCATED ON THE SAME SITE. 
          IT WOULD PLEASE THE CHAIR AND I'M SURE THE COMMISSION  ITEM A 11 AT, AT THREE 16 EAST 18TH STREET IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS, EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          THE 857 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY GARAGE WITH GARAGE APARTMENT ON A CORNER LOT IS A POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTING WOOD STRUCTURE. 
          CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1948. 
          THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE CURRENT STRUCTURE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. 
          THE EXISTING FLOOR PLAN SHOW A GARAGE AND STORAGE AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND GARAGE APARTMENT ON THE SECOND FLOOR. 
          ITEM A 12, UH, AT 1650 CORTLAND STREET IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS, EAST HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          THE 2,726 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS A CONTRIBUTING COLONIAL REVIVAL STRUCTURE ON A CORNER LOT CON CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1937. 
          THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 527 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE APARTMENT, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL STAFF HAS RECEIVED, RECEIVED ZERO PUBLIC COMMENTS. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AT THIS TIME, I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I DO HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP. 
          THE FIRST SPEAKER IS SAM NUAS. 
          SAM NUAS CREO DESIGN. 
          UH, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN, IN 2020. 
          IT WAS APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION IN A NEW GARAGE, ACTUALLY MUCH LARGER GARAGE IN BREEZEWAY. 
          AND IN 2022, IN 2020 AND 2022, IT WAS APPROVED BOTH TIMES FOR DEMOLITION AND, UM, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STRUCTURE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN ONE WE'RE PROPOSING. 
          AND SO WHENEVER, UH, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THIS STRUCTURE FELL INTO A THREE 16 EAST 18TH STREET, WHICH WE, WHICH IS NOT A SEPARATELY PLATTED LOT, IT'S NOT A SEPARATE TAX NUMBER, IT'S NOT ANYTHING, IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT SOMEHOW GOT PICKED UP WHEN THEY WERE DOING POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES. 
          AND SO WHEN YOU GOOGLE OR WHEN YOU GO ON TO LOOK FOR THAT ADDRESS ANYWHERE, IT TAKES YOU BACK TO 1650 COURTLAND. 
          AND SO THE, THE STRUCTURE THAT'S OUT THERE WAS BUILT IN 1948. 
          SO IT'S PAST THE TIME OF SIGNIFICANCE. 
          IT HAS, THERE'S NOT ONE WINDOW ON THAT STRUCTURE THAT IS THE SAME. 
          THERE'S VINYL, THERE'S METAL, THERE'S THREE OR FOUR GLASS BLOCK WINDOWS. 
          IT HAS NO EAVES. 
          THE SILLS ARE IN THE GROUND. 
          UH, SOMEBODY TERRAZZO, TILED THE FLOOR IN THERE. 
          SO IT'S REALLY, UH, UH, NOT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE BY ANY MEANS. 
          AND THE SANBORN MAPS, UH, CONFIRM ALL OF THIS AS WELL. 
          UM, SO WE'RE, WE'RE ASKING TO DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD A NEW GARAGE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CASSIE HARTLINE. 
          SHE'S OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKER IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT HEARING ANYONE. 
          I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THIS ITEM? AND IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION, MR. COSGROVE MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? WE'LL DO 'EM SEPARATELY. 
          SO THIS IS ITEM 11, THE DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? FOR A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          IS THERE THEN I'LL MOVE TO, UH, ACCEPT 
          [02:40:01]
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          RIGHT ITEM 12, UM, FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? GARCIA SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? THOSE MOTIONS PASS. 
          WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 14. 
          MR. CHAIR, I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FOR THIS ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON. 
          I SUBMIT ITEM A 14 AT 9 32 WEST TEMPLE STREET IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL THE 1,700 OR THE 1076 SQUARE FOOT. 
          ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS A CONTRIBUTING BUNGALOW PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1925. 
          THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1037 FOOT ONE STORY REAR ADDITION AND CONVERT THE EXISTING ONE STORY DETACHED GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE, BRINGING THE TOTAL LIVING SPACE, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 2095. 
          AGAIN, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AT THIS TIME, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR THIS ITEM. 
          THE FIRST IS SAM NUAS, WHO'S THE APPLICANT. 
          IF YOU COULD PLEASE RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE OUR AUDIENCE. 
          UH, UH, SAM NUAS CREO DESIGN. 
          UH, WE'RE ADDING, THERE'S AN EXISTING GARAGE. 
          IT'S IN GOOD SHAPE THERE. 
          IT'S A, A PRETTY NEW SLAB. 
          AND SO WE MADE THE DECISION TO TAKE IN THAT GARAGE AS A LIVING SPACE. 
          SO REALLY AN ACTUAL, WE'RE ADDING ABOUT 561 SQUARE FEET TO THIS HOUSE BECAUSE WE'RE USING THE EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE FOR A GUEST SUITE, BASICALLY. 
          AND SO, UH, IT'S KIND OF DECEIVING BECAUSE WE MEASURE, WE ACTUALLY GO OUT AND PHYSICALLY MEASURE THESE HOUSES. 
          AND THIS HOUSE CAME IN AT 1,076 SQUARE FEET WHERE HCA SAYS IT'S 1,056 SQUARE FEET. 
          SO THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCY BETWEEN HCAD AND BETWEEN US PHYSICALLY ACTUALLY GOING AND MEASURING INSIDE AND OUT OF THE HOUSE. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE THERE'S ABOUT 25 SQUARE FEET OF DIFFERENCE. 
          BUT BASICALLY WE'RE ADDING 561 SQUARE FEET AND WE'RE TAKEN IN THE EXISTING GARAGE AS A LIVING SPACE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS VIRGINIA KELSEY. 
          I AM VIRGINIA KELSEY. 
          I'M A RESIDENT OF NOR HILL. 
          IT'S NICE THAT THIS IS A SMALL SCALE, UM, ADDITION AND WE APPLAUD THAT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          BUT THERE IS ONE ISSUE, UH, OR A COUPLE OF ISSUES. 
          ONE IS THAT THE CARPORT IS BACK 53 FEET, SIX INCHES FROM THE, UM, FRONT PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND THE, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS REQUIRE 60 FEET BACK. 
          AND, UM, ONE THING, THIS IS SORT OF A QUESTION, AND IT'S, IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT THIS DOCU IN THE DOCUMENT CAMERA. 
          THIS WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION DURING THE, UM, THE, UH, TOWN HALL MEETING THAT WE HAD ABOUT THIS, THAT SOMEONE THAT HAD BEEN DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THE PAST WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS. 
          I'M GONNA READ IT TO YOU. 
          THAT SAYS THAT WHEN YOU SIGN THE COA, UM, DOCUMENT, IT SAYS DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          YOU HAVE VERIFIED THAT THE WORK DOES NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW THAT ONE ASPECT OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IS IT REQUIRES THAT THE SUBMISSIONS BE MADE TO THE NOR HILL BOARD. 
          I'M NOT ON THE NOR HILL BOARD, BUT THERE'S A NOR HILL BOARD MEMBER THAT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED. 
          SO THAT'S THE CONCERN, IS THAT THE CARPORT IS FORWARD AND THAT IT HASN'T BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS ITEM? I'M NOT HEARING ANYONE. 
          I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UM, I I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL, JUST IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION. 
          I, I KNOW THAT HISTORICALLY I CAN RECALL MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, UM, IT WAS, WE HAD TO GET A LETTER FROM WHAT WHATEVER DEED, DEED CONTROL COMMITTEE WE WERE WORKING IN TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM A C OF A. 
          AND, UM, OF COURSE, ANYONE COULD WRITE DOWN WHAT THEY WANTED TO, AND IT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ENFORCED. 
          AND, AND 
          [02:45:01]
IT, IF SOMEONE SAID THEY WERE COMPLYING, IT DIDN'T MEAN THAT THEY WERE, THEY JUST, THEY JUST SIGNED THE FORM AND IT, AND IT WAS, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S STILL A, A PRACTICE TODAY, BUT I KNOW THAT WE, UM, AGAIN, WE, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, DON'T ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR ANY NEIGHBORHOOD IN, YOU KNOW, THAT WITHIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS OR WITHIN THE PROTECTED LANDMARK HOMES THAT WE HAVE IN, IN THOSE DISTRICTS. 
          UM, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT, UH, THE, WHEN THE PERMITTING HAPPENS, IS, IS THAT STILL OCCURRING WHERE SOMEONE WILL SIGN WHEN IT GETS TO THE, TO WHEN IT GETS TO THEIR DOORSTEP? IS, IS THIS ISSUE AT LEAST ADDRESSED IN SOME WAY? RIGHT. 
          SO WHEN BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE MADE TO THE HOUSTON PERMITTING CENTER, THERE IS AN UNSWORN DECLARATION THAT THE APPLICANT SIGNS INDICATING THAT THE BUILDING PLANS THAT ARE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON DO NOT VIOLATE NO DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          SO THAT IS PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS. 
          UM, THE CITY OF HOUSTON LEGAL DEPARTMENT ALSO HAS A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SECTION THAT IS CHARGED WITH ENFORCING DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          THEY HAVE A HOTLINE, UM, THAT NEIGHBORHOODS CAN CALL AS WELL FOR DEED RESTRICTION ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES. 
          SO THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS AVAILABLE IN THE PROCESS FOR THE CITY. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION, BEFORE US, WE'RE, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED FOR NOR HILL, UH, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. 
          SO, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THE SETBACK IS, IS IN EFFECT FOR, FOR US, LIKE THE, FOR FOR THIS STRUCTURE. 
          SO FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR THE COMMISSION, I, I, I HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED TO REVIEW FOR DEED RESTRICTION COMPLIANCE. 
          UM, AND THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY PART OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THIS BODY DOES. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          SO I'M JUST SAYING THE VOTE, THE, THE, THE CONSIDERATION TODAY WE HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE THE GUIDANCE OF DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. 
          IS THAT WE'RE THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T ADDRESS THIS SETBACK ISSUE. 
          THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S MY QUESTION. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
          UM, I, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR, FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS, UM, AT THIS TIME AND STAFF PERSON, DEION, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE FORM THAT MS. KELSEY BROUGHT UP HERE IS NO LONGER A, A REQUIRED DOCUMENT ON THE, UH, PRESERVATION TRACKER SITE. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
          WE DO NEED TO UPDATE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE REGULAR HOUSTON PLANNING WEBSITE, BUT JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WITH THAT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OF STAFF ABOUT THE APPLICATION BEFORE US? UM, AND IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION GARCIA, UM, MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, RECOMMEND STAFF OR FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? I'M, I'M SORRY, BEFORE THERE'S A VOTE. 
          I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION. 
          THIS APPLICATION WAS ON CONSENT. 
          DID ANY OF THE, UH, COMMISSIONERS SITTING CURRENTLY PULL THIS ITEM? UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS PULLED, BUT I, THERE WAS ALSO A SPEAKER WHO HAD SIGNED UP. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WHO HAD QUESTIONED THE ASPECTS OF IT AS, AS YOU HAVE HEARD. 
          GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          ALL OPPOSED. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          YOU HE CAME. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER BRABECK RETURNS. 
          I GOT LOCKED OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM B, AN UPDATE ON THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          MY NAME IS JEFF BUTLER. 
          UH, ITEM B IS AN UPDATE ON THE HHC SUBCOMMITTEE'S PROGRESS IN THE PROPOSED NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THIS COMMISSION APPOINTED A SUBCOMMITTEE TASKED WITH ADDRESSING THE INTENT OF APPROVAL CONDITIONS OF A, THE DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          THIS INCLUDES SPECIFYING VERBAL CONDITIONS THAT WERE MADE BY THE HHC IN THE JUNE MEETING AS WELL TO AS TO ADDRESS REMAINING ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOCUMENTS LANGUAGE. 
          SINCE THEN, STAFF AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS CONVENED FOUR TIMES TO DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT. 
          THIS INCLUDES DRAFTING A RED LINE VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT, AS WELL AS STAFF ANALYSIS TO VERIFY THAT ALL ELEMENTS OF THE DOC DOCUMENT ARE ACHIEVABLE. 
          THE COMMITTEE'S PROGRESS IN THIS WORK IS ONGOING. 
          STAFF ALSO PARTICIPATED IN A TOWN HALL MEETING HOSTED BY COUNCIL DISTRICT H. 
          THERE WE PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S PROGRESS, AS WELL AS ANSWERED QUESTIONS. 
          STAFF ALSO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM OUR WEBSITE TO GAIN ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION. 
          STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE WITH THE GOAL OF PRODUCING 
          [02:50:01]
A DRAFT RED LINE BY THE OCTOBER MEETING. 
          FROM THERE, THE HHC MAY CONSIDER THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S INPUT FOR A COMPLETED SET OF DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          ANY APPROVED GUIDELINES WILL NEED TO BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL'S QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE BEFORE BEING ACTED UPON BY CITY COUNCIL. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMISSIONER TRAN DO YOU WANT TO ADD FOR THIS, UH, AGENDA ITEM? I MEAN, WE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING THE, THE, THE ONGOING COMMITTEE WORK AT THIS MEETING, BUT, UM, BUT AGAIN, AS WAS STATED, THE, THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN MEETING OFTEN, AND I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'VE BEEN MEETING VERY LONG, LENGTHY MEETINGS, UH, AT THAT, UH, WORKING THROUGH, UM, ALL THE ITEMS, UM, THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS. 
          CORRECT. 
          UH, THIS IS JUST AN UPDATE ON THE ONGOING WORK AND, UH, DOING TODAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU MR. BROBECK. 
          YES, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. 
          NONE OF IT IS SUBSTANTIVE ABOUT THE, UH, DESIGN GUIDELINES THEMSELVES. 
          UM, UH, HAVE A, A FEW FOR, UH, JEFF BUTLER. 
          UM, FIRST, UM, CAN YOU TELL US WHICH THERE'S MULTIPLE DRAFTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED. 
          HMM. 
          CAN YOU TELL US WHICH DRAFT THE COMMITTEE IS WORKING FROM? IT IS THE ONE THAT WAS CONSIDERED, UM, AT THE JUNE MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I GOT A NOTE FROM STAFF THIS MORNING THAT APPLYING THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS, MEANING THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS FROM THE JUNE 18TH APPROVAL VOTE FROM THE HC IS PART OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S TASK. 
          SO WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHEN THE RED LINE COMES BACK TO US, IS IT GOING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CHANGES THAT ARE IMPLEMENTING THE COMMISSION'S JUNE 18TH VOTE, AND THEN CHANGES THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS PROPOSING ON ITS OWN? WILL WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? SO THERE'S, AT, AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, WE, WE HAD DIRECTION ON, ON TWO FRONTS, BASICALLY. 
          ONE IS TO ADDRESS THE INTENT OF THE TWO CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE MADE VERBALLY AND IT WERE PROVED DIFFICULT TO, TO IMPLEMENT. 
          AND THEN TWO, THERE WAS SOME, A, A BROADER TASK TO JUST GO OUT AND CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE AND TO WEED OUT INCONSISTENCIES AND VERIFY THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS WERE WORKABLE. 
          SO WE DON'T HAVE A, A WAY WE, WE AREN'T AS OF NOW, DELINEATING WHICH ONES ARE SPECIFIC TO THOSE CONDITIONS AND WHICH ONES ARE KIND OF CLEANING IT UP. 
          A LOT OF IT OVERLAPS. 
          UM, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD CONSIDER. 
          I WOULD ASK THAT YOU DO THAT, BECAUSE THE EXPECTATION IS THAT AT, WE WOULD BE SEEING SOMETHING THAT IS A FINALIZED VERSION OF WHAT WE APPROVED ON JUNE 18TH. 
          IF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I RESPECT THE WORK OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, IF THEY WANTED TO MAKE DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY CAN DO THAT. 
          I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE WHICH IS WHICH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I ALSO, UM, GOT CONFIRMATION, MR. OH, JUST FOR, FOR A MOMENT. 
          I THINK, UH, THE DIRECTOR TRAIN WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT ASPECT OF YOUR INQUIRY. 
          YEAH. 
          JUST, UH, I'M JUST GONNA REMIND THAT THE COMMISSION RESCINDED THE JUNE VOTE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO IN JUNE, STAFF PRESENTED A, A DRAFT, IT WAS VOTED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. 
          IN JULY, STAFF CAME BACK, PRESENTED THEIR WORK, WHAT TO ADDRESS THE CONDITIONS. 
          THERE WAS NO ACTION. 
          IN JULY, THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS AND THE DISCUSSION RESULTED THAT STAFF'S ATTEMPT DID NOT MEET THOSE CONDITIONS. 
          IN JULY, THE COMMISSION RESCINDED JUNE'S VOTE. 
          SO THE DOCUMENT AT THE VERY LAST IS REALLY TRULY THE JUNE. 
          SO ALL OF THE COMMENTS TO GO AND FIX IT GOT ERASED BY THAT RECENSION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE DOCUMENT THAT WE SHOULD BE BASING ALL FUTURE WORK WILL BE THE JUNE. 
          SO NONE OF THE COMMENTS ABOUT FIX THIS FIX THAT SHOULD BE ON THE JUNE. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE JUNE. 
          WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, REMEMBER, WE CAN ALWAYS LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT IN ITS HOLISTIC FORM, WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKS. 
          DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE HERE? BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          WE, IT'S, IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR US TO DO ALL OF THIS. 
          JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL UNDERSTANDING THAT 
          [02:55:01]
THE BASE DOCUMENT WILL BE THE JUNE DOCUMENT, BUT WHEN YOU DO LOOK AT IT AT THE NEXT ROUND, PLEASE LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY. 
          OKAY. 
          NOT JUST THE RED LINE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          BROUGHT BACK THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. 
          YES, THAT WE'LL FOLLOW. 
          THAT ACTUALLY BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION BECAUSE CPD STAFF WAS ASKED POINT BLANK AT THE JULY 16TH MEETING, UM, THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE LANGUAGE, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THE POSTED LANGUAGE WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE HH C'S DIRECTION FROM JUNE 18TH. 
          AND WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS. 
          SO ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS ALL THE OTHER VERSIONS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES WERE ALSO NEVER APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION. 
          JUNE 18TH WAS FOR A TIME. 
          I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO INTRODUCE THAT DRAFT INTO THE DISCUSSION AS WELL. 
          WELL, I, I THINK THAT, UM, AGAIN, WE DISCUSSION DOESN'T APPROVE GUIDELINES. 
          WE, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO ADVANCE THE GUIDELINES TO QUALITY OF LIFE AND THEN ULTIMATELY TO CITY COUNCIL FOR, BECAUSE ONLY ONLY CITY COUNCIL CAN APPROVE THESE THINGS. 
          AND, UM, THE, WE'VE GONE BACK, WE'RE STARTING THE, THE COMMITTEE IS WORKING OFF OF THE JUNE DOCUMENT. 
          THEY HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING, NONETHELESS. 
          RIGHT? IT, THEY, THEY'RE AWARE. 
          THAT'S WHY THEY'VE BEEN MEETING OFTEN AND THEY'VE BEEN MEETING WITH VERY LONG MEETINGS TO WORK THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITEMS. BUT INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS AND THEN TRYING TO CREATE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY'RE JUST STARTING WITH THE JUNE DOCUMENT AS THEIR SOURCE. 
          IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE THROWING AWAY ANY OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN. 
          UM, THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT WE ADDED WHEN I FORMED THE COMMITTEE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE HAD BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT CAN YOU ACHIEVE THIS FAR? OR, OR, OR CAN YOU ACHIEVE THE, LET'S SAY, BASED ON SETBACKS THAT ARE, THAT ARE REQUIRED? AND WE'VE ASKED STAFF, UM, MEMBERS OF STAFF TO RUN THE NUMBERS ON, ON, ON THOSE KINDS OF THINGS SO THAT WHEN THEY COME BACK, WHEN THE COMMITTEE IS, IS, IS FEELS THAT THERE, IT'S READY TO COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION FOR US TO REVIEW THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THEY'RE GONNA REVEAL TO US WHAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THE INCONSISTENCIES THAT THEY, THAT THEY CHANGE OR THE, THE, THE, THE LANGUAGE AND TEXT. 
          BUT THEY ALSO WILL REVEAL THE RESULTS OF THOSE, UH, EXERCISES SO THAT WE'LL KNOW DID THEY, DID THEY WORK? DID THEY WORK? BUT NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND AND SO ON. 
          AND HOW DID THE COMMITTEE MAKE, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO US. 
          I'M NOT IN THOSE MEETINGS, BUT, UM, WHEN THEY COME BACK TO US, THAT'S WHERE WE'LL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT IT. 
          AND AGAIN, WE CAN APPROVE IT THEN, OR WE CAN ASK THEM. 
          WE, WE MAY NOT APPROVE IT BASED ON SOME ASPECTS. 
          WE MAY ASK COMMITTEE TO DO SOME MORE WORK THAT'S IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND IT'S, IT'S SPECULATIVE AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH GREAT EARNEST AND GREAT SINCERITY, AND WE WANT TO GET THIS RIGHT. 
          SO WHEN IT DOES, UM, IF THIS BODY DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO RECOMMEND ADVANCING THIS IN THE PROCESS, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED THESE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING, UH, CONVERSATIONS SO THAT EVERYONE WILL KNOW AND THERE'LL BE TRANSPARENCY IN THAT. 
          BUT WE'RE, IT'S, IT'S JUST, THERE'S, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THE WAY THIS DOCUMENT WAS CREATED INITIALLY THROUGH A CONSULTANT AND THEN THROUGH ONGOING WORK. 
          IT'S THE LONGEST PROCESS THAT WE'VE EVER HAD FOR, FOR GUIDELINES. 
          AND NO, IT WAS NOT EASY FOR STAFF TO JUST FIX ALL THIS IN ONE WEEK'S TIME. 
          I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT EXPECTATION LIKELY WAS, COULD NOT BE MET. 
          BUT THERE IS GREAT EARNEST BEING APPLIED TO WORKING THROUGH ALL OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND THEN REVEALING TO US WHEN, WHEN THEY DO, WHEN THEY'RE READY, BUT THEY'RE NOT READY YET. 
          SO, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR, YES. 
          UM, UH, FOR MR. BUTLER, UM, AT, UH, I WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE SEPTEMBER 3RD, UH, TOWN HALL MM-HMM . 
          UM, AND YOU DESCRIBED THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE AS BOTH REVIEWING THE COMPONENTS OF THE DOCUMENT HOLISTICALLY AND ALSO IN DIFFERENT SPOTS. 
          JUST IRONING OUT THE LANGUAGE, THOSE TWO THINGS MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          SO, WHICH IS IT? I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF, OF THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE, THAT THERE'S BOTH THINGS HAVE TO BE DONE. 
          WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE APPROVAL CONDITIONS, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY INCONSISTENCIES ARE ADDRESSED IN THE DOCUMENT. 
          THOSE, THOSE ARE BOTH THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. 
          [03:00:02]
I GUESS THAT MY CONCERN IS THAT THE VERY CLEAR IMPRESSION WAS GIVEN TO THE FOLKS IN NOR HILL THAT IT WAS JUST CLEANING UP LANGUAGE. 
          THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES OVER WHAT HAD MADE IT THROUGH THE HAHC ON JUNE 18TH. 
          THAT'S THE EXPECTATION THAT WAS CREATED IN THE ROOM. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SHOULD WE BE EXPECTING SUBSTAN SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES OR NOT? WELL, THAT, AND AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THAT WAS OUR TASK ISSUED BY THE CHAIR THAT WE'RE CLEARING UP THE, THE, WE'RE WE'RE MEETING THE INTENT OF THE PREVIOUS APPROVED CONDITIONS, AS WELL AS CLEANING UP THE LANGUAGE. 
          UM, THE INTENT IS NOT TO REOPEN THIS AND START OVER AND, AND, AND CHANGE ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE. 
          THE INTENT IS TO JUST KIND OF WORK OUT SOME OF THE, THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE, HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR TRAN. 
          UM, AND SO THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE HHC KNOW THAT THIS IS RESCINDING THIS VOTE. 
          AFTER EVERYTHING THAT NOR HILL PUT INTO THIS HAS CREATED AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF UPHEAVAL IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IF, IF YOU NEED ANY EVIDENCE, THERE WERE 67 PEOPLE THAT SHOWED UP TO THE TOWN HALL ON NOVEMBER OR ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, 67, I COUNTED HEADS. 
          SO THEY'RE REALLY UPSET ABOUT THIS AND RIGHTFULLY SO. 
          UM, SO FOR DIRECTOR TRAN, THE, THE COMMITTEE PROCESS HAS BEEN CLOSED AND NOR HILL RESIDENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OBSERVE OR REVIEW THE DRAFTS THAT THE COMMITTEE IS WORKING ON. 
          UM, DESPITE ALL OF IT BEING PUBLIC INFORMATION, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BE THERE. 
