PRESS PACKET

TABLE OF CONTENTS

● Media Advisory

● Press Release

● Timeline

● Molly Whitt Montemayor Letter/Email

● Emergency Demolition Notice

● HDRC Minutes 6-2-21

● OHP Letter

● Stanton Letter

● Journey to US Graphic

● 2017 Engineers Letter

● 2021 Engineers Letter

● Deed - Whitt Inc. to Lim Family

● 2014 Historic Designation

● Emails regarding condition of neighborhood

● B-roll of building

Access contents by scanning QR code below

or visiting www.SATXConsultants.com/LimFamily
Password: SATX2021
 MEDIA ADVISORY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Date: December 6, 2021
Contact: Liza Barratachea - (210) 422-2976; liza@satxconsultants.com

Lim Family Sues City due to City Taking Control of Their Private Property

WHO: Lim Family, 89 year business owners on the westside of downtown,

owners of the Golden Star Cafe

WHAT: Press Conference

WHEN: December 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

WHERE: City Hall, City of San Antonio

WHY: The Lim Family who have operated the Golden Star Cafe on the City’s
near westside for 89+ years is suing the City for damages and injunctive relief due to a
regulatory taking. The City has created undue hardships for the Lim family.
● February to May 2021 - roof collapsed during winter storm Uri and further
destruction caused by heavy rain season
● May 5, 2021 - Office of Historic Preservation denies request to demolish the
building
● May 27, 2021 - Development Services Department issues a notice for
emergency demolition, declaring the structure a safety hazard
● June 2, 2021 - Emergency Historic Design and Review Commission meeting
where HDRC approved partial demolition, but preservation of the faḉade
● June 17, 2021 - demolition began and more of the structure fell than anticipated
leaving the property in limbo
● June to present - no progress has been made with the City of San Antonio, so
the family has turned to the law for relief

###
For Immediate Release
December 7, 2021

Contact: Liza Barratachea

(210) 422-2976 (cell)
liza@satxconsultants.com (email)

PRESS RELEASE

Lim Family Sues City due to City Taking Control of Their Private Property

The Lim Family, who has operated the Golden Star Cafe for 89+ years is suing the City
of San Antonio for damages and injunctive relief due to a regulatory taking. The City has
created undue hardships for the Lim family by denying their request to demolish a
dilapidated building on their property, then 22 days later declaring the structure a safety
hazard set for emergency demolition, and 5 days after that at an emergency Historic
Design Review Commission meeting, the City required the family to preserve the facade
of the building.

“We are a local, family run business, providing affordable meals to generations of
families in this community,” said Bo Lim, one of seven siblings and the current
co-operator of the restaurant along with her brother Alex Lim.

But the Lim family has been met by a bureaucratic buzz-saw.

The building at issue is the Whitt building used as a printing house for
Spanish-language publications in the 20th century.

The Lim family bought the building in 1990.

According to Molly Whitt Montemayor, a member of the Whitt family, in an email to Bo

Lim, “The building was built somewhere around 1934, but as the various family
members passed away, there was only a nephew that was still doing business and he
left in the early 1970's because of the bad condition of the building. The only way we
could sell that property was to someone like your family that would demolish the
building and just use the property for parking.”
The Lim family believes the demolition is necessary because restoration of the building
is cost-prohibitive and the state of the building as is, is unsafe due to the high
pedestrian traffic surrounding the area. Demolition of the building will also help create
an environment that promotes much-needed opportunity for growth and improvements
to the neighborhood.

Homelessness and crime in the area has exponentially grown. And the COVID-19
pandemic, like all in the hospitality industry, greatly hurt the Golden Star Cafe. But
before the pandemic, unaddressed crime around the restaurant deterred patrons.

“Our customers used to enjoy their visits but now there are too many negative things
around. And the city doesn't help keep up the neighborhood,” said Alex Lim.

Then winter storm Uri happened, along with unprecedented rainfall through the spring.
The roof collapsed and the building fell into ruin. So the Lim family applied to demolish
the building.

After the Lim family’s application to demolish the building was denied in early May by
the Office of Historical Preservation, a May 27th letter from the Director of Development
Services, Michael Shannon states the Whitt Building was being considered for an
“emergency demolition” because it presented “a clear and imminent danger to life...”

Ms. Whitt Montemayor reinforced the findings of the Development Services Director
when she stated, “I know that it (the Whitt Building) is unsafe in its present condition and
that demolishing would be the best thing to do. In fact, we would worry if anyone would
attempt to use the building.”

In response to Mr. Shannon’s memo, a June 3 Emergency Historic Design and Review
Commission meeting adopted an alternative plan for a partial demotion, removing the
partially collapsed roof, preserving the concrete structure and the façade on Houston
Street.

The committee did not heed the recommendation of Mr. Shannon and when the
contractor began doing the work to fulfill the direction of the HDRC, a beam that was to
be preserved fell leaving the Lim family with no clear path forward for use of their private
property.

According to Bo Lim, “We've tried working with the city. We are not against preservation,
we tried. Like any construction project, you don't know what you will find until you start.
But we do need viable options and flexibility with property we own. Working with the City
on this has gotten us nowhere. We are literally stuck in limbo.”

