Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Jun 9, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1164 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board meeting addressed several critical issues, including the enforcement of historic preservation guidelines and the growing threat of wildfires to historic structures. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to public outcry over the unauthorized color change of "The Pink House" at 334 Garcia Street, where owners allegedly defied stop-work orders to repaint the historic pink adobe to dark brown. Public speakers passionately urged the board to mandate restoration to its original color, emphasizing the house's historical and architectural significance. The board also received an extensive presentation on wildfire risk mitigation, particularly for historic buildings in Santa Fe, highlighting vulnerabilities and strategies for hardening structures. Later in the meeting, the board grappled with a complex application for new construction and renovation at 1062 Camino San Acacio, which involved multiple exceptions and design concerns, ultimately postponing the majority of the project for redesign. A contentious request to downgrade the historic status of 616 Acequia Madre, a significant Territorial Revival home, drew strong opposition from the public and board members, who questioned the rationale and potential implications for the property and neighborhood. == Key Decisions == - Adopted the agenda as amended with recommended postponements for cases lacking story poles. - Adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law from August 12th and August 26th, 2025. - Approved the shed/garage portion of the application for 1062 Camino San Acacio with conditions: existing stucco texture and color to be matched, stucco must be cementitious, and window/door frame colors maintained. - Postponed the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and primary residence portions of the application for 1062 Camino San Acacio to a date certain for redesign. - Maintained the historic status of the main residence at 616 Acequia Madre as 'significant' with all facades primary, and the guest house as 'significant' with all facades primary (excluding the no-longer-present shed enclosure). - Approved the revised proposal for a 4-foot 2-inch yard wall, pedestrian gate, and demolition of a portion of a stone retaining wall at 669 Garcia Street. - Accepted staff recommendations for 1103 Canyon Road, denying spray foam insulation (with an option to resubmit with evidence of air permeability for alternatives) and encouraging the applicant to research building codes for gate height, while approving all other items. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to adopt the agenda as amended — Passed. - Motion to adopt findings of fact and conclusions of law from August 12th and August 26th, 2025 — Passed. - Motion to approve the shed/garage portion of the application for 1062 Camino San Acacio with conditions (matching existing stucco texture and color, cementitious stucco, maintaining window/door frame colors) — Passed (Simmons: Yes, DGEN: Yes, Bishide: Yes, Benu: Yes). - Motion to postpone the remainder of the application (ADU and primary residence) for 1062 Camino San Acacio to a date certain for redesign — Passed (Simmons: Yes, DGEN: Yes, Bishide: Yes, Benu: Yes). - Motion to adopt staff's recommendations to maintain the historic status of the main residence at 616 Acequia Madre as significant with all facades primary, and the guest house as significant with all facades primary (excluding the no-longer-present shed enclosure) — Passed. - Motion to leave enforcement action for unauthorized demolition at 616 Acequia Madre to the city and to return with required actions — Passed. - Motion to have staff provide written recommendations on whether the property at 616 Acequia Madre should be considered a historic compound, including statusing the former horse barn as a third structure — Passed. - Motion to approve the revised proposal for the yard wall, pedestrian gate, and demolition of a portion of the stone retaining wall at 669 Garcia Street, aligning with staff's recommendation — Passed. - Motion to accept staff recommendations for 1103 Canyon Road, denying spray foam insulation (with possibility to resubmit with evidence of air permeability for alternative insulation), encouraging applicant to research existing building code for front gate, and accepting all other items — Passed (Unanimous roll call vote 4-0). == Public Comment == Public comments were dominated by strong opposition to the unauthorized color change of "The Pink House" at 334 Garcia Street, with multiple speakers detailing its historical significance, the owners' alleged defiance of stop-work orders, and urging the board to mandate restoration to its original pink color. Concerns were also raised about other properties, including visible solar panels and mini-split units on historic homes. Later, a contentious request to downgrade the historic status of 616 Acequia Madre drew significant public opposition, with speakers emphasizing the property's profound historical and architectural importance, questioning the owner's intentions, and expressing fears of subdivision. A former director of the Women's International Study Center offered a critical commentary on the city's preservation policies. Public comments also supported a revised wall design at 669 Garcia Street for pedestrian safety and aesthetic reasons. == Topics == - Pink House Color Change - Administrative Approvals - Story Pole Requirements - Energy Efficiency & Insulation - Sonasio Project Design - Historic Gate Preservation - Public Comment Fairness - Unpermitted Work Enforcement - Historic Building Integrity - Specific Property Concerns == Full Transcript == Good evening, all. This meeting is now called to order. Welcome. We are the Historic Districts Review Board, and today is June 9th, 2026. May we have a roll call, please? **Member Simmons:** Here. **Member Benvvenu:** Here. **Member Cherry:** Excused. **Member Bishide:** Here. **Member Rios:** Here. **Member DGEN:** Present. **Staff:** Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? **Staff:** Yes, Chair Rios. We have several recommended postponements that we want to highlight for postponement because there were no story poles placed on the property as required by our policies. This would be item 9C, case 2026-012513; item 9E, 2026-12285; item 9F, 2026-12487; item 9G, case number 2026-12488. And then we're also recommending items 9I and J. They are on two properties, 507 and 511 Paseo de Peralta. One property had the story poles up and one did not, but they're really one development, so we recommend postponing both of those as well. So that would be item 9I, 2026-012490, and item 9J, 2026-012491. I just want to clarify that our longstanding practice or requirement for story poles is that for all freestanding buildings, story poles are placed on all essential corners to indicate the proposed height of the roof. Failure to place story poles before the day of the hearing will result in postponement of your case to the next available hearing. This is on our application packet that every applicant gets before they come. It includes other items regarding notice requirements and postponement if those notice requirements are not met. It requires attendance at the hearing and removal of the public notice posters along the street. So, there are several items there that are required to be heeded by the board, and those cases that I listed did not meet that requirement today. Thank you, Maggie. So, it's important for applicants to work with city staff in terms of all the rules and regulations before you come to the H board, and that is one of them. So, please work closely with city staff so that your case is not postponed. And talking about postponements, is case C, are we hearing case C? **Staff:** Yes, Chair, that was recommended as the first one to postpone on the list, 9. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as just amended? **Board Member:** I move to approve the agenda. Is there a second? All those in favor say "Aye." Opposed say "No." The agenda is adopted as amended. We have no minutes on this particular agenda, but we do have six findings of fact and conclusions of law, those dated August 12th, 2025. Are there any changes to any of these, board members or staff? No. Are there any changes to those dated August 12th? Excuse me, August 28th. And how about August 26th? Any changes? If not, is there a motion to adopt these? **Board Member:** I move to adopt the findings and conclusions from August 12th and August 26th, 2025. Is there a second? **Board Member:** Second. All those in favor say "Aye." Opposed say "No." Next, we have matters from the public. If you have a concern in reference to any historic districts, anything that might concern anything on the historic districts, come forward and state that concern, and we will entertain anybody in this room or anybody online. **Todd Anthony:** Thank you, both board members, for the opportunity to speak today about a critical issue that requires immediate correction. My name is Todd Anthony, and I live on the 300 block of Garcia Street, and it's in the very same block as the property in question. The property in question is 334 Garcia Street, and it's known as the Pink House. Living in historic Santa Fe is a privilege, but that privilege comes with responsibility to maintain historic preservation. The violation at 334 Garcia Street erased 100 years of history. For well over a century, dating back to the 1920s, the historic house at 334 Garcia Street was pink with brown trim. You can see this on Zillow, Google Maps. It's still on there. It's that recent to review what color it was. Now it's dark brown with white, bright white wood trim. When I questioned this at the beginning, that resulted in the first red tag or stop work order. The absentee owners initially began this unauthorized work without a permit, and that resulted in the first red tag. I think the city approved the restucco of the building, but not the color change, just the maintenance. When they started changing the color, that resulted in the second red tag. Two days after the stop work order, on a Sunday, under strict orders, these absentee owners chose to defy the city yet again. They brought in a crew and in a matter of hours changed the entire color of the house and the front wall. This is not a mistake; it's blatant intent. It's not a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Working through a red tag on a Sunday, it shows an intentional disregard for city ordinance and this board's authority. I would like to call to action and remedy by enforcing immediate restoration. I'm asking the board to mandate that the owners restore the house to its original historic pink color immediately. They have proven that they can work quickly. We already know this, and they have the resources to do it just as fast. I watched them restucco the entire house and the front wall in a matter of hours on a Sunday. That's unprecedented to get help like that. They can change it back just as quickly. I think we should set a precedent if it hasn't already been set. These owners must be made an example of. Their actions should be made an example of. If there are no real consequences for working through multiple stop work orders, it sets a dangerous trend for the rest of the historic districts. I have submitted a comprehensive letter detailing these events to staff, and I brought copies with me today for everyone. I'd like everyone to have it. And I'd like to thank the board for your time, for your vigilance, for your continued dedication in protecting Santa Fe's unique heritage. Thank you very much, Mr. Anthony. **Raymond:** Sir, my name is Raymond, 379 Hillside Avenue. I'm here to speak on the pink house, the historic Pink House. I grew up in that neighborhood. It used to be East Manhattan, which is now a sacred where Matusi's Gallery is. That was my grandfather's ranch 100 years ago. Growing up in that area, the pink house was something that everybody knew about or looked at when they came to Santa Fe because the architecture was different. The architect and builder, Mr. Rapp and an associate, they built that house trying to, well, they were the architects for La Fonda and other major buildings in Santa Fe, like the Fine Arts Museum and other buildings. So they were reputable in, you know, for the 1920s, that's when they built, and we knew it as Dr. Brown's Pink House. I was talking to my sister last night. She lives back east, and I was asking her if she remembers the pink house, and she said, "Sure." When they were kids, they used to play there at times, part of the neighborhood. My sister is 96 years old and still remembers it. Also, that neighborhood was influential with the people that lived there. The first at the beginning of Garcia Street was Amelia Sanchez. She was the first Fiesta Queen in Santa Fe. Next door was the Eckards. Mr. Eckard was, I always thought he was the first banker in Santa Fe. And then there's Mrs. Dr. Brown. And next to that was Mrs. Dinkel. She was the Spanish teacher. And then up from there were Tamatsu, he was an artist, a Japanese artist, him and his wife Louise. They lived in the compound next to the Dinkels. And then the county property was behind where Gerald Peters Gallery is now. And I'm surprised that Gerald Peters, when he sold that house or lost it or whatever happened with it, that he didn't have a provision in there that the color couldn't be changed because that house belonged to his wife's family. His wife was Kenny, Dr. Kenny's daughter, and Dr. Kenny was part of the Brisier family, which Mrs. Brown belonged to. So that family goes back a couple of hundred years because the Brisier House is the beautiful little house where Jojo's Museum is being built. That was the original Brisier House. So there's a lot of history in that section of Santa Fe, and growing up there, I'm part of it. Actually, I'm one of the elders there anymore. Well, even though I live on Hillside, but my heart is still where I was raised. Anyway, I hope that you do what Todd recommended because Santa Fe is changing a lot, and we're losing a lot of important buildings. And thanks to our former mayor, we almost lost our culture and everything else. So, please don't let this happen under this new administration. I thank you. Thank you, Ray. I think that mic is not on. We need to put the mic on. **John Penn Lafarge:** I was wondering about that. My name is John Penn Lafarge. I live at 647 Old Santa Fe Trail in the same neighborhood as the Dr. Brown House. I think the Dr. Brown House is important, and its appearance is important because what we're talking about is integrity. The integrity of this house, well, of the entire neighborhood, but certainly of this house, is important, and I think it ought to be kept because the integrity of this house is so strong. I point out this house every time I take a tour and we go past it because it's a wonderful old house. It's also the only adobe example I know of what looks to me to be Art Nouveau architecture, which makes it not only unique but really interesting and imaginative. Part of that imagination and integrity is its color. Now, I maintain its color should be maintained the same. The previous speaker pointed out that the owners now seem to be self-willed enough to ignore anything and everything they're told to make it theirs and theirs alone and ignoring the integrity and the history of the house. I think that's wrong. Now, this board years ago denied the Pink Adobe to remain pink, which I think was a terrible mistake. In this case, I hope you won't make the same mistake. Thank you. Thank you. **Jennifer Berkeley:** Hello, my name is Jennifer Berkeley, and I live at 126 Martinez Street in Santa Fe. And I want to first of all thank these three people who spoke ahead of me and say that I support all that they pointed out. And I would like to just read to you a report that was made on this house over 30 years ago by Corin Z. And she ends this very detailed report about the family and the architects and the importance of the building by stating, "The Frank Leonard Smith House is worthy of preservation for association with families who have influenced Santa Fe's history and for its nearly unaltered architecture, the work of a major figure in the evolution of Santa Fe or of Spanish Pueblo Revival. As such, it provides matchless and irreplaceable evidence bearing on the history of the predominant style of 20th century Santa Fe." Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward and speak about anything that is on your mind in reference to any of our historic districts? I do want to thank those of you who just finished speaking. Thank you, concerned citizens of Santa Fe, that you come forward and express your concerns. It's important for you to do that. Is there anyone online? **Staff:** Stephanie Benanato, there is Miss Stephanie Benanato. Has her hand raised. **Stephanie Benanato:** Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great. I do want to thank people for coming forward and speaking about this house and the importance of its preservation, and especially given the disregard of the red tag by the current owners. However, I also want to point out a couple of other houses that are of concern to me. One is on East Houghton. I believe it's in the 200 block. It's on the north side, about a block from the corner of, I'm not going to remember the street. It's not Don Diego, but on the other side, it is a sloped roof house and it has two giant solar panels that you can see from the street. It is part of the historic zone, and I don't know how they got away with putting up these huge panels without any kind of visual blocking of the panels. And I have to say that I just saw panels on a historic house, an 1890s house on West Manhattan. I was up at the Kabad Center having lunch on the second floor and I'm like, "Oh my gosh, look at all those solar panels down there. You can't see them at all." So, obviously, there are ways of doing this. I know it's a sloped roofed house, so it's harder, but really there's no effort at all to conceal these panels, and I hope your staff will look into that. The other thing is on West Houghton Alley, there is a house that has a mini split, and it's been renovated in the past few years, and the mini split is right there, really obvious from the street. And I asked the owner the other day as I was walking by, and he told me that the board, I don't know if it was the board or the staff, told him that he could not conceal that mini split, and it would be very easy to have a small coyote fence or block, you know, not really a whole fence, but some coyote fencing there that would block the view of the mini split and, you know, could be far enough away that it wouldn't interfere with its operation. And the owner tells me he wants to put that up there, but he's been told he cannot. And I think it would greatly enhance the house and the historic nature of that neighborhood if he could in fact conceal the mini split. So, I'm bringing that to your attention, too. That's on the south side of the street before, I believe it's Don Miguel. I think that's the name of that little street that connects into West Houghton. And it'll be obvious. It's the only mini split that's really obvious on that alley. So, I'm again hoping that your staff can look into those two different buildings to see what can be done to make them more compatible and harmonious with the historic zone. And I do hope that you take this house that's the color code's been changed. I hope that you and your staff take it seriously because it's just these kinds of changes based on somebody's individual wants rather than them appreciating the historic nature of their home that really leads to a degradation of the historic zones. Thank you. Mayor: Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else online? I see no other hands up. Thank you all for speaking out. We move on to staff communications. Yes. Maggie: So, Maggie. Yes. Yes. So, we have a representative from, Randy, are you on the call? From Headwaters Economics. Randy: Yes, I'm here. Maggie: Oh, fabulous. Great. Thank you. To talk about our wildland urban interface ordinance that we're working on and some rules. So, this presentation was given to the planning commission, and we wanted to bring it as well to the historic districts. A large part of the historic district is within, you know, the wildland or urban interface. So, thank you. Take it away. Randy: And could I ask that my colleague Susan Riggs be made a panelist as well? Yeah. Thank you. Maggie: Yes, got it. Randy: Okay, she should be joining you real quickly there. Maggie: Great. Randy: Well, I have a presentation that I'm obviously going to share with you all. Susie and I work together. And I've done research about historic preservation and wildfire in particular. And we're very passionate about this topic. So, let me just share my screen and just give me a minute to do that and we'll get rolling. Okay. And hopefully everybody can see that. Looks good. Great. Okay. So, again, hi everyone. My name is Ryan Mayi, and I am a planner. I work for a nonprofit, Headwaters Economics. And as Maggie mentioned, we're working with the city staff to help craft a wildland urban interface code that will ideally reduce wildfire risk in Santa Fe. And as part of that work, I've been presenting to various boards talking about