          UM, THAT'S UPSETTING PEOPLE. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS, THIS CLOSING THAT PROCESS WAS ACTUALLY NOT PART OF THE MOTION THAT THE HAHC PASSED ON AUGUST 13TH, THE LAST MEETING THAT WASN'T PART OF IT. 
          SO THAT MEANS THAT THE DECISION TO CLOSE IT WAS A DECISION THAT THE HAHC DID NOT MAKE. 
          SO WHO MADE THAT DECISION? AND UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY? ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M GONNA TRY TO BREAK THIS DOWN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE CORE OF YOUR QUESTION IS THE PROCESS. 
          WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BRING THIS TO THE COMMITTEE? NO, MY QUESTION IS, WHO DECIDED TO CLOSE THIS PROCESS TO THE PUBLIC? THERE'S NO REASON WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. 
          THIS, THIS COMMISSION DID NOT SAY THEY COULDN'T BE ALLOWED. 
          THERE'S NO EX, BECAUSE THE, THE COMMITTEE IS ONLY POPULATED BY TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          IT'S NOT A PUBLIC MEETING. 
          SO THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE OR COMMENT, BUT THERE'S ALSO NO DIRECTIVE TO NOT ALLOW THEM IN THE ROOM. 
          OUR PRACTICE WITH COMMITTEE WORK IS COMMITTEE WORK. 
          IT IS NOT AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT IS NOT THAT IT COULDN'T BE DONE BECAUSE THE TOWN HALL MEETING THAT WAS SCHEDULED OR ORGANIZED BY COUNCIL MEMBER, THAT IS A PUBLIC FORUM. 
          THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM. 
          ALL QUESTIONS CAN BE ASKED AS WELL IN THIS PUBLIC FORUM. 
          BUT WHEN IT COMES TO COMMITTEE WORK, THE PRACTICE IS THAT THE COMMITTEE WORK, THEY'RE SITTING HERE AND THEY'RE WORKING ON DOCUMENTS. 
          WE HAVE TWO COMMITTEE MEMBERS WORKING WITH SEVERAL STAFF. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO THAT'S JUST BEEN THE PRACTICE OF OUR COMMITTEE. 
          HAD IT BEEN A VOTE TO SAY, LET'S HAVE AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM COMMITTEE WORK WHERE EVERYBODY COMES AND THEY'RE THROWING COMMENTS TO US AND WE ARE TAKING NOTES. 
          WE'RE SCRIBING, WE'RE MAKING ALL OF THESE DECISIONS WITH EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM WITH ALL EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS MERGING. 
          THAT'S NOT HOW COMMITTEE WORKS. 
          I TO, I UNDERSTAND IF THE PUBLIC OR THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE SOME MORE UPDATES ON WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS. 
          THIS ALSO POSES A CHALLENGE BECAUSE THIS COMMISSION MEETS ONCE A MONTH, AND THE PRACTICE IS, WE ARE OBLIGATED TO REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON ANY DETAILS OF THE WORK BEFORE WE DISCLOSE IT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. 
          THAT IS THE PRACTICE. 
          AND IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE TIME CONSTRAINT THAT WE HAVE. 
          THERE IS NO INTENTION AT ALL TO HIDE ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY. 
          OBVIOUSLY, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON, ANYBODY CAN REQUEST ANYTHING. 
          THEY CAN COME TO THESE MEETINGS, THEY CAN ASK QUESTIONS. 
          BUT THAT'S THE PROCESS, 
          [03:05:01]
IS THE TIMELINE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO PLEASE BE PATIENT. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          AND YOUR COMMENT ABOUT 67 PEOPLE SHOWING UP TO THE NOR HILL, UM, CIVIC ASSOCIATION, OR, I'M SORRY, THE TOWN HALL MEETING. 
          THAT'S FANTASTIC. 
          UH, BECAUSE IN THE PAST WHAT HAPPENED IS ONLY HALF OF THE PEOPLE SHOWED UP BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SHOW UP TO THESE MEETINGS. 
          THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO ARGUE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS. 
          SO THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS JUST THAT, THAT THAT'S JUST A PART OF IT. 
          AND SO WE'RE AT THE NTH HOUR, EVERYBODY REALIZES THIS IS FOR REAL. 
          WE'RE ABOUT TO, TO TO WRAP THIS UP. 
          THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE. 
          PLEASE SHOW UP. 
          I WISH THEY HAD SHOWN, SHOWN UP AND ALL OF THOSE OTHER MEETINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN THEY CAME HERE AND THEY SHOWED UP AND SAID, WELL, WE HAVEN'T BEEN GOING TO ANY OF THOSE MEETINGS AT ALL. 
          WELL, HERE'S OUR LAST CHANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHY COUNCIL MEMBER DID THAT, DID THAT TOWN HALL. 
          SO IT'S REALLY FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME IN A VERY LONG TIME THAT 67 PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT SIDE OF THE ROOM GOT TOGETHER, BECAUSE IN THE PAST THEY DIDN'T. 
          SO I HOPE THAT EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND OUR, THE GENUINENESS OF WHAT WE DO, WHAT MY STAFF DOES. 
          I AM REQUESTING SUPPORT. 
          MY STAFF WORK VERY, VERY HARD. 
          AND SOMETIMES I FEEL THAT THERE'S QUITE A HUGE ANIMOSITY TOWARDS THE STAFF. 
          AND THAT IS NOT FAIR TO THEM AT ALL. 
          THEIR HEART IS IN THIS, THEY WORK SO HARD. 
          AND I REALLY NEED THIS WHOLE ENTIRE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT MY STAFF. 
          THAT'S MY REQUEST. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO I THINK, UM, THERE MIGHT BE A FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THAT NO ONE'S ASKING FOR A PUBLIC FORUM. 
          UH, IT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT THE CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH THE GUIDELINES WHERE UNANIMOUSLY FORWARDED BY THE HAHC ON JUNE 18TH, UM, THAT REPRESENTED 10 YEARS OF WORK. 
          UH, AND IT WAS ON THE TAIL END OF AN OPEN PROCESS THAT HAPPENED OVER 10 YEARS. 
          AND SO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE TOLD, WE'RE FORWARDING IT. 
          UH, OH, WE'RE TAKING IT BACK AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. 
          WE'RE GONNA GO INTO A CLOSED ROOM. 
          YOU CAN'T COME IN. 
          BUT WE'LL HANDLE IT THERE. 
          THEY FEEL LIKE THEIR TRUST HAS BEEN VIOLATED. 
          AND SO IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT, I MIGHT BE WILLING TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, NOR HILL NEEDS TO RELAX, IT'S GONNA BE FINE. 
          BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WAY THINGS WENT DOWN HERE, THEIR TRUST HAS BEEN VIOLATED. 
          SO ALL I WOULD SAY IS THAT IF THERE REALLY IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE, LET 'EM IN THE ROOM. 
          NO ONE HAS ANY EXPECTATION TO PARTICIPATE. 
          THEY JUST WANT TO BE CONVINCED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. 
          SO LET 'EM IN THE ROOM. 
          UM, NEXT QUESTION FOR YOU, DIRECTOR TRAN. 
          UM, I DO RESPECT AND SUPPORT THAT THE HAHC CREATED THE NOR HILL, UM, GUIDELINES COMMITTEE. 
          BUT I AM REALLY CONCERNED WITH HOW IT CAME TO REAPPEAR ON THE HH C'S AGENDA. 
          AFTER WE HAD DISPOSED OF THE ISSUE BACK IN JUNE, UM, THE HHC NEVER FORMALLY ACTED TO PLACE NOR HILL BACK ON THE AGENDA. 
          WE NEVER TOOK A VOTE. 
          UM, AND THE HHC BY ORDINANCE, WE CONTROL OUR OWN AGENDA. 
          SO HOW IS IT THAT IT REAPPEARED ON THE AGENDA IN JULY AND THEN AGAIN IN AUGUST WHEN WE NEVER VOTED FOR THAT? I MAY NEED SUPPORT FROM LEGAL TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION BECAUSE THIS IS MORE OF PROCESS. 
          UM, BUT CHAIR HICK AS CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION ALSO WORK WITH US TO PLACE ITEMS ONTO THE AGENDA AS WELL. 
          WE DIDN'T JUST POOP ON OUR OWN, DID THIS, BUT I TRULY ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE PRO WE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS. 
          WE HAD LEGAL SCRUTINIZE OUR AGENDA, LOOKED AT IT DURING THAT, BECAUSE WE KNEW YOU WERE GONNA QUESTION THAT AGENDA. 
          SO WE HAD LEGAL LOOKED AT IT. 
          AND AGAIN, CHAIR HICK ALSO AGREED TO PUT, AND HE ASKED, HE CAN ASK ME AS SECRETARY TO PLACE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I'LL JUST SAY THE PREVIOUS MEETING TO THAT MEETING, I MEAN, WE HAD TWO MEETINGS PRIOR TO THAT MEETING WHERE THE COMMISSION WAS NOT SATISFIED ACROSS THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, FROM LEFT AND RIGHT THAT, UM, 
          [03:10:01]
THAT THE CONDITIONS OR THE, THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT WE SET WERE NOT BEING MET. 
          AND THERE WERE STILL ISSUES AND THINGS THAT NEEDED CLARIFICATION. 
          AND, UM, SO WE HADN'T MET AT THAT POINT. 
          WE HAD NOT MET THE INTENT OF THE JUNE DECISION. 
          THEY, THEY, THEY WERE AFTER TWO MONTHS OF ATTEMPTS. 
          WE HAD NOT, THIS, THIS BODY COULD NOT, THIS BODY COULD NOT AGREE THAT WE HAD MET THOSE CONDITIONS. 
          AND WHAT WAS ON THE TABLE AT THAT MEETING WAS TO CONSIDER RESCINDING IT. 
          AND I PROPOSED GOING TO A COMMITTEE SO WE CAN, A COMMITTEE COULD WORK THROUGH IT. 
          WE, WE HAD TRIED FOR TWO MONTHS AROUND THIS, AROUND THIS FORUM TO ENACT THOSE CHANGES. 
          AND IN FAIRNESS, THERE, IT JUST TAKES MORE TIME AND WORK. 
          AND, AND IT REALLY IS AN ISSUE OF COMMITTEE WORK. 
          IT, IT'S REALLY NOT, UH, A VALUE. 
          WE, THE CONDITIONS WERE NOT SO SIMPLE THAT WE COULD SIMPLY AROUND THIS TABLE, SAY, MAKE A FEW REVISIONS AND MAKE IT, MAKE IT, AND MAKE IT WORK. 
          UH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE STILL DID NOT HAVE CONSENSUS THAT, THAT THE REVISIONS THAT WE SET HAD BEEN MET AT THAT POINT. 
          THAT'S WHERE, UH, AGAIN, UH, COMMISSIONER BROWNING ASKED ME, DO I SUPPORT THIS? AND THE ANSWER IS YES, BECAUSE I WANT THIS COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SET OF GUIDELINES, UH, FOR, FOR, FOR ADVANCING TOWARD THE, THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          AND I WANT, UH, MR. BUTLER IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY FOUND WHEN THEY RAN THE SCENARIOS. 
          'CAUSE IT'S BEEN A QUESTION THAT WAS BEEN RAISED. 
          ALL THE WHILE PUBLIC COMMENT IS OCCURRING EVEN IN THIS MOMENT AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN, AND ALONG THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, ALL THE WAY TO CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS THE WAY THAT, THAT'S THE WAY THE PUBLIC PROCESS WORKS. 
          UM, BUT IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL AT CITY COUNCIL, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. 
          AND THEN WE CAN REPORT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER IN HIS DISTRICT AND TO THE OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. 
          WE HAVE ADDRESSED THEM. 
          THIS IS HOW WE ADDRESSED THEM. 
          HERE'S WHAT WE FOUND IN, AND HERE'S WHERE WE ARE. 
          AND, AND I MEAN THIS, WE DIDN'T HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT RAN THESE DI DESIGN GUIDELINES ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          THEY STARTED WITH A CONSULTANT. 
          THE FIRST DRAFT WAS WINNERS GROUP WHO DID THE, THE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE HEIGHTS. 
          SO I, YOU KNOW, PART OF HOW WE GOT HERE IS HAVING A CONSULTANT AND THEN, AND THEN WE DIDN'T HAVE A CONSULTANT, AND WE WORKED WITH STAFF. 
          WE WORKED WITH THE CONSTITUENTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THIS HAS BEEN THE LONGEST PUBLIC PROCESS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, AS AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PUBLIC, I THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD THING. 