The City has put the full burden of preservation on private citizens to the public's benefit
and has not provided the Lim family any support, compensation or viable options for use
of their private property.

According to Molly Whitt in her email to Bo Lim, “I would like to tell you that on behalf of
the Whitt family, you have our complete blessings to tear the building down.”

However, it is not that simple; and the Lim family is left to see how a court balances
private property rights, historic preservation, and public safety.

###
 Lim Family & Whitt Building
Timeline

● 1932 - Golden Star Cafe opens across from Market Square

● 1970 - Golden Star Cafe opens on near westside
● 1990 - Lim Family buys the Whitt building adjacent to their restaurant
● 2005 - HDRC given power to deny demolition
● 2014 - Historic Designation of Whitt building filed into property records
● September 1, 2017 - Engineer’s report finding building structurally weak and
potentially dangerous
● 2017 - Lim Family learns of historic designation
● 2018 - Lim Family lists property for sale
● February 2021 - roof collapsed during winter storm Uri
● February 19, 2021 - Lim Family applied to demolish building and de-designate
the building as a historic structure
● March to May 2021 - severe rain storms cause further deterioration
● April 24, 2021 - Site visit by HDRC Commissioners
● May 5, 2021 - Office of Historic Preservation denies request to demolish the
building
● May 27, 2021 - Development Services Department issues a notice for
emergency demolition, declaring the structure a safety hazard
● June 2, 2021 - Emergency Historic Design and Review Commission meeting
where HDRC approved partial demolition, but preservation of the facade
● June 3, 2021 - notice of HDRC finding from OHP
● Building Permit Application for “demolition” and payment over the phone
● June 17, 2021 - Engineer’s report: demolition began and more of the structure
fell than anticipated
● June 28, 2021 - meeting to discuss Plan B, but City denied plan B
● June 29, 2021 - Bo Lim asked the construction crew to stop because City would
not agree on next steps
● July to present - no progress has been made with the City of San Antonio, so the
family has turned to the law for relief
● August 29, 2021 - Mr. Stanton meets with City Attorney's Office on behalf of the
Lim Family where there was no clear path forward except to sue
 SAN ANTONIO HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION
EMERGENCY MEETING MINUTES
June 02, 2021

The City of San Antonio Historic and Design Review Commission met via videoconference on
Wednesday, June 2, 2021.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:

Chairman Fetzer called the emergency meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

ROLL CALL:
Present: Fish, Gibbs, Velasquez, Zumarán, Carpenter, Grube, Fetzer, and Laffoon.
Absent: Fernandez, Arreola, and Bowman.

* Interpreter services are available during the meeting. The meeting is also being recorded in Spanish.

CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT:
Chairman Fetzer provided a statement regarding meeting and appeal processes, time limits and decorum.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:
• Scheduled Emergency Hearing about 821 W. Commerce to start 6:30 p.m. to address immediate
concerns about the conditions of the structure and public safety.

HDRC AGENDA NO. 21-4178

ADDRESS: 821 W COMMERCE
APPLICANT: Patrick Christensen

REQUEST:
Discussion and recommendation regarding emergency demolition orders affecting the property at 821 W
Commerce, Whitt Print Co. Building, and alternatives including but not limited to building stabilization.

FINDINGS:
a. Removal of partially collapsed roof structure, debris inside, and concrete masonry infill walls.
Preservation of full concrete structure (i.e. primary structural frame) and bracing the façade on
Houston street. The two story rear portion of the structure may be removed. This plan for
stabilization of the primary historic structure was recommended by the HDRC an emergency hearing
on June 2, 2021.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
Removal of partially collapsed roof structure, debris inside, and concrete masonry infill walls .
Preservation of full concrete structure (i.e., primary structural frame) and bracing the façade on Houston
street. Wood elements of historic facade to remain in place until a preservation plan is further developed.
The two story rear portion of the structure may be removed. Contractor to work closely with OHP on
progress and notify both OHP and DSD prior to executing any changes in scope.
 THE LAW OFFICES OF www.pstantonlaw.com
Stanton@pstantonlaw.com
PETER J. STANTON
RIVERVIEW TOWERS (c) 210.865.0080
SUITE 470 (o) 210.472.0500
111 SOLEDAD
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205

October 11, 2021

VIA Hand Delivery:

Hon. Ron Nirenberg, Mayor
City of San Antonio
100 Military Plaza
San Antonio, TX 78205

Mr. Erik Walshe, City Manager

City of San Antonio
100 Military Plaza
San Antonio, TX 78205

Mr. Adrew Segovia, City Attorney

Mr. Samuel Adams
Ms. Savita Rai
Assistant City Attorneys
Office of the City Attorney
203 S. St. Mary's Street, 2nd Floor
San Antonio, TX 78205

RE: Claim for inverse condemnation, 821 West Commerce Street, San
Antonio, Texas, 78207

Your Honor, Mr. Walshe, and Counselors:

I represent Yuen King Lim Family LLC, (the Lim Family) the owners of the
Golden Star Chinese restaurant and what is left of a designated historic landmark at
821 West Commerce Street (the Lim Family Property). The Lim Family requests
October 11, 2021
City of San Antonio
Page 2 of 8

that I send this letter for three reasons. First to demand fair compensation to the
Lim Family who are being forced to bear the financial burden of preserving San
Antonio’s unique architectural heritage which, in all fairness and justice, should be
borne by the public as a whole. Second, in its dogged pursuit of historic preservation,
the City has intentionally denied the Lim Family any administrative remedies, and
they intend to institute an action for damages and injunctive relief against the City.
And finally, my client wants me to remind you of the old adage that “bad facts make
bad law”. The last forty years of progress made by the Texas historical preservation
movement may be held for naught should the Texas Supreme Court be allowed use
the facts of this case to resolve the question they so narrowly avoided in Powell v. City
of Houston, No. 19-0689, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2021 WL 2273976, at *13 (Tex. June 4,
2021), i.e. the authority of a Texas Home Rule city to adopt a historic preservation
ordinance through its police power. In the hope that an explanation of the facts will
help to avoid such a consequence, the City is advised as follows:

1.0. The Lims acquired a restaurant and an outbuilding, but now own a
historic structure: the Whitt Printing Co. Building.

The Lim Family purchased the Lim Family Property in 1983, prior to the
formation of Cattlemen’s Square Historic District. The Lim Family Property (as it
presently exists) consists of two buildings, one being the restaurant (the main source
of income that supports the Lim Family) and the second being the skeletal remains
of a structure that used to be known as the Whitt Printing Co. Building or the Print
Building. (the Building) The Building was designated as a landmark in 1985, and as
it exists today, all that remains are concrete pillars, a slab, parts of masonry infill walls
and a Mission Revival style façade dating to the 1930s. The Building has never
produced any income for the Lim Family, and the only benefit that it has ever offered
is that it serves as a storage ancillary to their restaurant operations.

The Lim Family have done their part to be productive residents of the
Cattleman Square Historical District. They are one of the few private land-owners
left on the near west-side, and to their knowledge the only family owned business left
in the district surviving the UTSA expansion, the VIA facility, and MHMR’s
presence. As a small family-owned business, they have keenly felt the effect of the
on development resulting from the historic designation.1 They suffered City’s

1
These facts are confirmed by a member of the Design Review Committee who “…observed the neglect of area
first‐hand over a few years and advised considering the impact of demolition in the context of the UTSA campus
expansion.”
October 11, 2021
City of San Antonio
Page 3 of 8

inability to provide adequate services to their unhoused neighbors and they have
witnessed what seems more like a cycle of decay from a regulation scheme intended
to provide economic prosperity and strengthen civic pride. 2 In 2017, the Lim Family
had an engineer prepare a report for the City which demonstrated that the cost to
rehabilitate the Building far exceeded their means, and the cost necessary even to
seek approval of any other structure on the site were prohibitive. Nonetheless, in
the name of historic preservation, the Lim Family has been required to maintain the
unproductive, and unsightly Building, and had managed to keep the Building
enclosed and relatively free of intruders since 1983.

But in 2021 the roof collapsed under the weight of this winter’s unprecedented
snowfall. The Lim Family was informed that it may lose all insurance on the Lim
Family Property, including the restaurant if the building’s condition was not
addressed. Knowing that its unhoused neighbors frequented the property which
appeared to all a danger to the public, the Lim Family applied for permission to
demolish the building.

2.0. The UDC is intentionally designed to prevent demolition.

a. The OHP is unconcerned with danger to public. The Lim Family,

having determined years earlier that they could not afford to repair the structure,
assumed that the City would support their attempt to abate the dangerous condition
on the Lim Family Property. On February 19, 2021, supported by both an engineer’s
report that the Building was a hazard to the Public, and a written statement by Ms.
Lim that the property had been listed for over two years without generating even one
prospective buyer, the Lim Family applied for permission to demolish what
remained of the Building. They also filed an application to de-designate the
structure, because of its condition. The condition of the Building after the
snowstorm is shown below as Figure 1. The façade of the Building that the City has
determined to be preserved for the benefit of the public at the Lim Family’s expense,

2
The constituents of the neighborhood have been an anathema to re-development of the area. Chanel 4 News reported
on a sensational drug ring operating out of a neighboring property. “We've been here serving generations of San
Antonians,” said Bo Lim, a co-owner and manager of the Lim Family-run restaurant. “1932 is when my grandfather
started our business.” But she says the area has changed over the years. “There are a lot of people that lose their way
down here as tourists,” and “They're not used to it and they get really scared’.” Chief McManus is on record as
supporting demolition of neighboring buildings in the interest of public safety.

https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/six-suspected-drug-dealers-arrested-in-undercover-sting-targeting-
troubled-street-corner
October 11, 2021
City of San Antonio
Page 4 of 8

is shown as Figure 2. Given the condition of the Building, and their previous
experience with the City, the Lim Family was surprised at the bureaucratic buzz-saw
encountered at OHP.