living with wildfire risk. As a personal note, I just wanted to mention I was born and raised in Santa Fe. My family still lives there. And so I'm really honored to be working with you all on this project. So, we work for Headwaters Economics, which is a nonpartisan research nonprofit. We're based in Montana. I am based in Helena, and Susie is based in Bozeman. But we work around the country, and we are a group of planners, geographers, economists, data engineers, and we focus on reducing various types of risks in communities across the United States. We do a lot of research around natural hazards and risk, and we particularly focus on ways to reduce wildfire and flood risk. So, I am the program manager for our technical assistance program that addresses wildfire, and that is called the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire Program. As I mentioned, we work all over the country. This is just a map that shows where we have worked in the past 10 years, which is as long as we've been in existence. We have actually worked in Santa Fe before. And we are a free technical assistance program to communities. We're funded by the Forest Service, and our mission is very broad, but a lot of what we do is help communities like Santa Fe craft land use regulations that make their built environment more resilient to wildfire. So, I want to talk tonight a bit about some of the strategies that communities like Santa Fe can use to reduce wildfire risk. And I want to talk about the role that we play in that. I really like this slide. I show it a lot to communities because what you're looking at here is all the different ways you can intervene to reduce wildfire risk. Most of us are familiar with the response and suppression. So, classic firefighting and what we call fuel treatments, which is cutting down vegetation, thinning forest to make sure that there's not as much fuel for fires to burn. But there's a whole another side to reducing wildfire risk that I think of as focusing on what we call the built environment. And this looks at thinking about how we evacuate neighborhoods. It also thinks about policies for new construction. How are we building our homes in a way that they are more resilient to wildfire? How are we protecting our public infrastructure like our schools, our hospitals, and our water systems from wildfire? So, tonight I'm just going to walk through a few basic principles of living with wildfire. First, we're going to chat about wildfire risk in New Mexico. Then, I'm going to talk about how homes burn down during a wildfire and why it's important to think of homes in the built environment as a source of fuel for fire. Then just going to chat specifically about strategies for New Mexico that fit your context, your culture, your communities to address wildfire risk. And then part of these strategies will be a discussion of how historic preservation and historic buildings fit into the discussion of living with wildfire. So, let's just paint a broad picture of the wildfire risk across the United States. As you probably know, wildfire risk is increasing. We have more hot dry days across the United States, not just in the West. We have many more what we call fuels in the place of fire. So, we have lots of trees. We have lots of dead trees. We have lots of neighborhoods and homes. And this is the main point here is that more and more people are living in what we call harm's way. Whether that means wildfire is encroaching on urban neighborhoods in a way it hasn't before, or we are encroaching into wildlands in a way we haven't before. Both are true. So, looking specifically at Santa Fe, as part of the work that I do, I work with the US Forest Service to maintain a nationwide risk map that looks at wildfire risk across the country. And Santa Fe has among the highest, you know, risk profiles in the United States. And the way we measure risk really depends on two things: direct and indirect exposure to fire. Direct exposure, which affects, you know, more than a quarter of the buildings in Santa Fe, means that there are very high odds that a wildfire will actually start in a forest and come right up and touch your home. And indirect exposure, which affects roughly the same amount, a quarter of Santa Fe, is what we call other methods of fire spreading. So, like radiant heat or something called embers, which I'm going to explain in a minute. So, what does this mean for New Mexico? It really means that more and more homes are burning than we have ever seen before. New Mexico hasn't seen the level of impacts of California or Colorado, but when you think about the population and the risk, the change in wildfire risk in New Mexico is pretty significant. So, since about 2000, there have been about 4,000 structures burned. Part of what we do at Headwaters is we maintain a database of all those structures destroyed by wildfire in the United States. You can see in New Mexico, a lot of this destruction has happened in the past four or five years or so and is largely attributable to the South Fork fire in southern New Mexico outside of Ruidoso and the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon fire outside of Las Vegas. So, another bit of research that we have done is looking at how the conditions that made the fires in LA in 2025 possible and if those conditions exist elsewhere in the United States. As I'm sure you all are aware, there were massive fires in California just over a year and a half ago that destroyed thousands of homes. And we wanted to know, are these conditions present across the US? And the answer is yes. We looked at density of homes, climate, presence of drought, prevalence of winds, and we found roughly a thousand cities that met those parameters across the United States. They range from places in California to the Gulf Coast. But you will see there are several communities in New Mexico that also carry these risk profiles. Santa Fe is one of them. And we like to think of these or we prefer to, I guess, talk about them as cities that are at risk for what we call urban conflagrations. So, this is when wildfire enters a community like it did in LA and rapidly burns many, many homes at one time. So, there are of course many consequences to wildfires that go beyond home loss. And I think this is why tonight we wanted, we were really honored to present to you all because part of home loss is destruction of health, of financial systems, of incomes, of economies. Wildfires have really, as all disasters do, broad-reaching impacts that really begin with home destruction and extend for many years afterwards. So, to give you a sense of what I'm talking about here, you know, more than 60% of the total wildfire costs, you know, cleanup, rebuilding, different types of aid, are actually borne at the state and local level. A lot of us have this thought that, you know, the federal government will come in and provide aid, which it does, but that doesn't last very long in the grand scheme of things. And there are many, many other impacts that have to be borne by state and local governments like Santa Fe and New Mexico. In particular, wildfires, as all disasters do, have a really bruising impact on local businesses and local economies. After a wildfire, you know, roughly 40% of businesses never reopen again if they, you know, either were closed for a fire or were burned and destroyed. And then within the first year after a fire, of those 60% or so that do manage to reopen, a quarter of them will close again within a year. So another thing that we have to talk about when we talk about wildfire, particularly in New Mexico, is how it affects insurance. I know you all are very much feeling the pressure of insurance and wildfire, and it is absolutely real. The average increase in New Mexico homeowners insurance premiums has gone up by 19% between 2021 and 2024, which is the latest data that we have for this. This is among the highest insurance premium increases for homes in the country. New Mexico is right up there with California and, interestingly, Nebraska, with having some of the most expected hikes in premiums in 2026 alone. Another factor complicating things in New Mexico: it has one of the highest rates of uninsured homes in the country, next to Mississippi. So, in addition to having insurance that's increasingly more expensive and unaffordable, you also have a high population of people who don't have homeowners insurance for whatever reason. Another thing about Santa Fe that is really common to communities in the West is how much wildfire impacts outdoor recreation. Outdoor recreation is a big part of your economy. It's also a big part of what makes you all special. And it also coincides with a lot of other types of wildfire risk. And what it basically means is that communities like Santa Fe have even higher wildfire risks and have even higher risks of economic damage from fire because of their recreational economies. So now that I've kind of profiled the risk, I want to talk about how homes burn down. And the main thing we're here to talk about tonight is how we build our homes and how we can build them so they withstand fire. And in order to get to that part of the discussion, we need to explain how a home actually burns down. So there are essentially three ways homes burn down. The one we all tend to think of is that direct exposure I mentioned earlier. So direct flame. It's when the tree next to your home is on fire and it catches your home on fire. The second way homes burn down is radiant heat. There's a home on fire. It's fully engulfed, as a firefighter would say, and it's so hot that it causes the home next to it to combust and burn or melt. This is very common in wildfire situations. It's also common in urban structure fire situations. It's why we try really hard to contain a house fire to one building. The final way, and the most important thing to mention about how wildfires spread, is what we call through embers. And embers are these little sparks of burning ash or wood that fly out in front of a flame front. They're just like the things you see that pop out of your campfire and fly into the air, except they're being generated by a campfire that's effectively thousands of acres big. So embers are really important to think about because they can travel for miles in front of a direct flame front. So, you don't have to be living in what we think of as the wildland urban interface to be at risk from embers. You can be living in the middle of a very urban area that you would normally think is very separate from wildfires. And yet, unfortunately, embers account for 90% of home loss during wildfires. So, let me show you what this looks like. You may have seen a lot of pictures recently of homes and areas that have burned to the ground that are surrounded by green, healthy living trees. And this is really difficult to see because we tend to associate wildfires spreading to vegetation and into homes. But what we're seeing here in this picture is that the home itself is the fuel. Often healthy living trees are very resilient to fire themselves. The home is not. The home has a bunch of elements on it that are very susceptible to fire. And what this translates into is neighborhood destruction on a grand scale where the greenery, the trees survive, but the homes themselves burn down. Kind of like a domino effect. Embers land on these homes from miles away and it triggers destruction on a mass scale. So, this fire is one I like to offer an illustration of because it shows how traveling embers work. This was a Sleepy Hollow fire in Washington a little over 10 years ago. You'll see towards the front of the screen there's a row of homes that are destroyed. They were in what we think of the wildland urban interface. They had direct flame exposure. The flames came right up to their backyards. But as those homes burned, they spit embers about two miles further into town and they actually landed on wooden packing crates at an apple packing plant downtown and burned the plant down and impacted the whole commercial business district of this community. So, I want to give you a close-up view of what embers look like. A lot of research has been done into how embers affect home loss and destruction. The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, which we call IBHS, has a big lab in North Carolina where they build homes and then try to burn them down with embers to study what is the most effective and safe way to build a home. This is a picture of the lab. And this is a quick video that shows you what their experiment looks like. Here we have two homes built together. One is what I would call traditional architecture. It has wood shake shingles, a wooden deck, wooden door. And it ignites very quickly with ember contact. As you can see, the vegetation has ignited. The wooden shingles have ignited. There's already fire under the wooden deck, and the fire is going to be climbing up the side of the home in a minute. Now, the home on the right is what we call wildfire resistant construction. It is made with non-combustible siding like fiber cement. It has doors that are not wood. It has glass windows that are dual paned. And it doesn't have any really flammable plants right next to the home. And although you can see the home on the left is rapidly on its way to burning down, the home on the right has yet to burn down. And IBHS has famously completed this experiment multiple times and has found each time the result is the same. The resilient home with materials that will not burn survives the ember storm. So, now that we've kind of talked through what our risk looks like in Santa Fe, how homes burn down, we're going to talk about what Santa Fe is specifically looking at when it comes to reducing your wildfire risk. And we're going to revisit again how we think about the environment that we live in. The homes that we live in. The homes are our greatest financial assets that we have, but also, as you all know, they are our cultural and community assets that everyone is proud of. And so our mission at Headquarters is to help communities like yours decide what is the best way that you all think you can protect those homes and ensure that they will be around for many generations to come. So there are kind of two ways that we can do this with homes. I'm just going to cover this piece really quickly. One is we can think about how we build new homes. We can build them in ways that are resistant to wildfire, just like what you saw on the video, or we can retrofit our existing homes, which means we can make small tweaks in some cases to existing homes that will dramatically reduce their wildfire risk. And there's a lot of different types of tweaks that we can make depending on the home's construction, whether or not it's historic. And these are small steps that homeowners can take to ensure that their home will survive. This includes, sometimes, looking at your windows, what kind of panes they are, what material your roof is made out of, what landscaping you have around your home, what's on your exterior walls. So, I was supposed to, I decided I'm not going to talk about this tonight because I want to really touch on some historic preservation stuff. But I will say part of the work we do at Headquarters is we look at what is the cost of wildfire resistant construction, both retrofit and new construction. I have a ton of that research, which I'd be happy to share with Maggie and have you all take a closer look at it. But I think the main takeaway from that research is essentially the cost of building a non-resistant home and the cost of building a brand new wildfire resistant home are roughly the same. But we are here tonight to talk about historic preservation. We know that Santa Fe is known throughout the world for its historic districts and its homes and the beautiful environment that you all live in, and there's some really interesting innovative ways that we can think about how to preserve our history from wildfire. So here I'm going to hand things off to Susie. Go ahead, Susie. Can I share my screen as well? Great. Um, let me make sure. Okay. Okay, just checking in to make sure everyone can hear me and see my screen. Susie, we're looking at the notes version. Let me make sure that I can display the right one. Let's see. Okay. What about now? Let me share one more time. Okay. Better. Yes, that's it. Okay, great. So, one of the strategies for Santa Fe that we really wanted to talk with you all about tonight is how historic preservation fits into the puzzle. Here is an example of Jasper in Alberta, Canada, of the Angel Church. It was built in 1914 and was destroyed in the Jasper wildfire in 2024. So unfortunately, a lot of our most beloved buildings are not immune to wildfires. Also, unfortunately, there's at least not currently a lot of guidance on this topic at the federal level. And the National Park Service is working on changing this. Sometime in 2026, they are supposed to be issuing a new policy brief that offers guidelines for adapting historic structures to reduce wildfire risk. This will likely be similar to the guidelines for flood adaptation, if you're all familiar with those that were published a few years ago. And as part of our research for this topic, we actually talked to the author of those guidelines and she had noted that they took 10 years to produce. So hopefully we get some guidance on this topic this year, but it might take a little bit longer. Some of the recommendations for flood adaptations are very simple and others are a little bit more drastic. Looking at the bottom right picture, you can see how the original building on the left of the bottom right picture is noted and then on the slider bar you can slide across back and forth on the website. But you can see how this historic building was elevated several feet to ensure that it would be protected during a flood. So the building is preserved and it's protected. It is a drastic change to the building, but in this case it was a matter of ensuring that the building survived at all or elevating it a few feet. So there are again always balances on these topics. We are nearly finished making a technical guide to help communities identify wildfire risk reduction for historic buildings, sites, and districts. And as part of our SEPAW work with Santa Fe, we would love to talk more with you all to come up with strategies to increase the likelihood that your historic buildings will survive the increasing risk of wildfire. All the things we're going to talk about fall in three buckets: planning and preparedness, structure hardening, and site hardening. And the most important thing to remember is that we just provide recommendations. Each community needs to decide for itself how to balance its historic preservation objectives with increasing risks proposed by wildfire. So you all are starting from a great place. There are many historic buildings in Santa Fe that have characteristics that are already resilient to wildfire. Traditional materials like the adobe walls, bricks, stone, masonry, these are materials we recommend because they can withstand high heat and embers. But more than just materials, also just the wall-dominated architecture with heavy mass, minimal openings, and ornamentation. These are all things that are helpful in a wildfire event, along with other general urban patterns like low-profile building forms and courtyard layouts. On the other hand, there are some features that could make a structure more vulnerable during a wildfire. Flat roofs that are not Class A rated, especially with debris that can accumulate, can be an easy ignition point, like that Ryan mentioned with the ember travel. And then also exposed wood, windows and doors, wood fencing, vegetation close to buildings. These are all things that can make a structure more vulnerable to wildfire. So in the technical guide that we'll be releasing, there are nine strategies to fighting wildfire for historic structures. I think this part one are things that most people can easily get behind. You're already taking the first step by trying to understand more about wildfire risk in your community. But also for some of these resources, ensuring that you have a site-specific wildfire preparedness plan in place for each of these assets is huge. Also, some places don't have digitized or up-to-date documentation. So that's just another area we could make sure some of these historic inventories are quite old and could use updating. This is another reason to do that and make sure everything is digital and backed up. Staying ahead of building and property maintenance, again, that's a pretty easy one that I think most people can get behind. But ensuring that trees are pruned, that dead vegetation is removed, ensuring that cracked windows, things like that, all can be places that embers and wildfire can sneak into a building. We have some other risk reduction strategies that I think might be a little bit more debatable or worth discussion. Several communities when they adopt wildfire regulations choose to just simply do a blanket exemption for historic properties. Colorado, for example, passed statewide rules and regulations, but just did a blanket exemption for historic properties. And some places, specifically in Colorado, are choosing to be more specific and saying that no, our historic properties are our most important buildings in town, and we do not want to exempt them. We want to carefully look at ways that we can make sure that they are resilient in the event of a wildfire. Another thing we would