          I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, I'M SORRY THAT IT'S A LONG PROCESS, BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH A BETTER PRODUCT AT THE END OF THE DAY. 
          AND WE WANT TO REMOVE THESE INCONSISTENCIES AND ISSUES THAT WE'VE, THAT WE ALL IDENTIFIED AND, AND WE CAN ADVANCE THIS TO THE NEXT COMMITTEE ONCE WE ARE, ARE SURE OF THAT. 
          AND THERE'S A LOT OF ANGST IN THE PUBLIC TO MOVE THIS PROCESS ALONG. 
          SO BY HAVING THE COMMITTEE DO DO THIS WORK AND THEN REPORT BACK TO US AND NOT GETTING, YOU KNOW, LETTING THEM DO THIS HARD WORK, WHICH I, I, I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY I, I'VE NOT BEEN IN THESE MEETINGS, BUT I, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S, IT'S BEEN A PROCESS. 
          SO JUST, JUST FOR THEM, IT, IT, IT MAY SEEM LIKE IT WAS EASY TO DO, BUT IN FACT, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES HERE IS, IS MY, MY TAKE. 
          AND, BUT WE ARE STILL TRYING TO GET TO OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION IN OUR NEXT MEETING IS OUR GOAL. 
          UM, WE WILL FIND OUT IF WE MEET THAT. 
          BUT, UM, I, I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT WE HAVE TWO REALLY GOOD PEOPLE THAT ARE LOOKING AT THIS, CAN CRUNCH NUMBERS, WHO HAVE HELPED IDENTIFY MANY OF THESE ISSUES. 
          AND THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH THIS, UM, AT GREAT HASTE. 
          AND SO IT'LL COME BACK TO US. 
          WE'LL, WE WILL HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS. 
          UM, THE PUBLIC, AGAIN, WILL BE PART OF THE OP OP, THE PUBLIC PROCESS. 
          WE'LL BE COMMENTING, UM, I HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOWING THIS AGENDA ITEM. 
          SO THERE, THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP AND WE'LL BE DISCUSSING, UH, OR AT LEAST LETTING US KNOW THEIR COMMENTS IN THIS MEETING. 
          SO IT'S, UM, THE, THE GOAL IS TO REALLY MOVE THIS FORWARD. 
          I'LL REMIND EVERYONE IN JUNE, WE HAD A PACKED HOUSE IN JUNE. 
          EVERYONE WAS FOR THIS, THESE GUIDELINES. 
          A EVERYONE OF THE SPEAKERS ASKED US TO APPROVE IT. 
          WE PUT FORTH IN GOOD FAITH CONDITIONS THAT COULD, WE BELIEVE, COULD MEET THE, THE ISSUES THAT WE RAISED. 
          AND, UM, WE'RE WHERE WE ARE. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS RIGHT BEFORE WE ADVANCE IT, UH, 
          [03:15:01]
OUT OF, OUT OF THE, TO THE NEXT COMMITTEE. 
          AND THAT, THAT'S MY PROMISE. 
          THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS EFFORT. 
          AND I THINK WE NEED TO TRUST, UM, IN OUR, OUR, OUR TWO COMMISSIONERS, UM, TO HELP US, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THIS AND THEN REPORT BACK TO US. 
          I MEAN, I, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME LONG DISCUSSIONS. 
          I'M, I'M, I'M ASSURED THAT WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT THEY FOUND AND HOW THEY, HOW THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO ABOUT SOLVING THIS IN, IN THE MOST EXPEDIENT WAY POSSIBLE WHILE STILL DEALING WITH EACH ISSUE ON ITS FACE. 
          I, I DO. 
          AND I, I DO HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER THAT WANTS TO SPEAK, SO I JUST WANT TO WRAP YOU JUST, I HAVE JUST, UH, SOME BRIEF QUESTIONS FOR CITY ATTORNEY. 
          UM, SO WITH, UH, WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT THE DOCUMENTS LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP, UH, THAT WE NEED TO IRON OUT THE LANGUAGE. 
          UM, IS THERE ANYTHING IN HOUSTON ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW THAT WOULD REQUIRE THIS COMMISSION TO SEND COUNSEL EITHER GUIDELINES OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT THAT'S READY FOR ADOPTION? IS ORDINANCE, ARE WE REQUIRED TO DO THAT? DO WE HAVE TO SEND CLEAN LANGUAGE? I THINK EVERYBODY THAT MAKES REPRESENTATIONS TO A CITY COUNCIL HAS PRIDE IN ITS WORK PRODUCT AND WANTS TO PRESENT THE CLEANEST AND MOST LIKELY TO BE APPROVED WORK PRODUCT AND HAVE THAT READY BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. 
          CERTAINLY AS MENTIONED, THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, UM, BOTH WHEN THOSE ARE FINALIZED HERE AND BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. 
          UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S JUST INHERENT IN A BODY THAT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO TRY AND PUT FORTH THE MOST RESPONSIBLE AND REASONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BODY THAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE APPROVING THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO NO, THERE IS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, NEXT QUESTION THEN IS, WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN ANY LEGAL OBSTACLE, UM, TO SENDING THE JUNE 18TH GUIDELINES AS THEY WERE APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION, ALONG WITH A MEMO FROM CPD STAFF THAT FLAGGED LANGUAGE THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP? WAS THERE ANYTHING STANDING IN THE WAY OF THAT HAPPENING? AGAIN, THIS BODY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND THE DOCUMENT THAT'S PRESENTED SHOULD ULTIMATELY INCLUDE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT BE APPENDED BY SOME OTHER VOCAL OR OTHER WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. 
          IT'S EASIER FOR THE BODY THAT IS MAKING THOSE APPROVALS TO HAVE EVERYTHING CONTAINED WITHIN ONE COHESIVE DOCUMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I DID NOT HEAR A NO. 
          UM, SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS, WOULD ALL OF THIS UNNECESSARY UPHEAVAL THAT'S BEEN CAUSED FOR NOR HILL, UM, THAT RESCINDING THAT JUNE 18TH APPROVAL VOTE, COULD THAT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, HAD STAFF SIMPLY JUST COMMUNICATED THEIR CONCERNS WITH THE LANGUAGE? I DON'T SPECULATE ON HYPOTHETICALS. 
          OKAY. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          I HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER SIGNED UP, BUT YOU, YOU MAY IN JUST A MOMENT. 
          UM, I DO WANT TO ASK, UH, OUR MAYOR'S LIAISON, UH, MAR CANO. 
          AND, UM, SHE'S BEEN PATIENTLY WAITING TO SPEAK TO US. 
          AND SO, UM, I JUST WANT TO, UM, AGAIN, THANK FOR THANK, THANK HER AGAIN FOR, UH, BEING WITH US AGAIN. 
          IT'S, UH, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE AND JONES, UH, OF LONG REMEMBER, UM, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR PARTICIPATION ON THE COMMISSION. 
          AND SO WE WELCOME, UM, YOUR, YOUR CURRENT, UH, COMMENTS. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, AND THANK YOU DIRECTOR. 
          UM, I DID ATTEND THE MEETING LAST THURSDAY. 
          UM, JUST TO ADDRESS A COUPLE POINTS. 
          UM, I, SPEAKING TO HYPOTHETICALS, DO NOT SEE THE MAYOR ALLOWING ME AS THE AGENDA DIRECTOR TO PLACE A CONDITIONAL ITEM FROM THIS COMMISSION ON THE AGENDA FOR COUNCIL VOTE. 
          UM, I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT HE WOULD LOOK AT DIRECTOR TRAN AND SAY, TAKE THIS BACK TO YOUR COMMISSION AND BRING ME SOMETHING THAT'S DONE. 
          UM, SO WHILE THERE IS NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS IT GOING FORWARD IN THAT, IN THAT KIND OF A FORM, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MAYOR WOULD ALLOW ME TO PLACE THAT FOR A COUNCIL VOTE. 
          UM, HE, HE WOULD EXPECT THE COMMISSION TO FULLY COMPLETE THE WORK THAT'S BEFORE THEM. 
          UM, UH, I DID WANT TO FIRST OF ALL, THANK, UM, THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THE MEETING LAST THURSDAY. 
          I SEE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE HERE, WHO ARE AT THAT THURSDAY MEETING AND THEIR DEDICATION. 
          [03:20:01]
I DID WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT AS WELL. 
          AS WELL AS MR. BUTLER WHO, UM, PICKING UP THE BALL MIDFIELD DID A WONDERFUL JOB WITH HIS PRESENTATION. 
          UM, UH, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I DID NOT GET FROM YOUR COMMENTS THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. 
          THERE WAS TALK ABOUT CLEANING UP, UM, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WORKABILITY. 
          UM, HE SPOKE SPECIFICALLY TO, UM, LANGUAGE IN THE CODE OR IN THE, I'M SORRY, APOLOGIZE IN THE GUIDELINES THAT WAS CONTRADICTORY, THAT COULDN'T BE MADE TO WORK WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DO A REAL WORLD RENOVATION BUILD, ET CETERA. 
          UM, I DID NOT TAKE THAT AS NON-SUBSTANTIVE OR NON, UM, SIGNIFICANT. 
          UM, BUT THAT THERE WAS A NEED TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS BEFORE, UH, THE COMMISSION THAT WOULD THEN BE PLACED BEFORE COMMITTEE AND BEFORE COUNCIL. 
          SO I DID WANNA RECOGNIZE MR. BUTLER FOR HIS WORK LAST THURSDAY. 
          UM, AND THEN THE LAST THING I WANTED TO SAY WAS THERE, THERE WAS FRUSTRATION IN THE ROOM ABOUT THE LENGTH OF TIME AND THE RESCISSION OF THE VOTE. 
          UM, AND WE, WE DID TALK A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT LANGUAGE. 
          WE CAN'T MAKE IT WORK. 
          IF YOU BRING US SOMETHING, WE CAN'T REVIEW IT AND APPROVE IT 'CAUSE THE LANGUAGE IS CONTRADICTORY. 
          THERE'S THINGS WE CANNOT TRULY RULE ON. 
          UM, AND WHILE I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY LEFT THAT ROOM HAPPY, UM, I BELIEVE MR. BUTLER DID A GOOD JOB OF LIMITING THE DISCUSSION TO WHAT WAS ALREADY BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION, AND NOT ANY SORT OF EXPECTATION THAT WE WOULD START THE PROCESS OVER. 
          UM, SO I DID WANNA MAKE THOSE COMMENTS. 
          UM, UH, I, I FELT LIKE IT WAS PERHAPS NOT PRODUCTIVE, BUT VERY, VERY NECESSARY. 
          IT WAS A GOOD, UH, A GOOD AND WELL HANDLED MEETING LAST THURSDAY. 
          SO, UH, I'M VERY GLAD TO BE BACK WITH YOU ALL. 
          I'M GLAD TO BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS AND I'M, I'M HAPPY TO HELP IN ANY WAY THAT I CAN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, YOU HAD A COMMENT OR QUESTION OR IT WAS SAID BETTER BY MAR , THEN SAID THANK YOU FROM ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER. 
          IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION OR COMMENT AGAIN? I THINK WE WILL, UM, WE'LL HEAR MORE FROM OUR TWO, UH, COMMITTEE MEMBERS VERY SOON, AND YOU, I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. 
          IT'LL BE A ROBUST CONVERSATION AND I'M SURE WE WILL BE VERY REVEALING AS WELL. 
          WITH THAT, I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM C, WHICH IS PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          AND I DO HAVE, UH, TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP, UM, UH, AT LEAST FOR THE NO HILL GUIDELINES. 
          AND SO I WILL FIRST START WITH DWAYNE BRADLEY, FOLLOWED BY VIRGINIA KELSEY. 
          HI Y'ALL. 
          DWAYNE BRADLEY. 
          UM, Y'ALL ARE STARTING TO LOOK REALLY FAMILIAR AND, UH, UM, I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE. 
          UM, IT WAS GREAT TO SEE YOU LAST WEEK AT, UH, AT PROCTOR PLAZA PARK. 
          IT WAS, UM, YEAH, THERE WAS A BIT OF ANGST AND SOME OF US ARE STILL A BIT ANGST RIDDEN THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS, BUT I, AS YOU, UH, MR. BUSACK, UH, FEEL VERY, UM, PERHAPS NAIVELY OPTIMISTIC. 
          UH, AND I CAME OUT OF LAST THURSDAY NIGHT, UH, HAVING SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, IF YOU WILL. 
