Historic Districts Review Board Meeting
Tue, Sep 8, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1167-historic-design-review-sep-8-2026

== Executive Summary ==
The Historic Districts Review Board held a meeting on 09/08/2026, addressing several key items including the approval of past meeting minutes and findings of fact. Public comments raised concerns about ongoing advertising violations, staff's alleged involvement in design without proper qualifications, and the appropriateness of private meetings between staff and City Council members regarding the Board. 

The Board reviewed two significant cases. For 104 Camino Matias, a proposal for an addition and window replacements led to a split decision: the Board denied the addition on the primary facade but approved other elements, including window replacements, with the condition that primary facade windows be repaired in kind (wood, unclad) and new windows match existing historic colors. For 338 Orchard Drive, the Board designated the property as contributing with the north and west facades (including the portal) as primary, despite debate over the portal's alterations. A proposal for a garage door at 527-A Agua Fria Street was discussed, with staff recommending denial due to non-compliance with design standards for recreating a missing feature, and the Board considering conditions like fenestration. 

Finally, the Board discussed a request to reconsider two previous cases from Camino San Acacio regarding building corner treatments and trellis materials. A motion to place these items on the agenda for a future meeting passed with the Chair's tie-breaking vote. Concerns were also raised about a planned private meeting between some Board members and City Council members, prompting staff to investigate potential Open Meetings Act violations.

== Key Decisions ==
- Approved the meeting agenda.
- Approved eleven findings of fact and conclusions of law from previous meetings (10/28/2025, 12/09/2025, 01/13/2026).
- For 104 Camino Matias (Case 2026-012916-HDRB): Denied the addition on the primary facade. Approved window replacements with the condition that windows on the primary facade (wood, unclad) be repaired in kind, and new windows match one of the existing historic colors. Approved all other elements of the application.
- For 338 Orchard Drive (Case 2026-012976-HDRB): Designated the property as contributing, with the north and west facades (R7 and R1, including the portal) as primary.
- For 719 Gildersleeve Street (Case 2026-012978-HDRB): Approved window replacement as proposed, except for windows 109, 110, and 111 (on the primary facade), which must be repaired in kind. New window color must match one of the existing historic colors. Approved the addition connecting the ADU and the proposed stucco color (cottonwood).
- Approved placing a placeholder on the agenda for a future meeting for reconsideration of cases #2026012746HDRB and #2026012765HDRB (Camino San Acacio cases).

== Motions & Votes ==
- Motion to approve the agenda — Passed (unanimous aye vote)
- Motion to approve all 11 findings of fact and conclusions of law — Passed (unanimous aye vote)
- Motion to approve wood windows on the primary facade, yard walls, and the addition to the primary facade for 104 Camino Matias — Failed (no second)
- Motion for 104 Camino Matias: Windows on the primary facade to be replaced in kind (wood, unclad, as existing); findings consistent with staff's recommendations regarding the addition on the primary facade (criteria not met), leading to its denial; application approved in all other respects — Passed (3-1, Member Simmons voted No, Members Biedscheid, Cherry, and Bienvenu voted Yes)
- Motion to retain contributing status for 338 Orchard Drive with facades R2, R6, and R7 as primary — Failed (no second)
- Motion to adopt staff's recommendation for 338 Orchard Drive for contributing status with the north and west facades (R7 and R1, including the portal) designated as primary — Passed (2-1, Member Cherry voted No, Members Simmons and Biedscheid voted Yes)
- Motion regarding a previous case (not detailed in this excerpt) — Passed (4-0, Member Cherry Yes, Vice Chair Bienvenu Yes, Member Biedscheid Yes, Member Simmons Yes)
- Motion for 719 Gildersleeve Street (Case #2026012978HDRB): To allow window replacement as proposed, except for windows 109, 110, and 111 (on the primary facade and restorable historic windows), which must be repaired in kind. The color of the new windows must match one of the existing historic colors (not white). The addition connecting the ADU was approved. The stucco color (cottonwood) was approved — Passed (3-1)
- Motion to place a placeholder on the agenda for a future meeting for one of the members who voted in favor of the original motion to make a motion for reconsideration of cases #2026012746HDRB and #2026012765HDRB — Passed (2-2 tie, broken by Chair's vote)

== Public Comment ==
Public comments highlighted several concerns: ongoing advertising violations by Sarah Novison, the appropriateness of city staff without professional design training assisting in building design, and discomfort with proposed private meetings between staff and City Council members regarding the Historic Board, suggesting a public study session would be more suitable. Specific comments were made regarding the ongoing advertising violations by Sarah Novison, the alleged design involvement of staff without qualifications, and the preference for public study sessions over private meetings with City Council. For 338 Orchard Drive, public commenters appreciated the board's clarity and the applicant/family's willingness to retain contributing status, commending the family's long-term residency and the property's historical significance. For 527-A Agua Fria Street, public comments raised concerns about the lack of legal access to the north facade, the visual impact of a large, single garage door on Agua Fria Street, and suggested adding fenestration. For 719 Gildersleeve, a public commenter questioned the applicant's reasoning regarding allergies and opening windows but understood the need for airflow, emphasizing that if historic windows are repairable by a specialist, that should be the course of action. Another public commenter supported the applicant's efforts for the ADU addition and noted that blue is a historic window trim color.

== Topics ==
- Historic District Alterations
- Board Reconsideration Process
- City Council Relations
- Staff Expertise & Design
- Off-Property Advertising
- Parapet Restoration
- Board Meeting Quorum