love to do with you all is just look at putting more wildfire resiliency intent statements and potentially rules or regulations in codes and guidelines in your historic preservation ordinance, landscape ordinance, places like that in your land use code. Another area to be sure to look at for historic properties is thinking just really carefully about the site and adhering to fire-resistant landscaping practices that we can provide more specific recommendations on another time. And then eight and nine, interesting for discussion as well. Eight would be allowing some wildfire-resistant or non-combustible materials and changes for existing structures that are in higher risk areas, and then requiring that new construction be held to an even higher standard so that you don't have cases where the new construction is what's catching on fire and then passing on that fire to your historic neighborhoods. So, of course, we want to make sure that we're aligning best practices. And so, what you might do in a pure preservation project might be different than what you do in a rehabilitation project. And so, one of the elements we're looking at too is aligning our recommendations with different types of projects that match the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. So, in a pure preservation project, you might be looking at doing a specific wildfire plan, doing some defensible space, allowing some minor building retrofits like vents, things like that. And then another element we might recommend is just taking a really close look at roofing when there's a re-roofing happening, even for a preservation project. A restoration project might be all those things plus allowing certain elements that may be character-defining but maybe not as visible to be replaced when they're up for maintenance with wildfire-resistant or non-combustible materials. A rehabilitation project really has more room for significant building hardening measures. And then maybe you do require if there are additions or new construction on that site that those do meet a higher standard even. Reconstruction is kind of its own topic. But if you're going to invest any money in a reconstruction project, just ensuring that you're doing so in a way that will make it survive in the event of a nearby wildfire. So, we just really wanted to share ideas with you today. Again, each community really needs to determine for itself how to balance their historic preservation objectives with these increasing risks posed by wildfire. I will just hand it back to Ryan. Ryan: Yeah, I just wanted to wrap up by saying that again, thank you all. It's really great to present kind of our perspectives on you with you and the work that we're doing with the City of Santa Fe. And we also wanted to commend you all, both this group, but as well as the general city staff for tackling the thought of developing a wildland urban interface code to reduce your risk. Santa Fe is such a unique community within the United States, if not the world. And one of your greatest assets is your architecture and your historic architecture. It's what brings people there. It is the core memory of many people's lives, as we just heard tonight. And we were really invested in helping you all find a path to preserving it and protecting it from fire. I also want to say that this is kind of a new field of reducing wildfire risk, particularly after the wildfires in California that we saw last year. There were many, many historic structures destroyed in Los Angeles. And unlike with a new home that you can rebuild, part of a historic structure's importance is its story, its meaning to its neighborhood, and that is not something that can be recreated from the ashes. So once again, we're great to be here. Happy to answer questions. If you have time, you can feel free to reach out to me directly. Here's my email if you'd like to know more about our research and what we do. And in general, you can also subscribe to our newsletter for all of Headwaters Economics, and get lots of updates about wildfire risk, flood risk, different policies, and our economic research. And once again, thank you. And we're here for discussion and questions if need be. Well, thank you very much for informing us, for educating us on this very important topic of wildfires and all the different aspects that fall under wildfires. And of course, I think that we on this board were very interested to learn about the portion on historic buildings and protecting the historic buildings and what we can do to protect those buildings and what we can do to protect new buildings. So I think everything that you touched on was very important. None of us wants to be involved in fires. I think it's something that is rather scary. But it's important. If you don't educate yourself, then you don't know how to prevent things or you don't know how to go about trying to help yourself if you are caught in that situation. So, thank you both for the presentation this evening. I don't know if other board members want to comment or ask a question. Anybody? No. So, thank you. Thank you. We are going to move on to our next... Speaker: Thank you. Yes. Our next item on the agenda, which is old business. We have nothing under old business. Under new business, we had 10 cases, five of which were postponed. So now we have five cases that we're going to listen to. I do have to inform you, if you disagree with the decision this board makes, you do have the option to appeal. You'd be appealing to the City Council, and I would suggest that you get together with staff. They can guide you through the process because there are time constraints. So, the first case this evening is located at 1062 Camino San Acacio. And is that applicant here? The applicant is here. And Lanny, would you talk to us about this case? Okay. Good evening. This is case 202612284 HDRB for 1062 Camino San Acacio for a remodel and new construction. So 1062 Camino San Acacio is located on the south side of the road between Victoria Street and Camino Cerrito. The property is in the Downtown and East Side Historic District and has a contributing garage near the street with the north elevations designated as primary. There is currently still a small non-contributing workshop structure set back towards the southern portion of the property. It has been already approved for demolition. For the contributing garage, the applicant is proposing to replace non-historic windows and replace the non-historic entry door, add doors behind the swinging garage doors while retaining the swinging garage doors, and paint those doors so they look a little prettier. They would like to add 4 inches of insulation to the exterior of the structure. An exception is requested to section 14-4.6E42A for placing an exterior insulation on the primary facade of contributing structure, and then they would like to stucco, retaining the texture with cement stucco. Color of the stucco has not been specified for this structure, but it should remain in a color that matches the existing one as much as possible. They also are proposing some new construction. This will be a primary residential structure at 3,441 square feet to a height of 20 feet 9 inches, where the maximum allowable height is 16 feet 9 inches. The residence will consist of 2,213 feet of heated space and 1,228 feet of portals in a recent Santa Fe style. The site slopes 14 feet from the lowest to the highest portion of the footprint. The applicant is requesting additional height due to slope per our section 14-4.6F22F. Windows are planned to be a simulated divided light on the publicly visible sides of the structure and without divided lights on the remaining non-publicly visible portions. Window and patio door exteriors will be metal in dark bronze. While there are corner windows on the rear of the building, the publicly visible windows will all meet the 3-foot corner rule requirement. The roofs are flat except for the shed roof over the portal on the north elevation and a section on the rear which will be allowed to rust to match the rusty pitched roofs across the street at 1051 Camino San Acacio. The pitched roof is allowed in this streetscape per section 14-4.6F4. The garage door will be a metal door in dark bronze color. The garage door is not publicly visible on the south end of the west elevation. They would like to stucco in a color similar to the El Rey Cottonwood color or in a muted sage color. The muted sage color is not allowed in the historic districts, and Cottonwood is discouraged in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. It is not considered to be in harmony with the streetscapes. Details on the portal roof overhangs and canales will be made of steel and will rust over time to match the exposed roofs. There is also a plan for new construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The dwelling unit will be 733 square feet to a height of 13 feet 2 inches. It will have a pitched roof. A pitched roof is allowed per section 14-4.6.6 F4. Windows again will be simulated divided light on the publicly visible sides of the structure and without divisions on the remaining portions. Window and patio door exteriors will be metal in dark bronze. Again, they would like to stucco this building in cottonwood or the muted sage color. The muted sage color is still not allowed in the historic districts and cottonwood is discouraged. Details on the portal roof overhangs and canales will be made of steel and will rust over time to match the exposed roof. An exception to section 14-4.6E42B for the use of metal features is requested on this property. Some other property improvements will include construction of retaining walls to create a terraced lot. No retaining wall will be greater than 6 feet as required under section 14-8.5C of the land use code. They want to install exterior stairs with railings for access from one terrace to the next and construct a 6-foot high latia fence at the driveway. The driveway shall comply with the sight visibility triangle as required under section 14-3.5G1 and then construct a 48-inch high fence along Camino Sonicasio. The fence will have masonry pilasters with a stone finish and a metal frame and 3-inch cedar latitus. And then they'd like to install behind that fence an 8-foot tall, 36-inch wide steel trellis attached to the back of the fence piles. Staff did not request an exception to the stucco colors since one is not required for the cottonwood color. It does have to be approved from the H board. And sage is not an approvable color. If you look at our stucco styles material and color guidance in the historic districts, you'll find that it states desert rose, dove gray, and cottonwood are not considered to be in harmony with the streetscape in the downtown and east side historic district. So therefore, staff would recommend that the board deny the request for both cottonwood and sage colored stucco and recommend a color more in keeping with the streetscape such as those listed in the guidelines under the allowed colors. So, the staff finds that the exception criteria to section 14-4.6E42A have not been met and recommends denial of the request for placing an exterior insulation on the primary facade of a contributing structure. The staff recommends that the exception finds that the exception criteria to section 14-4.6E42B have not been met and recommends denial for the use of metal for details on the portal roof overhangs and canales. The staff also recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they do comply with the general design standards for all districts and for the downtown and east side historic districts. However, staff would recommend that the board deny the request for both cottonwood and sage colored stucco. I stand for questions. Mayor: Thank you for your report, Lenny. Would you indicate to us what the ordinance tells us how it is permissible to have a pitched roof in this area? Okay. This was part of our field trip questions this morning. So the code requires that greater than 50%, as Mr. Beneed out earlier today, it is greater than 50% be pitched. At this moment, it is exactly 50% according to the calculation. So we did not require an exception with the understanding that 50% was the correct number, but as Member Benu pointed out earlier, it is over 50%. Can you tell us how that 50% is reached? In terms of... So we have a very old pitched roof map that we use. It is a paper map that is located in our office. It shows all of the pitch and flat roofs from 1998 back before we had this regulation. So we use that with the presumption, because it is a lot to presume, that anything that was approved after that was done so with an exception. So we still use the 1998 map of pitched roofs. In that neighborhood, you are, you have that linear... Oh, measurement. Yes, we do indicate what the... So the measurements, the way that it's done is if you have street frontage, which in this case they do, you go, you measure the streetscape. The streetscape is measured 600 feet, literally either direction down the street. And then we look at the map and we go through anything that's on the streetscape that has a pitched is marked as pitched and whatever's flat is marked as flat. And then what we do the calculation of the average of the street, that streetscape. It's 300 feet. It's 600 each direction. 600 feet in each direction. Correct. And today on the field trip, hardly any pitched roofs. Well, it is, I'm going to be honest, it is very possible that some of the houses that were pitched back in the 1998 may have had roof changes, but we don't know that. But according to the calculation on the map, it is 50%. Other questions or comments? Repeal. Thank you, Madam Chair. So that's an important issue that you just raised, but I just want to get some clarification. This is a complicated application in my opinion and I just want to kind of go through it structurally to make sure that I understand and that we all understand exactly what we're being asked to approve and what the criteria are that we need to apply. So there are really, I think there are three separate buildings that are all under consideration here, right, for different reasons. So we have the existing shed that's a contributing structure and essentially the work that is being done to that structure is a renovation that there's a request to do exterior insulation, obviously interior work that's not our concern, and a restucco, so a change in the color potentially. Is there anything else that's from the exterior that we need to be concerned about with that part of the application? Oh, I should mention that they're going to retain the garage opening as well as the existing garage doors and put new doors behind them. Is there anything else I'm missing? And replace all of the windows and doors. Okay. And that's, and you have no concern about the replacement because... No, they're all non-historic windows. Great. On the, on the, and you're recommending they need an exception to do the exterior installation as staff is recommending a denial on the basis that they haven't satisfied the criteria. Correct. Correct. And looking at the drawings of the proposed exterior insulation, it looks like what they, what they would like to do is add several inches to the exterior but not to the right parapet so that you get this kind of a reshaping of the configuration of the house. Is that right? That is our understanding. Yes. And as far as the color goes, I thought I saw in the application that, let me see if I can find it, that the finishes throughout the property, so I think that includes the shed, are intended to be medium sand finish and stool color rustic taupe. I can, we can clarify this of course with the applicant, but... Right. If that were the case, it would require an exception to replace their stuff, but... Even that would not be, we would not recommend it. No. Would that be for because it doesn't match the existing color or would that not be allowed in the district at all? It is, it is part due to the texture that is currently on the building and it is in part due to the color of the building. Okay. But does, would that be, would that color and texture be allowed on the new construction and under our policies, the color specifically? The color of the rustic garage. Rustic taupe, if that is what they're proposing for, and I'm going to get to the other two structures, but is that one of our, I didn't see it on our approved list, so... It's not on our approved list now. Do you have any opinion one way or the other on that color? I don't because I don't remember seeing it, but the sand finish is not an issue and as long, and synthetic stucco is not an issue as long as it's a new construction. The, but we would have to take a look at that color to determine whether or not it's allowed. Okay. All right. So then the, the next structure is the ADU that's right on the street. So one of the issues of course is the pitched roof. They're asking for that on the basis that the calculations that were done as you just described them permit a pitched roof under our ordinance. As we, as you just mentioned, the ordinance actually says that it's only permitted when there are more than 50% of pitched roofs in the applicable streetscape. Correct. And in this case, your calculations were that there were eight out of 16, so exactly 50% pitched roofs in streetscape. Right. Right. So, it doesn't actually qualify under our ordinance automatically. You would, right. Right. So, in the past it was practiced at 50%, even though the code does state over that 50%. Okay. So, we of course as a board always go by what the code says. You know, and then there are all sorts of other, now that we're really looking into this, we very rarely get a request for pitched roof because it, it's almost never, the applicants almost never allow, able to satisfy that very high standard. So I was really reviewing it for the first time, but there are other, other add-on conditions. One of them is that when, even when you are allowed to have a pitched roof, the pitch of the roof shall match the predominant pitch in the streetscape. So that would be another calculation that would need to be done and... My understanding is the pitch is the same as the one directly across the street. Right. But of course what we would need here is it would need to be, it would need to match... What's dominant. Yes. Or the average of all the ones that... I don't know the pitches of all of them. And in addition, our code requires that the roof form shall be in proportion to the roof form and pitch of buildings and the applicable streetscape. So, okay. So that, you know, that's, I think our concerns about the pitched roof that we would have to address there. And also, you know, somewhere in the code it does, I think it's in one of our districts, this very specifically calls out the fact that what, what you want to do when you're determining streetscape is not just the measurement but the visual that standing at, at the road at the applicable property to see what you can see. And in this case, I think for all the people that were at that property, you can see that even the pitched roofs that you identified in your map are very far away except for the one across the street and not visible. So moving on though, the other thing of course is the color we talked about. There's also quite a few steel elements that are being proposed for both the ADU and the, the new residence. You, I think you called out that you did not recommend approval of those elements. Correct. That is correct. Okay. And then I couldn't really tell from the drawings the details on for example the corners, the radius of the corners of proposed construction or the depth of the reveals for the windows and doors. Do you know what they are? There's not an actual number to it, but I would say it's probably 2 inches or less. And where did you see that? I just didn't see any reference whatsoever to the... Just from the design. It's not, it's not in writing. Okay. Well, I guess we can confirm that with the applicant because again, this is most, we're required to ensure that it appears to be made out of adobe. Okay. And then moving on to the residence, one of the issues is the height. Apparently you calculated that the allowed height is, well not apparently, you did calculate, staff calculated that the allowed height is 16 feet 9 inches. This application is for an additional 4-foot property that would be 20 feet 9 inches, on the basis of a request that the board exercise its discretion due to the sloping site to add an additional 4 feet. Do I have that correct, that we would need to exercise our discretion in order to permit that additional 4 feet? Yes. And that discretion would be informed, I assume, by the streetscape again? Yes. And then, same issues, I think, about the details, about the color, the steel elements that you're recommending not be approved, the corners and the reveals. So we can clarify that with the applicant. I think I covered everything. Those are the three structures and the issues that we have to resolve, right? Yes. I would agree. Questions or comments, board members? I have another comment in reference to the exterior insulation, and I wanted the architect on our board to comment why it is not a good idea to put insulation on the exterior of buildings. Madam Chair, there are several ways to insulate the exterior of a building. One would be to use spray foam insulation, which is actually an air barrier. That would not be the right material to use because it would not allow the wall to