Figure 1: Facade
Figure 2: Collapsed Rood

3.0. The HDRC recognizes the danger but denies a Demolition Permit.

a. The “no demolition” presumption is designed to allow the OHP to

make ad hoc decisions restricting otherwise lawful use of property. The City of
San Antonio, Office of Historic Preservation (The OHP), pursuant to the powers
claimed under the Local Government Code, and Article VI of the UDC, denied the
Lim Families application a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the
Building in a letter dated May 5, 2021. The denial is based on the fundamental
principle set out in 35-614 of the UDC that “…[t]he loss of a contributing structure
is an irreplaceable loss to the quality and character of San Antonio.” Given that this
presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, and the UDC
only states what documentation may be considered, the OHP staff and HDRC are free
to set the bar as high as they wish. The extensive (and expensive) documentation
necessary just for consideration of an application for a certificate of appropriateness
must be submitted, even if it is obvious that a permit cannot be issued because, as in
the Lim’s case, they had no plan to replace the structure. The documentation
required by UDC 35-614(b)(3) exceeds that required by a commercial loan
application, and can include at the discretion of the OHP, an appraisal of a structure
which the City determines to be a nuisance. The UDC requires historic preservation
experts to make decisions usually made by investment professionals retained by, and
with a duty to, the owners. No lay person could even come close to compliance with
the proof necessary to overcome the presumption without the aid of real estate
professional in preparing an application. That is why the hiring of professionals is
encouraged by the OHP Staff, and the process will often cost upwards of
$100,000.00 in fees for appraisers, attorneys, engineers, designers, consultants, etc.
October 11, 2021
City of San Antonio
Page 5 of 8

The process allows the City to effectively deprive the owner of the use of its
property, while maintaining the legal fiction that it is in fact merely exercising its
police power. While the denial of a demolition permit can deny an owner of any use
of its property for todays’ , no compensation is given. The UDC requires an owner
to provide clear and convincing evidence of “economic hardship” sufficient to
overcome that a landmark is irreplaceable. That presumption on its face can neither
be rationally applied in all case (such as total destruction) nor rationally overcome in
others (when the determination of investment expectations relies on whether the
permit is issued). Under the UDC a demolition decision may be conditioned on the
owner’s failure to repair interior conditions of a landmark, even though purpose of
the UDC is to preserve the exterior of a landmark. And an owner may suffer the civil
and criminal penalties set out in §35-615 for its failure repair defects in interior walls,
fireplaces, floors, and other interior defects, in addition to being denied any use of
the property. As intended, this regulatory scheme mandated denial of the Lim
Family’s request to eliminate a dangerous condition on its property. And for their
effort, not only was the permit denied, but the OHP threatened the Lims with the
civil penalties set out in §35-615(3) if they fail to make the repairs to the structure
determined necessary by the City.

b. Conditioning demolition on approval of “replacement plans” is

confisticatory. Even if an owner could afford to comply with the information
requirements of the UDC, the merits of the case need not reached. 3 Assuming the
Lim Family were able to comply with unwritten and ad hoc requirements such as, the
suggestion that “…more creative and documented efforts towards restoration and
marketing of the property…”, no demolition permit may be issued until the owner
receives approval of “replacement plans”. To raze a dangerous landmark, an owner
must demonstrate their economic ability to consummate the replacement plan, all to
the satisfaction of a bureaucracy required to presume that removal of pile of rubble
is an irreplaceable loss to the citizens of San Antonio. The replacement plans are
required even, as in the case, the City is aware that the structure is dangerous, and
no replacement structure is planned. See, 35-455(h) and 35-614(e).

Conditioning a demolition permit of what would otherwise be declared as a

nuisance on the exercise of discretion by the HDRC to determine the amount of

3
Among the plethora of reasons stated, the HDRC found no demolition could be had without “… a detailed estimate
of rehabilitative costs for the Print Building at this time. Estimated costs of a potential commercial development and
projected revenues have also not been provided. The applicant has not provided a detailed analysis of adaptation
options, exploration of reuse on the site, or demonstration of other siting challenges that would make reuse of any
portions of contributing buildings as part of the larger development unfeasible…”
October 11, 2021
City of San Antonio
Page 6 of 8

evidence necessary to overcome an irrational presumption, and the proposed

replacement of the dangerous structure, stands the City’s police power on its head.
The unquestionable, historically necessary, and proven beneficial use of municipal
police powers to abate a nuisance, is now being used to prohibit the abatement of a
nuisance.

3. The City issues a demolition notice 23 days after refusing to allow

the Lim Family to demolish the Building.