== Full Transcript ==
Member Cherry? Here. Chair Rios? Here. Member Degnan? Excused. She might be late. Thank you, Madam Chair. You have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? No, Madam Chair. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? Move to approve. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed say no. We have no minutes on tonight's agenda. However, we do have 11 findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have three from October 28, 2025. We have six from December 9, 2025, and we have two from January 13, 2026. Are there changes to any of these, either staff or board members? No one? If there are no changes, I will entertain a motion to approve all of these. So moved. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed say no. Thank you. Matters from the public. Is there anyone in this room or online that wishes to speak in reference to matters that are board-related, or related to the historic districts? Not to your particular case this evening, but anything else. Anybody in this room? Nobody's coming forward. Is there anyone on Zoom? Yes, Madam Chair, Stephanie Benonato. Miss Benonato, you may speak. Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Stephanie, I cannot hear you. You cannot hear me? My audio is on. Miss Benonato, you may unmute yourself and speak. Can you hear me now? Hello? Can you hear me? Okay. Are we having a technical issue? I do have you on here twice, Miss Benonato. Let me go to the other one. Just a minute. Just a minute. Okay, Miss Benonato, you may unmute yourself. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Hello? Can you hear me now? Hello? Can you hear me? Hello? Can you hear me? Hello? Just one moment, Madam Chair and Miss Benonato. Okay, Miss Benonato, you may begin. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Oh, good. I'm so happy about that. I wanted to point out a few things. The property at, I think, 727 Don Diego, the one that removed the parapet that was contributing and unique to that building. That parapet has been restored in adobe. So whoever got that to happen, I appreciate that. I will point out that Sarah Novison, for the umpteenth time, is still advertising off-property by Old Santa Fe Trail on the Vargas. I know that Gary Mokino has spoken to her many times, but it doesn't seem to make any difference at all. And maybe it is time to actually fine her so that she doesn't advertise off the site. And then the other thing I wanted to point out, and we did, I mean, I mentioned this last week about the Roybal Street. I think it's 901 Roybal, the dentist office. I mentioned some of the things there. But one of the things that I found really distressing is that the applicant kept insisting that your staff helped design the building. And the staff member assigned to that case, as far as I know, has no professional training to do any kind of design. And nobody at the, especially at the City Council meeting, nobody contradicted that petitioner, that the owner of the structure or the husband of the owner. So that would have been helpful because they seemingly relied on that person's expertise, which they didn't have any expertise. And the other thing about that is I understood that Miss Lamboy offered to have a private meeting with some of the city councilors who are not really happy about the Historic Board. I've suggested a study group or study, I think it's called a study session with City Council. And I think that would just be better if it was open to the public rather than having a little private tete-a-tete with a few of the city councilors. I think that makes people in the public kind of uncomfortable not knowing really what happens in those meetings. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Benonato. Anyone else online? No other hands are raised, Madam Chair. Do we have anything under staff communications? Not at this time, Madam Chair. We have nothing under old business, but we will move on to new business. We have four cases under new business, and I will remind the public and everyone else that if you disagree with the decision that this board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal to the City Council and do get together with staff because there are time constraints that you need to follow. And that would be a good idea for you to meet with someone from city staff. Also, if you're a person from the public and want to comment on this evening's cases, you will be limited to two minutes. We will start with this evening's first case, which is located at 104 Camino Matias. Lani, would you give us your presentation, please? Okay. This is case 2026-012916-HDRB for 104 Camino Matias in the Plaza Del Monte Historic Compound for a remodel. Plaza Del Monte, formerly the Plaza del Monte Retirement Center, is an approximately six-acre subdivision that is L-shaped and is bounded by Bishop's Lodge Road on the East and Old House Highway on the West. The development has two roads, Camino Santiago and Camino Matias. The single-family residence at 104 Camino Matias was one of the first units to be constructed in the Plaza Del Monte compound in 1965. The residence is listed as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. The northwest and northeast elevations are designated as primary. On this facade map, that's one and four. The L-shaped residence is approximately 1,100 square feet and presents a Spanish Pueblo Revival plan. There's a carport located on the South and a portal on the Northwest. The portal is supported, that's not right. That's the Southwest. North. That's Northwest. The portal is supported by simple round columns, is ornamented by corbels, and houses a viga roof. The carport is a single bay behind the portal and has a subdued presence, unlike most in the compound. The windows are aluminum casement windows. According to the 2018 HCPI, it represents the closest interpretation of the original 1960 Clark and Register template design for the development. The applicant proposes to construct an addition on the west elevation beneath the existing portal. This will result in the relocation of the primary entrance to the residence from facing west to facing south. An exception is requested to Section 14-4.6(E)(2)(II)(a) for placing an addition on a primary facade. They would like to replace all the windows in the residence with wood clad in bronze with single light windows to match the existing in the same size openings. They have asked for an exception to Section 14-4.6(E)(4)(I)(a) to replace the historic windows. The majority of the windows, A, B, C, D, F, G, H, and I are all historic. And according to the window assessment, these windows are not repairable. Window E is not historic. Doors one through five are all non-historic. They also would like to replace all the doors in the residence, infill the south entry, and create a door from a window on the east elevation. They'd like to construct a portal on the east elevation to match the existing west portal with a medium walnut stain, construct two five-foot-high stucco yard walls on the east side of the residence that runs east from the residence to the existing yard wall at the east property line. There will be no gates. They'd like to stucco the residence in cementitious adobe with cementitious colonial white under the portal to retain the existing appearance of the residence. The structure does have a historic brocade texture, and the texture shall be retained. Install condensers in the rear in the east yard, and they will be screening that to prevent public visibility with a five-foot fence. Staff finds that the exception criteria to Section 14-4.6(E)(4)(I)(a) have been met and recommends approval for replacing the windows and doors on the primary facade. Staff finds that the exception criteria to 14-4.6(E)(2)(II)(a) have not been met and recommends denial for constructing an addition on a primary facade. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-4.6(E) for all historic districts and 14-4.6(G)(2) for the Downtown and Eastside Historic Design Standards. Sorry, I went one slide too far. We can't see any of your slides. Thank you, Lani. Lani, the existing windows, would you describe their composition and also indicate what the proposal of the new windows is going to be? Right. So these are metal windows. All of Plaza Del Monte has the same style windows. They're a metal type window, and they are going to be replacing them with clad windows. Okay. Thank you. I thought today when we were looking at the windows that they were wood. Did you notice that, Scott? The other building had wood windows. Pardon? The other building had wood windows. The second one we saw. Yeah. My experience in this neighborhood is that the windows in the buildings I've done assessments on these, and most of them are wood windows. And there's an aluminum screen on the outside of it, but for the most part, the windows are wood. But my question. Can I ask a question? Yes, absolutely. Thanks. So when you were giving your presentation, you said the windows were going to be wood clad, but now I heard that they're going to be metal clad. Can you clarify? Are they wood or are they metal clad? The proposed windows. The state's wood clad in bronze. So wood clad would mean they have wood and they're, that they, they're a wood frame window with wood clad or wood clad is, is confusing to me. Typically, you would have a wood window that's aluminum clad, meaning the cladding covers the outside of the wood. But if they were wood clad, that would infer that the wood covers the outside of a material that the windows are constructed of. So if we could get some clarification on the specification of the window, that would be good. I'm sure that the applicant can clarify that as well. Did you have further questions, Member Cherry? No. The only comment I would have is I'm looking at photos of the windows and they appear to be wood with aluminum screens. So are there any other questions for Lani at this time? Member Bienvenu. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just wanted to be clear on what staff's recommendations are. I think that there were two sets of exceptions that were being requested. One related to the windows and staff's recommendation, I believe, is that the exception criteria have been met and that that should be approved. Yes. And their second exception request is for the alteration of the primary facade in covering up the existing front door opening. And staff's recommendation is that the criteria have not been met and that it should be denied. Is that, do I have that right? That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Member Bienvenu. Member Simmons? Was there further discussion with the applicant about the handicap accessibility and there being a possible hardship? In the applicant's letter, it says, "There is no hardship for the new entry. My client would like to make this change to enhance the entry and to make it more handicap accessible." Has there been any conversation about the existing floor plan and how that may not be accessible? Not really. No. Okay. Thanks. If there are no further questions, will the applicant come forward and get sworn in, please? Oh, Member Cherry has another question. I just wanted to make a comment again along the same lines. I'm looking at the window assessment now and the windows that are listed say all slider, all wood. So just, just to clarify what the window assessment seems to be saying is that they're wood windows. So are you indicating that the windows presently there are wood windows?

Correctly. The assessment of the windows that exist on Ray's assessment says all wood, and the photos seem to show wood windows that I'm used to seeing in those buildings. So I would, that's all I wanted to say, just observation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

That's a little confusing because the HICPE for this property from 2018 says the windows are mostly aluminum casement units. But my question really is, if the requirement is to replace in kind on a primary facade, is staff recommending a change or a change of material from aluminum casement to clad? Yes. And is that justifiable under the code? I'm just asking because we normally on primary facades require in kind, and we've had a lot of discussions about how that includes not only the size and fenestration, but also the materials. I don't know how to answer that question. I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm just sort of, I guess, we're back to this discussion about what does "in kind" mean exactly. So we seem to be saying the recommendation is that we can replace those on the primary facades with something different.

Well, I think first we need to know what's there, and it doesn't seem clear if the HICP and the window assessment are conflicting.

Yeah, well, hopefully the applicant can clarify that.

Well, there's photos too in the packet that show wood windows. So, okay. Yeah. And replacing in kind is replacing with the same type of material.

Yeah, so I had another question. There doesn't seem to be a facade diagram that shows the walls. Is there a wall across the front of the property as well as the two sides?

You mean, are they planning a yard wall in the front? The new five-foot wall.

Yes.

No, they're only in the rear. So if we go back here to the, so here in the lower right side, you can see the walls in the back of the house, but there's not, there's nothing in the front. There's no planned wall there.

And it's enclosing a yard?

Right, just creating a courtyard.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

Mhm. Any further questions, board members? It appears not. So now will the applicant come forward and get sworn in?

Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record.

Bernie Romero, 11 Caminito Santerra, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that 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's been sworn.

Mhm. Good evening, Mr. Romero. What do you have to tell us about this case? And I think you could start off with the windows since there appear to be many questions.

The windows are a wood window. It's similar, the stain is similar to a bronze color. So we're proposing to do clad units, which are aluminum clad bronze on the exterior and wood on the interior. They will be in kind. They're going to be sliders also or casements, but we'll have the same perimeter and mullions, vertical mullions. That's pretty much it on the windows.

These windows, I believe, do not have mullions. Are you introducing mullions?

No, there's some vertical mullions between some of the, oh, right, units. It's a wood mullion that will stay in there.

Okay, but no divided lights. I mean, none of them are divided lights. Member Cherry?

So, so you're, we're just clarifying in kind. So you're, you're proposing in kind in look, but not in material.

In look.

But not in material. There'll be, you're proposing an aluminum clad wood window slider to replace a solid wood slider window.

Right.

Gotcha. Board members, any other questions?

I, I'd like to discuss a little about the desire to rework the front entry to make it more handicap accessible. What can you tell us about that?

Well, the existing entry, it's handicap accessible at this point, and we, we're actually just trying to get a nicer entry. I know it's not the exception criteria wasn't met, but I told my client I'll shoot for it. She wanted it. And, I mean, if it's rejected, it's rejected.