breathe. There are other types of insulation that would not be such an air barrier. Rockwool insulation, for one, is very permeable. So I don't know that we have any specification for that type of insulation, but there are types of insulation. Is that insulation that would be used exteriorly or interior? Rockwool insulation can be used exterior. It's inert. It's not subject to deterioration with repeated wetting and drying that would sometimes happen. Okay, thank you. There are no further questions at this point. Applicant, would you come forward, please, and state your name, address, and get sworn in? My name is Gabriel Brown. I live at 7604 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Gabriel, do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. He has been sworn. Madam Chair, thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for getting to this business this evening. I appreciate it. I understand that you're unpaid volunteers, and I appreciate your time and your dedication and the many, many meetings that you spend listening to all kinds of things, including historic cases from time to time. So thank you for that. I hope you'll agree that it's appropriate for me to share with you my connection to and appreciation for the architecture of Santa Fe. I'm a fifth-generation Santa Fean. My adult children are the sixth generation. I pray someday for perhaps a seventh generation of grandchildren that might run around this house someday. I grew up on job sites in Northern New Mexico, quite literally. The oldest picture of me is as a toddler sitting in a pile of viga shavings where my mom shaved the vigas with her draw knife. My father and brother made the adobes in the house that I grew up in. And one of the other oldest pictures of me is a little picture of me with a tiny little trowel, sort of rounding over a little adobe fragment until it looked kind of like a house. That was my first architectural foray. I think I was three or four. I'm educated at the University of New Mexico and in Chicago. In that process, I came to appreciate regional modernism. I came to appreciate the idea that a building should be appropriate to its place in a way that expresses a unique cultural connection and also to its present, to its time. I worked as a student summers plastering, framing, and demolition, and on demolition crews. I designed and built my first home for paying clients in 1989 when I was 20 years old. My goal for this project is to create a family compound, a home for my wife and I, a casita for my mom who struggles with stairs. I believe you might have met my daughter today who opened the gate for you. She lives across the street in the structure that we've been referring to. It's on the lower right-hand section of that screen there. That's a property that myself and my family remodeled. My mom lives in one of the units, and my daughter lives in the other. My mom struggles with the stairs, so we need something on the same level as the street. I've approached each of my neighbors all around the project, shown them the design, met with them individually, heard their concerns, addressed their concerns in the design I put before you today. And I have a letter that I will hand out here in a minute from each of them suggesting that they support the design and understand it. It is a big and sort of complex package to put in front of you. I will not review all of the details of the design. I trust that Lanny's presentation and the drawings will stand us in good stead in terms of understanding that. I have requested two exceptions. The first is on two facades of the building shed elevation, on the building shed. So there are, I'm counting correctly, five or six, six facades of that building. On four of them, I intend to put exterior insulation and stucco. And on the two elevations that remain, I would ask to do the same. I would ask to be able to put insulation on the exterior of those. One of the, it is possible to insulate the interior of a building. When you do that, the typical insulations you use are thicker, and they take up space, and that's a very small building. And I hope to use it for a shed and a shop as it is now, but I don't want to give up 10% of the floor area for insulation. And I think I would likely have to do that. So for that reason and others, I'd like to insulate the exterior of the building instead of the other. The other important reason is that adobe buildings have worked in this context, this climate context, for many years because of the thermal mass. The building is very heavy. It cools off at night and stays cool during the day. So when we get our peak temperatures here of 90 or 95 degrees, the inside of an adobe home, as many of us know, is still a comfortable place to be. And that's because of its thermal mass. And if you add insulation to the interior, that effect goes away. You essentially are creating a refrigerator box. It's well insulated, but it doesn't protect, doesn't have that thermal mass property. So on those two elevations, I would ask that you grant me permission to add insulation to the exterior of those two facades. On the main house, I do have exterior details made in steel. I think this is an appropriate material even in the historic district. I think you see it all around the historic district, although it's been somewhat repressed. I think it's a beautiful material. I think it has longevity. I think it lasts much better than wood details, which tend to sort of fracture and fall apart over time. And for those reasons, I ask that you exception. I do want to clear up a few things. So I have been working on this project for several years in terms of design. I did so based on the information that I would be allowed to do a pitched roof building, and that was my experience and expectation. I would point out that the building across the street that we're referring to that I remodeled about 10 years ago is pitched roof and is shown as flat in this assessment that Lanny did. So that would put us over 50%. If we added that, that was done without an exception. I was told at that time that there were at least 50% of pitched roofs in that streetscape. And so I designed and built that project, and I think it's beautiful and really successful and a great example of what we can do in the historic district. And I'd like to repeat that again on the front of this property. In terms of stucco color, this is the color that I have in mind. It's a kind of light beige. It's called Rustic Taupe. It's not on the officially approved list, but I think, I hope that you would find that to be acceptable. There was one small thing about Lanny's presentation. I want to mention that all of the windows on the ADU will be divided light, although she was correct about some of the windows being divided light on the main house and those not visible not being so that all of the windows on the ADU would be divided light. I think really that is my presentation and my request, and I'd be glad to answer any additional questions. You agree that you know that neighborhood fairly well, correct? So if you're standing in front of your property and you look 600, you go 600 feet to the right and 600 feet to the left on both sides of the street, that there are really not many pitched roof homes, correct? Would you agree with that statement? I think you don't see many from the street. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Also, in terms of the question that was asked earlier about the radius, are you planning on making, having this, the two different homes, rounded corners? I prefer a squarer corner, as again, we did across the street, but I'm open. You know, that's a dialogue point that I'd be glad to follow the board's. Which recent Santa Fe style indicates that to emulate old Santa Fe style to have rounded corners and have a certain radius. I agree. I don't think that that's necessarily a historic dictate. It is certainly in the code, and I don't disagree with that. Again, across the street, we did a beautiful building. It has a clay plaster. It's one of the few buildings in Santa Fe that are not stuccoed. It has a natural clay plaster that we did ourselves. And I think it's really beautiful. It has fairly sharp corners. They're not super sharp. And I think it's beautiful. One of the challenges that I recognize you have as a board is that you have a code document that says some very specific things about some a very few number of things, and then you have the sort of general idea that we want something and we recognize it when we see it that's beautiful and reminds us of the best of Santa Fe and the best of New Mexico and our thousand-year-old building tradition. And so on the one hand, when we say, "Well, it has to be more than 50%," and it in fact is more than 50% technically, I find it disingenuous to say that and then say, "But we can't see very many of them." Well, the code doesn't say how many you can see. It says how many are in the streetscape according to the calculations that Lanny did and her predecessor did before that when I remodeled the previous building 12 years ago. So I, you know, I'm also frankly invested in that aesthetic, and I'm invested in that in the design time that I spent doing it based on what I think was a reasonable recommendation. Sorry. We see other board members. What questions they've got? Board members. Yes, Member Simmons. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Brown, we've not met. I believe you are, are you a licensed architect? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. I have a strictly architectural question here. Given that there's a contributing building to a historic district on this site, could you explain your design logic then to create three very different-looking structures from each other when the codes and standards and ordinances strongly suggest that you refer to the contributing building? Yeah, I'd be glad to. I think that the architecture we're emulating was built slowly over time by people who could afford to do so, one room at a time. And again, I'm using the example of the project across the street. That project is actually on two legal lots of record. It was built by at least four different craftsmen at four different times and had four different roof shapes. I think that a certain amount, I mean, this is a judgment call, but I think a certain amount of differentiation is part of the tradition and I think interesting. And that's really where I came up with the design decision. We have a kind of territorial style building with the white doors and the brick molding, and I didn't want to repeat that. That would stand off. And the code also suggests that we don't, you know, that we're not, that we don't want too much emulation. It's looking, I think, for a dialogue. And perhaps you felt like I've stepped too far away. That's fair. I'm really not seeing the dialogue. I'm not seeing a conversation amongst three buildings. I'm seeing three completely separate buildings that really speak three different languages. I was just curious as to how you respond to the requirement in the code to make things tie together. I think they're all recent Santa Fe, or I think two of them are recent Santa Fe style and within that, within that. Okay, I'll move on. Could you explain to me, this is a good drawing you have up in the front here. What is the distance from the grade line of the lower window to the top of the parapet of that wall? Sure. You see the two pairs of windows, right? So from the grade line, the line of, so what am I looking at there? Is that, okay. And then what is the grade line below? If you step away from the podium, you do need. Sorry. Yep. Okay. What am I looking at here at the bottom of the window? Is that, is that a new grade that's going to step down? Yes. And that will be behind the grade line that we'll see from the street? It's behind the, it's behind the shed building that you'll see from the street. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Then what is the, can you tell me roughly what the dimension is from the sill of the bottom window to the top of the parapet? So, is this part of the exception that you're asking for, is to allow that? No. No. The historic code measures the building from the existing natural grade, which, sorry, try that again. Okay. The historic code measures the height of a building from the average of the lowest and highest point of existing or natural grade. So if we take the more restrictive, in that case, is the average of the lowest and the highest point of the natural grades. And so those are called out. Step away from the podium. So is that natural grade going to remain after the house is built? This natural grade does remain. After the house is built? Okay. This isn't, this is a, this is a new grade, a not natural grade. Okay. So if you're going to measure from the lowest point of the highest and the lowest point of the finish grade, that would be the average of that and that, which is higher than the average of that. Okay. This, again, this elevation is a good example here. As an architect, I can kind of discern some of your hopes and aspirations here. But it looks like the large window there under the portal, from in the orthographic view, it looks like it's three feet as our code requires. And then if you look 90 degrees to that on the, I think that's the west elevation that I'm talking about, that that would also appear to be three feet. But if you were, I mean, three feet, but if you were to rotate around 45 degrees from there and you would look at an angle to that corner, you wouldn't see that three-foot mass. I appreciate parsing of building codes and finding clever design maneuvers that comply with the letter of the code. I think in this instance, though, there's a spirit of the code that is not being addressed. And I'm not certain that that three-foot rule is completely met. Just an observation. Then the last question I have is, and I understand, you know, diagrammatically how you want the two, the ADU and the principal structure to kind of relate to each other across a courtyard. It seems that the ADU by design is sort of turning its back on the street. I just wondered if there is a way to perhaps make that elevation appear to be a little more friendly to the street and less turning its back. What are your thoughts about that? Sorry. From a practical standpoint, that street is dusty and noisy. So I think to some extent, the form and shape and location of that building are to protect that courtyard. I think it would be possible to add additional windows to that side that would, that would open it up a little bit more. I think, you know, I guess some of my favorite projects in Santa Fe and some of my favorite regional projects are really, you know, really push, I mean, I've done both in this project, but really push that wall dominated, especially along the street. I think that's the Mexican tradition that we come out of where it's really sort of almost nothing, or if there's something there, it's shuttered. And so I was playing with that. Okay, thank you. I think I have one more question here. Just a comment here. I understand what you're trying to do with the portal, with the steel columns and the steel beams. I personally don't regard those as ornament. I think that it's, in my personal opinion, I think that it's acceptable to do exposed steel. And I personally particularly enjoy doing oxidized steel. I've done that on quite a number of my own houses and numerous other buildings. I don't particularly see that being, I know the staff hasn't recommended that. I know this is something that's been popular previously in Santa Fe. It's sort of less used now, but I don't really have an objection to that material. And I also think that, you know, the steel material, would that also be on the accessory dwelling unit roof? Correct. I see. Okay. You know, it's a, it's a natural material. It, it's, uh, fits very well, I think, in our, our western landscape. So, I, I think that that would be, I don't find an objection to that. So thank you. One last question here. Do you have the technological capability of generating perspective drawings? I do, and I brought a model today. Oh, that would be great if we could look at that. Display it if you can come to the podium, please. While we're waiting, perhaps I could ask another question about the insulation. You mentioned that if you were to insulate the interior space that you would lose 10% of your floor area. I don't remember the statistics, but basically if I added a 2x6 worth of insulation to the interior, it would be roughly 10% of the floor area. And I'm under no obligation to do it on four of the walls or five of the walls. Two that are really in question. And I think the detail, while I don't love the kind of battering under the brick coping detail, I couldn't think of another way to get the insulation I wanted, get the, and get proper protection for the stucco, et cetera. And changing that at two, at four corners, changing from not doing that to doing that, not doing that to doing that, not doing that, and back again. It felt really awkward when I'd done it. This is the view along Sanacio. This is the view of the coyote fence with the traditional pilasters and the trellis. That's the elevation of the ADU, which I, as we wrap the corner again. This is, you would sort of see this angle from Sonicasio. You're seeing the rusty red metal roof and the very sort of simplified elevations of those two. That's the elevation of the main house. The elevation of the, of the shed and garage building stay very much like it is. Didn't spend much energy modeling that. This is the neighbor's sort of coyote fence that's already there. So we're sort of picking up on the language. This is very, very helpful. Can you back that out so that you would be standing right in the middle of the street at eye level and show us what it would look like from that perspective? And then perhaps if you could pan up and down the street just so our other members here can have a look at that. So most of the home disappears behind, and I mean, in fact, on the street, you'd be so close that the house actually disappears, most of it. A little bit hard to do upside down, remember? Yeah. It's the intention. It is. It's the best part of my job is building stats. Member Simmons, do you have any further questions? No further questions. Other members of the board, do you have questions at this point or comments? Madam Chair, so now that we're looking at this, what's the, is that a trellis out in front next to the street in front of the ADU? Yes, member. Okay. And then what was the little structure next to that? The intention would be that it was a trash enclosure. Today was Tuesday. While you were out there, noticed that every single property on the house has three or four trash barrels out front. So I was hoping to create a little trash enclosure. And what is it? How, how's it designed? If we can look at it. The design is essentially stucco covered insulated concrete forms or very simple stucco walls on the back and the two sides. On the top would be steel lids and steel lids on the front or steel doors on the front so that you could open it up and pull the trash. Okay. The steel issue is a debate or discussion for another day perhaps. But the reason that staff requires an exception for that is not because steel might not be an acceptable material in the Southwest, but that it's not deemed an acceptable material in our historic district because it's non-traditional in that area. But as I say, that's a, that's a large discussion for down the road. It is because I have corrugated steel pipe at my house in a historic district. Yeah. No, I know that there's steel. You can find steel now because it's been approved from time to time either by staff. It's been done without authorization and sometimes it's been approved by the board, but at least the last six or seven years has been deemed to be something that needs an exception in our district. I think the steel roof, I think the steel roof has been in the historic, steel roofs have been in the historic district for many years. Metal for roofing has always been treated differently. Yes. Other questions? Did you have anything? Thank you, Madam Chair. I have actually a question for Lanny or for staff about the calculation of the pitch calculation and the height calculation. I think, I think it might be important just to go over this in detail because, I mean, our code has few explicitly quantifiable limits and this one is over 50%. I don't, I don't see, I see 17 structures and maybe you can clarify if one of these is not being included because it's behind another house. If we, I don't know if we can look at the calculation on the screen. You could maybe clarify which properties are being used for the height allowable height calculation and for the pitch percentage. Okay. The, the height is actually using any of, any of the numbers that are not crossed out. So the height calculation is including all of the numbers that are not hidden. And then the pitch calculation is any of the houses that have a P on them means that it's a pitched roof, and those are the ones that are being used for that calculation. Everything else in that streetscape for the pitch is considered flat, right? And are you counting, so I think there's 17 houses for the height calculation. Then are you also using that number for total buildings? There's 16 in the pitch calculation, eight of which are pitched. I count, if I count all the ones that are not crossed out, I