          UM, MY SENSE OF IT WAS THAT THERE WAS AN OVERWHELMING OUTPOURING OF AFFECTION FOR THE HARD WORK THAT, THAT, UH, THE CITY HAS GONE THROUGH THAT, THAT WE HAVE ALL GONE THROUGH TO GET TO THIS POINT OF BEING LIKE ON THE ONE YARD LINE READY TO JUST GO ACROSS. 
          AND I DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE THE TENNESSEE TITANS AND, AND NOT WIN THE SUPER BOWL HERE. 
          UM, AS MUCH AS I DISLIKE THE FACT THAT THE OILERS ARE NOW CALLED THE TITANS . 
          UM, BUT, UM, I EXPECT HAVING BEEN HERE IN JUNE WHEN YOU UNANIMOUSLY PASSED THIS, AND THEN COMING BACK IN JULY TO FIND THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT BACK AND PRESENTED TO YOU WERE MAYBE THE CONDITIONS WEREN'T HEARD CORRECTLY. 
          AND THEN, UM, UM, UM, MS. TRANS TAKING IT TO THE NEXT STEP AND SORT OF TABLING IT TILL AUGUST WHEN IT WAS RESCINDED, AS DEVASTATING AS THAT WAS, UH, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT'S NOW IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          I LOOK FORWARD TO COMMISSIONERS COSGROVE AND DAVIS WORKING WITH JEFF, WHO I THINK HAS DONE A PRETTY BANG 
          [03:25:01]
UP JOB, UH, IN TRYING TO HOLD IT ALL TOGETHER AND GET US THAT LAST ONE YARD CLEANING UP THE LANGUAGE IS WHAT I CAME AWAY FROM ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH. 
          UH, AND OKAY, THANKS. 
          AND I'LL SEE YOU NEXT MONTH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT SPEAKER IS VIRGINIA KELSEY. 
          I AM VIRGINIA KELSEY, AND YES, I'M A COMMON FIGURE HERE. 
          UM, I'M GLAD THAT THERE'S SO MUCH SERIOUSNESS ABOUT THIS AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE IS INTEREST IN SEEING THIS FORWARD, BUT IT DOES FEEL LIKE Y'ALL ARE HIDING SOMETHING ON THE COMMITTEE. 
          I, AND THAT IS A, IS A BELIEF THAT MANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHAIRS, I AND MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED THAT IT'S A TWO PERSON COMMITTEE AND IT IS BEING PRIVATELY HELD, NOT THAT WE WANT TO PARTICIPATE, BUT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO, TO LISTEN. 
          THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PARTICIPATING AND LISTENING. 
          UM, WHY HAVE A TOWN HALL TO HEAR WHAT WE AS A COMMUNITY WANTED TO SAY IF THE TWO PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE WERE NOT THERE? I MEAN, THAT WAS DISCONCERTING AND DISAPPOINTING. 
          AND THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ANY STAFF MEMBER, AT LEAST THAT I WAS AWARE OF THAT WAS TAKING NOTES OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID OR THE COMMENTS. 
          IT WASN'T BEING FILMED BY ANYBODY BUT SAM, WHICH HE WAS ASKED NOT TO. 
          UM, WHY SOLICIT THE ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS IF IT WASN'T A POLL? WHAT WAS THE INTENT? IF IT'S SIMPLY TO TWEAK THE LANGUAGE? AND I KEEP HEARING THIS REFERENCE TO FIXING WHAT IS NOT WORKABLE, BUT WHAT IS THAT, WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT WORKABLE? AND WHO IS MAKING THAT DETERMINATION? THOSE WHO DEVELOPED THE PREVIOUS DRAFTS WHO UNDERSTAND NIER HILL THE BEST, ARE NO LONGER WORKING ON THIS PROCESS. 
          I'M SPECIFICALLY THINKING ABOUT TERRANCE AND ALL THE OTHER STAFF AT THE TOWN HALL. 
          SEVERAL FALSE STATEMENTS WERE NOT CORRECTED. 
          AND THAT'S DISAPPOINTING BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THINGS WERE MORE RESTRICTIVE, SUCH AS YOU CAN'T HAVE TWO STORY GARAGES WHEN IN FACT YOU CAN. 
          AND THAT WAS NOT CORRECTED AND IT GAVE FALSE IMPRESSIONS. 
          ANY OTHER MEMBER? SORRY? IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME, BUT YOU'LL NEED TO, YOU'LL NEED TO, UH, SAY IT IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WATCHING. 
          UH, JOHN. 
          UH, SO REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IS MORE SO THE TIMELINE, RIGHT? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ALL WANT TO SEE, GET ACROSS THE FINISH LINE. 
          AND IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS. 
          WE WERE PREVIOUSLY TOLD AT THE LAST MEETING THAT DIRECTOR TRAN SAID THAT WE SHOULD SEE THE FIRST RED LINE BEFORE THIS MEETING. 
          WE MISSED THAT ONE. 
          NOW WE'RE SAYING WE MIGHT SEE SOMETHING NEXT MONTH. 
          SO WHAT WE REALLY ALL WANT ON WHATEVER SIDE OF THE AISLE IS FOR US TO ACTUALLY SEE THIS AT SOME POINT IN TIME. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT STILL IS UNCLEAR FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          SO ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE TIMELINE, SEEING THESE THINGS ACTUALLY DELIVERED FOR US, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WITH THAT, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM D, THE CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED RULES AND PROCEDURE FOR HAHC , MR. CHAIR? YES. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A PROPOSAL TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, UH, IT'S MY FEELING THAT SORT OF LIKE, UH, SORT OF LIKE NOR HILL, UM, IT WOULD BE A BETTER USE OF THE COMMISSION'S TIME IF WE WERE NOT TO GO THROUGH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN A COMMISSION MEETING. 
          I THINK THAT THE COMMITTEE APPROACH WOULD BE A SMARTER APPROACH TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. 
          UM, I CAN GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES, BUT I MEAN, I'VE GOT 30, I'VE, I'VE GONE THROUGH THEM VERY CAREFULLY. 
          MY INTEREST IS IN PUTTING TOGETHER A, A SET OF RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO, UM, CONDUCT OUR MEETINGS IN A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT, ESPECIALLY FROM ONE COA TO THE NEXT, AND DOES IT IN A WAY THAT'S FAIR AND TRANSPARENT AND ADHERES TO DUE PROCESS. 
          AND THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS ABOUT THOSE CONDITIONS OR CRITERIA THAT WE DON'T DO TODAY. 
          SO I WENT THROUGH, UM, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY STAFF. 
          AND I MEAN, I'VE GOT 36 ITEMS THAT I WOULD WANT TO DISCUSS. 
          AND IF WE WERE TO DO IT IN AN HAHC MEETING, WE'D HAVE TO PRESENT, I'D, I'D HAVE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT 
          [03:30:01]
EACH ITEM. 
          SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          IT'D HAVE TO BE SECONDED. 
          THERE'D HAVE TO BE DISCUSSION AND THEN A VOTE 36 TIMES. 
          AND I, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. 
          I'M SURE NONE OF YOU DO. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT WE FORM A COMMITTEE. 
          I CAN MAKE A MOTION, UH, IF YOU, IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT THAT'S, I WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR INTO THIS ONE. 
          I'VE LIKE THIS, UH, IF WE LOOK AT THE, THE NEURO DESIGN GUIDELINES, WE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS BEFORE WE REACHED A POINT WHERE WE NEEDED TO FORM A COMMITTEE. 
          SO, I MEAN, THIS IS OUR, OUR MEETING THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED. 
          AND I WANNA BE REAL CLEAR TO EVERYONE, 'CAUSE I'VE SAID IT EVERY TIME WE'VE, WHEN WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH YOU'VE BEEN SO HELPFUL TO BRING OUR ATTENTION THAT WE NEEDED TO UPDATE THESE GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES, AND WE NEED TO CODIFY THEM. 
          AND, UM, SINCE 1984, A LOT HAS CHANGED AND IT, IT WAS A GOOD THING TO REDO THIS, BUT THE ONE THING I WANNA MAKE REALLY CLEAR IS THAT IT SEEMS TO ME, WITH ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD ON THIS ISSUE, THAT THIS COMMISSION SHOULD BE DOING BUSINESS JUST AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL DO THEIR BUSINESS. 
          THAT, UM, WHAT I'VE ASKED, UM, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE STAFF IS THAT WE, WE ALIGN OURSELVES WITH HOW THE CITY OF HOUSTON DOES THEIR BUSINESS, HOW, HOW THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CONDUCT THEMSELVES, AND THAT WE NOT TRY TO ESTABLISH OURSELVES OUTSIDE OF THAT INTO SOME OTHER KIND OF A PLACE. 
          SO IT'S, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, AND I CAN, I CAN TURN TO OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO HELP US, GUIDE US THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          BUT WHAT, FROM MYSELF, MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION, AND YOU ALL CAN FIND YOUR OWN CONSENSUS, IS TO, IS TO MATCH HOW THEY DO BUSINESS AND NOT TRY TO SET UP A SEC, A SEPARATE TRACK THAT I THINK WILL LEAD US INTO OTHER DEAD ENDS POTENTIALLY. 
          UM, AND THAT, THAT IS THE, THE KEY THING. 
          AND I, AGAIN, I WOULD ASK IN THIS MEETING THAT WE, UH, AFTER WE'VE HAD COMMENT AND COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR MAKES A, MAKES A COMMENT OR STATEMENT OR QUESTION, UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TOO ABOUT JUST WHAT THIS MEANS, WHY IT'S BEEN PRESENTED THE WAY IT HAS, AND WHAT COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE AS, AS A RESULT. 
          BUT WE CAN START WITH QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL GIVE MY TIME TO, TO COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR TO MY QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY JUST A REALLY SIMPLE QUESTION. 
          HOW, HOW, HOW IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? NOT AN ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE NOR HILL GUIDELINES COMMITTEE PROCESS. 
          HELP ME, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE NUANCE OF WHY ONE COMMITTEE IS ACCEPTABLE TO HANDLE THESE TYPE OF ISSUES. 
          WHICH THERE'S REASON, THERE'S OTHER, IT SOUNDS LIKE OTHER BODIES LIKE THIS HAVE A STANDARD SET OF PROCESSES THAT INVOLVE COMMITTEES. 
          I DON'T KNOW ALL THE RULES OF HOW THAT OPERATES. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE OPERATING IN ALIGNMENT WITH HOW THOSE OTHER COMMITTEES DO THAT. 
          SO YOU'RE OPPOSING HAVING A COMMITTEE IN THE WAY THAT THE COMMITTEES ARE DONE FOR THESE OTHER BODIES, WHICH TYPICALLY DOESN'T HAVE AN AUDIENCE AND ISN'T A PUBLIC COMMITTEE, BUT THEN YOU'RE WANTING TO FORM A SEPARATE COMMITTEE FOR THIS. 
          JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND. 
          YEAH. 
          WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE, WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT. 
          UH, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. 
          OPPOSING, OPPOSING WHAT YOU WANT. 
          YOU WANT, YOU WANT, YOU WANNA, YOU, YOU DON'T WANT, YOU, YOU THINK THERE SHOULDN'T BE A CLOSED COMMITTEE, UM, TO WORK THROUGH THE, UM, THINGS FOR NOR HILL, BUT YOU WANT A COMMITTEE TO WORK THROUGH THE 30 THINGS ON THIS, THIS PARTICULAR SET OF, UM, ITEMS FOR D OH, OKAY. 
          NO, THAT WOULD BE A MISCHARACTERIZATION. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          HELP UNDERSTAND. 
          NO, I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF, UH, THE NOR HILL COMMITTEE. 
          UM, I JUST THINK IT SHOULD BE OPEN, THAT'S ALL. 
          UM, AND, AND THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE OPEN, SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE BE OPEN? OF COURSE. 
          BUT IS THAT IN ALIGNMENT WITH HOW ALL COMMITTEES ARE OPEN OUTSIDE OF JUST THIS COMMISSION? I GUESS I'M ONLY A MEMBER OF THE HAHC, BUT I DO KNOW THAT, UM, IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE LAW FAVORS OPEN GOVERNMENT. 
          I KNOW THAT MUCH. 
          UM, I JUST KNOW AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, HAVING A COMMITTEE THAT'S DOING PUBLIC BUSINESS THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THE PUBLIC IN THE ROOM LEGALLY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, IS NOT LOOKED UPON FAVORABLY. 
          AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM. 
          BUT WHAT I'M ALL, I'M PART OF WHAT MY CONCERNS ARE. 
