Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Mar 10, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1161-historic-design-review-mar-10-2026 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board held a meeting on 03/10/2026, addressing several key issues including agenda changes, approval of past meeting minutes, and public comments regarding board composition and code enforcement. Two new business items were postponed to the 03/24/2026 meeting, and the approval of all four sets of minutes was deferred to the next meeting due to a board member not having them in the original packet. A significant public comment highlighted the ongoing absence of an architect on the board, which was later echoed by board members as a concern for evaluating building designs. The board made several decisions, including unanimously approving the demolition of a non-contributing structure at 411 Camino Don Miguel due to its hazardous condition. They also approved the contributing status and primary facades for the residence at 118 Camino Santiago, including its low yard walls. A contentious case regarding a proposed mixed-use building at 911 Roybal Street, which sought a significant height exception, was ultimately denied by the board. The board also denied a request for a five-foot yard wall and gate at 669 Garcia Street, finding that the exception criteria for the proposed height had not been met. The meeting concluded with the scheduling of the next meeting and adjournment. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda as submitted after initial postponements. - Approved the demolition request for the structure at 411 Camino Don Miguel. - Designated the residential structure at 118 Camino Santiago as 'contributing' with specific primary facades and designated the low yard walls on the northeast and north side of the building adjacent to the street as 'contributing'. - Denied the application for a proposed mixed-use structure at 911 Roybal Street. - Approved the application for a carport at 302 Camino Cerrito. - Denied the application for a five-foot yard wall and gate at 669 Garcia Street. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to defer the approval of all minutes to the next regularly scheduled meeting — Passed. - Motion to place the reconsideration of the previous decision regarding the multi-status building (Case 2026-011792-HDRB, 924 Paseo De Peralta) on the agenda for the 03/24/2026 meeting — Passed unanimously (5-0). - Motion to approve the demolition request for the structure at 411 Camino Don Miguel — Passed unanimously (5-0). - Motion to designate the residential structure at 118 Camino Santiago as contributing, designate primary facades as R1, R2, R3, R10, R11, and R12 (including the outer lines of the carport structure, excluding R4 and R5), and designate the low yard walls on the northeast and north side of the building adjacent to the street as contributing — Passed (4-0, with one member's vote not explicitly recorded but part of 'Yes' count). - Motion for an unspecified previous agenda item — Passed (3 Yes, 2 No). - Motion to postpone the portion of the application related to the gate for 1489 Upper Canyon Road and to request the applicant return with alternate gate designs and a wall proposal for the next meeting, including staff to provide wall height calculations — Passed (5-0). - Motion to approve the application for 911 Roybal Street — Failed (1 Yes, 2 No, 1 Abstain). - Motion to deny the application for 911 Roybal Street — Passed (3 Yes, 1 No, 1 Abstain, Chair broke tie). - Motion to approve the application for a carport at 302 Camino Cerrito consistent with staff's recommendation — Passed unanimously (5 Yes). - Motion to deny the application for 669 Garcia Street, finding that the exception criteria for the proposed wall and gate height had not been met — Passed (3 Yes, 2 No). - Motion to adjourn — Passed unanimously by voice vote. == Public Comment == Public comments included an architect's frustration over his case being postponed due to an incorrect public notice date and his plea for the board to advocate for the appointment of an architect to fill the designated architect seat. Another commenter reported continued off-site advertising by 'Sarah Novason and the Old House' and questioned code enforcement's inaction. During discussions on specific cases, public commenters expressed concerns about the height and design of a proposed mixed-use building at 911 Roybal Street, arguing it was too large and modern for the historic zone, and opposed the height of a proposed wall and gate at 669 Garcia Street, suggesting it would negatively impact the streetscape. == Topics == - Architect Board Representation - Wall and Gate Height - Postponed Cases/Technicalities - Historic Preservation Awards - Off-Site Signage Enforcement - Reconsideration Process - Window Assessment Requirement - Hardship Criteria for Exceptions - Modern HICB for Projects - Appeals Process == Full Transcript == Hey, IT, can you promote Frank to be the host of the Zoom meeting, and then we can go live when you're ready? IT, are we ready to go live? We are live. Good evening, everyone. I'm calling this meeting to order. We are the Historic Districts Review Board, and today is March 10, 2026. We have a roll call, Mariah. Madam Chair Rios. Here. Vice Chair Bienvenu. Here. Member Beachside. Here. Member Cherry. Here. Member Aguilar Medrano. Here. Member Degnan. Here. You have a quorum, Chair. Thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda, staff? Yes, Chair Rios. Under new business, item F, 2026-011825-HDRB, 619 West Alameda Street, has been postponed to the March 24th meeting. Item G, 2026-011886-HDRB, 521 Kaya Corvo, has also been postponed to the March 24th meeting. Anything else? Not at this time, Chair Rios. Thank you. So, motion to approve the agenda as submitted. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you. Opposed, say no. Thank you. That's adopted. We have four sets of minutes. If you have changes to any of these minutes, indicate the date and the changes. We'll start with December 9. I have one change, which was on page five, under board action, line four, change "accepted" (e.x.c.) to "accepted" (a.c.c.). Any other changes? Madam Chair, I guess the agenda's been amended to add those minutes. The agenda I had didn't show any minutes, so I didn't review any. So they must have been posted after. So I would ask that we defer approval of the minutes. Say what? I would ask that we defer approval of the minutes to the next meeting so that I can review them. Oh, okay. All of them? Yeah. None of them were in the original agenda that I had. So you want to make a motion, please? I move that we defer the approval of the minutes to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Judge Mahara, second. Second. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Thank you. We do not have any findings and conclusions. And any matters from the public? Anyone in this room wishing to come and talk not about a particular case this evening, but anything that might be on your mind regarding H-Board matters? I guess the one big giant single button is for pressing. I'm not here to represent any client or case. I just wanted to represent myself and the architects here in town. So I was supposed to present this evening, but my case was postponed for a legitimate reading of the code, which is that we had already been postponed once, but we were never instructed to change the date on our sign. So today, by you holding the meeting or a sign that had the wrong date on it, you're not complying to your own code. So even though I'm very frustrated and the client has now paid for two different plane tickets to come to these hearings, I, at the same time, understand that you're acting by your code as you're required to do by your city lawyer and assistant, I believe, is Frank's position, or I'm not exactly sure. But I would just like to—I'm not here to complain about what happened. I'm here to make the connection that I appreciate the laser-precise reading of the law as it pertains to me. So I would like to inversely invite you, and I'm actually not addressing the board here because the board are only appointed by the mayor, so they have no ability to change this. But the way the H-Board has continued to operate without an architect in the architect seat, even though it's so clear in the code, and actually the word "architect" is also defined clearly by New Mexico's own set of legal statutes that define what professions are for all types, that I have been deferred because a sign had a Sharpie-written date incorrectly, despite the fact that all of the board had the chance to see the property, fully understands it, had the packet over the weekend to review it. But, nonetheless, we're being deferred because of such a close reading, and yet that's not being honored back towards the H-Board constituency. I'm looking right at these three people, none of whom are making eye contact with me. So I appreciate that. I'll take two out of three. At this point, we're just a broken record in the architectural community, which is really a shame because it's really up to the mayor, who I emailed on January 27. I would have copied everybody here too if I had your emails. You're lucky probably the public doesn't. But Heather Lamboy, who is an ally in this particular struggle, said that she's actually been in the possession of an eligible architect resume since July 2025. Getting some nods over here. So I'm just wondering what's going on. And I know there's a clear power structure. I know that it's the mayor's job, all that. But you all also work—we all work as a team to get building projects through the city, to develop, to play by each other's rules. I'm just generally asking you to be on my team when it comes time if you can represent that point of view, like I know Heather has been doing. Clearly, she's at the ceiling of her influence, but I feel like if all of you said something about it and expressed the fact that you agree, or maybe you don't agree, but it is the law in this particular case, just like it's the law that I can't be heard tonight because my sign had the wrong date on it. So I appreciate it. I hope you don't consider this a waste of your time. I'm here because I don't think it's a waste of my time, and thank you very much. Thank you, sir. And it is not a waste of your time. Thank you for your comments. Anybody else in this room wishing to comment? Is there anyone online? Stephanie Benonato. Go ahead and talk. Thank you very much, Stephanie Benonato. I agree with the— Hear me? No. Can you hear me now? I can hear you now. Okay. Stephanie Benannato. I agree with the architect's comments that it's been a long time since an architect's been on the board. I don't know if it's just that there's just one person and maybe they were hoping for more applications. But then again, I think that should have been put out into requesting more applications if that's the case. And I just, maybe Mr. Rubel Lieb would respond, but it's the Open Meetings Act that requires the right date. It's not just the board or the board's law. It's a state law. I just wanted to bring to Mr. Mokino's attention that once again, Sarah Novason and the Old House are advertising off-site, in front of the old church, and this happens regularly. And I do wonder why, if there's code enforcement against this off-site signage, that it's not enough to get them to understand that they just can't periodically try it again. So I'm bringing it to your attention, Mr. Mokino, that those two signs are again at Old Santa Fe Trail rather than in front of their own businesses. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? No, Chair Rios. Here we go on to staff communications. Is that you, Gary? Yes, Chair Rios. None for staff communications. Actually, we do have staff communications. The 2026 Historic Preservation Awards has been—the extension has been done for till March 14, with deadlines for nominations. Board will receive approved list of powers this Friday. So if you have any nominations, go ahead and send them to a list of it. Thank you, Gary. Sorry. It's— I have a question about that. Yeah. I was just wondering, Gary, I think we had heard that maybe there would be a list of completed projects that we could look at. I know some of us sent in recommendations for awards without that. But if we did have a list of the approved projects, that would be—or the completed projects, that would be helpful. Okay. And we'll have Amanda speak to that. Thank you, Member Beachside, members of the board. That's what Gary was referring to, that you will receive this Friday. That's quite all right. And the preservation nomination has been extended to March 20. Okay. I have a question regarding that. Yes, Member Cherry. So if we're going to get this list by Friday, but the due date's not till the 20th, are we going to get the list again after the 20th for new projects that have come in? Or how—what's the point of getting the list on Friday if— So there's a—Member Cherry, members of the board. There is a—this is the completed list of projects that have passed inspection and that are eligible to be nominated. I'm sorry. And then once those—and then you—once you make those nominations, then a presentation will be given to you on the projects that have been nominated. Okay. So the new deadline is to—these are—this is not a list of nominated projects. It's a list of eligible projects. Correct. For nomination. Yeah. And nominations have been moved to the March 20th. That is correct, Member Cherry. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. And I might say, I do encourage the board to look in the different districts when you make your nominations, so you're not just giving awards to one district. Okay? So, now we move on to old business, and I would—a couple of things. You all have probably heard this many times, and it has to do with appeals. If you disagree with the decision this board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal. I would suggest that you get in touch with city staff, and they can guide you through the process because you do have time constraints in reference to appeals, and you would be appealing to the City Council. Another thing, if you have—if the public has comments this evening, you will be limited to two minutes to speak, not if you're an applicant, but if you are from the public and you want to talk, two minutes. And if Mariah can help me with that, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Mariah. So the first case this evening is located at 924 Paseo De Peralta, and I see that the applicant moved right to the first row and is waiting, so we know that he's ready. And Gary will be presenting. Okay. So I'll be presenting the 924 Paseo De Peralta. Previously, it was Paul's, then Heather was going to do it. But since Heather's not here, I will go ahead and do it for her. Okay. Case number 2026-011792-HDRB, 924 Paseo De Peralta, Downtown and East Side Historic District, contributing. John A. Padilla, agent for Carol Pete, Executive Director of El Castillo Life Plans 23. A point of order. Just for clarification as to where we're at, we had some confusion. I think I'm directing this comment towards the city attorney. There was some confusion at the last meeting as to exactly what the process would be, and I thought that we settled on that we were—we would have a motion. We would have it scheduled on the agenda today for consideration of reconsideration rather than actual reconsideration, if that makes sense. And I don't know that we've actually ever moved to have the matter reconsidered, which would mean it'd be premature to necessarily go into the substantive issues. Unless that's—unless that's all you were trying to set up for the discussion. Correct. Yeah. I was just going to go and say that they were requesting reconsideration. And so your discussion of the background is just for purposes of deciding whether or not— Correct. —to reconsider, not whether—what the outcome of reconsideration would be. Correct. Okay. That clarifies for me. So we can proceed on that basis. But I just think, just to be clear, all we're considering tonight is whether to reconsider. And if we do consider, we can't—not to take the—the action would just be to agree to reconsider at the next—at a future meeting. That would be the action item. Chair Rios and Member Bienvenu, that is correct. Tonight, you just vote whether you are or you are not going to reconsider. If you are going to reconsider, it needs to go on the agenda as an action item. That clarifies it for me. Thank you. At the January 2026 meeting, the HDRB acted on this status of 09/24, designated the original 1936 house as significant, and the rest of the structure as contributing. Having two historic statuses on one building is difficult to administer and can be challenging to interpret. It is accurate that the 1936 structure has defining characteristics and should be preserved. The primary facade designation will protect the building as if those facades were designated as significant. Staff administers applications that propose changes on primary facades in the same manner as facades on significant buildings. Section 14-4.6 C2 states, "Designation of significant, contributing, or non-status. Status designation structure within the historic district may be designated as a status of significant, contributing, non-contributing as defined in Section 14-9.3 General Definition." Staff maintains a record as to the current status of the structures located in Historic District. Staff requests consideration of the HBAR decision to status a portion of the building as significant and the other as contributing. Based on the code, status designation may be significant, contributing, non-contributing. There's no provision in the code that permits portions of one building that have more than one status. That will be my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair, for clarifying the request for reconsideration. I have a question for the city attorney. So, Frank, does the applicant play a role in this, or is this just a board action? The board shouldn't act unless the applicant has requested it, but the board can act without a request from the applicant. Under Robert's Rules of Order, a member who voted in the majority when that designation was placed on this house has to make the motion for reconsideration, and it does have to be seconded. And then there has to be a vote as to whether or not, yes, you will reconsider, or no, you will not reconsider. And I'll have to go back and look to see who was in the majority if you need, if you don't remember. I bet I can do that. But we don't have to hear from the applicant? Not on the, Madam Chair. Because we're only doing, this is simply a request for reconsideration. We're going to do a motion to reconsider a vote on that, and then that's it for tonight. Tonight, yes. There will be, we're not going to discuss the case in detail. That is correct. The only motion anybody can make is, "Move that we place this on the agenda for reconsideration of our previous decision," and it goes on the agenda for a discussion. But until you move to actually reconsider, you don't have an actual discussion about the merits of the designation. Member Nathan, a quick question. Thank you, Madam Chair. The motion needs to be made, as I understand it, then by someone who voted positively for the motion. Yes. And am I hearing that that was unanimous? Oh, it was not unanimous. No. Is, okay. Do I need to go back and look at the, Madam Chair, I'm looking at the minutes that we have in our packet from January 27, and the motion was made by Member Cherry, seconded by Member Bienvenu, and Bienvenu, Cherry, and Degnan voted in favor, and Beachside voted against. Okay. So one of the board members that voted in favor has to move to reconsider. But, Madam Chair and Member Beachhead, it is inconsistent with Robert's Rules of Order for somebody who voted in the minority to move to reconsider. Right. And the request to reconsider was made by the city's own staff, which is permissible. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think in this specific case, the reason we had the discussion last time to have this come up today was because it was a request from the Land Use Director to reconsider that. And so I don't think there's a need for the applicant to ask for that because we already have a specific request from the Land Use Director, and that's, that was my reasoning for wanting to go ahead and reconsider. And I'd be happy to make a motion anytime you think it's appropriate. Please do. So in case 2026011792HDRB924PaseoDePeralta, for the reasons set forth in the staff report, specifically, that staff requests reconsideration of the decision to status one portion of the building as significant and another as contributing, whereas the code provides status designation only for one status for an entire building, I move that the board's decision be reconsidered at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Second. And are you indicating for a specific date? I should, I should ask. Is it, is it possible to have it heard at the next scheduled meeting? Yes. In that case, I would want it on the date. Yes. That would be March, March. Madam Chair and Member Bienvenu, yes, we can place it on the agenda. The staff is indicating for March 24. Okay. So that's part of the motion. Motion. Yes. Well, I said the next regularly scheduled meeting, but that would be March 24. Roll call vote, please, Mariah. Member Bienvenu? Yes. Member Beecher? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Aguilar Medrano? Yes. Member Daigne? Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you very much. Mr. Padilla, we will see you next time. We will move on to new business. And the first case is located at 411 Camino Don Miguel. Is that applicant here? Oh, it's you, John. Okay. I thought, well, why isn't he leaving? May we hear that case, please? Case number 2026-011960-HDRB, 411 Camino Don Miguel, Downtown and East Side, non-contributing. John Padilla, agent for Peter Quintana, owner, requests demolition of the current 2,280 square foot structure. The single-family residence at 411 Camino Dominguez is listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The main residential structure was built on a 0.87-acre lot in 1957 and comprised of a 2,280 square foot roofed area. The structure was built in vernacular architectural design as seen by the adobe brick, wood frame, and concrete mason block building materials, wood, steel, aluminum doors, and windows. At this point, the property has fallen into such disrepair and has become a danger and hazard to the community. The structure does not contribute to the historic district in which it resides. Previous case on 01/27/2026 in case number 2026-011791-HDRB. The board adopted staff's finding that the structure does not help to establish or maintain the character of the historic districts, and its integrity no longer remains and therefore should be designated as non-contributing. Staff recommends approval of the demolition request and finds the applicant complies with 14-2.1 G34 demolition criteria. That stands for question. Any questions for Gary? No questions for you, Gary. Applicant, please come forward. Hello. Will you please state your name and address for the record? John Padilla, PO Box 22986. You solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Dawn, good evening. Madam Chair, good evening. Members of the board, good evening. As far as the previous case, thank you for reconsidering that to a date specific. I appreciate your efforts as always and look forward to seeing you in two weeks in that one. One thing I wanted to make sure is that in your packets, you have the Hickey report, which had some pictures of the interior. As we mentioned, when we came before you before for a status downgrade, we wanted to make sure you saw photographs of that. You have the letters from the structural engineer. You have the letters from the letter from the city building or chief building official. And what we are wanting to do is to move forward with the project. The only way we can move forward with that project is to be able to acquire an approval for demolition of the structure. If you were brave enough to at least get close and look in the windows, you can see that the deterioration is not only of the walls, but of the roof and the actual foundation of the building. So it's been in a state to where to try to salvage it would be astronomical as far as expense. And what we are wanting to do is to be able to move forward with a design that would be complementary and fit into the, well, not so much a streetscape because it's down the long road into what appears as an alleyway, but it is, we want to build something that would be complementary and fit into the, into the Downtown and East Side Historic District. I stand for questions. And as I said, I hope that you had an opportunity to take a look at, at the residence up close. I hope that you had a chance to look at the Hickey report that was in there, look at those pictures. I stand for questions. Thank you, John. Four of us were able to go on the field trip, and two others were not because they work, but I'm sure they were able to look at the report, staff's report. Any questions for Mr. Padilla? No questions for you, John, at this moment. Anybody in this room wishing to comment on this particular case? No one? Anyone online? Miss Terrios, Miss Benonato? She needs to get sworn in. Hi, Stephanie. Are you unmuted? Yeah, I am. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Stephanie, we can't hear you. Oh, I'm unmuted. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Do you want me to repeat my name? Yes, please. Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I, I thought I heard in this case the last time it was presented to be made non-contributing that there were parts of the structure that were going to be preserved and that they were saying that it was important that they could preserve some of the structure. Now it sounds like there's going to be a complete demolition, and I just wondered if the applicant would mind clarifying that. Thank you. I don't know if I remember that, but, John, if you wish to answer, you can. The application is for demolition. Thank you. And I'm going to take it there's no one else online. No one else. I will entertain a motion. Anyone? Member of Pizza. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2026011960HDRB at 411 Camino Del Miguel, I move to approve the application as submitted and recommended by staff, noting that the exception criteria for, no, sorry. No exception criteria. The criteria for demolition has been met as documented in the staff report, and noting that this, the board's previous action determined that this property does not contribute to the streetscape. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote, please, Varane. Member Bienvenu? Yes. Member Beachside? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Aguilar Medrano? Yes. Member Daigne? Yes. The motion has passed, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you, John. Members of the board. Next case is located at 118 Camino Santiago. The applicant is moving closer to the podium. And, Lanny, this is your case. Okay. This is case 26011871HDRB for 118 Camino Santiago for a status review and primary facade designation if applicable. 118 Camino Santiago is located in the southeastern corner of the street as Camino Santiago turns south in the Plaza Del Monte Historic Compound. The 1973 stucco over frame residential structure on the corner of Camino Santiago, as it turns south, sits on a rise. The residence was designed by Register, Ross, and Burnett Architects and is one of the last houses to be completed in Plaza Del Monte. In plan, it is a modified L-shaped structure with a carport attached to its northern front facade. The roughly 1,200 square foot dwelling has a northwestern elevation wing that is taller than the rest of the house and is outlined with parapets. The lower section of the residence sits on the east side of the lot and has an overhanging eave-lined roof. The northern front facade is divided between the carport and the north face of the taller wing. The single carport is erected over a wooden structure supported by round posts on the northeast side of the residence. The outside beam continues across the facade, sheltering the front entry. Both the door under the carport and the entry door hold a raised square panel unit. The secondary elevations are finished straight with single-light metal casement windows. The second elevation has an array of casement windows and an enclosure giving access to the carport. The shallow overhang resting on outlines the elevation. The house is finished with cementitious brocade stucco in a peach pigment. The roof is covered with rolled asphalt, which carries over a portion of the bedroom wing's east exposure. Large trough-like wood canales pierce the west parapet. The property is surrounded by a concrete masonry unit retaining wall on the north and west. The retaining wall holds the property above street level. There are also concrete masonry unit retaining walls to the south and east of the property. The south and east retaining walls are shared units with the abutting neighbors. The one on the east property line is 39 inches high. The south retaining wall is 61 inches, and the street retaining wall varies but is 38 inches high at the highest point. The property was designated as non-contributing in 2019 due to its age and lack of character-defining features. However, staff finds that the structure retains its historic form and materials and its association with Plaza Del Monte, and its design as a mid-century expression of Santa Fe style constitutes exceptionally important such that contributing status is warranted. The north facades, R1, R2, and R3, and the carport, excluding the non-descriptive building walls of R4 and R5, are recommended as primary. The applicant is requesting the status review with primary facade designation, if applicable, for the house, and status review of the southeast and northwest retaining walls. The retaining walls are simple stucco-coated CMU retaining walls, which are not the best representative of the yard walls and retaining walls in the compound. There are several rock yard walls and retaining walls on other properties that better represent the compound. Staff recommends the historic status of the residential structure be upgraded to contributing with the north facades R1, R2, and R3, and the carport, excluding the non-descriptive building walls R4 and R5, recommended as primary. And the northwest, south, and east property line retaining walls be designated as non-contributing for section 14-4.6c designation of status. Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lanny, board members? No questions for you at this... Oh, yes. Deborah Beach. Thank you. Lanny, I just wondered what your opinion is on the retaining walls because I, you know, especially the low one, not the shared wall with the neighbor, but the lower one that protects the yard. I do think that those low walls are pretty characteristic of this, what I consider to be a compound. And when I see other properties, you know, we've approved, maybe to my... I don't think I voted in favor of these, but they are getting taller yard walls. And I think that, you know, keeping some of these smaller ones or at least having them be considered as contributing to the feel of this particular compound is important. And I noticed you recommended those for non-contributing. I wonder if you have an opinion based on the sort of general landscape of the property. These particular walls are CMU retaining walls. Whereas the majority of the retaining walls that have status are all made from stone. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions or comments? None. Applicants, if you'll come forward. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Where you reside. Eric. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Yes. Thank you. And do you agree with staff's recommendation? I do. Yes. And do you have anything further to add? I don't really. Not that it's not already listed in her recommendation. Board members, do you have any questions or comments in reference to this application? Comments in general or for the applicant? Or the applicant or comments in general. Yeah. I guess I have comments in general just from being there. It's your turn. Yeah. I guess I would... I was just reviewing this and just to clarify, to point out that John Murphy's report recommends non-contributing, but it's from 2018. So it's... and it was built in '73, so it wasn't of age at that point. So I just wanted to mention that because it could be easy to see it as just his reports recommend it's non-contributing. But based on the date, I think that that landscape's changed. I would tend to generally agree with Member Beachide on the walls as being characteristic. I think, you know, they are CMU, but they are still historic. So if walls in the past have only been stone, I'm not sure if that's the case. I think I can certainly remember a case here where we've made CMU walls contributing, so I think that should be thought about in this decision. And then it is a pretty predominant corner lot. I'm not personally, I'm feeling like it could be more appropriate to also designate 10, 11, and 12, but not the... but not as primary, but not the eastern side of the carport, which those two facades of the carport don't have numbers, but there's a line that designates the north side of the carport, the one that designates the east side of the carport. I think if the reasoning is character, preservation, and street visibility, that 12, 10, 11, 12 have more defining character and street visibility than that east side of the carport. So those are my comments from being there today. Thank you. Any other comments? No other comments? Anyone in this audience wishing to comment? No one? Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios. We have Miss Benonato. Hi. Stephanie Benonato. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I would agree with Mr. with Member Cherry that I don't really think the carport deserves to be considered a primary facade, but I do think those other three, on the... I think it's 10, 11, 12 should be considered. I think they are much more character-defining. And I also agree with the two members who think that the lower walls should be considered contributing, because, again, I don't think it's so much the materials as how long they've been there and how they are part of the streetscape and how they are typical of the low walls in that compound. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? No one else? Board members, if you have nothing further to say, I will entertain a motion, please. Don't be too shy. Thank you, Madam Chair. On case number O2601011871 HDRB at 118 Camino Santiago. I move approval of the request for facade designation as identified by our staff person. You indicate what your staff's recommendation. Is that what you said? Is that... Is the staff's recommendation included in it, whatever their caveats are for that? Is there a second? Or is there anyone that wishes to add something further? One second then. Just so before the motion dies, I'll go entertain another motion. Okay. I'll make a motion. Number 10. Thank you. So in case 2026011871HTRB at 118 Camino Santiago, I would move to designate the structure as contributing with the primary facades being R1, R2, R3, R10, 11, and 12. And against staff recommendations, I would exclude the carport, and I would also include the lower retaining walls that border the sidewalk that don't... that do not have... Yeah, that's how I would describe that, the ones that border the sidewalk. Excuse me, sir. Sir? There is... Wait. In the middle of the motion? And is there a second to this motion? Each time, we'll second. But for the sake of discussion, I think something needs to be clarified about the retaining wall. I guess it's... I would agree. Yeah. And then also, I wonder if in my mind, the carports in this, on these structures in this streetscape are indicative of, you know, the dawning of the age of cars and keeping them on your property. And they're pretty common with the other houses. And so I would say that's, like, really a character-defining feature of these structures. And so I would suggest maybe reconsidering making a portion of the carport as a primary facade. Yeah. I would reconsider that. Do you want to make a friendly amendment to define that? Yeah. I'll make a friendly amendment to add the outer lines of the carport, not including facades R4 and R5, but just the carport structure itself. Okay. So including the lines that are drawn on the staff report? Yeah. Okay. I would agree with that. In trying to define the yard walls, it's difficult because we don't have those identified on the diagram. And I'm looking at photographs which appear to... which make it really difficult to identify those yard walls other than I can see a photograph of what looks like the northwest corner. Right? Okay. So I... Okay. So I would amend it to say then the street side yard walls. North and yeah. North and northeast and east are... Okay. Is that motion clear to board members? Member Degnan is saying no. What... So I can... Repeat the whole... Yeah. I can restate it. So let me start from the case number. Okay. So in case number 2026011871HDRB118CaminoSantiago, I would move to make the structure to designate the structure as contributing with, as per the staff's recommendation, with the addition of facade R10, R11, and the low yard walls on the northeast and north side of the building adjacent the street. And yeah. Well, I said per staff's recommendation for the... And... And that was... I said, yeah. R10, 11, 12. And just to clarify, R1, 2, and 3 as well as the carport. Just had someone seconded? Had you seconded? Yes. I seconded it. Thank you. So we have motion, and we have a second. Is there anything further to add? Nothing further to add, but we have a roll call vote. Member Bienvenu? Yes. Member Beachide? Member Cherry? Yes. Member Aguilar Medrano? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, applicant. Next case is located at 1489 Upper Canyon Road. Is that applicant here? Gary. Case number 2026. 011831HDRB. 1489 Upper Canyon Road, Downtown and East Side, non-contributing. A single-family residence located at 1489 is designated as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. Spanish Pueblo Revival structure was built at pre-1944 and comprised of approximately 700 square feet roofed area. The applicant is requesting approval to build a new 1,640 square foot residential structure directly west to the main structure by approximately 10 feet. The proposed design is in the Spanish Pueblo Revival structure, architectural design styles as seen by flat roof, rounded parapets, recessed doors, and windows. You can see the proposed north elevation, the east elevation, south elevation, and west elevation. The owner also installed a metal gate approximately 55 inches high and 20 feet wide with a rust-colored patina that was not approved by the Historic Preservation Division. The owner was previously approved for a coyote fence and vehicle gate with coyote posts attached to a metal frame gate along the street. They are coming before this district review board for approval of the gate and request an exception to 14-4.6 G2 Downtown and East Side Standards. The current metal gate adversely impacts the Upper Canyon Road streetscape, and the staff cannot recommend approval with the current design. Staff finds that the exception criteria to 14-4.6 G2 Downtown and East Side Design Standards have not been met and recommends denial of the existing metal gate. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the proposed 1,640 square foot new construction to a height of 14 feet, 8 inches, and the other elements of the applications that do not require exceptions as they comply with 14-4.6 E General Design Standards for all historic districts. That stands for questions. Thank you, Gary. Any questions, Member Sherry? Yeah, I have a question. So, Gary, in that description, you just stated that regarding the gate, that they're asking for approval for the gate. Are they not only asking for approval for the gate, or is it just, is it not only for the gate, or is it for the gate and the wall? It is for the gate and the wall, I believe. Okay, thanks for clarifying that. What was the answer to that? Gate and wall? Correct. Member Bendigo? Thank you, Madam Chair. So, clarification, Director Mokina, we have in the staff report, the first page describes the structure as non-contributing, but the second page describes it as contributing, at least the residence. Do you know which one it is? It is considered non-contributing. It is non-contributing. So that's a mistake in the background summary, I guess. Correct. And is it, when was it last statused, or has it ever been statused? We have no records of the status. Because it looks, the information is it was built pre-1944. It looks like the footprint's more or less the same. So, it seems like a residence that should be statused. Corrected. If that's what the board wants, then the board can recommend something. What's your, what's your view on that? Because there's no proposed changes to the residence itself. The new construction is a freestanding building. Correct. But we do often take into account the existence of a contributing or significant structure on the same property, even with new construction. And then, the wall is actually attached to the garage. So if that wall were, if the garage were contributing, that would certainly impact the decision as to whether or not to approve the wall. That is correct. And if the board decides that they want to status the building, then staff will go ahead and request for status on the building structures. Do you have any point of view on that question? My point of view is that since the last HICB was an unknown date, we don't know when it was done. Looks like it was in the eighties. There is no record of it. Well, we have the HICB, but it doesn't state the date, and it doesn't state the status on it. My recommendation would be to go ahead and status the building. Okay. And the garage, presumably, as well. Correct. Okay. And just for point of clarification, I gathered from the application that it may have been the previous owner that constructed the gate. And the applicant, I'm sure, will want to clarify that, but I think that that might be the case, not the current applicant. Yes. Okay. That's all I have for now. Member Cherry? Yeah, I just, in regard to what Member Bienvenue just said, so I, I'm wanting to clarify that you feel, Member Bienvenue, that the status review would be imperative prior to the, even the approval of the freestanding structure because of its relationship potentially to an unknown, a building of unknown status. Because it seems as though there's, it's almost like there could be two motions for this one case, or it could be two cases in regard to, you know, there's, there's sort of two separate things that are going on that are somewhat dependent on each other. But at the same time, I, I'm just curious, and this might be a question for Mr. Ruble, that if, if the freestanding structure could be voted on and the status review or approval of the gate structure and wall be, you know, that that be initiated, if that were the choosing of the board tonight, if that was an option. Chair Rios and Member Cherry, I think that would, that would complicate things. The board can approve part of the project application and deny the remainder. Then the applicant can start a new case for the items that were denied after the status review. But I think there needs to be a decision one way or another on everything. What I would ask the board to avoid would be making a decision on something and postponing part of its decision until after a status review. That's just. Okay. So, so, and I'm just trying to get the options clear here, but it may be actually the cleanest thing to do to request, if the board so desired, request a status review. And then all, all of the things being considered are still within the same case. It just needs to be statused prior to that being heard. Is that correct? Yes. And then this case would be either postponed or withdrawn and resubmitted, whatever the staff wants to do with that. But. Okay. Yeah, I think I was just, I, I was just trying to think of if there's, you know, what the implications of a decision, so everybody understands, would be on the applicant in regard to making the process as smooth as possible. And also, with the least amount of fees as possible. I mean, I'd hate to make a decision that, you know, kicks it into the tall grass and then starts a process over if there's a path. I just want to understand the different paths based on the information we've received. Well, Madam Chair and Member Cherry, any way we look at it, we get two cases. We get this case, which is either withdrawn and resubmitted later, or this case is postponed. And then we open a second case, which would be the status. But if you move to approve part of the project tonight and deny the other part of the project, then we open a second case for status. Then it would require a third case for the items that were denied. So just for, I think, just for the simplification for the staff and everybody, it would be, it's your decision, but the simplest thing would be to postpone the project application until after there's a status review. That is true. If the board feels that we should go forward with a status review of the main house, and if you feel that the unattached building that is being proposed will have an impact on the, on the status of the, of the house that was built in 1944. And maybe the whole project should be postponed. Or if you feel that, oh, perhaps the unattached portion may not have an impact on if this house is statused and gets a status, gets a designation. But certainly, I think the wall and the gate would, would have, would have an impact on the house itself. Member Bienvenue. Thank you, Madam. So just, yeah, my, my view, just to clarify, I wasn't actually persuaded that we had to do a status review. Just to be clear, I was just wondering whether or not that would be necessary. In an ideal world, I, I would like to have a status review on, kind of, as far as we didn't, that wasn't done before this was presented, but I don't, you know, if we can avoid delaying the applicant's ability to proceed, that's, that's preferable to me. And so I'm kind of looking at three items here. One is the new construction. I personally feel I could probably address that regardless of the status of the primary residence. The gate, I can definitely address without, without regard to the status of the primary residence. The one, the one that I think is tricky is the wall being attached to the garage, because that is something that would be, would require an exception if the garage is everything. So I'm not, I don't know where that leads us, but those are the three, the ways I look at those three different issues. Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, I, I would like to suggest that we might consider postponing so we can hear it all together intact after it's received status. Member Vergila Medrano. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question for staff. I was wondering if you had done a calculated wall height for the street? Chair Rios, Member Medrano. This was Paul's case to begin with, and I just took it over, and I did not see a wall height calculation in there. So. Okay. In the case that the board moves forward with the postponement, I would like to request that the city have that for the next time since we'll be considering this wall. We can do that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just my comments about the potential for a status hearing. I, I can see why that wasn't requested by staff or by the applicant because it, you know, it doesn't affect this building. And I, I do think I can hear the other, like, all parts of the application without knowing the status of the existing structure. You know, the, the new structure is 10 feet away. It's not, you know, it doesn't seem to be a very prominent feature on the streetscape. Because I think if I understand it correctly, it's kind of set down a bit, and behind the new house or the existing house. Anyway, so I, I, I would not be in favor of statusing at this point of the main house since it's not being touched by the application. Sure. Let me pull the board. How many of you think, raise your hand. How many of you think that we could go forward with the unattached building this evening and go forward with the people? How many people think? I'm on the. Pardon? I'm on the fence or the wall on that one. I know. I know. And I'm on the fence about it. There may be a fence on the wall. I, I just, and, and yeah. Yeah, I'm on either the fence or the wall. And the reason, I guess, I would say that for context, even though that wasn't your question, so I hope it's appropriate, is just it makes sense to me. I just, I just hesitate to make a motion that then creates, like, the attorney said, it makes three cases out of this and makes it sort of, I mean, you know, makes it, makes it ultimately messier in a way that we can't foresee right now. But, but I think, for me, I, I could look at the, the, the detached building separately. I don't think it does relate to it. So yeah. So you're with this group? Yeah, I'll, I'll go along with them. Sure. You two are for totally postponing, or you think that we could go forward with the unattached building? I would, I'm similar to Member Cherry in that I was a little torn. I think the primary reason for me is just we, there are a lot of moving parts, especially with components that have already been built and now seeking retroactive approval. It just seemed cleaner to keep everything together. I'm wondering if an option C is also, you know, it's not preferred, but in the past, there have been times where I think we'll consider a status and a new design in the same night. So I don't know if that's another option that if we do decide to postpone and status it, if we could hear those two cases back to back at the next hearing. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just, I think for context, you know, I think the way this got presented to us clarifies some of this. I think what really happened is this was originally just an application for the new construction. That was all that was being asked for. What got added on afterwards was staff realizing that there was a non-permitted alteration, namely on the property, namely the, the, the gate and the wall. And so they added that, and so I guess the applicant decided, "Well, we would like to get retroactive approval for that," and added that into the application. So I personally still think we could break it up and consider the new construction as something that doesn't need a status review. I don't think the gate needs a status review. I do think that the wall needs a status review of the garage. I think that's appropriate in my view. I think that we can go forward with the unattached building, and then we can also make a decision this evening in reference to this gate. As far as the wall is concerned, because it's attached to the garage, I think that we should ask for a status review of the house, and perhaps the garage would also be status. And so that would impact that wall, and I think that we should not talk about the wall this evening. Member Terry: Yeah, I guess it's a good conversation to have because my thoughts are getting more clear in regard to answering your original question, which is, yes, I could look at the building, but I don't think looking at the wall—I would want to look at the wall without a status. I, yeah, exactly. It's, but I think we can address the gate issue. That's something that, okay, that's something that's been pending. Is it one? So the gate and the wall, I mean, sorry, put my construction hat on here, but they're somewhat—the gate's mounted to the wall. The gate rolls back against the backside of the wall. So, and they were administratively approved in one, you know, in one case. So I don't, I just would be leery about decoupling those two things that are now being presented as they were presented for administrative approval as one item previously, and they're being presented right now as one item conjoined. So I just would be careful trying to pull them apart. Okay, good point, actually. But I think, I think from, from, I think we could hear the accessory structure or the section built. Mark it in reference to this, what was permitted and what was built. But anyway, so, can we go forward on this case in reference to the unattached building? Yes. Yes. Yes for me. Oh, Madam, I got you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I got a little confused in that back and forth. Did we decide that we're not discussing the gate and the wall tonight, that that will be a future conversation? I, okay, I don't agree, I don't agree with that. I want to, I think I can address the gate tonight. It's been, it's been several years that that's been a non-conforming, unapproved gate, and I don't think we should defer a decision that, that if that's the case, then it should be altered. I'm in agreement. I'd love to get a decision on the gate tonight. My only hesitation is I do want to know what the approved calculated wall height is. The wall, for just for my own, just to clarify, are you indicating that the wall is not going to be addressed this evening? Right. I would say we address the gate, but the wall, if they want to retain the wall, and they always have the option to just take it down. It was unpermitted. It was unapproved. So that would be the obvious thing to do. But if they want to retain it and request retroactive approval, then it would need to have, it would need to be set for next available hearing that would have status review in my view. Madam Chair, so my, my only thought process with the wall and the gate is, like, if we decided that we were just denying the retroactive of the gate, that would be fine in one thing. I just don't want to get into a situation where we're giving them conditional approval on changes like fenestration because if it so happens that the approved wall height is actually lower than this, and then we would want the gate wall lowered as well. Because as Member Cherry said, they speak to each other. They're connected, and we'd want that height to be continuous. So I'd be fine with that. I just wouldn't want to do a conditional design approval on the gate tonight. Member B2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think all of these things are valid considerations, but I really think we should hear from the applicant before we decide to hear or not hear parts of this application. Yuri: So, Terry, as members of the board, keep in mind that the approval, the initial approval, was for the fence and the coyote fence and the coyote gate, not a wall that you were mentioning. So, not a wall and not this gate. Mm-hmm. So, thank you, Chris. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Mr. Purvis: 518 Old Santa Fe Trail. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yeah. Thank you very much. Yes. Good evening. So, thank you, Chris. I think that we are going to go forward with the unattached building. And if you want to talk to us about that, you have the floor. I'm going to interrupt you. Can, can that be put up on the screen, please? I'm sure. Could we ask the applicant to speak into the microphone? Thank you. I can't quite hear you, sir. Thank you. Yeah, it's good. Well, this is a good place to start. This is the back elevation, the north elevation. This is the west, and this is in the trees. You could probably tell from looking at the poles. And this is the view from the, would be from the street. But again, as you could tell from looking at the poles today, they were, it's, it's not a highly visible building. There's an arroyo. There's a major drainage that comes through right down to the, to the left in this picture, and this building sitting out on that. Right. It's garbage. So I stand for questions on all of the above. I brought deeds. I brought pictures, and I brought a gate option. So, board members, do we have questions in reference to what has been presented to us? Can you describe that, the porch area and what's holding the, the porch up a little more thoroughly? Those are square, wooden posts, six by six, holding up a six by ten beam and then a stucco top to the porch. Other questions? Madam. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, I'm, I, as I said before, I think we can definitely decide the issue of the new construction. And I, I assume it's contributing too, and it would be definitely contributing, I'm sure, if we, if we had this status at the second time. So I think we can just proceed on the basis that we're looking at a build new building next to a contributing building. So I'm just, it looks great. Thank you for nice design that fits right in. Just, does it, do you consider this to have any differentiation at all to the existing building, or will they look pretty much very similar and as if they were built near the same time? Or, no. As I said, the contributing building, the existing building has steel windows. All steel windows. We have bigger non-steel, non-steel windows, and the building is taller. Sat down, but it's taller. It's just not going to have the same look. The, the other building's, like, less than ten feet high. Right. So it'll generally, very similar in style, but it will, it won't look like it was, it's not a duplicate in any sense or at all of the existing building. And it's rounded corners? Yes. We'll still round the corners. We won't round them as much as the existing bill. How much would you say you're going to round them? Do you have a sense of that? Well, it's much. How, okay. So what, how, how would you put that into, in, in a radius? It's a roughly a two-inch radius. Okay. So you're looking at a two-inch radius. And, color again? We're using buckskin because I just wanted to blend in. Buckskin. And what's the right, what's the existing house? Is it roughly a buckskin type color? Like it's similar to that. I think so too. Okay. Yep. All I have. Thanks. We're just talking about the house right now. Right. Yeah. Just the house. Any other questions in reference to the house? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, the bullnose on the new house, as you said, two inches? Yes. Uh-huh. And what is it on the existing? I don't have the answer to that, but I would say more. More. Okay. Thank you. I'm thinking if we should make a motion just on this. I can, I would do that. That's what I would do. Go forward on, perhaps go forward or not. Oh, I should ask for public comment. Anyone in this room wanting to comment on this project? Is it just on the, the house or the whole project? On the house in reference to the house. Hello. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Elizabeth West on Center Street, South. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. It's kind of confusing when you have to deal with and how new owners come after a property that has been not designated with a, you know, status. And I think the wall seems to fit in in this historic way of looking at that. And the gate or whatever that thing is that evidently I haven't seen it, so I don't know for sure, is attached to the wall. Now I know that's not what you're talking about right now. It seems like what you're talking about right now is fine, but it's really hard when part of a property is not statused. And so I salute you for dealing with this. I think the addition looks pretty good, and it sounds as if the intention is to make it be part of the building. So, historically, it would look as if it fits in historically. Therefore, I guess I think that's good, but it's tricky because a whole property can be influenced by a gate, which I think was a mistake, and I bet we all agree. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Anybody else in this room wishing to comment? Nobody else? Someone online? Yes. Miss Benonato, please. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. I really think it's a mistake for you to approve this building without going forward and doing the status first. I understand that it is ten feet separated, but I think again that there's just an order in which to do it. Excuse me. And you have been talking, like, up on the Garcia Street about three to six inches for radius on, on these facades for stucco, not two inches. So I think you should be consistent and require at least a three-inch radius on the corners on this house, if not more. I think the house itself is a fine design for the area. I do wonder about the height if it's within the height allowed in that area, and I do think it needs to be statused, both the house and the garage and the wall and the gate, and that they all, the gate and the wall are one and really should not, you should not be approving the gate until you know the status of the wall or the, the garage and then what you want to do with the wall. Unless the owners tonight want to say they want to go back to the original approved design, and then you can still status the garage and the, the house at a later meeting. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else online? No other hands. I'm going to entertain a motion in reference to just the house. Madam Chair, and, and the members of the board, I'm still not clear. Are we, let's say the house is approved. Can the staff issue a permit for the house? And Mr. Perbit and Mr. Perbus, are you looking to pull that permit as quickly as possible? Yes. Okay. So in which case, is the remainder of this project with respect to the wall and the gate postponed? In which case, I don't know what's going to happen. Is that, is that going to be, well, we don't know what's going to happen, but I, I need to know, can the staff issue a permit for part of a project and withhold the permit for another part of the project? Okay. All right. Miss Moore is indicating yes. Okay. Well, then I'll, I'll make it work. Okay. Thank you. Is somebody ready to make a motion in reference to the, the unattached new house? Thank you, Madam Chair. So I would like clarification, Director Mokino, about the radius that you've finally settled on as being what you consider to be consistent with the downtown district, downtown and East Side District. When I did the calculation for downtown area, it's three inches minimum. I thought that was the case. Thank you. So, Case 2026011831HDRBOf1489, Upper Canyon Road. I would move to approve the application for new construction of the new residence, noting on condition that the corners of the structure be a minimum of a three-inch radius. And I guess I just want to make a comment to the applicant that I didn't mean to imply that I personally necessarily wanted a strong differentiation between the new construction and the old. That is something that is typically desired in an addition, but I don't consider this an addition. So to me, the more they complement each other, the better. Just to be clear on my own personal view, and I just didn't want you to think that I was suggesting that I hope that they're strongly differentiated, which I don't think they are in this case. I think you've done a very nice design work on this building. I think that's, I think I covered everything, so that's the motion. Is there a second to this motion? Each side seconds. Anything further to add? Nothing further? And roll call vote, please. Member Bienvenu? Yes. Member Beachside? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Aguilar Medrano? No, only because I wanted its status first. Member Degnan? No. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you very much. Now we will move on to the gate. Gate of the mall. And I mean, there's different motions that can be made. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question for staff just to clarify because I think the discussion is going to go into the wall. So the staff report addresses only the gate. There's no mention of the wall. And we have this memo that we received tonight that is a request for approval of a coyote fence, not a gate, just a coyote fence that looks like it was to be constructed where the wall is now. Do we know if this was approved? Do we have a record of the administrative approval of a coyote fence? Yes, there is a record of it, and it does state in there a vehicle gate with coyote post attached to it. It does state in that one, that the handout. And there is a permit that was issued for that as well. Okay. And then nothing for the wall that is there now? Not at the wall. So we, I mean, are we fairly certain that this what was built was not approved, or do we just not have a record of possibly another administrative approval for the wall? Correct. You're correct that the only administrative approval was given for the coyote fence and the vehicle gate. That's it. Not the wall, not the gate. Okay. Thank you. So per Mr. Purvis's remarks, the wall and the existing gate were put up by previous owners, not the present owner. Correct? That's correct, sir. Thanks, Madam Chair. Do we know what was the approved height on the prior administrative approval for the coyote fence? I do not know that answer, but I can look it up if you want me to. Yeah. If you can look and check. I'm not seeing it on this. I haven't been able to find anything on my end. Thank you. Let me just, sorry, just another question. Since the since the wall was not part of the packet or the notice, are we able to talk about that tonight? I mean, the gate, the gate was noticed and described in the packet, but not the wall. And I gather this fence issue was just discovered upon site visit observations. The gate is the gate is part of the, the wall as part of the... Well, I know, but the the work. The packet only talks about the gate, like as if we would just replace potentially the replace the design of the gate, but it doesn't mention the wall being an issue at all. I guess that's a question for for Frank. Yes, Chris. I think you're facing the same confusion I did since I met Paul out there in October. Tell me the house is contributing. Didn't mention anything about the wall or the gate or anything else. I rely on staff to give me information about what I need to respond. I didn't get anything on it. And only a month ago, I got a phone call from Paul saying, you gotta deal with the gate. Not the wall, just the gate. So I pressed the gate. Now this evening, I haven't even seen this coyote fence program. It's it's a little confusing. The owner has no knowledge of this. They bought this in July 2020, and this clearly all this stuff happened maybe '22 or before. Are we, I mean, I believe it should come up code, whatever the code is. I mean, I'm I when I called the owner and told him you have a problem with the date, so we can put holes in it. That seemed to address where the staff was going with the administration. So, you know, so I brought some ideas for how we could put holes in the metal panels. The wall, if it touches the rod, which clearly I agree, that's all it's like to help. I haven't talked to Yammer because I didn't have this information, but I'm sure they'd be willing to pull the wall so it doesn't touch the rod because that's some work that was done non-permitted, non-noticed, not told to this owner, and maybe not even before. So I feel like we can we should be able to achieve protection of these two buildings without our own status because we're not we we don't want it. That's I saw that wall, and I thought it was an old wall. My mistake. Madam Chair and members of the board and Mr. Purvis, here are a couple of issues. First, I think with respect to the Open Meetings Act on 1489 Upper Canyon Road, I see a reference to new construction, which I think is adequately noticed, and then 20-foot long metal vehicular gate. Exception is requested to 14-4.6 G2. Mr. Makino, is that a height exception or a design exception? You're referring to the new code. Material and design. So it's an, I'm sorry? The design exception. Okay. Alright. But I don't see anything about the wall on on the agenda. That's an issue because that needs to be, you know, needs to be published on the agenda pursuant to the Open Meetings Act. But what I'm hearing is the wall has been there for the wall has been there for a while. Right? So why does why do we need to approve anything with respect to the wall as attached to the garage? That I don't understand. Let me see what member of them that you have to say. I I think I couldn't I I think the way to solve this problem, I do think we need to address the wall because both the wall and the gate were done without approval. That's just it wasn't by this applicant. It was by a predecessor that what the predecessor did, maybe two predecessors ago, was receive, file an application with the division for a wall and a fence, I mean, a gate and a fence. They got administrative approval for that. Then instead of doing what was approved, they built a completely different gate and a complete and then a wall instead of a fence. So for several and I think it was red-tagged. I saw a red tag on the gate. So this has been a non-conforming, non-approved wall and gate or ever since it was built. And I don't think the applicant's denying any of that, but I also hear the applicant being completely open to solving the problem. So I don't really in a way that would even assume that the garage, for example, has contributed. And so what I would propose we do is postpone consideration of the gate and wall to the next possible meeting that it could be noticed and have the applicant, if they wanna keep a gate and a wall in this location, provide an alternative design for board approval and and try to get staff's recommendation on that ahead of time. Sounds to me that you're willing to fenestrate the gate, maybe add wood to the gate. I think there are a lot of ways the gate may be salvageable, but it's just vastly too much steel. And and you may know that we the board denied a very similar steel gate on Upper Canyon Road. It was appealed to the governing body, and the governing body found in favor of the board on that. So there's already precedent that this type of a steel gate is inappropriate on the road. And again, I know this is not your applicant's decision that was ever made here, but you're you're stuck with the problem. And then it sounds like you're also willing to just create a separation between the wall and the garage, which would solve that as well. So I don't know what all the answers are, but I can just tell from the applicant that you're willing to try to work to find a solution that conforms to to the code and to the board's desires, and I I'm sure that we could work out a solution if we just defer it to the next meeting. Yeah. I would agree with Member Bienvenu. However, the comments I would add were that would be that, this ties into something Member Aguilar Medrano said earlier. I think it would need a status review because simply separating the gate from the the wall from if if the garage was contributing facade, then that wall would need to be, wouldn't need to be just separated. Correct? It would have to be... No. No. It would just separate. Okay. Yeah. So you so you think the wall administrative approval was granted for a fence that I think may have been at the abutting up against the against... Right. Yeah. So as opposed to attached, which is the same... As opposed to attached. Yeah. Which is the same thing that's what I'm hearing from the applicant is basically being proposed as, no, I don't know. I think the applicant ameliorate. To have us an actual visible separation. Yeah. Yeah. This is an app that really understands the intent. Yeah. No. And that's how I understand it, an actual separation. No. I I I understand. Yeah. Because I agree. You people, there is sometimes an effort to gain that a bit by making it by not physically attaching it, but making it look like it's part of the structure. And I don't think that's what this applicant is intended. Yeah. And I'm not recommending status review to to add to it other than to add clarity to it. And if it's something where, you know, I mean, typically, these things that haven't been status since the eighties are automatically required to be status so that we can just have a better understanding of the whole picture when we're making any kind of decision. Sure. So that's just in the spirit of being consistent. And, but I am agreeing with you that I think if that, postponing it and coming back with more information like what the required heights would be and giving the applicant some time to give us, even though you probably don't need that, and probably feel like we're you could just do it here, which I could see. It's the route to go. But but I think that that solves a lot of problems like the public notice problem. It solves, yeah. So So I would agree with you is what I was saying. I think the house needs to be status. We need to know what the appropriate height, the allowable height of walls are in that area for this and clarify. We could fill... My my view. Can I just clarify one thing? I personally don't necessarily think that either the house or the garage need to be status. I think that this particular case may be an unnecessary expense for the applicant because I think that even on the assumption that both the garage, the house are contributing, I think, we could accept the the type of proposal that the applicant is indicating. Did I hear you say even though the house and the garage are contributing or might be contributing? I'm saying that, assuming they will become contributing, I think that we would still end up in the same place as what we would approve. Application as though the house, I don't think that the actual HICB will decide that issue differently than we would decide it anyway, I guess, as well. But I do think in the future that we should look at the status of this house, period, so that there won't be any question. I would say, normally, I would just now if we're just talking about what we would like for staff to understand, our view is, and normally, it is extremely beneficial, if not critical, to know what the status of these properties are, especially something so prominent on Upper Canyon Road in our district as this one is, even when it's just a structure next to it. I just think in this particular case, with all the advice that this particular applicant has already received from staff where that was never requested, that I just think it would be an onerous burden to acquire that at stage when I don't think it would have an actual impact on the final decision. Right. So you could, I understood that is what you said earlier, that it wasn't predicated on needing a status reviewed. But you could make a motion to postpone based on what you're suggesting, and then staff could decide that it just needs, I mean, sure. Yes. Or staff could decide that it needs a staff to be separately from that, and it wouldn't slow that process down so they could stay decoupled. I would accept the idea that staff always has discretion to require that. I just don't, or you don't know that, yeah, you don't want that it's necessary. You don't want to tie it to being able to make a decision about the gate and or mandating the, no. I understand, and I agree with you. That's three. Sarah, I don't know what are indicated. But anyway, I'm going to entertain a motion now in reference to the defense gate. I think you might need. Sure. Madam Chair, I just want to make sure we hear clearly from the applicant if you're willing to come back with a wall gate proposal separate from tonight's application. Madam Chair, which I, yes. I think that I understand that if I had known this was an issue a month ago, I would have brought the wall with, I would have discussed this. If there's no more information coming forth, I should be able to bring a good, I think, a good solution to this. Although gates, as you pointed out, are controversial, I'll bring at least two gates. All right. Thank you. And thank you for your patience with this process. I can tell it's been difficult. In case number 2026-011831HDRB at 1489 Upper Canyon Road, I move to postpone the portion of the application related to the gate and to request that the applicant come back with a gate design, alternate gate design, as well as a wall proposal since that has apparently not been previously approved by this body. Second. Is there anything further to add? I think the other suggestions for wall calculation should be included by staff, wall height calculation, and, yeah, and this motion has nothing to do with requesting status of the property. Just simply alternate gate design and wall. Roll call vote, please, Mariah. Member Bienvenu? Yes. Member Beachside? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Aguilar Medrano? Member Daigne? Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Thank you. Just clarification. So is that, that's two meetings from now. Right? Because it's too late. For date certain? Or can you date certain? It's a question. I apologize. I didn't include that in the motion, but I was hoping for a date certain. So next meeting, is that possible? I can do it. Okay. Thank you. We'll get the high cap. We'll give to you all. Thank you very much this evening. Thanks, Chris. Next case, is it 911? And that would be me, Madam Chair. Pardon? The applicant. Yes. The applicant. Okay. Amanda? Thank you, Member, I mean, Madam Chair, members of the board. Give me one moment to just pull up this. Okay. So we are case number 2026011903HGRB for 911 Roybal Street, and this is in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. There is a rendering, the property. So this case came before this board in 2017 for approval, and it has been expired because they haven't built anything on that property. And we're bringing it back before the board for approval again with some minor alterations. So the owner proposes to construct a 2,102 square foot mixed-use structure to the height of 24 feet where the maximum allowable height is 14 feet one inch, and exception is requested to exceed the allowable height. And here is the site plan. Just making this a little larger so you guys can see a little more in detail of the building footprint is here on the northern end of the property. And here is the site location. This is off of Roybal Street and Saint Francis Drive. Like I said, the previous structure was approved by the HGRB in February 2017. Changes from the original adds 400 square feet to the upper level. Here are the north elevations and the west elevations. And here is the story poles as they look now in a south from the south and south rendering. Staff recommends the approval of the project and finds the application does comply with 14-5.2d general design standards for all historic districts. And 14-5.2, I, Westside Guadalupe historic design standards. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends the approval of the before approved height of 24 feet. And I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda. The first approval on this was at the same height nine years ago. Well, this is a brand new case. Yes, Madam Chair. Members of support. And two-story, there are two-story homes in the area. Yes, Madam Chair. There are. Do you know the height of those homes? I do not know the heights of those homes, but the applicant did provide information that is in your packet. I could pull up that if you would like. Please. Sure. If I could, it's a little bit. So here are the properties that are adjacent. They're, and these, 109 Saint Francis Drive, has a second story. 208 Ambrosio Street has a second story, and 901 Roybal Street. And then along Saint Francis Drive in that streetscape, there are several two-story buildings as well. No. No. To the north story media in that immediate neighborhood, you don't know the height of the, I do not know the height. The exact height. No, ma'am. And is this scheduled to be multi-use? Yes. Mixed-use subdivision. I'm pardon me, Madam Chair. Can you please have the podium go to my computer? I'm sorry to interrupt. There might be some kind of an internet issue. I just got bumped out of the Zoom, so I don't know. One moment, Madam Chair, members of the board, for technical issues. You're still in? Okay. Thank you, member. Thank you for your patience, board members. So now that we can, now we're seeing the same screens here. Here, 109 Saint Francis Drive, and these are just some other locations that Saint Francis Drive is along the same streetscape as this building. And 901 Roybal also is a two-story button. To answer your question, Madam Chair, no. I do not have those exact heights. Any other questions for Amanda at this time? Yeah. How, a momentary? How is the, because this is a height exception. Correct? That is correct, momentary. So how is the acceptable height for this lot calculated? The, I believe I put in your packet the maximum allowable height, but they are going for an exception. So wouldn't we use the adjacent buildings to determine that height? Of the 14 feet? Yeah. Yes. But it's not, not all, maybe not all of them would be included if they were approved with exception. Okay. But that, not necessarily. It's, so I guess my, the question I'm asking is was there a height calculation done to determine that, or if not, what was the criteria used? Because my understanding is that height calculation is typically what establishes that. So there was a height calculation, and it was done at the 14 one. And the approval for, the criteria also was lenient on your previous approval or the HDRB or the approval of the height even though this is a new case. Okay. Is that height calculation in the packet? It should be. Madam Chair, the height calculation is in the file called previous case. Thanks. Yeah. On page two. Remember, K. Because that, that should answer, there was a previous question about adjacent building heights, so that should be on the height calculation worksheet if as a note. Any other questions? None. Applicant, would you come forward and get sworn in, please? Okay. Will all three of you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record in the microphone. Okay. 655 West San Francisco Street. Okay. Next. Patricia Kwan. 655 West San Francisco Street. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? You can each take a turn saying I do in the microphone. Thank you, guys. To speak up clearly in the microphone so the minute taker will record. Okay. First speaker? Is there a question that I could ask? Yeah. Maybe there's a question that I could answer? What do you have to tell us about this project? We've met with, it's, and if you'll speak to the project, the concept is still the same with living quarters above. My client has a new dental practice with a child who's two, and her mother would like to be able to watch the kid while she's at work. And that's why we had the small residence, which is not the whole second floor. It's the same project that was before this board before. And I hope you, and we met with staff and have made some minor and major, what do you call it, concessions. Bring it around to meet all the requirements of the historic West Side, and I respectfully ask that you approve this project once again. Amanda, can you make sure that they, we see the elevations, please? Yes, Madam Chair. I have the east and the south, or would you like to see the north and the west? We'd like to see all of them, but I'd love to see, I just want to make sure that the elevations are up. Sure. Board members, do you have questions for Mr. Shapiro? Questions or comment? What number are you looking for? Thank you, Madam Chair. If we can bring up either the west or south elevation. This is super minor, but I do think it would improve the elevation. Sure. The west elevation is at the bottom of the screen here, Member Agua Medrano. And let me pull up the previous. South elevation is the top elevation. Yep. Okay. So for sure on the south, if we just look at those two leftmost windows, I do think it would be nicer if those could be aligned. Aligned or divided light, did you say? Aligned. They're just, like, offset, like, slightly enough that it doesn't really look intentional. That would be my minor suggestion. Thank you. That on the first and second story that those be lined up. Thank you, member. I believe that was present on the, that same condition was present on the west elevation as well on the right-hand side. Yeah. Yes, member. I'll give her some more. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Member, the menu. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, I guess just comments. It, I guess I'm just going to explain why I can't support this project. It, it appears to me, first of all, it's, it's strikingly huge on the streetscape, when the story poles are come across. It's also in a stylized, sort of quasi-contemporary design, but mainly I'm focused on the height. It's a very, very dramatic request to go from an allowable 14 feet to a height of 24 feet. So that's on the way to doubling the height of what's allowed. This is a historic district, and that's the problem that we face here on the board is that we have to apply not what we think is maybe what would be appropriate in all areas of the city, mixed-use like this, of this design and this height, but what is appropriate within our historic districts, which has very specific standards, as you all know. In my mind, there are really no exception criteria that have particularly been shown to have been met in this case that wouldn't be applicable to any application that wanted to have a greater height. I think the only real reason I can gather that staff is recommending approval is because something similar, but not quite the same because it was a smaller second floor by at least 400 feet, I think, was approved previously. But that was against the recommendation of staff, who found that the exception criteria had not been met, and it was a, I think, a three-four vote with the chair breaking a tie. So I don't really consider that to be in any way determinative of it coming back before us. To me, this is completely a new application that needs to be addressed as a new application. From my perspective, for us to approve this would really be, as I've said before with some other height requests, really rewriting the code, which is not our job because the exception criteria don't in any obvious way apply and don't really seem to apply specifically to this project in a way they wouldn't apply to any other one that would come before us. The fact that there are other two-story buildings nearby is not relevant because that's all factored into the height calculations, which came up with 14 feet, one inch as a maximum allowable height, which makes sense because this is a residential district. So to me, this is an issue where as a board member, I feel that it's our responsibility to apply the code as it was drafted and determined by the governing body and not to, in essence, rewrite it by granting exceptions because we think taller buildings are okay on Saint Francis. I think that there's an argument to be made that this kind of mixed-use, commercial building on Saint Francis might be okay because it is very much on the fringe of the historic district, and it seems to have more to do with Saint Francis Corridor than it does with the neighborhood that it's in. But I think that's something for the governing body to decide, not for us. And so my feelings are that it's just not approvable as presented to us. Thank you. Any comments? Applicant, can you tell us the interior ceiling heights of both the first floor and the second floor? My recollection, the lower floor of the commercial dental office has a nine-foot ceiling and then a 16 to 18-inch joist space for mechanical. The second floor has an eight to nine-foot ceiling. Nine-foot ceiling on the second floor. What was the first floor? First floor, I believe, has a nine-foot ceiling. Nine-foot as well? Yeah, nine-foot as well. And between the floors, there is no break? They go straight up? There's a break. Most of it, they don't go straight up. There's a relief on all elevations. And two of the elevations are up next to a solid concrete block wall. You won't see the north or, I believe, the east elevation is up against a definitely over 10-foot high block wall that separates this property from the residential area. Thank you. Any other questions, board members? Oh, it's Member B. Choi. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say I was part of the board when this was heard before and approved. And I remember the discussion being that this part of the historic district is very close to the edge. So on the other side of St. Francis, you could build this without a problem. It's part of a commercial corridor, and this is a commercial business occupying it. I think those were that, and the view from, I think the previous board required the design to be flipped so that the impact to the street would be minimized, which the applicant did, and that was approved. So I think it's, this is a kind of a more of a, although it's definitely a part of the historic district, that's why we're hearing it. It is more of a transition in its feel because it does include a lot of commercial buildings, other two-story buildings that probably weren't approved when the height ordinance was in place. But I think we should consider that the Saint Francis Corridor is like our guiding light for this neighborhood. Thank you. Yeah, I just, I was going to clarify similar to what you said just regarding zoning. I'm seeing that it's zoned as C4. Is that correct, Carrie? Or I have the HICB here. Just a moment. I'm just looking at this historic preliminary zoning review. It says that it's zoned, I do believe it's C4. The maximum height of 24 feet from a zoning standpoint. Just contextually, I'm bringing that up. And then the other point of clarification, I think, Gary, if you could chime in on that. Does the district, does that district go across Saint Francis? My understanding was that it did for a portion at that point, that it is on the other side of the street. Yes, the district goes all the way across one structure across the other street to the west. Okay. So, like, one property in from the street is still within the district? Correct. On the west side of Saint Francis. Correct. Just to get. Any other questions? Yeah, Amanda. The applicant had something else to say, Madam. Good evening. My name is Adelusia, and I'm the mother of Dr. Kwan, the dentist. And nine years ago, my late husband, Raul Kwan, Dr. Raul Kwan, and I gifted a piece of land to my daughter. It was like a shack before, and we had, we got approval to demolish it. And so now it's a lot like you see it. And it was