a. The City invokes the Dangerous Building Ordinance. Before the

time limit to appeal to Board of Adjustment had run, and despite the HDRC’s
finding that the Building was not unsafe, the City itself found the Building to be a
danger to the public. On May 28, 2021 the City ’s Development Services
Department notified the Lim Family and the public that the Building “…presents a
clear and imminent threat to life, safety, and/ or property necessitating an immediate
demolition. The conditions of this property identified by the Department of
Development Services are in violation of City Code Chapter 6, Article VIII,
Dangerous Buildings and Distressed Properties.” The Local Government Code
anticipates this collision between a dangerous building ordinance and an historic
preservation ordinance. In such cases, the OHP is required, inter alia, to identify a
feasible alternative use for the building or locate an alternative purchaser to
rehabilitate and maintain the building under §214.00111 TEX. LOC. GOV. CODE.
Chapter 214 of the Local Government Code, “Municipal Regulation of Housing and
Other Structures”, require the constitutional minimum notice, the right to a hearing,
and judicial review action is taken to enforce minimum housing standards. The
statute makes no provision allowing the application of minimum housing standards
to a commercial property. The additional requirements of the UDC violates well
settled law. Texas law is clear that the City may exercise all police powers not denied
to it by the Constitution or state law, See TEX. CONST. art. XI, § 5. Traditionally
those powers include the authority to adopt and enforce, building codes and land use
regulations. Town of Lakewood Vill. v. Bizios, 493 S.W.3d 527, 531 (Tex. 2016) But
when upon the enactment of Chapter 214, the UDC’s provisions conditioning
demolition permits on the owner making repairs to the satisfaction of Chief
Preservation officer clearly are limited by the statute.

b. The HDRC unlawfully requires the Lim Family to repair the Building.
Ignoring both the UDC and the statute, on June 3, 2021, the HDC convened an
emergency meeting of the HDRC on a notice which recites that it would consider an
October 11, 2021
City of San Antonio
Page 7 of 8

application by the City to “…maintain and repair…” the Building. No such

application appears of record, and no such application was made by the City. On
that day, the HDRC issued an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness stating
that the “…two story rear portions of the structure may be removed. Contractor to
work closely with OHP on progress and notify both OHP and DSD prior to executing
any changes in scope.” The cement beams were to be preserved, and the façade was
to be repaired to the extent not specified. The Certificate does not state who is to do
the work, much less recognizing that in taking control of the repair of the structure,
the City was exercising control over the Building to the exclusion of the Lim Family.
The action denies the Lim Family the due process required by TEX. LOC. GOV. CODE
§214.001, 2) precludes administrative review by the City Manager and Board of
Adjustment provided by §35-451 of the UDC, by reversing the original denial of the
permit prior to the appeal deadline running, and prohibits appeal of the June 3rd
decision because the UDC appeal on its face only to “applicants”. The action
appears to made in order making the determination “…to condemn the property and
take it by the power of eminent domain for rehabilitation or reuse by the city or other
disposition with appropriate preservation restrictions in order to promote the
historic preservation purposes of this chapter…” required by the UDC. The
absence of an administrative appeal denies the Lim Family access to judicial review
of the decision provided by §214.0012 TEX. LOC. GOV. CODE, and authorizes a
physical invasion of the Building by the City.

4.0. The application of Chapter VI of the UDC constitutes a taking and

enforcement of the UDC exceeds the City’s lawful authority.

a. The application of the UDC to the Lim Family Property is a

regulatory taking. As applied to the Lim Family, the regulatory scheme
conditioning use of its property for any purpose upon discretionary application of
subjective requirements is the type of governmental action regulating or restricting
the use of property that constitutes a compensable taking. Sheffield Dev. Co., Inc. v.
City of Glenn Heights, 140 S.W.3d 660, 670 (Tex. 2004). The absurdity of a
regulatory scheme in which the government on one day declares there is no reason
to demolish a building, and twenty three days later declares that the building must
be demolished, must be apparent even to those unschooled in Texas municipal law.
When the owner is denied the ability to make its property safe is the kind of
interference prohibited by the Texas Constitution. And finally, making decisions to
repair a designation, and ordering the Lim Family to make repair to the Building
which damaged the structure, is likewise compensable.
October 11, 2021
City of San Antonio
Page 8 of 8

b. Section 35-316 of the UDC is unenforceable. The “Demolition by

Neglect” provisions of the UDC which purport to allow penalties for failure to repair
have been limited by TEX. LOC. GOV. CODE chapter 214. The City’s threatened civil
penalties and criminal enforcement against the Lim Family is prohibited. This case
demonstrates how the City has used its discretionary and deliberately vague
processed to avoid judicial review of what it admits to be a balance between
landowner’s rights and public benefit.

5. Conclusion.

The UDC itself recognizes that its historic preservation ordinance may
require condemnation in appropriate circumstances. The application in this case is
one of those circumstances. While by design or otherwise, the City has deprived the
Lim Family of it administrative appeals under both the UDC and Chapter 214. The
City does not want the future of San Antonio’s historic preservation ordinance to be
decided in a case where its statutory scheme allows one city office to deny demolition
of a landmark while another demands it. But unless some resolution of this matter
is reached within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, litigation will be instituted to
obtain compensation, and restrain further unlawful regulation of the Lim Family
Property.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Stanton

PJS/mg
June 17, 2021 Job #8758

Joe Ramon III, Vice President

J.R. Ramon Demolition
1325 Frio City Road
San Antonio, TX 78226

Re: Existing building condition assessment - revisited

821 West Commerce Street – Whitt Building
San Antonio, TX 78207

Dear Mr. Ramon,

This morning as demolition was underway at the Whitt building, one of the concrete roof
beams collapsed. I understand that as the block wall below it was being removed, the beam
became separated from a column. This is on the southwest corner of the building, closest to
the 2-story building. Fortunately, there were no injuries, and damage was limited to the roof
beam itself.