say 17, right? So the height calculation, for some reason, he used some numbers that are not on the streetscape. Anything that's behind another house is not usually used for the streetscape, for the height. Correct. Okay. So, does that change the, is the allowable height correctly calculated? I'm just wondering if that's inconsistent if we're using some number for the height and some number for the pitch. We're only excluding one number, one of those houses for the pitch, which is the 14.4. Correct. Okay. So then, and then I think the allowable height is actually, if it includes that one, is actually a little bit less than this. I think I get 14.4, 14 feet 4 inches. Yeah, I'm not the one that did this height calculation, so I'm not sure how they... Yeah, I just, I think that it just sounds, it seems to me like they're, it's the correct numbers except for that one. With respect to the pitch, you know, we haven't noticed an exception in this case. I think it does require one since the code reads over 50% pretty clearly. And so I don't think we can actually address that tonight without a noticed exception, unless the applicant is open to a redesign that excludes a pitched roof. And I guess I have some other comments about just the general design. I know most of, many of these elements aren't visible from the road, but there is a lot of glass in this building, which is an attractive design. It just really doesn't, in my mind, fit the characteristic of this very rural, historic street with lots of smaller buildings, as evidenced by the contributing building that sort of sets the stage for this property. I noticed that the design includes a three-foot basement walkout in a portion of one of the newer buildings, you know, indicating that you're, I'm not sure if there's any consideration about going down further to set this building more into the grade if that's possible to avoid the height exception. I think the height in this, I mean, the, the, the road slopes on both sides of the road. So the houses that are below, you know, on the, on the north side of the road, you know, can be taller without impacting the street in the same way that this property does. So I think the pitch is like even more emphasized because of that. And then just some of the angles of the walls and the floor plan kind of, I mean, your, your model is really helpful. So thank you for doing that. It just, it doesn't, doesn't seem to like a sort of traditional characteristic, sort of presentation to the street to have things at an angle when most of the houses sort of face the road deliberately on this, on this particular street. I have some concerns about the steel, especially where it's used over glass, you know, presenting in a pretty unmasked form. It's like very thin looking. I have some concerns about the aluminum windows and the mixture of divided lights with undivided lights. I think it, it's preferable to have the same window style on a single building and rather than a mix, but I understand what you're doing to try to meet the code. Yeah, and then the, the elastomeric stucco on the historic building is not something that we can approve. We require cementitious stucco on contributing buildings. And then the last thing I'll comment on is the, the result of the proposed insulation addition results in a coping on that building that looks stepped. So you have maybe the original coping and then a step down where you have additional four-inch coping and then the new insulated wall. That, that changes the characteristic of the building we were trying to protect. It had a flat facade on the front and all sides. So I wonder if there's another solution to addressing the coping. Maybe it requires, you know, replacement of the coping or, or something like that. Thank you. I will open it for public comment. And if you are going to comment on this particular project, you will be limited to two minutes. Anybody in this room wanting to comment on this particular project? If so, please come forward. It appears nobody. Is there anyone online? Oh, wait. There's Elizabeth West. Yes, Elizabeth, you need to get sworn in. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. Elizabeth West, 318 Senate Street in the South Capitol. Thank you, Elizabeth. Do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. On that north, is it the north elevation, the one we see from the street? Is that right? I was wondering about the wall between, yeah, that wall that's sort of a protective thing. I'm sorry, I'm not able to read these, what are they called, elevations as well as I should. It, it feels as if the wall that's there protecting whatever is behind it kind of overlaps but doesn't seem to fit with the windows and with the, the supports for the portal and whether the support, I mean, the supports look very metallic, whether they're metallic or not, to, to Member Simmons' comments. They're, they're rather thin and spindly looking, which automatically doesn't happen when you have wood. It just is one of those advantages of the older style. But I'm wondering about that wall. I don't know how to talk about it. It feels as if it's floating out there, kind of embarrassed or something. I, I, I can't figure it out. There's a lot of confusion and maybe it's, I didn't go and look at the property and this is one I probably should have because I, I'm finding it fascinating. And then the, well, of course, my minutes are up, but the, the very angular way the design is, is that, it's just showing the different heights. We're going up a hill, right? It's not going to look like that. It's not going to be all chopped up and rectilinear, I hope. So, anyway, I'm, I'm curious about what that wall is doing aesthetically. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. If there is no one else in this room, is there anyone online? Yes. We have Miss Benonato. And Stephanie, you need to get sworn in. Yeah. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Miss Benato, do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. I think that this design doesn't really, it's not really compatible with the general streetscape and the idea of old or new Santa Fe style. It's very modern. It's not new. And new means that you use different materials, but you get it to look like an adobe building with mass. And I find it to be very stark. I don't know if on the one side, those are like steps going all the way up. So it's going to be paved all the way going up the hill. I don't think steel is appropriate. It might be okay for the portal roof, but I don't think it's appropriate for the windows or for the support on the portal. I'm not sure why you can't set it down more. So you don't need the additional height. And I don't think the guest unit, the ADU, really, really fits at all. And I, I, I think the slope is way too much. And I think you need to know what the slope is surrounding. And if the other roofs have changed over time so that you don't really have more than 50% there, I think that's important to know. And I, I find it very disconcerting the kinds of windows that are going to be in there. Some are like very modern looking. And I know they're not visible, but they really don't portray Santa Fe style at all. And then, the trellis too, I think, is just, just kind of doesn't fit. It's very distracting really on the front. And as far as the contributing building, maybe you just don't insulate two of the walls and you insulate the others more heavily to offset the loss from those walls because again, adobe, it's not really a great insulated value and you're right, you need to insulate it from the outside, but I think in this case, it, it presents a lot of problems because of the brick coping. So anyway, I appreciate many of the members' comments and I hope that there'll be some design redesign on this building. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Hold on. Chair Rios, I see no other hands raised at this time. Members, if you have nothing further to ask or comment on, I will entertain a motion at this point. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not ready to make a motion, but I would like to hear from the applicant if you're willing to entertain a redesign or based on what you've heard tonight. I, I, I don't want to presume, but I think there's a chance we're not going to be able to approve this as submitted tonight. I don't know if you would consider some of the comments you've heard and think about things you might be willing to adjust in your design. If that's necessary to get this house built, I would do that. I, I, I'm not sure I've been given enough specific direction to be able to find, and, and I, I think this format is not conducive to that. So, I, I, I, if we, we could have had a voterama like they have in the Senate and we could sort of get show of hands for which elements are supported and which are not. You know, this doesn't make sense, but I don't know of another way to sort of get the feedback that I need in order to be able to redesign. I'm afraid I would be back in front of you with something unacceptable. I mean, I think that we need to, okay, so the pitched roof house is 733 square feet, but that's the question. Are there enough pitched homes in the area to merit to include a pitched roof in this area? That's number one in my view. Number two, are there too many, I'm hearing from board members, too many modernistic elements in it? I heard Member Simmons indicate that he liked some of these elements and other members indicate that the steel elements are inappropriate for this. And in opposition to what the ordinance tells us, and you members have indicated that there, there are three different architectural styles speaking to you here. So, sounds to me like a postponement, but somebody needs to make a motion to give the applicant a little bit of a clearer direction to, to come before us again and I'll perhaps have his project. Anybody ready to do that? Well, just as a by way of comment first, I, I agree with Member Beachside's instinct to ask the question because basically, we don't want to do postponements if, if that's not what an applicant is interested in receiving because you're entitled to a decision. So that if it's a decision against you, you can take it on appeal to the governing body or the district court. So we don't normally postpone unless the applicant gives us an indication of a willingness to try to modify the design according to the comments that have been made in lieu of an outright denial. Of course, I'm, I'm not saying that the, I mean, maybe the project will be approved. I don't know. But based on the comments I've heard and the motion I would make, it would be a denial as submitted. So that's why the question is being asked. Is that something you'd be interested in? Would you prefer just to get a decision and move on or would you prefer to, to attempt a redesign? Your choice. I feel like the right path forward for me is to appease this board and get your approval. I'm not interested in pursuing another path. I do want to build this house, and I want to do so with your approval. Okay. Well, that's extremely helpful, and I appreciate that. We don't want to be appeased necessarily, but I understand your perspective on that. We just want to make sure that whatever gets approved abides by the code. Okay. Well, I think we can, I guess I should add that I do think we could, I don't think that the shed would necessarily be something that would need to be postponed because I think it's probably not possible to redesign in a way that would meet the concerns of the board. So I would break this up, Madam Chair, and make a motion, a separate motion with regard to the shed, and then a second motion. Okay. So my motion would be in 202612284 HDRB 1062 Camino Santa Aasio, just with respect to the aspects of the application relating to the shed, which has been designated as a contributing shed and garage. I would move that the recommendations of staff with respect to the exception criteria for addition of exterior insulation be adopted as findings to the board, specifically that those exception criteria have not been met in this instance. That the project be otherwise approved on condition that the existing texture and color of the stucco be matched as closely as possible and that it be cementitious. Is there a second to this motion? Second. Don, may I ask a question? Yes. Yeah. Mr. Be, are you including a height issue? Are you addressing? For the respect to the shed? Just the shed. Oh, yeah. They're not touring. Okay. And thank you. Are you indicating the color of the framing? Of the doors, the windows, frames. To be maintained as is. And this is the garage and? No, you're right. I didn't. So I add that to the motion. Garage and shed, John. Yes. Okay. Second. Just a clarifying question. Are we including the metal, I think it's a metal flashing on top of the coping? Well, that's already in existence. So, okay. I mean, I think we'd all prefer that it not be there, but I don't know that that's. Yeah. Thank you. All right. You're just addressing that aspect right now. Just the shed and garage, just because I think that the applicant, that part, I think you would want to just get a decision on. Right. Just know where we're at on that one. The other one's more complicated. Just one clarification question. The application suggests dark window colors, and I think you just said maintain. I just. Yes. Maintaining the colors that are there on the contributing building. White. The stucco and the framing. Roll call vote, please. Member Simmons. Yes. Member DGEN. Yes. Member Bishide. Yes. Member Benu. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. So we need another motion. So also in case 2026 R12284 HDRB at 1062 Camino Sanasio with respect to the remainder of the application, specifically the application for construction of an ADU and the primary residence, and move to postpone to a date certain to allow the applicant an opportunity for a redesign, taking into account concerns expressed by the board with respect to the existing design. Also taking into account in discussion with staff as to whether or not an exception, well, we should just have staff determine. I'd ask that staff determine whether an exception would be necessary for a pitched roof under our, under their calculations. And then if exceptions are necessary, that the applicant be consulted as to whether or not they seek to pursue such exceptions or to redesign to a non-pitched roof. All the remaining issues. I don't think it would be profitable to go through one by one, but they will all be in the video, and I would encourage the applicant to review the comments of the board. Is there a second to this motion? Go ahead. Inside seconds. And also, you're not addressing the fence in the front of the property. No, I would include the fence as part of the requested redesign and also the structure for the garbage cans. Please. Yes, Madam Chair. If I may, I have just one question for you. Member Benu, you stated to date certain, but you didn't state the date certain. That's up to staff because I don't know what date to. Work with the applicant. If staff can work with the applicant. I was assuming certain, meaning if you give me a date, I'll insert it into the. Certainly approve of it. But I can't, I can't provide that. Okay. The June 23rd is. It might be a little too. Is soon, and. Yeah, and then it has to be an exception. So it needs to be noticed. So we have July 14th, your case. So you would have to work with staff to get the appropriate dates, and we couldn't date certain at this time. Motion modified accordingly. Okay. So we have a second. Second stands. Yes. Thank you. Member Simmons. Member DGEN. Yes. Member Bish. Yes. Member Benu. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you, Mr. Brown. We'll see you in the future. Next case is located 616 Aim. And Amanda, may we hear your case report? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. One moment, please. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I am, just give me a moment here to switch hats. Okay. This is a very exciting property. We have 2020 case number 20261512 HDRB. This is 616 A Secure Mother in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. Our applicant is here tonight, Miss Barbara Felix. And this main structure of this property is significant. And this is the north, sorry, the north side of the, the north facade. So, I just want to go into a lot of detail in this property. So if you can bear with me for a few minutes. Okay. So this is a classic Territorial Revival. It was constructed in 1925 on an alfalfa field purchased from Candido Hera, and it was designed by the owner, Miss Eva Scott Finnies, and her daughter, Leona Muse Curtin, without any assistance from an architect, and built by Charles Campbell. Miss Benny's came to Santa Fe in 1888, and four generations of the family had lived into the house as to date to the 1980s. It is known variously as the Curtin House and the Palomino House. Mr. Polyimo is a native of Finland, and until his retirement, representing the Scandinavian interest in the Southwest. His strong interest in historic preservation has, among other things, moved him to establish Lasan Lenos, reconstructed Spanish-American settlement in the vicinity of Santa Fe. The house itself is one of the clearest examples of Territorial Revival in the district, and note should be taken of the brick wall dental coping on the parapet, the pediment window frames, and linear facade. The use of the corbels rather than capitals on the indented porch is more of a feature of Pervo Revival. So that was taken out of the Camino del Sol Historic Architectural Survey that the City of Santa Fe adopted, and it was done in 1984. So again, this house was built in 1927, and I'm going to just go over the different facades with you. Here, here we have the, the west facades. The west facade. And in this portion of the building, there was an enclosed sitting porch area that was enclosed, I believe, by the Lumpkins. And that was in the 70s, I believe, and that was considered, still considered historic. So the applicant has requested a downgrade from significant to contributing for this particular structure. Here we have the east elevation and the south elevations. Secondly, we have the guest house, which originally, I want to just go into the addressing really quickly. The main residence was 614 A Madre, and what is called the living quarters barn was 616 until 2025. The applicant changed the 614 into 616 main residence and 616 into the accessory structure. So here is the north elevation of the accessory structure. You can see the barn doors were here. It's very much intact of the original. Here we have an, this is still the north elevation and the west elevation, and here we have the south elevation. So when we went on the site visit today, this portion here is removed. So we will be speaking to our historic inspector to go out and issue a stop work order. I don't know if anything else will be done in that, but that was there during site visit, and now it has been removed as our site visit today. So the reason why I am, I just want to go in this garage area for a moment. We have, we have a Hickby that was done, and I believe 2006, and we have a document here from then manager David Rash, I apologize, showing this as a contributing building. But as we were looking into finer detail of the historic inventory, the Camino de Montesole Historic Architectural Survey, it identifies the structure, which is the guest house, as significant as well. So staff is going without a significant because that was adopted. So next, I have a facade diagram. So, I initially was going to recommend, or my staff report recommends that 98 and seven facade on the accessory structure be an exclusion, but that is the facade that is now gone. So again, I want to say per 14.14-4.6 designation of a significant contributing or non-contributing status within the historic districts. Staff recommends the historic status main resident structure be maintained as significant with all facades as primary, and the guest house to be designated as significant, all facades as primary. There is one other structure on the property, which we are referring to as a horse barn in the other quarters. I believe it is on the south side of the property. Staff did not find enough information to make recommendation on this or the yard walls, but that is to be in consideration on a future status before anything can be done with that structure. I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda. Any questions or comments, board members at this point? It appears not. May we have the applicant to come forward? Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. 