The San Antonio Historic and Design Review Commission approved a redevelopment plan for the Brackenridge Park play area on a motion to accept staff stipulations, after several residents urged protection of heritage trees and asked for clarity about a planned pedestrian bridge and aquatic play features.

The commission’s decision followed more than an hour of public comment and questions to designers and the project owner about tree removal, tree relocation, the depth of utility trenches near roots, and who would maintain water-play features.

Commission President Jeffrey Fetzer opened the item and the project team — including Chris Matrea, identified as executive director of Bracken Park Playgram, and a design representative — described tree work, planting and irrigation. “We’re not removing them, we’re transplanting 20 trees and relocating nine on site,” the design team said. The design and project team said an arborist (named in the presentation) would evaluate protection zones and root-zone mitigation.

In public comment, longtime users and nearby residents urged restraint. Attorney Allen Paterson told commissioners that the park’s large heritage trees create “opportunities educationally” and asked that the city hire an arborist to evaluate root systems. Resident Katherine Charchard raised health concerns about aquatic features and maintenance: “If you want aquatic play for children, who is going to maintain it? Chris Matriad said ultraviolet light is not sufficient because it must be disinfected and monitored every two to three hours.” Another resident, Ada Ayala, said she favored a well-designed playground but repeated earlier assurances that “no major heritage trees will be removed,” and asked the project team to honor earlier promises made at public meetings.

Commissioners pressed the team on three topics: tree protection, the proposed bridge across the river and operational responsibility for water-play elements. The project team said the bridge location is included in design materials but that its installation depends on separate approval by the river authority. “The design is in the package, but there is not a committed bridge — that depends on the River Authority,” the design lead said. On maintenance, the team said Parks would be responsible for day-to-day maintenance and that a private funding commitment covers irrigation and some capital work.

Before the final vote, the design team reiterated commitments to tree protection and relocation, saying they planned to add dozens of trees and invest private funds in irrigation. One presenter said the proposal included “49 new trees on the site” and improvements to irrigation and pedestrian access.

The commission moved to approve the project with staff stipulations, including requiring arborist oversight during excavation, conditioning the bridge placement on River Authority approval and documentation of maintenance responsibilities for aquatic components. The motion passed.

What this means: The approved plan allows construction to proceed with required city permits and with the stated protections for heritage trees and commitments that the project will return for any work that needs River Authority approval. Certificates of Appropriateness and other documentation will be issued by staff and emailed to applicants within 10 business days, per the commission’s stated process.

Votes and formal action: The commission recorded individual votes on the motion to approve with staff stipulations (names and votes recorded in the meeting transcript). The motion outcome: approved.

Next steps: Staff will issue the certificate of appropriateness if field conditions and permit submittals meet the stipulations. The commission noted that if the River Authority denies the proposed bridge at its shown location, the bridge element would need to return for further review.