I was notified of this and visited the site to observe the conditions. It appears that the
reinforcing between the beam and the south column was very minimal. The beam was still
connected to the next column, and there were a few reinforcing bars visible that were not
apparent at the south column. See the pictures below for reference.

Due to the apparent fragile nature of the beam-column connections, I recommend that the
block walls remain for now. Apparently, the Office of Historic Preservation gave approval to
remove the two south-most columns, infill walls, and roof beams on the east and west walls.
The center beams and columns are to remain. This will allow demolition of the wood roof to
continue.

Once the roof is demolished and removed, the bracing of the remaining structure will need to
be revisited. There are a few options for removing the block walls:
1. The walls could remain in place, so as to not risk damaging the roof beams. X-bracing
within the building footprint would be required in order to provide lateral stability against wind
loads.
2. The infill walls could be carefully removed completely. Bracing for this scenario would
likely include new steel beams along the concrete beams to provide gravity support, as well as
some x-bracing.
3. The walls could be partially removed, leaving a few feet of wall adjacent to each column.
This will help buttress the beam-column connections. This could allow for less gravity support
required; lateral bracing would be similar to option 1.
1. Southwest column, beam separated and collapsed. Center beam and column remain in background.

2. Collapsed beam in foreground, still connected to column.

3. Collapsed beam still connected to column.

P:\Documents\Projects\Ramon Jobs\GoldenStar\GoldenStarMemo03.doc
 Marcie Trevino Ripper <marcie@satxconsultants.com>

Fwd: Public toilet in the Westside

1 message

BO LIM < > Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:10 PM

To: marcie@satxconsultants.com

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bo Lim
Date: October 10, 2014 at 4:31:24 PM CDT

To: Shirley Gonzales <Shirley.Gonzales@sanantonio.gov>, maribel.garcia@sanantonio.gov, "Paul A.

Herrera" <paul.herrera@sanantonio.gov>, thomas.froelick@sanantonio.gov,
william.mcmanus@sanantonio.gov

Subject: Public toilet in the Westside

Greetings,

I wanted to express my concern with our area being a public toilet. EVERYDAY my customers and
employees are subjected to the homeless and day laborers using the public sidewalks and various private
properties in our area as a toilet. They don't even hide behind a building, bush or tree anymore. They are
exposing their private parts to woman and children. When we try to clean off the stench and unsanitary
conditions we are threatened with violence by these vagrants because they are occupying these areas. Why
are we as private property owners having to clean off public sidewalks? We need some help in our area to
limit these vagrants from using the public sidewalks as toilets and also some assistance in cleaning the
public areas of our neighborhood. The streets with high activity are Houston, Frio, West Commerce, and
Leona.

Sincerely,

Bo Lim

Golden Star

Sent from my iPad

 Marcie Trevino Ripper <marcie@satxconsultants.com>

Fwd: District 5 business owners concerns

2 messages

BO LIM
To: marcie@satxconsultants.com

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bo Lim < >

Date: December 27, 2014 at 4:32:34 PM CST

To: Mayor.IvyTaylor@sanantonio.gov, Shirley Gonzales <Shirley.Gonzales@sanantonio.gov>, William McManus <william.mcmanus@sanantonio.gov>, maribel.garcia@sanantonio.gov

Patricia.Cardenas@utsa.edu, jdegollado@ksat.com, Lisa Lim <lisalimnyc@gmail.com>, Sophie Lim <limsoph@gmail.com>, wcothamiii@alamo.edu, Erik Doyle <Erik.Doyle@sananton
<richard.martinez@viainfo.net>, Ruben Cortez <cortez.ruben49@yahoo.com>, Leonard Rodriguez <Leonard.Rodriguez@sanantonio.gov>, Mark Tolley <mark@210dg.com>, M61122B
Lucy Ortega <lortega.nat@avance.org>, "Paul A. Herrera" <paul.herrera@sanantonio.gov>, petecortez@mtcinscsa.com, George Aguilar <george.aguilar@viainfo.net>, aj.sandoval@u
Stephen.Prescott@sanantonio.gov, James Shirley <james.shirley@sanantonio.gov>, Sherrie King <Sherrie.King@uhs-sa.com>, Diego Bernal <Diego.Bernal@sanantonio.gov>, Danie
Dianne T Mendoza <dianne.mendoza@viainfo.net>, Douglas.Sonego@utsa.edu, gilberto.santos@sanantonio.gov, hpabon@alamo.edu, jack.eckles@viainfo.net, jesse.zapata@utsa.e
<mikezilla321@yahoo.com>, xavier.gonzalez@grgarchitecture.com, cocinaheritage@gmail.com, Cory Cailcutt <cory.cailcutt@viainfo.net>, mruiz@texstar-bank.com
Subject: District 5 business owners concerns

Dear City Officials,

I am writing you to address the constant battle businesses have here being located near the homeless shelter. As you can see in the attached photos taken, volunteer groups and priva
Street entrance during business hours to give out food, drinks, clothing, etc. to the homeless. Customers can not regularly come through Houston Street because these volunteer group
properties and public sidewalks and block traffic.  In addition, the recipients of the donations leave a significant amount of litter and are constantly urinating and defecating on public and
affects our district.