Well, it's accessible in that the floor level is at the same grade as the portal slab. Right. And that is true throughout all of the houses in this neighborhood. I think this was originally a retirement community, and I think there was some sensitivity on his part back in the 1960s, long before we had any accessibility issue or accessibility building codes. The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't really apply to residential, and it doesn't really apply to single family. However, it is a current design trend in housing to make at-grade houses, single-level houses, fully accessible. That means three-foot wide doors into bathrooms and things like that. So, as an architect, I would suggest that making a building more handicap accessible for a possible future need could fall under the criteria of a hardship. Because if you were to look at the floor plan, in order to turn a wheelchair 90 degrees, you need about a five, you need a five-foot circle. And in a new building, it's actually larger, five foot six. And it doesn't appear that there's that five-foot dimension exists between the exterior wall and the wall that's parallel inside.

Right. Yeah, that's a narrower space. The reason we're trying to create the entry is to come in and at least maneuver to be able to get, you know, open that, open the existing door opening to be able to get a handicap chair in because it's only about two feet eight inches, the width of that, that existing hall.

I understand that. So you're saying that the, that the entry door is two foot eight?

No, the entry door is a three-foot.

A three-foot door. So then what is the two-foot eight dimension?

Of the hallway inside as you step into the space.

Well, it's a three-foot door that has to open all the way. I think it looks on the drawing, it looks more like four feet, but it's not five feet. And that's, that's a tighter dimension to turn a wheelchair in. Right. Okay.

Then I, I had a question also about the, the two windows on, I think it's the northeast elevation, that are pretty high. Those are not egress windows. And, I just think that, the way the building code is worded, that if you replace a window in an opening like that, if it is not egress, does not meet egress requirements, that it has to. I, I believe that the building code would, would require that.

I discussed that, and I said we need to have egress windows in the two bedrooms. On one of them, we have a door. On the other, we have a window. She recommended not changing the windows.

Who is she?

Lani.

Okay. And not making them handicap, I mean, not egress windows because it would alter the primary elevations.

Well, it's not a primary facade. It's a secondary facade. It's not visible from the street.

Well, it's, it's a primary. They're both primaries, the north and the west.

Oh, I see. Okay. All right. I, I understand that. I, I think that this is a situation here where, where we get a conflict in the codes that we have to deal with. And, in my mind as an architect, life safety always is going to have to prevail over less technical things, and I would suggest that we entertain the idea of,

I agree.

Of making those egress windows. I, I, and I just say that, you know, I'm, I'm a pretty savvy, pretty savvy code guy, and I think that you can make those windows egress compliant if the sills are lowered and the window is, is made taller. Right. I don't know what my colleagues think, but, but I, I know that,

Does that just affect one window?

Well, I think there's two windows. There's,

Well, the, the one that's adjacent to it, there's a door that goes out of that bedroom.

Oh, I see. Okay. So then that would not need to be egress. I mean, we should keep them similar, but it's, you know? Okay. Yeah. I just, I just think that, you know, if you were to apply for a building permit and to show that these windows are, are going to be replaced, I think that the, the plan reviewer would be within their authority to, to tag that and to require that. I, I know in other jurisdictions I work in, whenever we replace windows in bedrooms that the egress standard becomes a discussion item. Are you done, member?

Yes. Member Cherry.

Yeah, so the way it works, how the code that's used in the City of Santa Fe is the, that applies to this is Appendix AJ, which is the remodel code. And so windows are not required to meet egress if they're replaced with the same size window that that manufacturer makes. So it's exempt. All we know that's true. What you're saying is true for new construction, but it's not true for remodeled construction because they, they use Appendix AJ, which is the remodel code. And so you're allowed to replace windows without changing the size of the windows even in situations that on new construction would be required to meet egress.

Yeah, I don't understand why they wouldn't be egress because, you know, who's liable if a fire starts and someone's in that bedroom?

Yeah, my, my understanding of code AJ, we're a little bit off track here, but is that it, it, it allows people to replace windows without having to go through the additional expense of modifying the size of the opening. So you can swap out a window, an existing non-compliant egress, non-egress window with, with a straight replacement without having to do any kind of modification to the opening itself. And that's, yeah, and that's, that's just what that, that's the appendix in, in the code that the City of Santa Fe uses. So I believe what Member Cherry is indicating is true. In a historic building, that is true. Now if you're doing a brand new building, you apply other regulations to it.

Yeah. Yeah. What's, it's in, if, if you're not in historic, you can do egress windows, but in historic,

You, you can, but you don't have to. It's still, you can, you can replace the window in the exact same size if the, if the, if you don't want to increase the size of the opening for increased expense. So it allows people who don't have the money to increase the size of the opening to replace the windows in their house.

Allow my client to increase that opening on the, on that Northwest Corner?

I think that's what we're here to, to decide, but it's not in this application. So I don't know. I'd refer to staff on or attorney Rubelade about how that works if something's being requested that's not in the application.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Member Cherry, so to change the size of an opening on a primary facade is an exception, so they would have to post and come back for that.

Okay, we'll stay right where we've got. That's, that's what I thought. Thanks, Lani. Thanks, sir.

Just as a further clarification, Appendix AJ applies to the International Building Code. It's the International Residential Code that would apply to this. And I, I would agree that, as the use is maintained, then that does not, it does not obviate or does not require a look at the code for that would normally be there for a change of occupancy. It's in, it's in the IRC. Appendix AJ is in the IRC.

Okay, sorry if I misspoke and said the IBC. I'm sorry.

No, you didn't. I, okay. Yes, I, I just looked at, looked at that. I said, I'll, I'll take a further look at it here, but I'll,

Yeah, it's in the, yeah. Maybe best for a discussion for another time. Okay. I have no further questions about egress. And is there anything further, board members, at this point? Further questions, further comments? Is there anyone in this room? Yes. Member Bienvenu.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, just to be clear on this in kind issue, I, there would need to be a request for an exception in order to have the windows that are being asked for, as I understand it, because our code doesn't actually use the words "in kind." It says that the windows shall be duplicated in the size, style, and material of the original.

So, in that the applicant isn't requesting or isn't proposing the same material, an exception would be required even if they're not repairable. So, what will be approved? I mean, if we stay with the window on the two, I mean, wood on the two primary elevations, that would be what our code would require without an exception. If the windows are not repairable, which is what your window assessment said, then you are allowed to replace them, but they have to be in the same size and materials. So that would need to be wood. That's fine. We'll stay with, we'll stay with the, and we're only talking about the windows on the primary facade. And the other, the other ones you can do what you will want to. Yeah. Okay. I'm fine with that. I figured.

So, no one in this room is wanting to speak about this particular project. Is there anyone online that needs to get sworn in? Yes, I have Stephanie Benonato. Stephanie, you may unmute yourself. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can you please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record? Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and nothing but the truth, under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Go ahead.

So, I would ask the board to support the staff's recommendations in this, in this case. I also am appreciative of the architect and the owner who are willing to go with what is required by the code and not try to, you know, make it a prolonged experience for themselves. I do think it's inappropriate for board members to come up with new issues that the applicant themselves are not bringing, such as the fact of handicapped accessibility. When they say the door is handicapped accessible, then it is. And, well, you know, we don't, you, the board is not supposed to be redesigning anything for the applicant. And when another reconfiguration or configuration of this board, there was another architect on there who had spent a long time redesigning the projects, and even the board members sort of came down on him for doing that. So I, I think that it is up to the applicant to come in. And if it wasn't handicapped accessible, they say that. If they say it is, then it is. And again, also, I appreciate that they're willing to do wood windows on the facades that are necessary and whatever other restrictions are required. And also, I really appreciate that they're going to screen those condensers that are going to be on the ground. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else on Zoom? No other hands raised, Madam. Thank you. Board members, I will entertain a motion at this time if you have no further questions or comments.

I, I have further questions. I, as an architect, do not agree with the former speaker. And I also am an advocate for handicap accessibility. I believe that the request to do this small addition under a portal could be considered. First of all, that it is subordinate to the main structure. There are other precedents in this, Philip Register's houses in this neighborhood, that there are other little rooms and storage rooms that are located under Portales that are not, that don't compete with the facade. I think that the way that the proposed addition is configured is that it doesn't disturb existing historic materials, especially the character defining elements of the portal columns and the beams and the corbels. I think that that is maintained. I think that the addition could meet the criteria of being removable if it ever needed to be, even though it is increasing the size of the heated square footage and would require a frost footing. And, let's see. I have a couple of other notes here. Just a second. Yeah. That's basically what I said. So I think that our code does allow for changing conditions in how people live. We're not creating a cast in amber kind of a situation here. I think the buildings need to be allowed to evolve. And I think if the applicant and the owner have a desire to create greater handicap accessibility, I think that that should be given serious consideration. Thank you.

