City’s Historic Preservation Commission Discusses Shaw Avenue Adobe Property — No Action Taken

The city’s Historic Preservation Commission got a briefing on the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe Building at 5901 W. Shaw Avenue on August 26, 2024. The item was marked “discussed” — no vote, no decision, no next step stated.

The staff report lists site-visit photos from August 5 and August 14. What those photos show, what condition the building is in, and why two separate visits were needed in a nine-day span — the material doesn’t say.

The building carries Historic Property designation #227. What the status is supposed to protect, or require the owner to do, isn’t spelled out here either.

The Breakdown

• The Historic Preservation Commission received an update on the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe Building, a designated historic property at 5901 W. Shaw Avenue.
• The commission “discussed” the item on August 26, 2024 — no vote or action recorded.
• Staff conducted site visits on August 5 and August 14, 2024. Photos were attached to the report but their content is not described in the available material.
• The staff report header is dated June 24, 2024, though the meeting occurred August 26, 2024.

What This Means for You

The commission met on this property and took no recorded action. When the commission meets again and this building comes up — if it does — watch whether “discussed” turns into an actual decision, or whether the item returns with the same result.

What to Watch

Why does a historic building need two site visits in nine days and a commission briefing with no recorded action? The material never states the reason outright, and a “discussion” item with no vote attached gives no indication of what the city intends to do next.

Historic preservation rules can require an owner to maintain a property or face penalties. If this is an enforcement matter, the public should know: who owns the building, what condition it’s in, and what the city is demanding they do. If it’s not enforcement — if the city is just watching a designated property — the available material doesn’t say. The commission’s next agenda will show whether this stays in the “discussed” column or moves to a vote.