We really need the city's support to discourage and enforce city ordinances to this type of activity as it halts any type of positive economic growth to our district.

I would like to raise this issue at our next meeting on January 14, 2015 (10am) held at Cocina Heritage The Restaurant. I would like to work together as a group to bring positive progres
forward.

I will be sending an agenda prior to the meeting for everyone's review.  I look forward to a productive meeting.  

Wish you all a Happy New Year.

Sincerely,

Bo Lim

Golden Star

Marcie Trevino Ripper <marcie@satxconsultants.com> Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:20 PM

To: Liza Barratachea <liza@satxconsultants.com>

Marcie Trevino Ripper

o: (210) 802-1236

[Quoted text hidden]



Marcie Trevino Ripper <marcie@satxconsultants.com>

Fwd: Assistance for Houston Street (Frio & Leona)

BO LIM Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:36 PM

To: marcie@satxconsultants.com

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Rolando Sandoval (SAPD)" <Rolando.Sandoval@sanantonio.gov>

Date: March 8, 2016 at 9:35:38 AM CST

To: Bo Lim

Cc: "Vidal Resendez (SAPD)" <Vidal.Resendez@sanantonio.gov>, "Carlos Garcia Jr (SAPD)"

<Carlos.Garcia@sanantonio.gov>, "Jimmy Willingham (SAPD)" <Jimmy.Willingham@sanantonio.gov>,
"James Shirley (SAPD)" <James.Shirley@sanantonio.gov>

Subject: RE: Assistance for Houston Street (Frio & Leona)

Good morning Bo Lim,

I am sad you continue to experience the below mentioned problems.  Officer Shirley informed me of
some of the issues on Houston Street last week.  We will step up our presence to address the large number
of individuals standing on Houston Street. 

I also want to mention that the city is conducting a study of the labor standing point on Houston Street. 
Hopefully, they will make recommendations to alleviate the problem when they complete their study.  We
will definitely keep you updated with any progress.

Feel free to contact us with any questions at .

Thank you, Bo Lim.     

From: Bo Lim [mailto: ]

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 3:06 PM

To: Rolando Sandoval (SAPD)

Subject: Fwd: Assistance for Houston Street (Frio & Leona)

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bo Lim < >

Date: March 7, 2016 at 1:23:27 PM CST

To: Carlos Garcia <carlos.garcia@sanantonio.gov>, John Cooley

<john.cooley@sanantonio.gov>, Roland Sandoval <roland.sandoval@sanantonio.gov>,
Jimmy Willingham <jimmy.willingham@sanantonio.gov>, cory.chilcutt@viainfo.net,
george.aguilar@viainfo.net, michael.dominguez@viainfo.net

Subject: Assistance for Houston Street (Frio & Leona)

Dear Sirs,

I am writing you to please send some assistance to all of us on Houston Street. The unsavory
characters have really concentrated our area. There has been a menacing presence that
several of the businesses have seen on the street. They do not look like the low level drug
dealers, but higher up individuals. The orange building on Houston street housing Safety
Parking has experienced people on the roof stealing materials. Recently there has also been
a man flashing the customers of Texstar Bank. We and ACCD have had street feeders
passing out goods to the vagrants in the parking lots and in public areas. When we ask the
"good samaritans" to get off our PRIVATE property, we have had some individuals react very
negatively. The trash and waste that is a result of street feeding is all over public sidewalks.
Customers and employees who take the bus have to pass these menacing individuals who
occupy the other three corners of Houston Street once they get off at the station. Some of my
employees have resorted to asking friends for rides so they don't have to be dropped off at the
bus station. We ask that you extend bike or car patrol boundaries to cover our area as well.
We noticed a drop in this activity when they know there is a regular police presence in the
area. Please help us.

Sincerely,

Bo Lim

Golden Star
 Marcie Trevino Ripper <marcie@satxconsultants.com>

Fwd: Leona Street lighting issues

1 message

BO LIM < > Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:30 PM

To: marcie@satxconsultants.com

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bo Lim < >

Date: February 8, 2017 at 2:01:47 PM CST

To: Manny Ruiz <MRuiz@texstar-bank.com>, marc@texstar-bank.com, bbexley@texstar-bank.com,

safetyparking@sbcglobal.net, m61122bo@motel6.com

Subject: Leona Street lighting issues

Hi Neighbors,

Just wanted to inform you that CPS Energy does have a policy to have lighting on every block. Our
businesses are affected by a lack of lighting on Leona Street, the increase in lighting will help SAPD identify
illegal behavior when your offices are closed. A lock from Texstar Bank was stolen and put on our front
doors. We had to cut the lock to get in. These kind of incidents may be lowered by adequate lighting.
Contact via email District 5 Shirley Gonzalez to assist us in having CPS Energy put more light sources in
our community. I will be sending her my letter, but there is a stronger voice in numbers. I ask that you
contact her through email or in a letter because phone calls are not as effective. Shirley Gonzalez has
helped other neighborhoods in her district get the lighting necessary for better safety.