If there are no further comments, I will entertain a motion. And remember, whoever makes the motion, you need to address the two exception criteria. I can make a motion. I move that in case 2026-012916-HDRB at 104 Camino Matías, that the window assessment, that the windows on the primary facade be replaced in like kind, as in wood windows, not clad. I move that the yard walls be approved, and I move that the addition to the primary facade be allowed. And is there a second to this motion? There is not a second to this motion, so the motion dies. I will entertain a new motion. Member of the new? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll go ahead. In 2026-012916-HDRB at 104 Camino Matías. Let's see. I would move that with respect to the, as agreed upon by the applicant during the hearing, that the windows on the primary facade will be replaced in kind, including in material, meaning wood, as to what currently exists. And I would also move that findings be entered consistent with staff's recommendations as to the criteria not having been met with respect to the addition on the primary facade, and for that reason that the addition be denied, and that the application be approved in all other respects. Do I hear a second? I have a second. I have a roll call vote. Can I have a point of clarification? Yes. Just that your description of the replacement windows in kind wood on primary facades, is that solid wood unclad? Yeah. Just what it says. That's what exists currently, correct? Correct. Yes. So unclad. So wood can be wood and clad, but you're not, so just as consistent with what is currently on the. Just so I'm clear. Thank you. Roll call vote, please. Member Simmons. No. Member Biedscheid. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Bienvenu. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Romero. Thank you.

Next case is located at 338 Orchard Drive. And let the record show that I will be recusing myself from this case because I know the applicants, and I will stay in the room and listen, but I will not speak. So noted, Madam Chair. And I will hand it over to Vice Chair. Thank you. I will call. Can we go ahead? One moment, please. Sorry. Go ahead, Chair. Case number, the next case on the agenda is case number 2026-012976-HDRB at 338 Orchard Drive. And this is Senior Planner McCulley's case. Would you like to proceed, please? Certainly. So this is case 2026-012976-HDRB for 338 Orchard Drive for a status review. 338 Orchard Drive is located just south of the Allred House at 338 East De Vargas on the corner of Paseo De Peralta. The property has been under several addresses, including 338.5 Orchard Drive, 338.5 East De Vargas Street. The 1984 HCPI shows the residence as the East De Vargas Street address. The residence sits just south of the Allred House to the north and was once part of that property, which may explain the addressing issues. The property reaches from Orchard Drive to Paseo De Peralta. The eastern portion of the property is currently a parking area with a parking agreement. The entire lot was originally a portion of an orchard that belonged to the Chapman family and reached much further than its current space. The land was slowly subdivided and sold off throughout the years. The 1931 Adobe Territorial style residence is currently listed as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. The residence is known as the Constant and Ruby Chapman House. The roof is flat with a three-course brick coping. The windows of the residence are primarily double-hung, three over one above a single light sash with separate window screens. There's a non-historic vinyl window on the south that is not typical of the residence and was installed at an unknown date. The exterior doors are wood with glazing. The doors and windows are painted in a turquoise color. A portal sits on the north elevation. The portal is supported by painted wood columns, a wood header, exposed proof figures, and corbels. The floor of the portal is a high concrete setting with two sets of concrete steps. There's a visible dip in the roofline from the floor slab settling. The original porch had masonry columns on either corner with a header, a wood column, and corbels in the center. The design is evident in this 1984 HCPI image. The screened porch on the east elevation is not original to the house, but was constructed by 1958. It appears on aerials to change in size over time. It is currently constructed of vertical wood siding with framed fixed screened windows, a slope shed roof with galvanized metal drip edge. The west elevation houses a low stucco chimney stack, and on the south elevation, a small basement window at grade is visible and is the only indication that there is a partial cellar under the residence. The property is lined with a coyote fence on the east, which separates the residence from the commercial parking lot, and a wood and chain link fence along the south, and a board fence lines the north and west property lines. The property has been in the Chapman Allred family since its construction in 1931 by Ruby Gonzales Chapman and Constant Arc Chapman. Their daughters, Anita Chapman Allred and her younger sister, Adelita Chapman, were raised in the house. Anita's granddaughter, Christina Martinez, is the current owner and residence, raising her daughter, Sophie, in the house. The house has continually been in the family for eighty years, and Sophie is the sixth generation to be raised in the house. The applicant is requesting a status review with primary facade designation, if applicable. So the house has retained its, its historic footprint, main design features, and openings from its construction date. It continues to convey its historic period and original design. Though it is associated with several generations of the family, it is not enough to define a status of significance. Therefore, staff recommends the residence remain with a contributing status. Though the portal on the north has changed slightly, it is the strongest architectural feature of the structure. The portal is documented in period photographs and reflects the family's use of the residence. The west elevation is the most publicly visible and retains the original window openings and continues to express the historic character of the structure. Therefore, staff would, sorry, therefore, staff recommends the residence remain with a contributing status, though the portal, I already did that. Sorry. I lost my place. Therefore, staff would recommend the north and the west elevations as primary facades, including the North Portal. So in summary, staff recommends a historic status of the structure be maintained as contributing with the north and west elevations, R1 and R7, including the portal as the primary facade for section 14-4.6(C) designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within historic districts. Thank you for your presentation. Board members, questions for staff. None. Applicant, if the applicant's in the room, you may step forward at this time and be sworn in. Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Richard Woodbury, Osage Design Studio. My address is 1216 Battaglia Street, 87505. Thank you, Richard. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that 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, sir. He has been sworn. Thank you very much and welcome. Good evening. Please go ahead and tell us what you would like to tell us, but I do want to caution you that this is just a status review tonight.

So we don't want to discuss any future plans for the property. The discussion should just be focused on the status and the primary facades. Okay?

Good evening, all. Again, my name is Richard Woodbury. I am the architectural designer on the project. Just so you know, we do have members of the family in the audience if you do have questions for them directly. We are here tonight to review the status designation of this property. The reason why we're doing that is we would like to...

That's where I'm going to stop you. We don't want to know what it is that you plan to do with the property. So just address what you believe to be the appropriate status and primary facades if it's designated as contributing or maintained as such.

Thank you. So based on staff recommendations, based on the eight CPI prepared by John Murphy, both of them are recommending maintaining the status as contributing. In my investigations, I see no reason to change the designation, so I'm hoping that the Board will maintain the current status of contributing. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. I will say it's a very, very special property. It's very special both in how much it retains of its original footprint and status on the street, and also the fact that it's been maintained within this family for all these years. And in that location, that's quite unusual, as you know. Board members, any questions for the applicant? None. Okay.

Did you want to have your applicant speak or only if the board had questions for them? They're more than entitled to come forward if they would like. No? Only if the board has specific questions. Apparently not. So let's see if anyone in the room has any desire to make public comment on this application. Anyone? I see no one. Is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to comment? Oh, there is someone that wants to step forward, Ms. West. Please be sworn in.

Hi. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

Elizabeth West at 318 Santa Fe.

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. Thank you. I really appreciate the clarity of the way the board has described what you're doing here. And the more often that you do that, the better for all of us who are paying attention. I also really appreciate the architect and evidently the family involved in this pretty amazing property of being content, in fact, welcoming, retaining a contributing status. So I'm very happy right now. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there, seeing no one else in the audience, is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to speak?

Yes. Chair Bienvenu, we have Stephanie Beninato. She's been previously sworn. Miss Beninato, you may unmute. Miss Beninato, you may proceed.

Yeah. Can you hear me?

No, actually.

Okay. Why not?

I don't know. We can. Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Great. Great. So I'm in support of staff's recommendation. I am really happy that this family is still using this as a residence and have for so long. I did know people who lived on Orchard Street in the 1980s when a lot of that was still residential. And in a sense, it's amazing that there is still a residential property in that little area that has become so commercial, but it gives us an idea of what was there and how people lived in the downtown and not outside of Paseo De Peralta. So I'm happy the family is supporting the staff's recommendation, and I hope the board will too. Thank you.

Thank you. Board, I'll bring it back to you. If anyone has any further discussion, I guess, Cherry, I guess, first some questions for staff. What year was the portal altered?

Yeah. It appears that in the HICB it shows it was after the 1980s. So it was in 1984. It shows that it still had those masonry pilasters. Yeah. Yeah. But there is not a case that we could find where it shows what date it was actually changed.

Okay. And then just, I know the porch was built in the 1950s, but was, can you give me that exact year?

1958 was the original porch.