28 Crystal Ball Lane, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Do you declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Please proceed. Thank you all for the consideration. Thank you all for having us, me and our client, who is unfortunately out of town this evening, here to talk about this important property. I don't think there's a person in this room, and I welcome all my friends, who don't think this is an important property. So I just want to say, I did not lightly go in and say, I think we should downgrade this and we should just chuck it. That is not the intent of this. So, I want to back up for just a brief second and talk a little bit about, first, a little clarification on Andrea's report, on Amanda's report. The barn is in fact that little tiny building with the corral that is actually historically the barn in the corral. And the accessory structure that Amanda is referencing is in fact always been a garage and a keeper's. So it was never a barn. It looks like it has barn doors, but they're garage doors. Okay. So I think there's a couple of things. I have worked, I've been honored to work on this property with the previous owner as well as the current owner since 2018. The Madre House Foundation through Los Golandrinas had brought me in in 2018 to actually look at doing historic structure reports on the two structures. I don't know why those never made it to you, but they never did. And so I have a real personal connection and love for these buildings and this property. I think most of you who know the work that I do in Santa Fe and Northern New Mexico know how much I care about the stories we tell, the culture we have, the ability for our buildings and our architecture to be another kind of love language for what we do. I also know that this building has had some complexities, right? I think it was before, I'm not sure who it came before, a couple years ago. It was not with me, right? Where the question was, could it be used for a different use other than a residence? I know at that point there was a large human outcry by the neighbors. And I think these owners, the Juice Bosches, care greatly about the property. They like Acequia Madre. They're very comfortable and fortunate. They already live on the street. They're looking at this as becoming kind of one of their prime residences. And they love the property because it's so big. I will tell you that when the property went for sale before the Juice Bosches purchased it, because there's enough realtors in town who know the work that we do, I got a number of phone calls from different developers saying, "Hey, that property can be split up into 24 different residences." I think we're incredibly fortunate to have an owner and a family who's very interested in actually having this property be retained and actually go back to being a family home. I think that's something we often lose in historic properties. We lose actually what the original use was. Now I'm going to read a little bit. So again, as Amanda said, the three wise women, Eva Scott Fenz, her daughter Lenora Scott Muse Curtain, and her granddaughter Lenora Francis Curtain Palaho, obviously are well known and beloved in not only the Native American community here in Santa Fe, but also the Hispanic community here in Santa Fe. They did a number of different art things. They helped start the Spanish market. They helped start the Native American market. So again, they're very well known for the art and the care that they brought into the community. The current owners, the Juice Bosches, as I mentioned, have previously rehabilitated historic structures. They purchased this property in large part because it was sitting there empty. They have a love for the neighborhood. They have appreciation for what makes Acequia Madre so special and their recognition for how special the house and the garage and guest house are and frankly how big the property is and the fact that it has not yet been developed or subdivided. And their intent is to actually go ahead and use it as a house with a guest house and garage. However, they, like all of us, do not live in the 1920s or the 1930s, which is when the majority of the work occurred. So as Amanda mentioned, if you look at this image and you can see the two white small rectilinear windows on the left, that was actually the original sun porch in the 1930s. So the house was built in 1927. Very quickly, the mother and daughter realized they wanted a sleeping sun porch. They built it there. And then they realized somewhere back into the 70s that they wanted to enclose that and then move the sun porch to what you now see is on the right side with the four large windows. So I think their intention always has been that this house should move and react to how people live in it. The other thing that I want to point out is on this picture, the upper left picture, you can see that there is a small wood structure. And those of you who are on the site visit today, that's a sauna. And then there are two small changing rooms attached to that. So Mr. Palaho, because of his roots, wanted a sauna. And in the 70s when they did that screened-in porch, they also put in a pool, changing rooms, and a sauna. You notice there is no pool. So keeping the sauna and the changing rooms for a non-existent use in my mind doesn't necessarily make sense for where we are moving today in a house in a structure that should be able to continue to very minimally, slightly breathe. I know there's been a lot of consternation in the city about what is historic and what is not historic, and I certainly don't want to add to that mix. I do believe that one of the most important philosophies for me personally is that historic preservation, and again, this is also to the city code, right? Is the notion that buildings which are historic are used, right? They're loved. They're beloved. They actually become part of the community fabric. And I again, I don't think there's any question that the Acequia Madre house and the property is part of the community fabric. But in the code, it also says that there is recognition that most structures change over time. I realize I'm parsing that out a little bit. And the way the code probably intends that is in a building that's 50 or 100 years old, if changes have occurred, that's okay. The reason I'm requesting the downgrade or have requested the downgrade isn't because we want to change the north side. It isn't because we want to change the main love of what this building is. It's because we know in the past the three wise women made changes to the south side of the property where it's not publicly visible and we're hoping that we can do a little bit of that to make this house livable for the 2020s. This is a family that is interested in aging in place. They're interested in having doors that are the right width. They're interested in actually keeping the building as a residence. For me, buildings are living, breathing things and having a little bit of room again to have a little ability to slide. In no way does this mean that these current residents or owners are interested in any way of demolishing this. I know the fine point is I'm going to leave this room, they're going to leave this room in 50 years. Somebody else is going to buy the building and maybe there's a concern again. So, I would like to just reiterate what my recommendations are. I would like it if the garage and guest house, as I had written in the original letter, was designated as contributing. And I understand why Amanda and staff are noting it as significant because it is in fact listed in the Camino Del Monte Sol Historic District. But again, it is an accessory structure. It was always meant to be secondary to the main house and somehow by that reasoning it makes sense to me that it's contributing and in fact not the significant. I would like the ability, obviously the shed got removed. I'm not sure when that happened. I do know that the shed was unsafe and there was a lot of concern by the family about how unsafe that was. I think in terms of looking if the building was to be contributed, again, I don't think there's any concern with any of us saying that the north facade, which would be facades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, are seen as primary facades. There is no question that the importance of these two street fronts on the north side of both the garage and guest house building and the main house building is critically important to the fabric of the neighborhood. Nobody wants to change that. I realize that I have asked for the downgrade to contributing on the main house. I still would love to have that. I don't think you're going to do that. I don't think these fine people here are going to help me recommend that. But I would like the opportunity to actually be able to remove the sauna and changing rooms, which would be facades 14, 15, 16, on that back portion. Because again, I think keeping spaces and functions for a non-functioning use doesn't necessarily make sense for where we want to go. And I also stand for questions. Thank you. What is the square footage of the main house? Amanda: I knew you were going to ask that. I have no idea. Amanda: Do you know? Amanda: Oh, it's in the... If you could give me a moment, Madam Chair, to look up that information. I do not have that on the top of my head. Okay. Also, do you have the definitions of contributing and significant at your fingertips? Amanda: Yes. One moment. You could read those quickly. I've got them up here. You want me to read them, Amanda? Or Maggie, do you have them? Would you read those? Or do you want me to start with significant or contributing? Contributing. Okay. So a contributing structure is a structure located in a historic district approximately 50 years old or older that helps to establish and maintain the character of that historic district. Although a contributing structure is not unique in itself, it adds to the historic associations or historic architectural design qualities that are significant for a district. A contributing structure may have had minor alterations, but its integrity remains. And then a significant structure is a structure located in a historic district that is approximately 50 years old or older and that embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. For a structure to be designated as significant, it must retain a high level of historic integrity. A structure may be designated as significant: A, for its association with events or persons that are important on a local, regional, national, or global level; or B, if it is listed on or is eligible to be listed on the State Register of Cultural Properties or the National Register of Historic Places. You're welcome. Question. Thank you, Manager. I have a question for Ms. Felix. Could you elaborate a little bit more for us on why it is necessary to downgrade this wonderful historic structure? What purpose? What are the intentions there for the new owners? Madam Chair, point of order. Is that an appropriate inquiry at this stage? No, we can, Member Dickman, excuse me, but we cannot go into deep details. Tonight we are simply addressing the historic status of the building, and I think that the applicant has indicated that the owners would like to make some changes. She hasn't gone into any detail into what those changes are, but she has indicated that the owners would like to make some changes for their needs. Well, I understand our, I thank you for that, but I do understand we don't normally ask that, but this is the first time I've sat here where it's almost two years now to ask for a downgrade in one of our most significant structures in Santa Fe. So, I'm just asking why. Now, if I can't do that legally for some reason, don't you have, when you receive an application from someone in the city, a resident, don't you have a rationale for the request? Don't they come to you and say we want to do this or we want to do that and we need to do that? Um, well, Chair Rios and Board Member DNE, the criteria and the definitions that I just read don't have any bearing on what might or might not happen at the property. You know, and we can't act on a possibility of something in the future. You know, Miss Felix can tell us we're not going to do anything to the property. She can tell us we're going to do this to the property or she can tell us, you know, none of that is actionable tonight. So, we just want to look at the facts. And does this property as it is today, regardless of what might happen in the future, qualify as a significant structure or a contributing structure based on those definitions? Well, thank you, Maggie. But isn't it a significant structure? That is correct. It is right now. So, we're not trying to identify the fact that it's a significant structure. It is one. It is one. And there is a specific request for a downgrade. Yes. Which is allowed within the code. I'm sure it's allowed. I'm just waiting this evening. I understand what's happening. I'm just questioning that. My perspective, I think that the applicant, Miss Phillips, did indicate that. I mean, she did to me. I think Indicate what now? Yeah, if I could just make one comment. Thank you, Madam Chair, and member Don. Yeah, the issue in my mind is traditionally we always refuse to allow an applicant to speak to what they plan to do when we're on a status review because that's not one of the elements of defining status. And so really the question, I think, and this is why I think you're asking, is not so much what do you want to do with the property, although maybe you're curious about that too, but we can't hear that part. But what we can and should ask is what are your grounds for the downgrade? In other words, what rationale do you have not for what you want to do to the property, but under the criteria for defining significant and contributing, what grounds are you providing to the board that would persuade them or give them a basis for downgrading property? So that's the question. That question is allowed. I just That question definitely. Well, thank you for asking the question. So I hear an answer. Yeah. And I don't think it honestly yet. So I would ask the same question, and I didn't, I'm not sure it's even in the HIC piece that were presented. Is there an actual basis for the downgrade request? Okay, I'm going to answer your square footage question first because Amanda, who is in Andrea in my head, is great. And so the main house, not including the front porch, is 5,490 square feet. So 5,490. And the guest house is 1,481 square feet, and that's heated in both. And then the little shed is 40, a little horse barn, so tiny. It's a really good question of why I'm asking for a downgrade. And you're right. I can't really tell you why. And I can't really tell you because that's again not why we're here. So, typically the reasons that one asks for a downgrade are because the building's in terrible disrepair and it's going to fall apart. I can't say that that's true. I will say because I did a historic structures report on the property in 2018 that the stucco is delaminating off of the walls, and nobody has done anything about that since 2018. I will also say that there has been numerous roof leaks, which is why there was roof repair in 2019. And while you were talking to Mr. Brown about the stucco that's starting to become proud of the brick parapet, this is something that happens on historic properties all of the time, right? Is people just keep adding more stucco to the exterior of the building, which means ultimately at some point the brick parapet ends up behind the stucco face. So to fix that, we're going to have to ultimately take off the stucco. We may be looking at removing and redoing some of this brick repair. Again, that is not about the status. What I am saying is that historic buildings can be 20 to 30% higher in cost to renovate, rehabilitate, take care of. And again, I think we have an owner who is very interested and cares greatly about the property, but I think there is also a real opportunity that if we are not, the significant, I don't want this to be a threat, so I'm going to retract all of that. A significant property essentially means we can't touch the four primary facades. It's mostly true. We can make small with again, approval from all of you, when we come back to ask for things. However, if the building, the main structure, and again, the garage and the guest house were seen as contributing structures, it does not impact your ability to have input into what is happening on these buildings in any way, not today and not in the future. What it does impact is the ability for you to decide what primary facades are important and if there is some flexibility on the south side, which again, informally, even within the HICB and when you saw the walk around today, the south sides of the buildings were very much intended to be less formal. And so while there is a main, excuse me, there is a brick parapet on a portion of the south side, you can definitely tell when you walk around to the rear side, the south side of those buildings. We've gone from brick parapets on the front. We've gone from very traditional territorial pedimented white stained wood, white painted wood, to you go around to the backside and we're now suddenly kind of in a PBLO world. Again, maybe that's what makes them special. I certainly think it's what makes them special, but I don't know that that makes them significant. So I think there's a couple of different things. It's not falling into disrepair at this moment, but it certainly has a lot of needs. I do think there is some flexibility that could happen if it's contributing. I don't know that that rises to the level that you all need to change that. But I think what I am saying is I have met some of the Palomi Palahimo children, and again, I can't speak for them, but I do think they would have wanted this house to be able to move and not be stuck in amber. Well, thank you for your very good explanation. I appreciate it. I'm afraid I'm unpersuaded though for the need to change the status. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I think we just need to be clear on what your burden is in coming in here tonight. So, let's just, I just want to take you back to the code. A change in, it provides a change in status shall be based upon an evaluation of data provided through survey or other relevant sources of information and the definitions of significant contributing or non-contributing. So nothing in there about anything to do with what an owner wants to do with the property. So that is completely irrelevant to the board's determination. But what is relevant is data that you can provide to us that would justify a change in the status. And that's what we're asking for because that would be your burden as the applicant that's requesting that. And just to remind you, a significant structure is defined as one that retains, well, first of all, approximately 50 years old or older. You're not going to provide data that says that's not true. That embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. I don't think you're going to argue that's not the case any longer. Must retain a high level of historic integrity. It doesn't sound like you're contesting that. May be designated for its association with events or persons that are important on a local, regional, national, or global level. You've agreed with that. That hasn't changed. And the only other criteria is if it's listed on or is eligible to be listed on the state register, which it is. So I don't think it sounds like there's no data being presented that anything has changed in any of those aspects that define a significant structure. Okay. I think that's the end of the discussion then, don't you? Sure. Okay. Any other comments, board members, at this point? Appears not. I will open it up for public comment. If you have something to say, you're going to need to get sworn in. You will be limited to two minutes. And line up against this wall. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. My name is Carrie Marsh, and I live at Hold on a second. I think they can all be sworn in mass. Anybody that's going to be speaking, please line up against this wall. So, what I will require them to do, since I'm a notary, is you will need to state your name and address for the record after you swear in each and every one of you. Okay. And could they do that when they're going to speak? Yes. Yes. Okay. 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? Thank you. Thank you. Please proceed. Hi, my name is Carrie Marsh, and I live at 533 East Palace Avenue, and I walk by this property at least once or twice a day with my dog. Like Barbara, I am very in love with Santa Fe and its history. It seems like one of the grounds for the downgrade is making the house viable for modern living. I live in a house that was built in 1915. That is older than the house that we're talking about now. It is designated historic by both local, state, and federal historic designations. I'm a modern woman. I've lived in Paris and New York and all over the world, and I can fully function in my house that was built in 1915. So, I don't think that's a reason for the downgrade. I'm also extremely upset that they have already begun to tear down parts of this property. To me, that is a surefire sign that they do not care about history at all. And to me, that is disqualifying for this full stop. That's all I have to say. I really hope that someone takes that up because I think there's got to be some sort of ramification for that. And I will let the rest of the people behind me be way more well-versed and prepared for statements today. But that is why I was first. I'm very upset, and I really hope that this is not downgraded. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Larry Good, 721 Garcia Street. I am chairman of Historic Santa Fe Foundation, but I come to you tonight speaking as an interested neighbor and a private citizen. I agree 1,000% with the philosophy that Barbara stated about the ability of historic properties to live and breathe and adapt. You're not going to approve this downgrade tonight. What I want you to do is I want you to be very open to what Barbara might bring back with her client soon. When this property went on the market, I spent a lot of time personally interacting with Darlene Street, learning about who was interested in the property. We were all scared to death that we were going to get 24 units developer put in the front yard of the property. We are so fortunate that the Juice Bosches are passionate about preservation and have purchased this house as a single family residence. And I hope that when this comes back before you that you've got an open mind about this. We are in great hands with Barbara. She is passionate and she is good. So please be prepared for that. I'm Diana Stagy. I live at 434 Sun Pasqual. I'm a very close neighbor, and I worked on the archive in a Sec Madre house for seven years, and I am deeply, deeply opposed to the downgrade. So, one of the criteria, significant, one of the, sorry, one of the criteria for significant status is about the people who lived there and the kinds of things that they accomplished. And the three women who lived there were indeed significant. Mrs. Venus was a remarkable painter. She recorded the missions in California. Mrs. Curtain collected and published information about the use of local plants. And Mrs. Palo, when she was young, encouraged local artisans and created the native market as a store where they could sell their products. And it has been said that the native market helped 300 families get through the Great Depression. And so they, their work was always very significant. After the war, of course, they, she and her husband created Golandrinus. And these three women left us three, at least three very important things: Skolandrinus, the Leonora Curtain Wetlands, and the Mother Ditch. I have read in the archive the letters that the women sent to their neighbors to oppose when the city wanted to fill in the ditch and pave it over. They managed to save an acequia madre, and it flows every Monday. So, they accomplished wonderful things. Now, another part of my concern is not just that the status of the house should recognize the importance of these women, but also the neighborhood. One of the things we are very frightened about in the neighborhood is that there are not enough, there are not very many protections for this property. The significant status is the only protection we have against it being divided and sold off for whatever it was, 20-some-odd units. So, as a neighbor, we are all very concerned about that. Okay. And we haven't seen a lot of good behavior so far. All the trees were cut down, and it's property line to property line. So, it was clearly their doing. And if they don't respect the fact that Acequia Madre Street is one of the few tree-lined streets in this city, and now that's gone. Okay. Thank you. You have gone over your— No, I'm not, but thank you so much. Okay. Hello, Scott Toby, 540 Canyon Road. I do not know the applicant. I do, however, know—I do not know the owner. I do, however, know Barbara. I know she's a very highly respected architect and very sensitive to restorations. We served on the board shortly for a while together at Historic Santa Fe Foundation. My wife and I owned a significant home at East Vargas Street, known as the Boyle House. It was featured many times, even on the cover of the paper, as being built in 1720. So, it was a very significant house. But we were able over the years to work with this board on multiple projects. We were able to replace windows and doors on historic facades, among other things. So, to say that if it's significant, we can never repair the stucco underneath the parapets is false, and I think Barbara knows better than that, and I'm sorry that she's been put in this position by this owner. I think— Well, I think you said that you would not be able to touch any of the facades, and that's not true. You could remove the stucco. You could repair the parapets. So, there's a misconception that significant status is prohibitive to doing any work on your home. There's also a misconception that the H board drives up the cost of construction. This is all falsehoods that are being promoted around the city for various reasons that I won't get into. And it is greater in keeping with the code redesign that the city is evaluating right now. Also, I would like to say this owner is not displaying good behavior with the trees and now tearing down the shed, but it's not their first rodeo. They did have another property directly across the street which had a lengthy review process. It had a different architect we all know, Richard Martinez. I don't know why he's not on this project, but they bought it knowing it was significant. They know the process that they bought into. So, I think that there's no reason that it could not be retained significant, but yet they could still remove the sauna. They could still change windows that are not publicly visible to make them more energy efficient. I think there are ways that this board can work with the owner to achieve their goal. The other thing is that 24 is false. It's based on the three acres and R8 zoning. If you take out the occupied space that's already there by those buildings, by the driveways, by the utility easements, by the required setbacks, it does not leave you three acres to develop. Anyway, thank you. Thank you. Cornelia Toby, 540 Canyon Road. I'm against the downgrade of this property for many reasons, but one I'll speak about is the history of Santa Fe. And I love the history of Santa Fe. I love Santa Fe. And I feel like the history is in our houses and in our buildings and in our land. And every time that we chip away a small piece, one piece at a time, we're also chipping away at our history. Thank you. Good evening, esteemed Chair Rios and board members. I'm Jane Ferrar at 401 Delgado Lane, and I just wanted to point out that I think in concern for this case, there are four of us that are former board members of the Historic Design Review Board, and it doesn't sound like—it sounds like the staff has made the right conclusions, and I just support you to make this decision to not let our fabric that's so important to the character of our city be downgraded. And I look forward to meeting my new neighbor. I live right next door, and I hope that they truly care and want to make this property beautiful and lived in and part of our whole community fabric construction. Thank you. Thank you, Jane. Good evening, members of the board and staff. My name is, excuse me, my name is Randall Bell. I'm president of the Old Santa Fe Association, and I'm speaking both for myself and— Speak your address, please. I'm sorry. Name and address. Yes. Randall Bell. And the address is 2991 Vahi Pabo Rial, Santa Fe. So, a lot of what I was going to say has been said. There's apparently no evidence that would justify a diminution of the status as significant, this property. It would be very hard to find an early 20th-century property in the historic districts of Santa Fe that was more important, both architecturally, the whole context with the Acequia Madre, the incredible history of the Curtain Palmo family and their extraordinary support and participation in supporting the cultures and arts of Native American and Hispanic New Mexicans. It's just sort of a paramount property. So, and I believe the board will understand and take that into account that this is a really preeminent property. It's both on the state register and the national register of historic properties. So, it's sort of in a super level. And overall, it's actually in really quite good shape. And there's nothing that isn't reparable. I certainly believe that one could live in this property without downgrading it. It's been lived in for 100 years. So, I would just urge the board to deny the status change and reaffirm the status as being significant. One other aside, I just would say that I respect Barbara Felix's work and her care for historic properties a great deal. Implying that if her clients don't get this downgrade, there's this shadow out there that somehow the property is going to get sold and divided up is not helpful. And apparently, the owner has made that allusion to other people in public. And I would just say it's not helpful. So, Thank you, Randy. My name is Ray, 379 Hillside Avenue. Go ahead, Ray. You're losing time. This property has been really part of my history too. My grandfather owned the land where this house is, and to me, this house means more as a symbol of what these women did for Santa Fe. And to me, what they did for the property that belonged to my grandfather, it means a lot to me for you to oppose the downgrade because it's an important house to keep. Thank you. Thank you, Ray. Good evening, Katherine Rivera, PO Box 363 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I too am opposing the downgrade of this property. I had the pleasure in my early years of growing up in the shadow of the work that the Palmo did in Las Vegas, which is where my grandparents and parents are from. And I recognize their contribution to this city in all aspects. But I also am thankful to member Benvanu and Begman for asking the question about what grounds for the downgrade because I think that was the question in everybody's mind sitting in the audience. I know it was in mine, and after reading and hearing the descriptions of contributing versus significant, I came to that same conclusion. I could see no rationale, or I heard no rationale for that downgrade. I truly believe that we do not want to start a precedence for downgrading significant structures because they need repair. I think we need to be cautioned of that, and I don't think you want to upset the precedent on this particular property. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, board and Chairwoman. My name is John Pen Leafar. I live at 647 Old Santa Fe Trail. I have also known this property all my life. I walked past it every day when I went to a secret school. So, it is well known to me. Also, my parents were friends of the—well, my grandmother and Mrs. Curtain were good friends, and my parents knew the Curtains and the Palmos, and I went to fiesta parties there, although I was really tagging along. It was my parents who went. So, it's a property that means something to me. I also want to say that I understand what Larry Good had to say, that a house needs to be flexible and to change and grow with its use. However, I don't think that our gratitude for its being bought by a family that want to keep it a single-family house on an integral property, as good as that is, and it's very good, it is exactly what all of us in the preservation community wanted and prayed for, and I'm very grateful for it. I still don't think that and the desire to have a house change with its use and its family necessarily means that a property should be harmed in any way as it's to its integrity. I think that the significant status is part of its integrity, and I hope that the people who have bought it, and I don't understand their name, the people who have bought it will feel free to meet with those of us who have known it all of our lives, who live next to it. There are a number of neighbors here. I'd like to encourage them to meet with us to talk about the property and talk about its integrity and what it's worth. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you all for your sincere comments. They are very much appreciated. Is there anyone else in this room that wishes to speak? Okay. Is there anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios. We have a few hands up. We have Miss Stephanie Benonato, who has already been sworn in. Yeah, excuse me. I've been sworn in. I too am opposed to downgrading this building from significant to contributing. I don't see any valid reasons being given. There was some talk about some changes on the south side, but nothing was documented. And again, it's essentially intact on every facade. The idea that you couldn't repair it is not true at all. And really, I would expect people who have worked in the preservation community to know that. And I think it was pretty outrageous that the owners took down that part of the building without permission, and maybe doesn't really for—bear well or for—I'm sorry, I can't think of the word right now, but bear well on them actually complying with things. And besides the women who were involved in the art scene in a variety of ways, the Polyamos also started a living museum. This was a really different concept in the 1960s when the Curtains had bought that property in the 30s. I know because I was the project historian out there. And it was in the 1960s that Mr. Polyama, who was really into living museums, convinced them to turn it into a living museum. So, it is really prototypical in that way and again is just another reason to continue its status. I too lived right there at 707 Old Santa Fe Trail and cut through there all the time and actually hardly saw the building because there was so much vegetation in front of it, but always wondered who owned it and how wonderful it was that they had this large piece of property that they didn't feel the need to put buildings on every square inch. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Jordan Young, please state your name and address and be sworn in for the record. Thank you. Yes. Jordan Young. I live at 652 Galasto 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? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Yes. Thank you. It is unclear to me how to escape the significant structure definition based on a moderate house and the property that surrounds it fitting every single criteria from age to importance. This case so fully demonstrates the absurdity of our code and ordinance, the failures of a community that claims to have preservation goals, and our city's processes. The way we individually handle historic design review board cases has nothing to do with preservation and conforms to no national standards. What I can say is that the departure of professional expertise from the land use department and lack of leadership on planning and land use has had very severe consequences for our city. Our lack of differentiation between style and preservation causes so many challenges. Now a private property owner has the nerve to downgrade the municipal status of the building. I personally have many years of experience with the subject property as I was the director of the Women's International Study Center for eight years and the Acequia Madre House for almost five years. At the end of my years working at the Acequia Madre House and restoring those properties, the City of Santa Fe's land use code, new unprofessional staff, coupled with our so-called preservation organizations and some lawyered-up neighbors who are allowed to remain anonymous, though I am certain they are here today, squashed out the plans for the house to become a public place that celebrated the beauty and complexity of the very thing we are supposedly here to do: historic preservation. As you know, the artisan residency program for women, the Women's International Study Center, no longer exists. Despite the beautiful stories of concern from the neighbors, most personally poignant for me is that many of the neighbors who are here today worked very actively against Acequia Madre House becoming a self-sustaining museum in public good, revealing the motivations of most neighbors who comment and complain at public hearings, which is to make sure that absolutely nothing changes around them. That they are all lined up again tonight after years of making sure that the house didn't become a public place to celebrate its history and their claiming deep connections to the place and the people to now assert its significance under new fears is a demonstration of how our current policies and procedures allow preservation to be weaponized against common good. It wasn't significant enough several years ago. I will continue. Other people have continued. It wasn't significant enough several years ago to any of the neighbors to support creating a sustainable revenue source for it to be a public good. But suddenly it is significant enough to prevent a homeowner from making it more functional for personal use. Which is it? Oh, that's right. Mostly preservation in Santa Fe is about making sure that no one else gets to build or change anything while maintaining a semblance of style and maximizing property values for existing homeowners. Current land use code and historic preservation processes. Thank you, Jordan. You've gone way over your two minutes. So did others at the beginning. I'd like to finish. I have one more comment. Thank you. Let's acknowledge this discrepancy. Members, are there any other questions or comments that you wish to make at this point? If not, a motion is in order in this case. No one else wants to take it on. Well, let's just do it. 2026 012512 HDRBs. Yes. Okay. You want the applicant to... I have a very minor comment. First off, thank you to all of you for your caring and passion. That's what Santa Fe is great at. I apologize if I said we couldn't take the stucco off. That's not what I meant. You all know that. The trees were taken down by PNM. Okay, we're not going to get into an argument here. I am going to entertain a motion and that's what we're going to do now. Member Vendu, and I will say one thing though to the applicant, you cannot take anything down without permission of this board. And you have, you may think in your mind or the owner's minds that something that you have decided that it is not worthy of being saved. You cannot do that. I think that you know that and you cannot do that. You've got to, you've got to consult with the city. You've got to come before the board. As minor as you might think that it is, you've got to come before the board. You really do. I think you know that. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 202612512 HDRB at 616 Acequia Madre. I would move to adopt staff's recommendations that the historic status of the main resident structure be maintained as significant with all facades as primary. The guest house to be designated as significant with all facades designated primary, excluding the addition of the shed enclosure or facade 789 on facade diagram which are no longer physically present. I will, of course, we leave it to the city to decide what enforcement action to take for the unauthorized demolition and to return with any required or appropriate action to be taken by the board as a consequence of that investigation. I also want to move that staff provide recommendations in writing to the board as to whether or not this should be considered a historic compound, which requires three buildings. This would also involve the statusing of the structure that was mentioned in the staff report and tonight that I think is a former horse barn as the third structure and to report back to the board as to whether or not this is should be designated as a historic compound for future alterations if the applicant so chooses. I think that's everything. We hear a second. Second. Don't, don't ask me to repeat it. Roll call vote, please. Member Simmons. Yes. Member Benu. Yes. Member Dan. Yes. Member Beach. Motion's passed. Thank you, Dan. Can I make a, can I add one thing, Madam Chair? Yes. So, I'd also like just to add that, you know, there was a lot of discussion back and forth about what significance statusing means as to future alterations. We couldn't talk about future alterations, but I'm sure the applicant is well aware that the board does approve alterations on primary facades. It just requires that the exception criteria need to be met. And so that the designation in no way absolutely precludes anyone from requesting alterations in the future that the board could potentially approve. And just as a philosophical matter, I think that's extremely important that the public know that we, the board, has repeatedly said that it wants people to live in, in the historic structures in the historic district. So even on just primary facades of contributing buildings, but also on all of the facades of significant structures, the board is always open to a showing that the exception criteria have been met. We're going to move on to the next case which is located at 669 Garcia Street. I'll give the audience members an opportunity to leave the premises. Madam Chair, members of the board, if you wouldn't mind waiting till member Bishide returns so we could have quorum. Okay, Amanda, let's go forward. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I am starting with case 2026 012514 on, this is for 669 Garcia Street in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. I just want to remind you that this case came before you on March 10th. The applicant came proposing a five-foot yard wall with an exception. In that case it was HDRB 202611972. The exception was denied. The applicant is here with the new design. The proposal has lowered the yard wall and pedestrian gate and does not require an exception. I will show you here on a site plan in the wall. It's in the exact same place. It's only down to 4 foot 2, which meets the wall height requirement. They are pedestrian and vehicular gates and to demolish a portion of a stone retaining wall. I will show you here in the elevation and here is the design of the fence. They are going to keep with the, I'm sorry, the gate, not the fence, the gate on the lower elevation. And they are going to keep with the La Habra stucco in adobe and wood stain in mahogany. Again, this is for 669 Garcia Street and staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-4.6E general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6G2 downtown and east side design standards. Staff stands for questions. Amanda, any questions for Amanda? No questions for you, Jeff. Yes. Please state your name and... Okay. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Please proceed. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm here this evening with Christine Tennik and Gary Dber. They're the owners of the property. But Amanda just, I think, described well, of course, we're back with a wall now that meets the criteria for the maximum height allowed on the streetscape. So with that, we stand for any questions. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Sears? No questions for Mr. Sears. Anyone in this audience wanting to comment on this project? Larry Good. Again, I've been sworn in. 721 Garcia. I share the streetscape with Christy and Gary and I am an architect. I've reviewed their design. I like the wall. I think it's good for pedestrian safety and take good care of their little dog, Billy. Keep Billy from coming out. So, it's good. I go for it. Thank you. Anybody else? Hi, I'm Elizabeth West and I just want to take this opportunity to say here is another example that is so good about what the H board does. You work things out and you actually help people who come here and they work with you. And I'm totally in favor of this change that they've made and I'm very proud of this, of them and of you. I'm glad to be part of this city. Thank you. Very nice. Anybody else in this audience? No. Anyone online? Thank you, Cheerios. I see Miss Benata's hand went up. Hey, Stephanie. Hello. At least this case, at least this case will go a lot faster than the other two. I appreciate the owners coming back and making the wall conform to the height that's required or the maximum height allowed. I just wonder how tall the gates are, is my only question. Thank you. Thank you. Staff can advise that the gates are six-foot vehicular and the, the vehicular and the pedestrian, I'm sorry, a four-foot wooden pedestrian and a six-foot vehicular. Any questions regarding these gates? There is no one else online. A motion is in order. Yes, in case number 2026 0125, sorry, which one? 012514. It's 669 Garcia Street. Move approval and grant permission for demolishment of gate and garage door. No, I said that wrong. I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong one. There is no garage door. Oh, sorry. Okay. Approve the six-foot, the six-foot tall door and the four-foot tall yard, the gate demolished portion of the stone retaining wall. I managed that one really well, so it might be corrected by somebody. Thank you. Do I have a second? That'll prove it. You agree with staff's recommendation? Exactly. That would have been easier to say. Thank you. Is there a second to this motion? Roll call vote, please. Stan. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Benu? Yes. Dagnant? Yes. Member Beach? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion's passed. Thank you, applicants. The last case this evening is at 1103 Canyon Road. Okay. So this is case 2026-012489 HDRB for 1103 Canyon Road for a remodel. 1103 Canyon Road is on the north side of Canyon and south of Patrick Smith Park. The building immediately abuts the Acequia Madre. Before construction, the applicant should review the proposed renovation with the Acequia Madre or Mayordomo in order to mitigate any impacts of the construction project on the historic Acequia. The 1930s Adobe two-story residence is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The building is obscured behind the tall yard wall on the south street-facing property line that holds a vehicle garage, carport, and two pedestrian gates. This yard wall is listed as contributing. There are high yard walls on the east, west, and north property lines, which are all designated as non-contributing. The applicant is proposing to, in the main residence, replace windows with true divided light wood windows. The windows will be painted in Manito Blue. Windows on the primary facade include KL on the first floor and BJ and I on the second floor. According to the window assessment, windows I, J, and K have historic jambs. However, the sashes are non-historic and the jambs are rotted beyond 40% and are non-restorable. Windows B and L are both non-historic. All the other windows are non-historic and located on non-primary facades, except for window E, which is historic but located on a non-primary facade. They would like to replace all of the doors and paint them in Manito Blue. Install 2-inch spray foam insulation to the exterior of the structure. An exception is requested to section 14-4.6E42 for placing an architectural feature on a primary facade. Please note that spray foam has been demonstrated to cause damage to buildings of adobe construction. Adobe is a breathable material that naturally absorbs and releases moisture. Closed-cell spray foam creates a vapor-resistant barrier that can trap moisture within the adobe wall. In addition to retaining the character of this historic property, the structural integrity must be maintained as well. Finally, once spray foam is applied, there is no reversibility. Removal of spray foam is difficult as it will damage the historic adobe. They would like to repair the concrete parapet cap, stucco the residence using cementitious stucco in the Loo's color, re-roof using TPO, and repair some of the repair with some replacement of wood features, including four tall posts, beams, and corbels. The covered parking area and wood deck and railings will be stained in provincial color. On the property, the applicant proposes that the existing courtyard's drainage be lowered and reworked for building code required head heights. Exterior masonry walls will be repaired and restuccoed. The eastern yard wall gate will be increased in width and height, and the swing direction will be changed to meet the 2021 IFC entry requirements. The yard wall height will be increased over this area to match the previous elevation. This is the guardrail details for the west and south elevation railings and the elevation there. Then this is our west elevation. The parapet at the lower section of the roof on the west elevation is increasing in height by 3 feet to provide fall protection on this deck area. Staff finds that the exception criteria to section 14-4.6E42 have not been met and recommends denial of placing exterior insulation on a primary facade. Staff finds that the exception criteria to section 14-4.6E41A have been met and recommends approval for replacing windows on a primary facade. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with our general design standards and our Downtown and East Side design standards. I stand for questions. A comment, I think that this house has needed a lot of TLC for the longest time, and I think it's getting it. My question is in reference to the wall facing the street. What portion of it is being wanted to be increased? It is directly, let me go back to this slide. One sec. So if you can see here on the right-hand side, there's, I'm sorry, the lower half as it exists right now is on the left, and then the proposal is on the right. It is just that area that is already taller on the fence, on the wall, and it is just what's above this pedestrian gate. And how high is that going? That is increasing by about a foot. But do you know the entire, I can ask the applicant how tall that entire wall is. Because when we were going through that gate, I'm almost six feet, and I could go through that gate pretty easily. So I'll ask him why he wants to change that. But anyway, okay. Any other questions or comments? Applicant to come forward, please. Hi, please state your name and address for the record. The microphone. Thomas Gifford, 1709 Polde Peralta, 87501. Thank you, Thomas. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do it under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. Has been sworn, Madam Chair. What do you have to add? Good evening. And what do you have to add to Lani's report? Just the clarification on the height over the gate. So by building code and IFC, you need to be 6'8" tall, even though you're 6 foot and could get under, you know, through the... I'm not 6 feet, but... Well, you mentioned, I don't know your height, but... But so, you know, by code, it needs to be that. And I don't know if you guys entered the property on your tour today, or did you stay outside of the wall? Yes. Did you, the beam that was once you turn the corner with the gate, I hit my head on it every time. It doesn't meet fire code, doesn't meet building code. That's why we're raising the height. You ask for the, you know, overall, we're going to raise it by a foot just over the area, replicating the kind of undulation at the top, but putting a 6'8" gate in the same location. We had to swing it a different direction because we had to lower the grade inside of the doors to make it work so you could get down and not hit your head on that. And that way fire personnel can get in the building if needed. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Member Simmons. Tom, I was on a tour today, and I took particular note of that. I went back and researched the fire code, the IEBC, the existing building code, as well as the IRC, the residential code. And interestingly, the fire code does not make any mention whatsoever about the required height of an exit door. The building code requires, the International Building Code requires 6'8". The IRC requires 6'6". I believe that the IEBC would grant you the exception, the allowance to leave that door at 6 feet, as it meets the width requirement. So I would encourage you and suggest to you to work with the building department if that becomes an issue with them, because I think you'll find the language in the IEBC, especially under historic structures, that that would allow you to leave that gate as it is. That's my opinion as an architect who's pretty deep into the building codes. Understand, I understand your comment. Yeah. Then with regard to the exterior insulation, I am completely in agreement with staff that I don't think that's an appropriate way to conserve energy. I'd like to recommend to you to research a product called AeroBarrier, A-E-R-O Barrier. What that does is that'll help seal up the envelope, which will go a great distance to helping with the energy efficiency of that. And also in the IEBC, that you get a complete waiver for energy code requirements as long as you don't increase the need for energy, meaning further degrading the energy envelope. So I think that the exterior insulation is just, is a real non-starter. I think there's alternatives that you could use. There aren't any alternatives that we could use. I know Rockwool. I also know AeroBarrier. I worked with that team for two or three years. Probably one of the first projects that they did in the state was one of my projects using it. So I am familiar. We will do that. But that doesn't, that doesn't take advantage of adobe and that, you know, you insulate from the outside so that you can train that, you know, the heat of the day and the thermal flywheel of it. So... Well, I agree with staff that what it does is it makes it an impermeable moisture barrier at the exterior, which will further, it'll create conditions where you can get deterioration of that adobe wall. There are products that will have a perm rate that work with adobe that I've used before. If you can show that, I would certainly be willing to look at it. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question about the Manito Blue. Is that a match for what's currently there? It's as close as we could get to that color, you know, knowing that that color faded as well. You know, the one that's on the building right now hasn't been maintained, so it's a little bit brighter. But the idea was to match that. Great. Thank you. And then a question about the south, I'm sorry, the north facade that faces the park. There's, there's two windows that appear to be, you know, the upper story window is lowered and the lower story window is raised so that it appears almost like a door with a sort of a small divider in between. Can you explain what is happening there? That's on a non-contributing facade. And so we did that. I don't know if you saw the floor plan, there's a stairwell. There's currently is a circular stair that's to the right. It's, you know, very non, it doesn't function well. So we decided to eliminate a small bedroom and use it as a stair going up. And that just makes the staircase a little bit, we, you know, we've gathered up the two windows to make it kind of useful for the stair. And is that stucco in between the two windows? It'll be a wood piece. So... A wood piece. Okay. So we needed a beam in there. So it'll be a covered wood. The two windows. Got it. They're sort of molded. Thank you. Any other questions for donors? No other questions. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this? Anyone online? Yes. Chair, we have Miss Benonato. Good evening, Stephanie Benonato. I just want to comment on the stucco, I mean, excuse me, the insulation on the outside of the wall. I had a building on Galisteo Street that was from the late 1890s. And what I found is that by insulating the roof, that it really increased the conservation of energy. I never actually insulated the walls. And I think that, you know, again, in older houses, sometimes we have to make compromises to preserve the structure itself. Thank you. No one else online. That is correct. Thank you. If there are no further questions or comments, I will entertain a motion. Member Simmons. All right. In the matter 2026-012489 HDRB 1103 Canyon Road. I move to accept the staff recommendations for denying the application of spray foam with the caveat that if Mr. Gifford wants to come back and provide some evidence of air permeability of an insulation, that we could entertain that at a later date. I would also encourage the applicant to research more carefully into the existing building code about the front gate and to get a preliminary read with the building department. If they are amenable to it, then I think that we would move, I would move to not raise the gate and the parapet height unless the building department or fire department makes an affirmative statement about that. Then I would move that all other items on the application be accepted with staff recommendations. Okay. Is there a second? Roll vote. Member. Member Bishide. Yes. Member Degen. Yes. Member Benvenu. Yes. Member Simmons. Yes. The motion has passed. That was the last case on the agenda. Do we have any discussion items, staff? I do want to thank Natalie Collie. We just met actually right now. Thank you for sitting in for Frank. Yes. Happy to be here, Chair. As some of you know, today is my second day with the city, so I'm glad I was able to help out and help out Frank. And, Madam Chair, Yes. I'd like to ask staff to, with the project on Sonasio, to request of the applicant for their next submittal to give us a complete set of drawings. I discovered in my questioning with the applicant that there's actually a walkout basement as part of this plan, but there's no floor plan for the walkout basement. I think that it would also be helpful for him to demonstrate in a building section how the height exception will work. Lenny, are you up with this? I can state this again. The drawing package was incredibly incomplete and it was very disorganized. I actually went back into the staff report or the report that we got and I rearranged the plan just so I could kind of make sense of them. There's a floor plan that's missing of the walkout basement. If you were to really look at the criteria or the exception criteria that he's asking for, all that height is up in the front of the building. Normally, we would give an increase in height as you step up the hill, but he moved all that mass to the front and it's quite overpowering to the street. So, for the next submittal, I'll just require a complete set of well-organized drawings and he has the capability of providing perspective views. So, I think that would be very important for this particular project, just given the three-dimensionality of how this thing steps up the hill, that we would have a better ability to look at that. It was very helpful for him to show the perspectives today. Anything else in reference to that particular project? No. Okay. Thank you. Plans were very, very difficult to actually see what was being proposed, I thought, in that particular case. Yeah. And then pay real particular attention to the corner window detail that he's doing because, as I mentioned in my questioning here, if you look strictly at the north elevation, you can justify the three feet. If you look at the west elevation, you can justify the three feet. But if you look at the northwest elevation, you're going to see an eight-inch wide wall that separates those two windows, which in effect, if you look at the floor plan, you can see that that's a corner window that faces the street, and that's not something that's allowed. Thank you, Member Simmons. Anything else? Member Benvenu. Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to circle back to the discussion that was raised by members of the public on 330 Garcia Street. I'm a bit confused by the situation. So, I want to ask staff to give us some better information because one of the handouts that one of the members of the public provided, which is Mr. Anthony, actually shows an administrative approval to restucco as submitted with cementitious adobe on the main residence. So, I don't know. I mean, that would answer the question as to how it happened, but it wouldn't answer the question as to why that approval. Yeah. Thank you, Cherios and Board Member Benvenu. The information that I have is that at the end of March, or yes, the end of March, March 31st, we received a constituent complaint that there was work being done at the property. There was some scaffolding up and there wasn't a permit out front. So, the building was red-tagged on April 7th for unpermitted work and they were directed to come to the historic division for consultation on that work. And then you are correct. They applied on April 21st and then Manager Gary Mochino approved administratively the restucco as submitted with the adobe color. Has been for years. A very good question. Yeah. So, I guess my other question would be what was the status of this property and what were the primary facades and was there, if it is, if it was contributing and that was the primary facade, was there any calling out of the color as being a character-defining feature? I don't have that in front of me, but my understanding is that yes, the color as well as the stucco finish texture was part of the, and I, do you guys know, is it a significant or contributing? I can try to look real quick. Off of the top of my head, I do believe it was contributing. Contributing. Okay. Not 100% sure on that. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you for the background. I don't know then that there's much for anyone to do. The city approved it. It does sort of, I guess, raise the question, maybe it's water under the bridge for this property, but it raised the question about administrative approvals. Director Lamboy manages them for me. Director Lamboy and I think Amanda met with the property. Maybe you want to, I'm sorry, I wasn't there. So, Director Lamboy and I met with the agent or the contractor who did the work after another red tag was issued for the color to return the color to the pink color. And they were informed they needed to do that. I am unaware if Manager Marino or Heather had any correspondence with them after that, but I was present to Heather Lamboy explaining to the contractor that they needed to return it to its pink color. So, I do know that staff is working with them to change it back to the pink. I believe that this was possibly made in error as far as the color goes, but I do know that they needed to maintain a cementitious. Okay. So, maybe we could get a report back at some point, just a status on that. Yes, we'll have Manager Mino let you know at the next hearing where they are as far as the violation goes. Thank you very much. Anything else? I will be sure. Yeah, just one comment about the public participation tonight. And Madam Chair, you always do such a good job of trying to manage the situations when things get heated. But I am a little concerned that we're giving preference to people in the room rather than equal treatment of people online and in the room. I just, even if we are hearing things that we disagree with, if they're presented in a professional way and they have a valid point, I really do think we should be giving equal time. If we allow people to speak more than two minutes in the room, we should also treat the Zoom participants in the same way. So, I'm just concerned that we're sort of being influenced by the people in the room more than others. Difficult. I mean, I think if somebody is in the middle of a thought, I do think it's important for them to finish their thought, but the person that was online, I allowed her to continue, but she went way overboard. So, Yeah, I mean, obviously it's at your discretion. I just hope we could be mindful of that going forward. But everybody else had exactly two minutes here. Sorry. Doesn't matter who it is. Okay, good point. I've done it before and I'll go back to it. Okay, so yeah, and that's it. Okay, our next meeting is June 23rd and we'll hear a motion to adjourn. Second. And what was the, say I? Thank you very much.