Sincerely,

Bo Lim

Golden Star

 Marcie Trevino Ripper <marcie@satxconsultants.com>

Fwd: Patrols
1 message

BO LIM < > Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:27 PM

To: marcie@satxconsultants.com

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bo Lim
Date: March 30, 2017 at 12:56:08 PM CDT

To: Carlos Garcia <carlos.garcia@sanantonio.gov>, leslie.carrillo@sanantonio.gov

Cc: safetyparking@sbcglobal.net, Manny Ruiz <MRuiz@texstar-bank.com>, bbexley@texstar-bank.com,

marc@texstar-bank.com, wcothamiii@alamo.edu, Shirley Gonzales <Shirley.Gonzales@sanantonio.gov>

Subject: Patrols

Dear Carlos Garcia and Leslie Carrillo,

Safety Parking and I are requesting more frequent bike patrols to our area. Safety Parking and I have
recently seen an increase of persons who are trying to blend in with the vagrants while trying to do their
illegal drug activity. They have been walking in the middle of the streets causing a public safety issue for
those driving in the street. Please extend your patrols to help us with this ongoing situation.

Sincerely,

Bo Lim

Golden Star

 Marcie Trevino Ripper <marcie@satxconsultants.com>

Fwd: Street cleaning after street feeding

1 message

BO LIM < > Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:32 PM

To: marcie@satxconsultants.com

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bo < >

Date: November 28, 2020 at 9:07:54 AM CST

To: Shirley Gonzales <Shirley.Gonzales@sanantonio.gov>, teresa.myers@sanantonio.gov

Cc: safetyparking@sbcglobal.net, Michael Shackelford <mshackelford@alamocommunitygroup.org>,

Texstar Manny Ruiz <mruiz@texstar-bank.com>, erica.arreola@sanantonio.gov, Bamba Njie
<bamba.njie@sanantonio.gov>, limsoph@gmail.com, Camilla Rambaldi <crambaldi@sbgtv.com>,
rprice@sbgtv.com, Pete Cortez <pete.cortez@mtcincsa.com>

Subject: Street cleaning after street feeding

Dear Councilwoman Gonzales,

Please arrange street cleaning for the neighborhood on W. Commerce, Leona, Frio and W. Houston streets.
The street feeding of the homeless is increasing causing much trash along the sidewalks and streets. The
public using the Via bus hub and businesses who contribute taxes and employment are subjected to the
human waste and trash. This leads to issues with insects, rodents and general public safety and health. The
sidewalks and streets are the responsibility of the city to clean and maintain. This is the very least the city
can do since the city is not doing anything to stop the unauthorized street feeding or the vagrants lining the
streets. Your response to these ongoing issues are appreciated.

Sincerely,

Bo Lim

Golden Star

 Marcie Trevino Ripper <marcie@satxconsultants.com>

Fwd: Concern with Homeless at your business

1 message

BO LIM < > Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:34 PM

To: marcie@satxconsultants.com

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bo

Date: December 11, 2020 at 2:28:14 PM CST

To: "Morjoriee White (DHS)" <Morjoriee.White@sanantonio.gov>

Cc: Texstar Manny Ruiz <mruiz@texstar-bank.com>, safetyparking@sbcglobal.net, Michael Shackelford

<mshackelford@alamocommunitygroup.org>, Pete Cortez <pete.cortez@mtcincsa.com>,
teresa.myers@sanantonio.gov, ron.nirenberg@sanantonio.gov

Subject: Re:  Concern with Homeless at your business

Hello Ms White,

Golden Star Cafe

821 W. Commerce 
San Antonio, Tx 78207
210-223-1681

Thank you for contacting me. We have been struggling with the homeless issue for decades. However, the
increase use of narcotics including synthetic drugs had created an unhealthy environment. The person
under the influence passes out all along the sidewalks and vomit, or defecate on there. The street feeding of
homeless of numerous homeless camped out on the sidewalks has caused trash to be littered all over the
streets and sidewalks. The homeless also use the public and private properties as restrooms. I am
concerned for pests and rodents to be attracted to the trash. The businesses in the area have had to clean
our private properties, but the city needs to clean up their areas. The various issues stated has caused an
unhealthy and dangerous situation for the citizens in the area as well as the homeless itself. The Via
terminal is used by many commuters and they are confronted by aggressive homeless people. Walking on
the filthy sidewalks is a public heath hazard. Your department addressing this increasing issue is much
appreciated.

Sincerely,
Bo Lim
(210) 223-1681 work

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 11, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Morjoriee White (DHS) <Morjoriee.White@sanantonio.gov>

wrote:

Good Morning,
My name is Morjoriee White, the Homeless Administrator with the City of San Antonio and I’ve
also cc’d Jacqueline Lucio, the Director of PID Operations from Centro San Antonio. It’s been
brought to our attention your concerns with the homeless,
vomit and fecal matter around your
businesses. Can you send us information on the location in order for us to send an outreach
team and address the public health
concerns.

Sincerely,

Morjoriee

Morjoriee White, MPH

Homeless Administrator

Director’s Office |
Department of Human Services 

106 South Saint Mary’s | 7th Floor | San Antonio, Texas  78205

Tel: 210.207.8197 |
Morjoriee.White@sanantonio.gov

<image001.jpg>

<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>