Okay. So, yeah. So with that clarification, I guess, just some points for conversation amongst the board. It seems to me like the most altered part of this building is the portal since the 80s, since then. So that, that would make the portal non-historic and that, well, I guess first of all, I would say it's a really rare house in this condition. It's very, it's kind of amazing that it's where it is, like Vice Chair Bienvenu said, and that it's in such good condition. I could almost see, I've seen houses with this level of preservation be designated significant. That being said, I, I'm just trying to, if I am applying the logic that the portal is the most recently altered feature on this structure, that it may be more appropriate to take the less altered facades of R7 or 6, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and make those primary and R1 as the non-primary facade, being that it's the facade that least represents the original state of how this building was constructed. That's all I have for comment. Thank you.

Any other board members wishing to discuss the project? Member Biedscheid?

Yeah. I'll just, I guess, respond to that, that I think the portal itself, the way that it's raised is, like, the most distinctive quality of the house. It's pretty unusual. And the Hicpi, also recommended including the portal. I think the size is the same. It's sort of the decorative features that have been changed. So I would be in favor of keeping the portal, which has always been there, but altered only in a sort of style on the corners.

Yeah. I, I mean, it's the style, but it's, it's significant representation of the style. Right? It went from those masonry columns to that, which isn't only stylistic, it's a structural change to how it's supported. I mean, I think it's a, it's a pretty big change. I guess my point is just applying reason and logic to what we preserve and why we preserve it and what we use to make those decisions. Typically, primary facades are, in my experience, and this came up on the field trip today, of the reasoning behind primaries is usually visibility and whether or not it's been altered or not. So if I apply that logic to how things have been done, it, it, it strikes me as the portal is the most altered. So logically, I would think that it would, if this were to be contributing, it would be, it would be sort of the least likely candidate to retain the primary designation.

I'd like to add a comment too, that in addition to the masonry columns, that the viga ends on the original building are no longer existent on the current structure. Thank you for that. Any other comments? Board members? We'll entertain a motion in this case. No. Yeah.

I'll make a motion for Cherry. In case 2026012976HTRB, 338 Orchard Drive, I would move that the building retain its contributing status with facades R2, R6, and R7 as primary.

Is there a second? Apparently not. So the motion fails. Is there another motion? Member Biedscheid.

Thank you, Vice Chair. In case number 2026012976HDRB at 338 Orchard Drive, I recommend, I, I sorry, move to adopt staff's recommendation for a contributing to retain the contributing status with the primary facades, north and west, including the portal designated as primary. And I just would like to add that I appreciate the applicant's summary of the history, and I think this family has been excellent stewards of this property. And thank you for being here tonight too. It's, it's great to see that you've been able to stay in the house for so long and that's, that's why it is as special as it is. And I'll just add that the, you know, the, the raised portal, the steps leading up to the portal, I think in my mind, make it a distinctive feature of the house that should be protected.

So just for clarification, that would be R7 and R1, including the portal in the diagram?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to this motion?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? I'll have a roll call vote, please. Member Cherry.

Nope.

Member Simmons.

Yes.

Member Biedscheid.

Yes.

The motion has passed. Okay. Thank you. We'll turn over the gavel. Okay. The next case is located at 527-A Agua Fria Street, and Lani, may we hear from you?

Okay. This is case 2026012977HDRB for 527 Agua Fria Street. The property is located on the north side of the road between Clawson and DeForest Street. In case 2025011549, the HDRB reviewed the property for status. The board designated the structure as contributing with the south portion of the original residence and the east elevation as the primary facade. And then in case 2026011230, the Historic Board approved a remodel that included replacement of windows and doors, raising the lower roofs on the north, constructing a 36 square foot addition, replacing chimneys, constructing fences and gates, exterior stairs, and stucco in the residence and a yard wall. An exception to section 14-5.2D5A of our previous code was requested for replacing the windows, and it was approved. The garage door opening was on the north side of the residence. While the door itself was missing, a part of the remodel, the garage door opening on the north side was to be filled in with French doors as part of making this section into a guesthouse. That ADU is no longer a part of the plan in this area, and it will be used as a garage. With the north entry as the garage opening, the homeowner uses a neighbor's private drive for egress to the rear of the building. There are currently several gravel parking spaces that are driven through to park in that garage. This access is being eliminated as part of the remodel. The second access to the garage is the historic driveway just to the west of the house. This currently does not provide access to the garage. So this shows the entry area from Agua Fria as it is currently, well, prior to the remodel work. And then this is the same portion of the building as it was before the 1980s. And then the applicant is requesting to reopen the south garage wall to provide access to the garage. They'd like to have a single door, doors, to accommodate larger vehicles. The doors will be wood carriage in the photo here. The applicant has requested an exception 14-4.6E or 2C to recreate a missing feature without replicating it. Staff finds as the exception criteria to 14-4.6E42C for recreating a missing feature without replication have not been met and recommends denial of the exception request because it does not comply with section 14-4.6E general design standards and 14-4.6G5 for the Westside Guadalupe Historic District standards. Stand for questions.

Original measurements of those doors?

I don't. Unfortunately, this, this was early enough that we don't actually have any paperwork. We just have the one photo.

Post door. Okay. That middle, these doors have two doors. There's a proposed doors have, it appears that's one, one door.

It's all one door for the proposal. Yes.

So, you are between what is being proposed. There's a, there's no relationship there between the what is, what was existing and what is being proposed?

Correct. So the code states that they can replicate it if they can prove that it existed previously. It did not exist as a single door. It existed as two, so it doesn't meet our code. The existing openings are windows. The existing windows or the windows on the right, that's what's there currently. So they had closed up those two garage windows doors into windows back in the early eighties. So they're currently windows.

Yeah, I guess I'm confused. So they're not proposing to replicate what was there previously? They're proposing a new thing on a non-primary facade. Correct? Basically, the proposal is to replace existing on the right with that single garage door. Yes. So my confusion is how does that just the criteria of the— I'm having a hard time. Sorry. So the way the code is written, in order for them to put a garage door here, they have to prove garage doors existed previously because it's a contributing building. Okay. The code states that it has to be replicated how it was previously. Well, they're not asking for it to be replicated with two doors. They're asking for a single door. Okay.

Yeah, I guess that's confusing to me because most of the times, we don't want to replicate when we're doing additions or adding something new to a building. We're trying to make it distinctly different from what may have been what is there historically. So to me, this seems different from what was there historically, and it's certainly different from what is there now. Yeah. So, yeah, I'll just maintain my confusion.

Okay. I don't know if you were here for the case over at Marion Hall where they wanted to reconnect Drury Hall to Marion Hall. And we made— they wanted it— they showed that John Gommee had previously had it connected that way, and then we required the design to be the same as what John had there. It's the same concept here that they're wanting— they're wanting to put back something that was there previously and reuse this as a garage, but it is not identical to what it was previously. Correct. And we wouldn't want it to be identical to what it was previously. And I don't think that example you brought up was approved as identical to what John Gommee. It was similar. So it was a different discussion, but it's kind of the same concept of how staff is interpreting this. Right. But we're not wanting to mimic history. So by creating this new door, the way I'm seeing it is it's not mimicking history. And it's and it's certainly deleting two non-historic windows. So I'm still— I'm still confused about why that would, why staff would recommend against that. But I've heard what you said, so I know why you're saying you would recommend against it. I just don't understand it from how we've previously approached this kind of a situation. And that's why I compared it to the Marion Hall. It's the same concept. Right. But and we recommended— but it was different. Identical there too. Okay. That was my case then. Other questions? This point? No. Or comments? Member Michelle. Sorry. Lani, I think you already said this, but we don't know if the H Board approved what's there now. No, we don't. There was a remodel in the eighties, and I'm presuming that was part of that. And do you think it— I mean, it would have come before the board. The eighties. The the the two doors to the windows? Yes. There was a remodel in the 1980s, but we don't have the case. So we weren't able to actually look it up, but I'm presuming it was part of that case. I bet that if that it for the sake of discussion, if the H Board had approved those two window installations, would that change the way you're interpreting this request? No. Okay. Okay. If no further questions at this point, applicant, who is the applicant, please come forward. Your husband's. Please kindly tell us about your view of this case.