          I, I MEAN, AGAIN, I CAN GIVE YOU JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES, BUT THERE, THERE ARE, UH, IN, IN THE, THE DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO US, UM, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, THERE'S PROBLEMS IN THE DOCUMENT. 
          THERE'S JUST OPEN ENDS THAT NEED TO 
          [03:35:01]
BE TIED OFF. 
          THINGS THAT CREATE QUESTIONS LIKE, WELL THEN IF WE, IF WE ADOPT THIS, WELL, WHAT WILL WE DO IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN? AND THERE'S, SO THERE'S OVERSIGHTS. 
          UM, BUT THEN THERE ARE ALSO STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS THAT THE NEW GUIDELINES CREATE THAT THE OLD GUIDELINES DID NOT HAVE. 
          AND SO WHEN I WENT THROUGH IT CAREFULLY, I REALIZED, MAN, THERE'S A LOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT. 
          AND IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THESE RULES, WE WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE CREATING NEW PROBLEMS FOR OURSELVES DOWN THE ROAD THAT COULD VERY EASILY HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF WE JUST DID IT RIGHT UPFRONT. 
          AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT'S A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS. 
          I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY, AT LEAST, AND I'M, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO WOULD PROBABLY HAVE CONCERNS, I'M SURE. 
          BUT I MEAN, THIS IS THE KIND OF THING WE COULD BANG OUT IN TWO, THREE MEETINGS AND THEN HAVE AN UPDATED SET THAT, UH, IS RECOMMENDED TO THE FULL HAHC FOR APPROVAL. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY, IT, IT'S VERY CLEAR IN ORDINANCE THAT WE GET TO MAKE OUR OWN RULES. 
          SO IT DOES MAKE ME A LITTLE NERVOUS THAT THE RULES THAT ARE IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW WEREN'T DRAFTED BY US. 
          THEY WERE DRAFTED BY STAFF. 
          AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT MAKES ME NERVOUS IS WE'RE AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONDUCT OURSELVES INDEPENDENTLY. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THAT STAFF HAS THEIR SUGG SUGGESTED VERSION, BUT I'D LIKE US TO HAVE OUR OWN VERSION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION. 
          COMMISSIONER TRAN, I'M SO SORRY. 
          DIRECTOR TRAN. 
          SORRY. 
          I'D LIKE TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING TEAM. 
          IT IS CITY STAFF, IT IS THE LEGAL TEAM. 
          AND I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT, CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO ASKING OUR LEGAL COUNSEL ON WHAT YOU ARE GONNA ASK HER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SURE. 
          WELL, UM, YOU, WE'VE, WE OPENED THIS, THIS PATH WITH, UH, ENCOURAGEMENT OF, UH, COMMISSIONER BROBECK AND WHO HAS SHARED FOR MANY MONTHS IN WRITING AND EMAILINGS, UM, THE DIRECTOR AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR MYSELF, UH, SUGGESTIONS, CONCERNS, UM, ABOUT RULES AND PROCEDURES AND THE CITY STAFF, LEGAL STAFF HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT OF, OF THOSE QUESTIONS. 
          AND, UM, ASSERTIONS IN SOME CASES OR, OR, YOU KNOW, UM, AND SO WHAT WE ARE SEEING WITH BEFORE TODAY IS ACTUALLY A PRODUCT THAT'S BEEN BEEN DEVELOPING WITH THE, UM, INPUT FROM COMMISSIONER BROBECK SPECIFICALLY. 
          'CAUSE HE'S THE ONE THAT'S RAISED THESE ISSUES AND IDENTIFIED THAT WE NEEDED TO UPDATE OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES. 
          COULD YOU HELP US WITH THAT? AND AGAIN, MY, AGAIN, MY CAVEAT IS SIMPLY I WOULD LIKE TO DO BUSINESS THE WAY THAT CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DO IT. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA PUT THIS COMMISSION ABOVE CITY COUNCIL, RIGHT? I, I'M, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S THE 'CAUSE THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          AND I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO, IF, IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN SOME OF THE, THE, THE BASIC CONSTRUCTS OF THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THE COMMISSION, WE NEED TO, IT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THIS COMMISSION WILL DETERMINE OUR, OUR HOW WE, IF WE WANNA CHANGE THINGS. 
          AND, BUT WE, I, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW, HOW WE'VE GOTTEN TO THIS, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UM, YES, AS YOU'VE STATED, THIS DOCUMENT HAS GONE THROUGH SEVERAL LEVELS OF LEGAL REVIEW WITHIN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 
          AND THE INTENT BEHIND THE CHANGES IS TWOFOLD. 
          ONE, TO SIMPLIFY THE RULES FOR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING AND EASE OF OPERATION. 
          AND TWO, TO ENSURE THAT THE RULES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OPERATION OF OTHER CITY ENTITIES, NAMELY CITY COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND OTHER COMMISSIONS. 
          THIS IS TYPICAL OF ALL MUNICIPALITIES TO HAVE CONSISTENT RULES OF PROCEDURE, UM, TO HAVE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT ARE ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE LEGAL PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD. 
          AND SO, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE REVISIONS THAT HAPPENED WITHIN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WERE TO MEET THOSE TWO REQUIREMENTS TO ALSO MEET THE CONCERNS THAT HAD BEEN SHARED BY COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, ULTIMATELY TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS RATHER THAN COMPLICATE IT FOR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION AND THE, THE RULES AND PROCEDURES. 
          I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT WE'RE REVISING, WERE CREATED AT THE INCEPTION OF THIS COMMISSION, 1984. 
          AND SO, UM, A LOT HAS BEEN LEARNED AND HAPPENED EXPERIENCES ALONG THE WAY. 
          THAT IS ALSO, 
          [03:40:01]
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS. 
          SO, UM, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE, FROM FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS ABOUT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGES? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO FURTHER EXPLAIN? UM, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY? I THINK IF WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, WE NEED TO HEAR, UH, COMMISSIONER BROAD BECK'S 36, UH, ITEMS, OR AT LEAST TO SUMMARY OR, UM, I WOULD BE, I WOULD PREFER TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT KINDS OF PROBLEMS YOU SEE, UH, RATHER THAN DISMISS THE IDEA. 
          I MEAN, WE NEED TO HAVE THE REVIEW. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THEM OR HEAR THEM AND MOVE ON, I THINK, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON WITHOUT HEARING THEM. 
          AS PAINFUL AS IT MIGHT FEEL TO COMMIT TO HEARING A LONG LIST. 
          COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, I MEAN, IS THIS THE TYPE OF THING THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD DO IN LIKE, A SPECIAL MEETING RATHER THAN AT THE END OF A REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING? I MEAN, IF THERE'S 36 POINTS AND THEY MIGHT ALL NEED TO BE VOTED ON, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT OF TIME. 
          I LIKE LEGAL'S OPINION. 
          PLEASE. 
          I MEAN, AS WITH REGARDS TO WHAT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTOR? I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROCEDURES. 
          UM, WE STARTED OUT WITH CHAIR HICK, UM, STATING THAT THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO DO BUSINESS ACCORDING TO CITY PROCESSES. 
          AND YET WE ARE HERE AGAIN TALKING ABOUT LET'S VEER AWAY FROM CITI'S BUSINESS. 
          I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT WE ARE GOING, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          UH, SIMILARLY WHEN WE SAY, IF WE'RE GONNA DEFER AN ITEM, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF DEFERRING? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO ACHIEVE? ALRIGHT. 
          AND SO THERE ARE 36 POINTS THAT COMMISSIONER BROUGHT BACK, BROUGHT UP, AND YET ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT LEGAL CITY'S COUNSEL IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE MUST AND DO BUSINESS JUST LIKE ALL OF THE OTHER COMMISSION. 
          WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION OF 36 ITEMS? YEAH, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY A LEGAL QUESTION, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER IT IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, ANY ADDITIONAL DELAY. 
          THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS GROUP, MULTIPLE TIMES NOW. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO WEIGH IN. 
          UM, CERTAINLY WE CAN HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS TONIGHT AS NEEDED. 
          UM, BUT WE DO WANT TO CONTINUE THE BUSINESS OF THIS COMMISSION AND DO IT IN AS EFFICIENT A MANNER AS POSSIBLE. 
          AND HAVING UPDATED RULES IN PLACE ALLOWS THIS COMMISSION TO DO THAT. 
          SO I, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT PROPERLY ADDRESSES YOUR QUESTION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. 
          COMMISSIONER BROBECK, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. 
          UM, SO THE 1985 RULES, UM, HAD AN A, A ROUTE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO ASK US TO TAKE SOMETHING UP AND PUT IT ON OUR AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          UM, WHAT WHAT THEY BASICALLY DID IS THEY WOULD LET ANY RESIDENT, UM, UH, SUBMIT TO THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SO IN THIS CASE, DIRECTOR TRAN OR WHO, WHOEVER MIGHT TAKE YOUR PLACE IN THE FUTURE, UM, SOMETHING THAT WAS UP TO 500 WORDS, UP TO THREE PHOTOS THAT WOULD THEN BE ROOTED TO THE CHAIR OR A COMMITTEE IF WE HAD ONE FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL COMMISSION. 
          UM, THE DRAFT OF THE RULES THAT'S BEEN PUT IN FRONT OF US HAS TOTALLY STRICKEN THAT. 
          SO WE'VE DELETED THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO BRING SOMETHING TO OUR ATTENTION. 
          AND THE ONLY WAY THAT THE PUBLIC COULD DO THAT NOW WOULD BE TO WAIT UNTIL THE VERY END OF OUR MEETING, WHICH COULD BE HOURS AND HOURS, AND THEY'LL GET TWO MINUTES UNDER PUBLIC COMMENTS TO ASK US TO TAKE SOMETHING UP FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          AND THAT'S IT. 
          UM, WE ARE TOTALLY TAKING THAT AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC. 
          I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. 
          I, I'M GUESSING THERE MIGHT BE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT ALSO WOULD BE EQUALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT, AND THEREFORE WE WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS IT. 
          BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT AS A 13 MEMBER COMMISSION. 
          THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT I THINK COULD BE HAMMERED OUT IN AN OPEN COMMITTEE THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ATTEND, EVEN COMMISSIONERS THAT AREN'T ON THE 
          [03:45:01]
COMMITTEE COULD ATTEND IF THEY WANTED TO, OR THEY COULD COMMUNICATE WITH THE COMMITTEE, HEY, WHEN YOU TAKE THIS UP, TRY TO THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY. 
          WHAT HAVE YOU? UM, THAT'S JUST ONE COMMITTEE, OR ONE, ONE EXAMPLE. 
          ANOTHER ONE. 
          UM, THE, THE, UH, THE CHAIR'S TERM AND THE VICE CHAIR'S TERMS OF SERVICE HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM, FROM THE PROPOSED, UH, RULES THAT ARE IN FRONT OF US. 
          UM, CURRENTLY THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR SERVED FROM MARCH 1ST UNTIL THE END OF THE FOLLOWING FEBRUARY. 
          BUT THAT'S BEEN DELETED AND HASN'T BEEN REPLACED WITH ANYTHING. 
          SO I'M SURE YOU CAN QUICKLY IMAGINE SCENARIOS WHERE THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM FOR US. 
          UM, UH, YOU TWO ARE GREAT, BUT LET'S JUST SAY WE HAD A FUTURE CHAIR THAT, UH, TURNED OUT TO BE A REAL PROBLEM. 
          FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT WOULD, THE WAY THAT OUR RULES WOULD BE UNDER THIS NEW SET OF RULES IS IT WOULD TAKE MULTIPLE MONTHS TO REMOVE THAT CHAIR AND REPLACE THAT PERSON WITH SOMEONE NEW, OR WE'D JUST HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE CHAIR DECIDED TO STEP DOWN WITHOUT ANY KIND OF A TERM LIMIT. 
          NOW, DO I THINK, WELL, ONE YEAR TERM IS APPROPRIATE? NO, BUT THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. 
          AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT A COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS. 
          UM, AND I'LL GIVE YOU ONE LAST EXAMPLE. 
          UM, THE RULES IS THAT AS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO US, THEY REQUIRE THAT THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE HPO, UM, WILL COUNT TOWARD QUORUM, MEANING THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET UNLESS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IS PRESENT. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          HOWEVER, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IS PRESENT. 
          SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE COULD HAVE A POTENTIAL SCENARIO IN THE FUTURE WHERE IF, UH, CPD STAFF, UM, CPD LEADERSHIP OR WHOEVER DOESN'T LIKE WHAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS NOT SHOW UP, AND THEN WE CAN'T MEET. 