my daughter's dream to build an office. But back then, she only had one child, who is now eight. Now she has two children, and the board approved the project with the second floor. But because now she has two children, and she would like for us, my new husband and myself, to live in the property so that I can take care of the baby and my granddaughter when she comes home from school while my daughter is working downstairs with her patients. Her practice has grown immensely. She's a very good dentist, and I really think this project is good for the whole community because we don't have that many dentists downtown, and she's just an amazing dentist. And, like I said, all these things have changed for us, and the lot has been vacant for nine years. We have to fight the graffiti artist every month. We have to fight the people that put trucks for sale there. They throw away mattresses. They use it as a dump. And we were careful enough to follow all of the historic district guidelines. And I want to thank dearly Amanda and her historic preservation staff because they really helped us throughout this project. And the reason why the higher wall is towards Saint Francis is for consideration of the neighbors because there's a right in the back of the building, there's a two-story building. Next to that lot is a two-story apartment building that, I think, showed you. And I assure you, those are at least 24 feet high. And there's other, we pointed at least, what, six buildings around here that are two stories. And, like Miss Jennifer said, we're at the very, very end. We were joking that I wish we had the lot was, like, maybe half a block more to the south. And that way, we wouldn't have been in the historic district, but we're just, like, one house away, and that's it. That's the end of the historic district. And we are approved C4. And back then, nine years ago, it was a C4, and that's why they thought it was okay to approve the 24-foot height and also the work-and-live-in solution. And I think we, all of our savings, and this is, like, our family investment that we did for our daughter because we had so much faith in her that, I mean, it just for us, it makes sense to have a beautiful building there, and it's not just all concrete. Like you say, there's a balcony. There's windows. There's another stairway that it's like glass. There's going to be trees. I mean, everything is going to be more beautiful than an empty lot that everybody throws trash. And we're just, like, constantly having to fight all these issues. And we're going to take care of that property for many, many years, and it's not going to be abandoned at night because my husband and myself will be living there on top of the little apartment. Thank you. And we only increased 400 square feet. So I respectfully ask for your approval of this project, which is a dream for my daughter and our family. Thank you. Anyone in this audience wishing to come forward and comment, come forward and get sworn in? Hello. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. My name is Alicia Searle. I live at 111 South Saint Francis Drive. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. So I am the immediate next-door neighbor to this property that you are not seeing. They are only showing you other properties. I am literally next door. I'm a 90-year-old building. It's in the historic district at 111 South Saint Francis, 900 square feet. They would immediately, my wall would be their house. Behind them is a one-story house. Two houses down is that fourplex you're talking about. It is an Airbnb. It is an Airbnb behind them. It is an Airbnb behind me. That's what all those C4s are, are Airbnbs. There is a two-story house directly behind me, but not behind their property. And the other one that that's four-story is literally where the walkway for the water is. That's, and I don't know how long it's been there and how long she's owned it. I think it's been about three, about one year. But next door is me, and I just saw this notification. And I, it's a 90-year-old home. It's a beautiful home. It is historic. I take very good care of it. I keep it historic. It was an Airbnb when I bought it, and I've kept it now at home. And so this is hard for me to see that this is going to be this large building. It is going to be against my home. I, I mean, I think they're probably wonderful people. I'm not even saying that, but this is going to change. If you look at that little red dot, see the little house next to it? That's me. The house directly behind them with the red roof and all that is one story. The one directly behind me is two-story. And then you see the fourplex that that's on the corner. But I, I just needed to express with you that this should be a major change for this area. I, I know all my neighbors behind their Airbnb. We thought, oh god. Wouldn't it be great if we could just buy it and just make it something like an atrium at place. We could turn trees and make it beautiful, you know, but not have a building there. So I, I need to express that I would be very disappointed to see something like this. 24 feet, I would never have a house in it. I would never see anything around my house. Just a question for you. So are you, would you be north of this property? Yeah. I'm, I'm literally, yeah, that's fine. That red, that's the property, and my house is right. Yep. I'm at 111. Right there. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else in this audience wishing to comment? I've already sworn in. Right? I'm, boy, this is a toughie, and I love the idea of what they're planning, but I also love the idea of protecting our less B&B'd areas. And unfortunately, what this project is trying to do is something that I kind of agree with, but it's in the wrong district. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment? Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Eric Quetorte, 2081 Cayo Contento. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. So first, I want to say that I want to clarify that the house directly east of this property is a two-story, and that two-story is located probably 12 to 15 feet from the dividing wall. The building that's being proposed is actually 12 feet away from the wall. It's not going to be built up right against the wall. And if you've stood on that property, as you look at that brick wall, and if you're looking at 111 South Saint Francis, you could see about this much of the roof. So that brick wall is already covering that house. I was the one who installed those site poles, and I'm telling you from that perspective up there, those other two-story buildings, the one right next door, it might be a foot shorter than what we're proposing. But the one on Ambrosia, that one's taller. And the apartment complex, that one's about the same height, but you also have to give the idea that it's going downhill. So it's a pretty tall building. Unfortunately, this property's address is on Roybal Street. But Saint Francis is a commercial corridor. You drive pretty much all the way down it. I'd say 95% of those buildings are commercial, not residential. So to me, this isn't a good, this is a good spot. It's not a big business. It's not going to attract a lot of high-volume people to a dental office. People go there and they stay for a couple hours at a time. So in terms of volume of traffic, I don't think that's going to impede it at all. I think this is a great location. The concessions that have been made to appease what the board has required have been enormous. It's been a lot, and this is Zone C4. So according to the C4 requirements, it's within that 24 feet. So that's what I would like to. Thank you. Anyone else in this audience wishing to comment, please come forward. Is there someone online? Yes, Chair Rios, I see a few hands up. Miss Benonato. Thank you. Stephanie Benonato. Can you hear me? Yes. I think that people, excuse me, are mistaking that even though it's a C4, there's an overlay, which is the historic zone, which can limit height. And this is the same, it's a bigger building than when that was brought in nine years ago, but it's the same reasoning given that somehow the mother of the dentist, Miss Quan, I'm hoping I'm pronouncing her name correctly, wants to live there so the children can be above the business during after school or during the day. But they all are living on San Francisco Street together now, so why do they need to have this apartment for that purpose is one question. And it is pretty much a straight-up building. I think if it was in a different zone, a different area, it would be fine, but it is right there at the historic zone. And I also understand that, and this was in this area where they built three-story buildings, that there's now a requirement that if you're going to go up a second story, that you have to be 14 feet back on your roof before you can exceed a certain height. And I don't think that this building complies with that at all. It's going to go straight up. There are one-story buildings right next to it. And from what I can see of the photographs, the ones except for the apartment building, the others are partial second stories where there's a one-story and then maybe half of it or less is a second story. So it has a very different feel than this building, which is a very straight-up, very modern-looking building. And the apartment, although mixed-use, is a great idea. It's, I mean, again, I don't see this as a hardship. I just see it as a convenience. And so I'm asking that the board, and I agree with member Bienvenu, that this design should be denied. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on the line? Yes, Miss Jordan Young? Hi, Jordan. Can you please state your name and address for the record? My name is Jordan Young. I live at 652 Galisteo Street. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I feel like this is a perfect example of the contradictory, confusing process that applicants have to go through to face the HGRB. After having the staff make a positive recommendation, HTRB is now questioning it. I'm not sure what the point of even having staff review is if everything is going to be re-reviewed by HTRB. This is a beautiful use of a building that celebrates a historic family and uses mixed-use in a commercial-facing district and feels like an extremely ridiculous use of historic design rules to shut down a family and a small business that will contribute to the neighborhood. Again, I'd like to point out that the board is currently lacking an architect, and so I would like that to be addressed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else online? No, Chair, I don't see any other hands. No one else? Board members, do you have any further questions or comments? If not, I will entertain a motion, please. Emma Beachy? Madam, thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2026011903HDRB at 911 Roybal Street, I am moved to approve the application as submitted, noting that the exception criteria have been met as documented by staff and the staff report. And just also noting that the design was previously approved by this board. It was lapsed, and that's why we're hearing it again. The design is substantially unchanged. It's part of a historic district that is dominated by a commercial transition corridor along St. Francis. And while it is sad to have lost some historic buildings, this is really what dominates the streetscape now. And I think that this mixed-use office live workspace is an addition that is in keeping with the current streetscape. Do I hear a second? I do not hear a second. The motion dies. I will entertain a new motion. Member Bienvenu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case 2026011903HDRB at 911 Roybal Street. I would move that the project be denied on the basis that the exception criteria for the additional height have not been satisfied, specifically that the height as proposed, which is more than 70% in excess of what's allowed as calculated by staff, would damage the character of this district, which is intended to be historical and residential, that this, the additional height is not required to prevent a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare that could not be addressed by other means, that the requested height does not strengthen the unique heterogeneous character of the city by providing a full range of design options to ensure the residents can continue to reside within the historic districts, and that its requested addition in height is not due to special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the land. I would find, on the other hand, that, well, no. I would find that the fifth criteria, due to special conditions and circumstances, which are not a result of the actions of the applicant, has not been satisfied. And finally, it's not been satisfied that the additional height is required, would result in the least negative impact with respect to the purpose of the section, which is the calculation of height for this particular district. So for those reasons, I would deny the application. And do I hear a second to the motion? Second. Second. We'll have a roll call vote, please. Member? Yes. Member Beachy? No. Member Cherry? No. Member Aguilar Madrona? I would like to abstain. Member Damon? Yes. We have a tie. This is very difficult. Who abstained? You should not do this to me. This is what happened the last time. I don't know. Today, looking at the story poles, this looked to me, this looked awfully high. Very high. I think that, I think I'm going to vote for the denial, but I will say this. I think that you can, I'm going to ask you to please resubmit. Refigure this out, Mr. Shapiro. I mean, this was a new application. I know a lot of people were relying on the nine years ago, but this is, we have new board members, and if I, I was comparing the height of this building compared to the height of the two-story buildings that were in the near vicinity, and this building overpowered the other buildings. I think that you, Mr. Shapiro, are a good architect. I think that you can come back with something different, and I hope that you do that. You also have the option to appeal to the city council, but I hope you will come back with a, give yourself a little bit of a challenge and come back with something lower. So, so, so, Chair, just to clarify, the motion did pass for not approving. Correct? Yeah. Okay. Motion has passed. Thank you. We're going to move on to the next case, which is located at 302 Camino Cerrito. Is that applicant here? The applicant is here. This is case 2026011770HTRB or 302 Camino Cerrito for a freestanding carport. This is under the old code, so it will reference section 14-5.2. The subject property has street signage along Canyon Road and an entrance to the property off of Camino Cerrito, but it has no street frontage on Camino Cerrito. Most of the structures along this stretch of Canyon Road are close to or abutting the road. Their primary Spanish Pueblo Revival style with a few vernacular style units with pitched roofs. The property at 302 Camino Cerrito is approximately 7,000 square feet in an L-shape. It is a vernacular style residence with an intersecting gable roof that was constructed in 2013, 2014. The house's ridgeline is 16 feet high. The house has a 176 square foot port hall on the east elevation, and the bump-out product projection of the footprint is visible along Canyon Road. The roof is standing seam. The fenestrations are single and grouped casement windows with divided lights in the two over three pattern in a sleek color. The property also has a 606 square foot guesthouse on the south end. The guesthouse is a single-story pitched roof, single side gabled house. It holds an inset porch at the northwest corner and matches the treatment to the main residence. Along the Canyon Road frontage is a combination of stucco on block and coyote fence at five foot nine and a river rock retaining wall. Along the east and west property lines is six-foot high coyote fencing, another combination of stucco on block and coyote fence at six feet, forms a small courtyard on the south side of the house. The property was developed according to the approval of case H-13-104 in 2014. The applicant proposes the following exterior alteration, and that is to construct a 286 square foot freestanding carport constructed of six by six wood frame posts and roof rafters, corrugated metal sheet roof, gravel flooring, and a gutter and downspout on the north elevation. The roof will swoop to the north for drainage. The carport will match the existing carport on the property. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D, general design standards, and 14-5.2E, the downtown and East Side design standard. Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lanny? No questions. Applicant, we'll get sworn in. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Efren Cuna, 4618 Inspiration Drive Southeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico. You solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. Did you have anything more to add to what Lanny just told us? No, I mean, the carport is a pretty straightforward structure. There's an existing carport, and the owner, a new owner, I guess, wants more shade for his vehicle. So that's the main reason for adding in a second carport. I do want to state this is located towards the rear of the property, correct? Any questions for the applicant? No? Anybody here wanting to comment? Nope? Anybody online? Have we lost Gary and Maggie? Hang on. I think, per usual, a few technical difficulties. Is there anyone online? Please raise your hand if you wish to speak in regards to this item. I show no hands raised, Madam Chair. Board members, I will entertain a motion for this project. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2026-011770-HDRB at 302 Camino Cirrito, I move to approve the application consistent with staff's recommendation. Second. And roll call vote, please. Member Bienvenu? Yes. Member Beachhead? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Aguilar Magrana? Yes. Member Degner? Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you. Last case this evening is at 669 Garcia Street. Amanda? Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Give me one second here. Thank you. Here we go. It's 2026011972 HGRB. This property is located at 669 Garcia Street. This is in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. Okay. Okay. And the applicant proposes to construct a five-foot yard wall, pedestrian and vehicular gates, and to demolish a portion of the stone retaining wall. An exception is requested to 14-4.6F2, double I, C for a five-foot yard, five-foot, no inch yard wall where four two is permitted. And trying to make this a little bit bigger so you guys can see. These drawings are quite light, and the exterior finishes will be stucco, will be adobe, and the wood style would be mahogany. And then I also wanted to point out the responses they sent for four and five were entered in backwards. So four is five and five is four, in case you had any questions in regards to that. And I will try to pull up this site plan for you at a larger scale if you have any questions for me in the meanwhile. We actually look at the proposed wall gate. Sure. If I can make this a little bit more visible. Go ahead and get this from the packet because it seems to have a better view. Hold on one moment, sir. Okay. Here you go. Member Chair Rios, members of the board. So this is the west elevation. And you could see the, here's the wall, dashed here. And here's the proposed. There was the existing, and here's the proposed, this section here. Amanda, can you give us those heights again? Sure. We have the, the yard wall is five feet. And, let's see. And then it goes six feet to the pilaster. Let's see if there's one section. This is the pedestrian gate. Pedestrian gate is five feet, pilaster, and four nine at the actual gate. And here is six foot for the, it's a little over six feet for the pilaster, and the gate is at five feet. Gate is at five feet? It's what I showed you. Gate? The vehicular gate, I'm showing at five feet. There's, on the right-hand side here is the, it shows at five feet, and that is the same dimension of the gate that I see. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments, board members? No. Jeff, you want to come and get for me? Hi. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Jeff Sears, 122 Lorenzo Road. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Jeff Sears. I have the owners, Christine Tenak and Gary Deaver. They've been watching on Zoom. Are they to call in now to participate? They're there. Okay. So, again, are the owners. And the, if I have drawings here if it helps. So the wall is five foot high. The gate is six foot high. The vehicular gate and the pilasters are six foot nine inches high. We agree with staff at this point and stand for any questions. Yeah. If how long does that wall extend? If you go to the overall site line drawing. It doesn't just go straight out, it's kind of a curvature. Yes. You can see the wall here that's or or darkened in. It goes from property line to property line on the north and south sides, but it curves to miss the existing trees along the street side there. It's undrawn a S 102. And is that going to be about 15 feet back from the from the street? Yes. Any other questions for There's nothing right now. Did your people want to comment? Gary, I guess, I was thinking, I have no. If you yeah. I see landscape architects. Did you want to speak during the Can you hear me? Oh, yeah. We can hear you. Can you state your name and be sworn in for an address that would be sworn in for the record? Can you please state your name and address for the record? Yes. My name is Christine Tenike, 2506 Bridle Path, Austin, Texas, and my husband Gary Deaver. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Yes. We would love to build this wall. Garcia's kind of busy, and we do have the loading area for SAR across directly across from our driveway, and there are trucks that go in there pretty frequently. So we would just, you know, ask you to consider it. We're working around the existing trees, and it's set quite a bit back from the road. So we're hoping that it will have minimal effect on the field. Thank you. Any further comments? Can no longer hear you. Oh, I have no further comments unless somebody has a question. Any questions for the applicant? No questions for you. Stephanie Benonato has her hand up. Yes, Stephanie. Am I, excuse me. Am I unmuted now? Am I unmuted now? Yes. We can hear you, Stephanie. Okay. Thank you. I would ask that you not approve the design, that you require it to be a lot lower. Six nine for the supports on the vehicular gate are quite high, as is a six-foot gate. And even the five-foot long or five-foot high wall, in such a long wall is, really changes the streetscape. I think maybe you could do four and a half feet on the wall and maybe five feet at the vehicular gate. And that would be somewhat of a compromise, although I don't really see any reason to do that. Garcia Street has a lot of low walls. They used to be all low walls until there is this wall creep in which things keep getting taller and taller based on need for privacy, now need not to see trucks across the street. And again, it's like complaining about Rio's lumberyard. It's there. You bought it knowing it was there, and you knew what kind of traffic went in and out. And so, again, I think that there should be an acceptance of the decision as to where you buy and what you're buying and the restrictions on it. And again, I just feel like it's a very long, unrelieved wall, and it changes the streetscape dramatically. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else online? I don't see any other hands up for this case. Thank you. Board members, if you have, pardon? If you have no other questions or comments, I will entertain a motion, please. Five members. I need one motion. Madam Chair, case number 2026-011972-HDRB at 669 Garcia Street. I would move to deny the application, finding that the exception criteria have not been met, and that the four-foot two permitted height should be maintained. Is there a second to this motion? Second, Begum. I have a There's a second to the motion. I have a question. Okay. Oh, I just have a question. Is there anything in your motion that you want to address the height of the pilasters or the gate height in addition to the wall height? No. I mean, you know, per our code, like, those are allowed to be higher than than the wall height. So I assume they'd be higher than 4.2, but I would leave that to the applicant, proportionately to see what works best with a 4.2 height and then come back with a new proposal on what the gate and the pilaster height should be. I don't think I'd want to set that height without them being able to explore the elevation design-wise. Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a point of order, I think, because the staff recommended approval of this application and found that the all exception criteria were met. I think in order to make a motion of denial, you need to document what why they were not met. Without carefully, sorry. I wasn't prepared to do that. I do remember offhand, like, that the staff used, you know, that existing vegetation was remaining in place and that that would reduce the, like, visual intrusion. But the existing vegetation, that really has to do with the setback of the wall. It doesn't have anything to do with the height. So I don't think that exception had been met, and I believe they used that for the or do not damage the character of the district. Do do I need to go one by one, or is finding at least the documenting one disagreement with the exception criteria? Simple. That's the first one. The second one are required to prevent hardship to the applicant. Similar to what we heard in public comment, I think this property was purchased, SAR has been, you know, in existence prior to this property being purchased, and there had none of the conditions that have been documented are new since purchasing that property. So I think those would have been accepted. That entrance has been there for as long as I've known it. That is not a new condition. Let's see. For the third one, this repeats the same the same argument that somehow preserving the trees has anything to do with the height of the wall. Again, I think that relates back to the setback, not the height of the wall. The fourth one, the fourth one's also citing the trees. So a lot of these a lot of these responses are the same are the same thing. Then the fifth one, special circumstances. I know we don't want to leave it at that. I can I leave it there? I think finding at least four of the five. I mean, I think if even just finding one of them not met would be enough to support. Right? Well, may we have a roll call vote, please? Member Bienvenu? No. Member Beachhead? No. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Aguilar Medrano? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. Okay. Anything under discussion items? No, Chair. Yes. Matters from the board? Anybody? Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to follow up on what we continue to hear as part of the public comment and matters from the floor about the absence of an architect on the board. I don't hear regular updates on what's happening with that. Does staff have any update for us? I I I would just say that tonight, it would have been nice to have an architect to tell us what is typically a two-story building. Like, I think we're all I was Googling, like, what is a two-story building normally? In height tonight, it's like 20 to 25 feet. The other board members thought it was, you know, an overpowering height. So it would be really helpful to have that expertise to rely on. I think it's a bit of an imbalance to have the other positions represented without that one to have an equal voice on this board. And I do sympathize with the architectural community finding that to be problematic. Thank you. Board member Beachhead, I don't have an update on that. Heather couldn't be here tonight. She'll be out this week, but we will circle back with her when she's back. I know she's been working on it for, as we heard, a long time, and so hopefully we'll gain some traction soon. Jerry, do you have something? I had two comments. One is in regard to one of the cases that was postponed on Kaya Corvo. That application, we're not discussing it for approval or denial right now, but I would note that they are requesting replacing all the windows in that building, and there's no window assessment for that in the packet in the application. I know that the applicant expressed tonight some frustration with being postponed on technicalities, so to speak, and that's just a potential technicality. I think it's just, I just think it's really important to keep that consistency. If we're going to require it, it should be required always. So I don't know. It seems to me that that would be a case where it's required if we have a building with contributing primary facades that they're requesting all the windows be replaced. My other comment is kind of in regard to 1489 Canyon Road. I just think, in general, one of the things that was being brought up there was just, I guess, inconsistency or inaccuracy in the information that was compiled and presented by staff to us. I feel like having a modern HICB on projects like that would be really helpful for us because it's a very thorough understanding of the building history, which is just the way the modern ones are compared to the one-pager that's existing right now. It has obvious benefits. I also think it would take a lot of pressure off staff because during that process, I think a lot of things are discovered about the building that sort of dictate what requirements are going to be needed for these cases. So I think that would be a good way. I just wanted to throw my two cents in about that, that I think it would be great to have some more consistency on that, and it would probably help us, and it would probably help staff as well. That's all I have to say, actually. Anything else? Okay. Our next meeting will be March 24. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Aguilar Montreras so moves. You're in second. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Say no. Thank you. Good night.