Richard Wood. I'm architectural designer on this project. The short answer is the original garage had two approximately eight-foot-wide by eight-foot-tall carriage doors. And by carriage doors, I'm defining those as two-panel doors with jam hinges. During the '80s remodel, those were removed, and the windows shown in the slide on the right were installed. At that point, it was still used as a garage, but the garage door was removed to the north facade of the garage. The reason— the primary reason why the applicant wants to move the garage door back to the south facade facing on Creo is they do not have legal access to the back of the garage. They would have to enter off of an adjacent property and would have to go through getting access, easements, etcetera, to access it from its current location. So what the applicant is wanting to do is replace garage doors on the south with a single 16-foot-wide by eight-foot-tall insulated overhead garage door, what we think of as a typical garage door. It would be clad with wood, and the intent would be that it would have— the way the wood would be attached with some fall hardware. It would look like a 16-foot-wide character or base that it might of of what Mr. Cherry has said. The applicant would entertain the board's preference on design. In your purview, we wanted to make a door that appeared appropriate to the neighborhood. That's why we're working with Plaid where we certainly are open to any design, and why we would like to go to a single wider door is simply for modern larger vehicles' vehicular access. So any questions?

Board members, do you have any questions? Yeah. We're having problems with— I keep going out. Yeah. Just yeah. Look like two pieces in the middle of the door be, like, actual pieces of hardware to mimic hand hardware? Yes. They would be like non-functioning hardware. Okay. And this door would— would, it's just when you say standard overhead door, it's just gonna open up. It's gonna open open up. Correct. Okay. And is there a a a color proposed? The paint, stain? You're saying it's wood, but how's the wood treated? The application package did give a sample photo. It's essentially in wall that type in that general range wall. Okay. So dark neutral brown. Correct. Gotcha. Okay. That's all. Any other questions or comments? Yes. Member B.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a comment. I mean, this is definitely an improvement. Well, hers is on. Yep. It's on, but not okay. Can you hear me? I think what the applicant is proposing is a very nice upgrade to this house, replacing the white metal garage door with this much nicer carriage door, which acknowledges the fact that there were two garage doors there before, in a modern way. I think it's a really nice upgrade. And I I I it's an exception that we can— we have the ability to grant. So I think we really should consider finding a way to make that make sense. Because I I think that you're right, like, having two smaller openings that replicate what's there is not practical for today's lifestyles, and this is still a garage. It's not what we're converting part of a house to a garage. I think it makes a lot of sense. Thank you, member. If there are no further comments from the board at this point, Member Bambeno.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, I'm in agreement with comments that have already been made. The only thing I just would kind of emphasize here is that I think it is because of the unique circumstances of this double car garage that that requires some kind of support in the middle. And so in reviewing the site, it just appeared that there really wasn't enough room there to get to get back to the two garage doors. But if this was— I I guess what I wanna clarify is that's not all— I I just don't think we would always say we're always in favor of enlarging garage door openings because cars are bigger now. There are times when we definitely have not gone that direction. And there are times when it's essential to maintain a smaller opening because it's very much a part of the character defining feature of the property. That just doesn't seem to be quite the case here. So with that, you know, just the nuance, I would say that your design solution seems to me to be the best approach. Thank you, board members, for your questions and for your comments. Is there anyone in this audience that wishes to comment on this particular case? Elizabeth, you've been sworn in. Is this working? Yes, it is. My apologies, Mr. Cherry. What's interesting to me is that the treatment of the roof is very horizontal and emphatic about its heftiness, and that's echoed by the long horizontal in the doorway. And it actually doesn't really bother me that much, but there's something kind of fun about breaking up the building, which automatically have to happen with two carriages from a long time ago. I understand that. So, I was just something to think about in the future, if there's another way of honoring the two carriages with a different kind of design. But I kind of agree with what generally is going in your minds as a group and bravo to all of you. So I just it's very— it's a very big chunk of horizontalness after having two holes that recommend that welcomed carriages. That's my comment. Anyone else in this audience wishing to go forward? No one? Yes, Madam Chair. We have Stephanie Benonato. Stephanie, you may unmute and speak. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. We can. Okay. Great. I wonder because, you know, they're supposed to look at perhaps at alternatives if there was any attempt to get in, access easement from the neighbor so that they could continue to use the opening on the north because that would really alleviate having to even have this discussion on some level. Also, I do think night number one, there are not many garages, if any, on this section of Agua Fria, so it really sticks out. And, especially since it's one 16-foot-wide or whatever it is, piece of wood. And I know there's some, you know, attempt to make it look wood, but it's not really. And I wonder if there could at least be some openings and fenestration in that very big piece of wood so that it would kinda break it up a little bit more. Because, again, an eight-foot opening, I think, I think parking spaces are eight and a half feet. So eight feet should be big enough to get your car into a garage. Understand maybe they want to have what an RV in there. But, again, it is really not historical, and I do understand staff's recommendation because really, at the Drury, at Marion Hall, they proposed something that was not as much glass thinking the board didn't want glass. And then the board said, no. No. John Gommee's design was all glass. We want you to do glass. So, I know it's a different status for that particular for the garage compared to that walkway, but I do understand staff's thinking. And, again, I would ask that there be some way of breaking up that big massive wood because I I just think it's overwhelming to the to that facade. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on Zoom? No, Madam Chair. Motion, please, board members. Somebody? I'll make a motion. Number seven. In the case 2026012977-HDRB at 527-A Agua Fria Street, I move that we accept the application as presented, with the wood clad door and the 16-foot modified opening. And please address the exception. I'm sorry. Say again? You agree with the that the exception has been met? Yes. I do agree the exception criteria has been met. And do I hear a second to this motion? Pete Shible second, and I'll just add for the record that, based on the, sort of upgrade of the, or the replacement of the of the garage door, the the current metal garage door on the north side with this, wood looking door on the other side is, an upgrade that, the board considers, to be, worthy of an exception, and that the the the length of the garage, act actually, I I guess I would suggest that that we consider the fenestration.

I don't think we asked the applicant about that, so I don't know what I seconded, but now I have a question for the applicant. Sorry.

What is your question?

How do you feel about some fenestration in the door? Is that something that you could accommodate to break up the mass of wood-looking material?

Yes, the applicant would definitely consider that.

Are you adding that to your motion?

So I would, I would guess I would ask, add as a friendly amendment that, that based on the applicant's willingness to add some fenestration to the doors, that that be a condition of approval, that there's some sort of window element to break up the door.

Does the maker of the motion accept that?

I'd like to just comment on that. I think the applicant has taken a different tack and different point of view in trying to recreate what would appear to be a side-opening carriage door in the proposal. I don't object to the idea of windows in garage doors, but I think that the applicant has done a fairly good job of carrying forward the former history of the doors, and that I'm not sure that the windows would add to that. I don't, I mean, certainly windows put light, natural light in the garage, but I think that to add windows to that, I think we'd like to kind of see that again. And so then that request for windows would be kind of put this into a postponement.

Okay, so you are not accepting the—

I am not accepting.

Okay, that's, that's actually a fair point in my second stance. Okay. So any, anything further to this motion? If not, we'll have a roll call vote, please. Member Cherry. Can I get a clarification from each side? Your second stands without the friendly amendment. Okay. Thanks. Yes. Yes. Vice Chair Bienvenu. Yes. Member Biedscheid. Yes. Member Simmons. Yes. Your motion has passed. Thank you, applicant.

And the last case this evening is located at 719 Gildersleeve. Lani, all cases this evening have been yours for presentation.

Okay. So this is case 2026-012978-HDRB for 719 Gildersleeve for a remodel. 719 Gildersleeve is on the east side of the road between Buena Vista and Burger Streets. The single-family, Spanish Pueblo Revival style residence is approximately 1,800 square feet, rectangular, single story with a linear casita attached to the rear. The residence is designated as contributing to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District with the south and west facades designated as the primary facades. The casita is designated as non-contributing, and the front yard wall is designated as contributing. The residence holds an inset portal on the southwest corner with interest steps facing west. The entry steps are lined with low walls with a step down at the lower steps. The windows are symmetrical across each elevation. The west and east windows are one-over-one single-light windows, while the remaining windows of the main residence are divided light, four verticals on top and one light on the bottom. There's a mix of historic and non-historic windows. The windows are trimmed in a variety of greens or a dark blue. The entry doors are non-historic wood doors. The stucco of the residence is a pebble-dashed texture in cementitious cottonwood with colonial white under the portal. The casita was created by converting the previous garage and adding approximately 300 square feet to the structure back in 1998. The garage door was replaced with a double French door, and a new pedestrian entry was placed on the north elevation. All of the windows were replaced as part of this 1998 project. These windows are divided light but do not replicate the historic windows of the main residence. There's also a shed attached to the east elevation of the casita. The shed is unstained wood with a corrugated metal shed roof. A low stucco yard wall along the street includes buttress elements on either side. The yard wall is in pebble-dashed texture with cementitious stucco and cottonwood to match the residence, and a coyote fence lines the north property line.