          AND I'VE GOT 33 MORE SCENARIOS LIKE THIS THAT I THINK OUGHT TO BE DISCUSSED IN A COMMITTEE AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE FULL COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT WE GO AHEAD AND ADOPT THOSE. 
          AND THEN THE COMMISSION CAN DISCUSS THOSE ITEMS IF THEY'D LIKE, OR THEY CAN JUST ADOPT IT. 
          BUT I'M REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE ADOPTING CONDITIONS LIKE THIS WITH THESE KINDS OF LOOPHOLES THAT I'VE JUST NAMED. 
          IT'S JUST, I, I THINK IT, IT SUGGESTS TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE'RE WILLING TO LOCK THEM OUT. 
          UM, IT, UH, I THINK WE'RE UNDERMINING OUR OWN INDEPENDENCE WITH SOME OF THESE THINGS. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE ALL OF THESE WERE INTENTIONAL. 
          I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S HOLES THAT NEED TO BE FILLED, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CAREFULLY THOUGHT THROUGH. 
          I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT IS CONSISTENT OR ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH OTHER COMMISSIONS. 
          MY JOB IS AS AN HHC COMMISSIONER, AND I'M TELLING YOU AS, AS I'VE REVIEWED THESE, THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOME CONCERNS IN THESE RULES AND PROCEDURES. 
          DIRECTOR TRAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          COMMISSIONER BROUGHT BRABECK FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND, UH, YOUR DILIGENCE. 
          WE DO REALLY APPRECIATE YOU. 
          I ALSO, I JUST WANTED TO ALSO CLARIFY SOMETHING. 
          UM, WE DID INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL 1984 VERSION. 
          UM, FOR WHATEVER REASON, STAFF COULD NOT, OR OVER THE YEARS. 
          SO I WANT, I, I, I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A CORRECTION THAT THE 1984 VERSION WAS PRESENTED TO US, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS BODY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. 
          THAT 1984 SET WAS THE BEGINNING. 
          IT WAS REVISED. 
          WE HAVE NOTES IN MEETINGS WHERE THEY WERE, THAT DOCUMENT WAS UPDATED, BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE DEPARTMENT AND I JOINED JULY OF 2024. 
          WE, I KNOW DURING, SINCE I'VE GOTTEN HERE, WE DID NOT REVISE, BUT PRIOR TO THAT, THERE WERE MANY REVISIONS. 
          THIS COMMISSION WAS WORKING VERY WELL, BUT WE JUST DIDN'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FILES OR HOW IT WAS NOT IN OUR FOLDER, AND IT'S NOT IN THE, WHERE IT SHOULD BE IN THE AGENDA. 
          SO I APOLOGIZE THAT FROM THE DEPARTMENT, BUT I AM STILL GOING TO REMIND COMMISSIONERS THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AS MARTA AND OUR LEGAL COUNSEL SAYS THAT, WHILE, WHILE, WHILE ALL OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HAVE WELL GROUNDED SENSE IN IT, BUT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMISSION TO NOT SET ITS ITSELF APART FROM 
          [03:50:01]
EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          AND AS WHAT I HEARD FROM MS. HEATHER COOK IS THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS DESIGNED ALRIGHT, TO ALSO BE FLEXIBLE. 
          ALRIGHT? AND SO WITH THAT SAID, I REALLY URGE THIS COMMISSION TO TAKE CONSIDERATION AND MAKE A MOTION ON THIS AND NOT DRAG THIS OUT BECAUSE THE, THE REASON WHY WE HAVE NOT BEEN VERY PRODUCTIVE IN THESE MEETINGS ARE THESE QUESTIONS THAT COME UP. 
          ALL RIGHT? AND REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A DOCUMENT AND WE HAVE RECOMMENDATION FROM LEGAL. 
          SO THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR EACH OF YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THANK COMMISSIONER B UH, BROWNING, THANK YOU, WHO'S ALSO AN ATTORNEY, UH, . 
          AND IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY COMMENT I MAKE STARTS WITH, WELL, AS A LAWYER, SO I DON'T MEAN TO DO THAT ON PURPOSE, BUT WHEN I JOINED THIS COMMITTEE, HAVING BEEN A LAWYER FOR 30 YEARS, UM, AND A TYPE A LAWYER AT THAT, I'M USED TO COMING INTO SITUATIONS WHERE I KNOW EVERYTHING AND I CAN RESPOND TO EVERYTHING. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF UNIQUE. 
          AND FOR A TYPE A LAWYER, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M USED TO DOING. 
          WHEN I CAME INTO THIS COMMISSION, HOWEVER, I REALIZED THAT NOT ONLY AM I A FISH OUT OF WATER, BUT I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. 
          AND I'VE GOTTA LEARN FROM FOLKS WHO HAVE DONE THIS FOR A LONG TIME AS WELL AS STAFF WHO HAS REALLY IMPRESSED ME THROUGHOUT MY ALMOST YEAR ON THIS COMMITTEE. 
          SO, UM, I KNOW SOMETIMES YOU GET THE SHORT END OF THE STICK. 
          YOU, YOU DON'T DESERVE IT. 
          , YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB. 
          UM, BUT THIS, THIS DISCUSSION, UM, OVER THE COURSE OF MANY MONTHS, UM, HAS, HAS BOTHERED ME A BIT. 
          UM, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY JUDGES. 
          UM, AND WE'VE GOT FOLKS COMING AND MAKING THEIR RESPECTIVE ARGUMENTS TO US, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION, OKAY? IT IS A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS DOWN, AN ABSENT, UH, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 
          WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION. 
          IF WE ARE UNABLE TO DO SO OR WE FEEL THAT THE RULES NEED TO BE ALTERED, UM, THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. 
          AND IF ONE FEELS THAT THEY NEED TO, NEED TO DO WHAT IS NOT PERMITTED, THEN THERE ARE OPTIONS INCLUDING RESIGNING IN PROTEST. 
          UM, AND IN, AS WE SIT IN THESE MEETINGS, I, I, I KEEP FEELING LIKE WE'RE CHANNELING DON QUIXOTE, OKAY? WE'RE TILTING AT WINDMILLS. 
          IS THIS, IS THIS A HILL TO DIE ON? AND WITH MY YOUNG LAWYERS, WHEN I TAKE THEM TO COURT AND I'M EXPLAINING, UH, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN ADVANCE, AND THEY MAKE THE ARGUMENT, THE FIRST THING YOU NEVER WANT TO DO IS ALIENATE THE TRIER OF FACT. 
          OKAY? AND IF YOU'RE LOSING ON ONE ARGUMENT, SOMETIMES THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO STEP BACK. 
          AND IF YOU PROCEED AND CONTINUE TO ALIENATE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING YOUR DECISIONS, I WOULD GRAB THAT LAWYER BY A COLLAR, PULL 'EM OUT IN THE HALL AND TELL THEM TO STOP AND THEN RESUME AND GO BACK IN. 
          GIVE THEM SOME LESSONS, AND LET'S GO AND TRY THIS A DIFFERENT WAY. 
          RIGHT NOW, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TILTING AT WINDMILLS. 
          OKAY? WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS. 
          IT'S TIME FOR A VOTE ON SOME REALLY REASONED, ACCEPTABLE RULES OF PROCEDURE. 
          THERE'S NOTHING UNUSUAL HERE. 
          IT'S A LIVING DOCUMENT LIKE OUR US CONSTITUTION. 
          THERE WILL BE TIMES THAT IT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED. 
          THERE'LL BE TIMES WHERE IT DOESN'T FIT PERFECTLY. 
          BUT THIS WORKS. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AS WRITTEN. 
          SECOND DAVIS, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          SECOND ROBERT'S RULES. 
          ONCE THE MOTION'S OPEN, THERE'S DISCUSSION PLEASE. 
          COMMISSIONER RODICK, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE? WELL, I HAVEN'T COUNTED THE VOTE, SO I, I DON'T KNOW. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          SO I REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL 36 ITEMS THAT WILL TAKE A VERY LONG TIME. 
          AND I KNOW WE'RE ALL TIRED AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A PRODUCTIVE USE OF OUR TIME. 
          BUT THERE ARE SOME LEGITIMATE ISSUES WITH THESE RULES THAT COULD COMPROMISE OUR ABILITY TO DO OUR JOB IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND IT COULD HURT THE PUBLIC. 
          AND I DON'T WANNA DO THAT. 
          SO ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS IF YOU'RE, IF, IF YOU'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF A COMMITTEE, MAYBE WE TABLE IT 
          [03:55:02]
UNTIL NEXT MONTH, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THAT AN OPEN COMMISSION MEETING IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO DISCUSS THESE ITEMS. I THINK IT'S MORE EFFICIENT TO DO IT BY COMMITTEE THE SAME WAY WE'RE DOING WITH NOR HILL COMMISSIONER BRABECK, THE I HAVE A MOTION, UM, AND PER THE RULES, I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND, I'M GONNA CALL A VOTE. 
          AND THE THING, THE UNDERLYING ASPECT OF SO MANY OF THE COMMENTS AND WHAT'S IN THE, THESE DOCUMENTS FROM INCEPTION IS THAT THIS BODY MAKES ITS RULES. 
          SO, AND IT IT'S ABOUT THE CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY. 
          SO IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYONE WILL AGREE, BUT IF THE MAJORITY AGREE, THAT'S, THAT THAT'S HOW WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS. 
          THAT'S WHY WE VOTE UP OR DOWN UNLESS WE HAVE TO RECUSE OURSELVES AND IN WHICH WE NEED TO FILL OUT A FORM AND SAY WHY WE HAVE THAT, THAT ISSUE, AND TO DO THAT BEFORE THE MEETING HA OCCURS. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE, THAT'S WHAT CAN CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DO. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A MOTION, I HAVE A SECOND. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE RESULT OF THIS VOTE YET BECAUSE I DON'T, I HAVEN'T CALLED FOR THE NAYS AND I HAVEN'T DONE THE COUNT. 
          BUT THERE, THERE'S A WILLINGNESS TO HAVE A VOTE ON WHAT WAS BEFORE US, WHAT WAS ON THE AGENDA. 
          AND WE HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE THIS VOTE. 
          AND I'LL ASK, I'LL ASK OUR LEGAL ATTORNEY, DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE UP OR DOWN ON WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS WHAT IS ON THE AGENDA? ABSOLUTELY. 
          YES. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S IF THE WILL OF THIS COMMISSION IS TO DO SO THAT'S THE WILL OF THIS COMMISSION. 
          AND ACCORDING TO THE RULES, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT, THEY CAN DO THAT. 
          I JUST THINK NOT HAVE TO BE A MOTION AND GET SECONDED FOR THE, FOR THE COMMISSION TO GO DOWN THAT PATH. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO, BUT WHY DON'T YOU, I MEAN, WOULD HE NOT MAKE A MOTION FOR US TO CONSIDER X NUMBER OF POINTS AND THEN WE COULD DEC DECIDE WHETHER TO TIER THEM OR NOT, RATHER THAN SIMPLY MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION OR, WELL, HE CAN MAKE A MOTION, BUT WE HAVE A MOTION MADE UNLESS THE PERSON WHO'S MADE THE MOTION ACCEPTS THE AMENDMENT, THE, THE, THE VOTE IS GOING TO HAPPEN LEGALLY PER THE RULES. 
          BUT UNDERSTOOD. 
          I JUST DON'T, I I'M REALLY TRYING TO, TO SAVE US ALL SOME TIME AND LET'S DO THIS IN A MORE LOGICAL WAY. 
          UH, AT AT LEAST COMMISSIONER BLAKELY HAS, UM, INDICATED IN INTEREST IN SEEING WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE. 
          UM, BUT HEY, IF, IF THERE'S, IF I'VE JUST LOST THE ROOM AND YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED, OKAY, I'LL BACK DOWN. 
          BUT THERE WILL BE SERIOUS PROBLEMS DOWN THE LINE WITH THESE RULES, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A, A PRUDENT WAY FOR US TO FUNCTION. 
          SO I, I MEAN, I CAN START TO PROPO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS, EX I CAN LAY IT OUT, EXPLAIN IT, MAKE MY MOTION FOR THE AMENDMENT. 
          I EITHER GET A SECOND OR I DON'T, BUT THAT WILL BE VERY TIME CONSUMING AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO DO IT. 
          CHAIRMAN, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT NEEDS A VOTE BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE CAN HAPPEN. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FOR COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR? UH, UM, JUST CURIOUS, UM, THE SAME THING THAT WAS SUGGESTED FOR NOR HILL, COULD WE NOT APPROVE THIS AS WE'RE DISCUSSING NOW AND THEN IT HAS SOME CONDITIONS AND WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MAY BE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION LATER THAT MIGHT YIELD SOME SOMETHING ELSE? OR IS THAT NOT AGAIN, I, I, I THINK THAT MOTION IN A SECOND. 
          YEAH, I'VE GOT A MOTION TO ACCEPT WHAT WAS BEEN RECOMMENDED THAT'S BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          AND I'M INCLINED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT MOTION AS WELL. 
          I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT DOES THAT PRECLUDE US FROM MONTHS LATER IF THERE'S A DESIRE TO COME BACK ADDRESS, IF THE MAJORITY MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION WANT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO, THEY CAN BRING FORTH AN AGENDA ITEM AND PUT IT ON THE AGENDA THAT NOTHING LIKE THAT'S, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE AS, AS WAS JUST MENTIONED, THIS IS STILL A LIVING DOCUMENT AND IT, IT, AND IF, IF, IF A CASE PRESENTS ITSELF THAT ACTUALLY IS A, UM, IMPEDIMENT TO THIS COMMISSION, WE CAN TAKE THAT ON AND DEAL WITH IT OKAY. 
          WITH THAT. 
          BUT, BUT I'M, I I, BUT WE'VE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE MONTHS AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT IN WRITING, WHICH IS WHY THIS DOCUMENT GOT CREATED THE WAY THAT IT DID. 
          I MEAN, IT, IT DIDN'T JUST, IT WASN'T WRITTEN IN A VACUUM. 
          AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, COMMISSIONER BROBECK, YOU HAVE LED THIS AND YOU HAVE GIVEN US ALL THESE PIECE PIECES OF INFORMATION RECOMMENDED THAT WE TAKE THIS PATH AND WE HAVE TAKEN THE PATH. 
          AND IN, IN MUCH OF YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS AND WORK IS IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT HAS GONE THROUGH CITY 
          [04:00:01]
STAFF AND LEGAL, LEGAL. 
          SO MOTION, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE VOTE UP OR DOWN, UM, ON THE MOTION TO ACCEPT, UH, THE CHANGES IF ALL, ALL IN FAVOR WOULD SAY AYE AYE, AYE, AYE. 
          AND ANYONE THAT'S OPPOSED TO TO SAY, BUT I THINK, I THINK EVERYONE FOR THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. 
          AND, UM, AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE HAHC. 
          SEE, AND I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER COSGROVE WANTED TO SPEAK, UM, WELL, I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE FOR NOR HILL, 'CAUSE I'VE LISTENED TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO ENGAGE WITH THEM AT THAT TIME. 
          BUT SINCE THE PUBLIC HAS GONE, I WILL ADDRESS Y'ALL  AND WELL, THERE'S, THERE'S A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, WELL THERE IS HELLO  AND A, AND A VERY IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER DAVIS, YOU CAN INTERRUPT ME, ADD WHAT YOU WANT. 
          BUT WE HAVE MET MANY TIMES FOR SEVERAL HOURS. 
          THERE IS NOTHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON. 
          THERE IS NO AGENDA FROM THE COMMITTEE. 
          WE ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO REFINE SOME INCONSISTENCIES IN THE LANGUAGE. 
          IT APPEARS AFTER READING IT IN ITS ENTIRETY THAT IT'S KIND OF LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A FRANKENSTEIN DOCUMENT AND THERE'S SOME WORDS CHOICES HERE AND THERE THAT GO THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE THING THAT ARE NOT CONSISTENT. 
          AND REALLY THAT IS THE HARDEST PART OF THE WHOLE PROCESS, IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE FROM START TO FINISH IS CONSISTENT. 
          WE'RE NOT REINVENTING THE WHEEL. 
          WE ARE REFINING THE FAR JUST SO IT WORKS FOR PEOPLE. 
          AND YES, WE ARE DOING SOME MODELING BECAUSE SOME OF THE MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS WOULD NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUILD CERTAIN PROJECTS. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY ALL THAT'S GOING GOING ON. 
          AND IT'S A LOT TO GO THROUGH. 
          I MEAN, IT'S LOT OF DOCUMENT TO, TO READ AND IT'S A LOT TO FIND THE WORDS AND WHERE THEY ARE IN THE DOCUMENT. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY, REALLY WHAT THE FOCUS HAS BEEN IS SPENDING TIME GOING THROUGH IT WITH THE FINE TOOTH COMB JUST SO THAT WHEN WE PRESENT IT BACK THAT YOU CAN TAKE THIS DOCUMENT, YOU CAN PLAN YOUR PROJECT, AND YOU CAN GET APPROVAL AND YOU ARE NOT HAVING TO HAVE A MILLION PROJECTS THAT COME BEFORE US THAT ARE LIKE, WELL, WE CAN'T FIT THIS IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          BECAUSE THAT'S, THERE ARE SCENARIOS THAT WE'VE DISCOVERED WHERE THINGS JUST DON'T FIT. 
          AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT SO THAT IT IS NOT GRAY, BUT IT'S THE MOST BLACK AND WHITE IT CAN BE SO THAT PEOPLE GET A RESULT THE FIRST TIME THEY, THEY COME IN FRONT OF US AND THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THE DOCUMENT WORKS. 
          AND SO I WISH THE PUBLIC WERE HERE TO HEAR THAT, THAT THERE, THIS IS JUST, IT'S A PROCESS. 
          IT'S TAKING A LITTLE LONGER THAN WE THOUGHT AND WE, WE WILL GET IT RESOLVED AND WE REALLY HOPE TO HAVE IT DONE SO THAT Y'ALL CAN LOOK AT IT NEXT MONTH. 
          AND I, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GONNA BE LIKE SHOCKED BY BY IT. 
          IT'S, IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A LITTLE SHORTER AND A LITTLE CLEANER WOULD BE MY GUESS. 
          I MEAN, JEFF CAN , THEY'RE WORKING MORE, MORE ON IT IN THAT SENSE THAN, THAN COMMISSIONER DAVIS AND I ARE. 
          BUT, UM, THAT, THAT'S KIND OF MY TAKEAWAY. 
          SO IF THAT HELPS REASSURE PEOPLE THAT, THAT THERE'S NOTHING REALLY GOING ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. 
          I MEAN, WE MEET AT LIKE WHAT'S RANDOM TIMES WHEN WE'RE ALL AVAILABLE AND IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IT'S TWO HOURS, SOMETIMES IT'S MORE, SOMETIMES IT'S 30 MINUTES AND WE'RE JUST CATCHING UP AND MAKING SURE WE'RE EACH WORKING ON OUR, OUR PHASE. 
          YEAH, I I, I'D AGREE. 
          I I JUST, UM, THE, THE RECONCILING OF THE VARIOUS, UH, INPUTS FROM COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF IS SOMETHING THAT IS STRETCHING THE TIME OUT A LITTLE MORE. 
          IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WASN'T, YOU KNOW, WE, IT'S NOT SO SIMPLE AS TO SET UP A SHARED DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN ALL INPUT, YOU KNOW, SECURITY REASONS. 
          WE HAVE TO HAVE BASICALLY OUR OWN. 
          AND THEN PERHAPS THAT'S BEEN THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE IS THAT WE CAN'T WORK ON ONE DOCUMENT TOGETHER. 
          SO WE'RE ALL WORKING ON A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT. 
          , YES. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, YOU HAD A COMMENT. 
          UM, I THINK LAST MONTH I MADE A PLEA FOR CLEARER DRAWINGS AND TO HAVE ALL THE PLANS AT THE SAME SCALE. 
          AND I SAW THAT IN THIS MONTH'S, UH, APPLICATIONS. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE STAFF FOR MAKING THE APPLICATIONS SO CLEAR. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          UH, UH, GINGER, BERNIE. 
          YES. 
          BECAUSE I STAYED THIS LONG, I'M GOING TO SAY THIS. 
          UM, AND I DON'T GET TO VOTE. 
          UH, I JUST WANT TO INVITE YOU ALL AND THE PUBLIC AND EVERYONE TO, UH, A PROGRAM THAT I'M DOING ON OCTOBER 1ST ON HOW TO USE SANDBORN 
          [04:05:01]
MAPS. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN CURIOUS ABOUT SANDBORN MAPS, HOW DO WE FIND THAT INFORMATION? HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THAT INFORMATION? CAN YOU TOUCH IT? YES. 
          OCTOBER 1ST. 
          GO TO THE HOUSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY WEBSITE ON THE EVENTS PAGE, UM, AND, AND FIND IT AND REGISTER PLEASE. 
          I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO COME. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER BRABECK? YES. 
          UM, IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT, UH, OF ALL OF THE, EVERY TIME I'VE BEEN APPROACHED BY SOMEONE FROM NOR HILL WITH CONCERN ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE JUNE 18TH, I'VE TOLD THEM ALL THE VERY SAME THING, WHICH IS THAT I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR BOTH YOU AND COMMISSIONER DAVIS AND THE WORK THAT YOU DO HERE. 
          AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, I DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING NEFARIOUS IS HAPPENING, BUT THEN THEY TELL ME HOW THEY FEEL AND HOW THIS HAS MADE THEM FEEL. 
          AND THE BEST ANALOGY I'VE BEEN ABLE TO THINK OF FOR, FOR CHARACTERIZING HOW THEY FEEL IS IT'S ALMOST AS IF WE'VE ROLLED OVER TO LOOK AT OUR SPOUSE THE MORNING AFTER THE WEDDING AND SAID, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF WANNA RETHINK LAST NIGHT'S DECISION. 
          UM, BUT DON'T WORRY, I'M GONNA DO IT BY MYSELF. 
          I'M GONNA GO OFF ON MY OWN. 
          I'M GONNA THINK ABOUT IT AND IT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          'CAUSE WHEN I COME BACK TO YOU, I'M SURE IT'LL BE OKAY. 
          THAT'S THE BEST WAY I CAN THINK OF TO CHARACTERIZE HOW THEY FEEL. 
          UM, IT WAS A HUGE VICTORY FOR THEM AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S JUST BEEN SNATCHED BACK AND I'M NOT EVEN CONVINCED THAT IT WAS TOTALLY NECESSARY TO DO IT THAT WAY. 
          AND ALL I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF THAT, IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF THE ANIMOSITY AND THE TENSION, LET 'EM IN THE ROOM. 
          THEY DON'T EVEN WANNA PARTICIPATE, JUST LET 'EM IN. 
          IT WOULD BE SO EASY. 
          AND IF IT'S, AS YOU SAY AT THE VERY FIRST MEETING, THEY WOULD REALIZE, OKAY, YEAH, THIS IS A NOTHING BURGER. 
          AND THEN THEY'D PROBABLY NEVER COME BACK. 
          THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM F, THE SO PRESERVATION OFFICER'S REPORT. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR HICK. 
          BEFORE I BEGIN MY REPORT, I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK COMMISSIONER BLAKELY FOR YOUR COMMENT. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU NOTICED. 
          WE DO LISTEN TO YOU AND THAT STAFF AND MYSELF ARE HARD AT WORK TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS INCREMENTALLY. 
          WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO BE PERFECT, BUT WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO IMPROVE FOR YOU AND TO THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE ARE HERE TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND I TAKE THIS VERY SERIOUSLY AND MY STAFF TAKES THIS VERY SERIOUSLY AS WELL. 
          AND THEY WORK VERY HARD. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THAT YOU NOTICED. 
          ALRIGHT, MY REPORT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, HICK COMMISSIONER AND STAFF AND THE PUBLIC. 
          I AM VON TRAN, INTERIM HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER SIX, PRE-APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW REQUESTS WERE RECEIVED. 
          22 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED. 
          YEAR TO DATE. 
          TOTALS NOW STAND AT 30 PRE-APPLICATION REVIEWS AND 243 COA SUBMISSIONS. 
          STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED THREE COAS DURING THE CYCLE, BRINGING THE YEAR TO DATE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TO A TOTAL OF 64 LAST MONTH STAFF WORKED WITH MAYOR'S OFFICE OF THE ARTS TO HELP SAVE PARTS OF THE HARPER SCHOOL, THE CORNERSTONE AND LIN AND THE HARPER SCHOOL FRONT ENTRANCE SIGN AND A SET OF LOCKERS WERE REMOVED. 
          AND OUR IN STORE WITH HOUSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR PRESERVATION AND FUTURE DISPLAY AT THE AFRICAN AMERICAN LIBRARY AT THE GREGORY SCHOOL. 
          IN CLOSING, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE A PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6 OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESERVATION OFFICE'S REPORT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* 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.