The applicant proposes to replace windows and doors. All windows are currently wood double-hung with a window on the south and one on the north that are double-hung twin double-hung windows with divided lights. All of the windows are currently four verticals on top and one light on the bottom except for a couple that are single light, one-over-ones. The existing colors, variety of greens, are dark blue. The proposed windows are in keeping with the existing as double-hung windows with divided lights, four verticals on top and one light on the bottom, including the replacements for the single-light windows. However, the windows will be metal clad over wood in an off-white called abalone. An exception is requested to section 14-4.6(E)(4)(I)(a) for replacing historic windows. So, windows 109, 110, and 111 on the south facade and window H, or I'm sorry, window 105 of the window schedule, on the north are historic and are listed as restorable in the window assessment. Windows 104 and the unnumbered window on the east facade are historic but are not restorable. The other windows are all non-historic, and none of the windows or doors on the casita are historic. None of the doors on the residence are historic. The applicant is also proposing to enclose a portion of the portal on the southwest corner of the residence. The small addition will remove a historic window, the unnumbered window there. According to the window assessment, this window is not restorable, and that addition will connect the main house to the casita. An exterior pedestrian door will be placed on the east elevation, and then there will be some stucco repair of the residence and some cementitious stucco to match the existing colors. The window replacements will replicate the historic windows that were once part of the west elevation rather than being single light like those currently installed. The south elevation holds most of the historic windows, which can be restored. The east elevation shows the small addition beneath the portal and the new door replacing the non-repairable historic window. And then the north elevation reflects the removal of the non-historic door of the casita.

Staff finds that the exception criteria for section 14-4.6(E)(4)(I)(a) for replacement of historic windows have not been met and recommends denial of the request to replace historic windows. However, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-4.6(E) general design standards and 14-4.6(G)(1) for the Don Gaspar Area Historic District design standards. Just for clarification, so staff is recommending the repair of windows 109, 110, and 111 on the primary facade and recommending approval of the other window replacements and other elements in the request.

Thank you, Lani, for your presentation. In particular, thank you for this diagram. This applicant is also requesting metal-clad windows, correct, that are now wood windows?

Correct. They are requesting clad windows.

Thank you. Any other questions at this point, board members?

Yeah. Cherry. On this diagram, where's the information come from that denotes the non-historic or historic?

I took that off of the window assessment.

Okay. So it's not, it's not from the historian, it's from the window assessor.

Correct.

Okay. Other questions or comments? Not seeing any. Will the applicant please come forward? Jennifer has got a question. Oh, Member Biedscheid.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry. Just to be clear that the, the replacement of the non-historic windows is not exactly, they're changing the pattern of those windows in some cases. Correct?

Correct. So, in this diagram, windows 101, 102, 105, and 106 are currently all single-light windows, but they want to replicate the historic windows with the four-over-one in those locations.

What about, I'm wondering about the one specifically on the north elevation that's at the corner that has, it's like, six by eight now. So, window 103?

I think so. Yeah. The one west—

Yes. The longest furthest west?

Mhm. Okay. And that one's currently a casement window.

Okay. And that historically, it was, we don't know for sure. Okay. Oh. Okay. Thank you.

Applicant, if you come forward and get sworn in, please.

Hi. My name is—

Hi. Please state your name and address for the record and raise your right hand.

Allison Cooler, 719 Gildersleeve Street in Santa Fe.

Thank you, Allison. 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?

To the best of my knowledge. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. She has been sworn.

Good evening, and tell us what you want to tell us and want us to know about your project.

Well, the house is a bit of a hodgepodge when it comes to windows, and none of them work very easily. The one window that works easily is in the back of the house. So I have no real airflow in the summer months or even in the spring and fall when the weather gets nice. And because most of the windows are in pretty bad shape, there's a lot of leakage of heat and cold seasonally. Also, there's dust and pollen that comes through and some seasons, like recently, smoke. So those are health concerns of mine. I have seasonal allergies and I really feel it when I'm in the house. I have to keep air filters going much of the time. So as far as the windows go, I really would like them to be consistent, and I appreciate the historic style of the house as it was originally built. I think it's lovely. So I'd like to return to that, and I'd like the windows to work. So those are my, my chief goals. The windows that they say are restorable are on the south side of the building. When I purchased the house in 2019 and I asked about replacing the windows, I was told that it would be very difficult to do and I should just try to repair them myself. And I had success with that to some extent. Two of them I just gave up on. But the three on the south side there, I spent quite a bit of time repairing, and they've held up as far as the caulking goes, but the window sills themselves are, they're rotten. I cannot keep paint on those window sills, and that's an issue for me. I've lived in climates where there's a lot of moisture in the air, and wood windows and wood siding has been a bloody nightmare and a constant maintenance concern. So I would just like to bring things back looking and functioning like they did originally. I wish I knew more of the history than I know because that big window on the northwest corner is just bizarre to me. So, yeah, that's essentially what I want to do.

Oh, also the, the small addition between the link and the casita, not the link, my bedroom and the casita is essentially storage. It's a house that was built about 1920, and the closet storage is abysmal. In my bedroom, because of the stairs down to the basement, there's only half of a closet there. There's a diagonal that runs through the middle of it, and that just doesn't work these days as far as an adult's clothing needs, clothing storage needs. So the additional idea was for clothing storage, also to move the washer and dryer from the casita where it now is into the new space so that it could be shared by everyone more easily. Yes. And to maintain a door out of that link area for better egress or to continue the egress from the casita into the new space that would go outside.

Board members, do you have questions for the applicant or do you have any comments? No questions and no comments? Is there anyone in this audience that wishes to come forward with any comments? No? Lani, I wanted to ask you about if you know the historic color to the windows or the—

It was, it was a dark blue.

The house was white before I purchased it. When I purchased it, it had recently been replastered and the windows were that dark blue. They were blue. Can you describe the color of blue? Was it more turquoisey or was it? No, it's not turquoise. It's sort of a royal blue. It's more of a royal blue. It's not turquoise. And you want white windows? I just want white windows because I feel like they're more historically appropriate. And I don't want to, I'd like to leave the house somewhat neutral for a prospective buyer down the road. And I think when you order metal clad windows and you specify a particular color on them, you're kind of limiting the appeal of the house. So, thank you.

Anyone online that wishes to comment? Yes, Madam Chair. I have Stephanie Benonato raised. Stephanie, you may speak. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Oh, great. I kind of don't follow the total reasoning of the applicant in wanting to, having allergies but wanting to open the window. But I do understand wanting airflow and wanting workable windows. However, again, this is a historic house, and if they are repairable, maybe not by her, but by actually a window specialist, then I guess that is what really needs to happen. And I think it's also, I understand wanting a white clad window where it's allowed, excuse me, because it is, you know, I think it's more reflective in a sense than blue. But I just have to point out that blue is a historic color. It used to be blue, green, and white that were the trim colors allowed for windows because supposedly those were the colors that could be made here with the pigments that were available. But I do appreciate what the applicant is trying to do there, and I don't think there's any reason not to allow the addition that connects the ADU to the main house. It is not at all visible and obviously will help make the house more functional. Thank you.

Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else on Zoom? No, Madam Chair. Lani, the windows that are being proposed as metal clad, those are all, are they publicly visible? Yes, they would be. She wants to replace all of the windows throughout the house. So the windows on the west and south and north would all be visible. Okay. Any other questions or comments? If not, board members, I will entertain a motion. Somebody? They're thinking. Our member is going to give it a shot. Thank you, Madam. In case number 2026012978HDRB at 719 Gildersleeve Street, I move to allow the replacement of windows as proposed with the exception of windows 109, 110, 111, which are on the primary facade and restorable historic windows. Those, I would require to be repaired in kind. And I also move that the color of the windows be retained as matching one of the current existing colors rather than white, because I do think, especially with the color of the stucco, this combination is a historic feature that we should be considering characteristic of this house. Okay. Did you address the exception? Yeah, it's consistent with the staff's recommendation that if those historic restorable windows can be repaired, that they should be. So I think that is consistent with what the staff recommended in terms of the exception criteria, meeting the exception criteria. How did you approach 105, window 105? I can't really see. Is that, is that the, the addition window or the case map? That's a historic repairable, restorable window. Yeah, that's not on the primary facade. Sorry. That can be repaired, replaced in my question. Yeah. So we have a motion. And is there a second? I'll second with a friendly amendment that do we accept the addition on the backside as proposed? Yes. I have a point of clarification. Yes. So you're, you're proposing that the windows that are being allowed to be replaced on primary facades aren't replicated? No, I believe the motion is that the windows that are historic and repairable on primary facades are repaired. Right. So the windows that are on this west facade, you're, the other windows, you're allowing the clad and you're not, you're not wanting them to be replicated with wood as would be the materials used traditionally. They're not, they're not historic, right, on the west. So the primary facades are south and west. And the south, they're not historic, but they are wood windows. Right. So your proposal is that they can be replaced with clad windows. Yes. I think that that has been our practice of what the code would require. We've allowed the replacement on non-primary facades. So the code requires replacement with clad windows? It permits. It permits. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Uh-huh. I do apologize, but could you please, you didn't address whether or not she could go ahead and stucco? It's a cottonwood color, which has to be covered by the board? Yes. I'll, yes. Thank you. Because the, the hot wood is the closest match to the currently existing stucco. Correct? Yes. Okay. So now we have a complete motion, I believe. And a second. May we have a roll call vote, please? Member Simmons? Yes. Member Cherry? No. Member Bienvenu? Yes. Member Biedscheid? Yes. The motion has passed. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. May I ask for clarification? I'm, I'm not quite clear what my latitude is with the color of the trim of the new windows. It sounds like you don't want them to be white. That was part of the motion. Right. I understand that part. But the color that was shown here, which is, can you take it to the color, Lani? Maybe. I don't think it's in color. So there's the sage green here and then the windows on the north that are the dark blue. Right. Those are the two colors. Okay. So this is the color that is being used. One or the other. Okay. In the motion. Thank you. Okay. Just wanted to be really clear. Okay. Thank you for your attention. You're welcome. Your help. Thank you. Okay. Board members, any discussion items? Member Vermillion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do have one item. I would like to make a request for reconsideration of a case that came up at the last board meeting. This was on Camino San Acacio. There was a main house and a guest house with two separate case numbers, which I'll, which I can give. 2026012746HDRB and 2026012765HDRB. The focus of my request is on two aspects of the approval for those two cases. One was with respect to the corners of the buildings and the other was with respect to a steel trellis. Staff had recommended a condition of approval with respect to both of those two items that the corners be rounded three to four inches, consistent with the streetscape, and that the steel trellis, that the trellis, the condition for the trellis be that it may not be made of steel, but be made of wood. The motion as it was adopted on a two-one vote approved both of those requests without the conditions. So, you know, that's perfectly acceptable, of course. That's a, that can be a difference of opinion, but it was a two-one vote with a very short-staffed board. And I was, Chair Rios was not present, Member Biedscheid was not present. And I as chair felt constrained. I do have things to say about that. Number one, I think that that, that the conditions of approval as requested by staff are consistent with both the ordinance as well as with our practice. And secondly, and importantly in my mind, is that we have been for some time mandating corners in this district that are rounded and that we have been denying steel elements in this district. So I do think this creates an inconsistency that could be, that seems unfair to prior applicants. So I don't want to debate the merits of that. That's for another day. I do respect the, you know, the views of the board members that decided otherwise, but I would like to have this considered by the entire board at a future meeting. And the way I understand a request for reconsideration based on the procedure for that, based on the last time we did this, is that one of the members who voted for the, in favor of the motion that is the subject of the request for reconsideration needs to make a motion for reconsideration. That that reconsideration, if that is done at a subsequent meeting, then the board considers whether to reconsider. And if the board at that subsequent meeting determines that reconsideration would be appropriate, then there would be yet another meeting when the, the matter would be reconsidered de novo. So that's the way I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong, Attorney Ruboli, but based on that understanding, I, I would respectfully request that one of the members that voted in favor of, of the motion allow for reconsideration via a motion. Okay. Because of the Open Meetings Act, now Member Bienvenu, it's Chair Rios and Member Bienvenu. Member Bienvenu has accurately stated the conditions under which a board member can make a motion for reconsideration. And since that motion approving this project was just done at the last board meeting, it is timely. However, due to the Open Meetings Act, we have to place a placeholder on the agenda for the motion to reconsider to be made. Now that motion has to be made, as I recall, the board meeting last time by either Member Cherry or Member Simmons. If they don't want to make a motion to reconsider, then that motion cannot be heard. And just to add to that, making the motion for reconsideration is not a statement of belief that the motion was not well-founded to begin with. It's just allowing the board to reconsider. Correct? That is right. And as I understand it, a member can move to reconsider and then vote consistently with his previous vote. So, so we can put this on, you know, if the board votes to put a discussion about reconsideration on the next agenda, we can do that. So, Attorney Ruboli, what you are indicating, as I'm listening to you, you are indicating that the motion to reconsider has to be put on an agenda before we entertain that. That is correct. Is that what you're saying? That is correct. Because of the Open Meetings Act, essentially, we're reopening a matter that the last time the public who may have been interested in this matter heard, it was closed. It was decided. And so, essentially, if we're saying we're now reopening that to, to re-debate it, the public has to be placed on notice. And that motion could only be made by one of the members that voted for the motion of which our members, Simmons and members, Cherry. Correct? That is correct. And that is Robert's Rules of Order Section 37, colon eight. And the Open Meetings Act is what requires us to put it on an agenda so that the public has notice of that. So, and a motion to reconsider is debatable. Okay. So just so I'm totally clear, Member Bienvenu, Vice Chair Bienvenu is making no request for either myself or Member Simmons to make a motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider needs to happen at this meeting so it can be put on the agenda for next meeting to be reconsidered. No. We just, it would be inappropriate, Chair Rios and Member Cherry, it would be inappropriate to take a vote on a motion to reconsider at this time. No, I understand that. You're just asking that it be placed on the agenda. Right. But is there, so my question is, does the motion by this board now to place it on the agenda have to come from myself or Member Simmons, or can that motion? The motion can be made by anybody? Okay. I heard, I heard Vice Chair Bienvenu state that he was making a request, not a motion. So what I'm hearing you saying now is that he could make a motion to put it back on the agenda. That is correct. Right now, it's not, that is different than I understood. I thought that the motion to put it on the agenda the way we went through this last time was made, but I'm happy to make that, Attorney, turn it through a motion.

For your clarification, instead of a motion request, I would just move that it be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. How about Chair Rios and member Bienvenu understand it could be placed on the agenda, and member Cherry and member Simmons may say neither one of us care to make that motion. The motion that I heard you just made needs to be seconded and voted on tonight, though. Right? Gotcha. Is that true? I would recommend it be stated in terms of a motion to put a placeholder on the agenda for one of the members to make a motion for reconsideration if they are so inclined. That makes sense to me. I think that's exactly what we did. I think that's exactly what we did with the case at Paseo De Peralta. And this has to be seconded, correct? It does. Do I hear a second? I just want to ask a question, but normally that would happen after the motion's been seconded. There is no second. I wasn't at the meeting where this was heard, so I'm happy for someone to put it on the agenda to hear again if that's allowed. I mean, we're just, is it because we're public can comment on the motion to reconsider? Yes, it is a debatable motion. Okay. Yes. Well, I'll second its placement on the agenda. This is simply to put the motion to reconsider this case that has been stated, the case on San Acacio involving three buildings, for reconsideration for the next meeting, but we have to advertise that. Yes, the staff would have to place that on the agenda. Can I ask a question? I'm sorry. Since it was two different cases, would we have to have two different cases on the agenda? Two different motions, probably. Yes. Thank you. Which case is your motion? My case would, I think it's one motion to put both cases on the agenda. Gotcha. Amanda? Yes. Can you verify the date certain of September 22, 2026, is the agenda you would like to be placed on? Yes. Under old business? No, I think it comes under new business. I think it's for reconsidering. However it was done when we just did this exact same thing a few months ago at Paseo de Peralta. I don't remember whether it came back as new business or old business. Before we figure out the logistics, can we discuss the motion on the table and then vote on it? Is that acceptable? Yes. We have a motion and we have a second. I will roll call. Well, no. I want to have a discussion before we vote on it. So, Vice Chair Bienvenu, I just have a couple of questions for you. You had two criteria for your reconsideration motion. Now I'll call it the motion, not a request. One of which was, there was the three-two vote, which two or two-one vote. So, my, I guess my question is, that being a criteria, tonight there was a two-one vote as well, and it happens often. Is that, is that valid enough criteria in your mind on its own? Definitely not. No, no. I believe two-one votes are authorized under our ordinance and under the rules. And no, I don't think that they're always ripe for reconsideration for that reason alone. It's because of the importance of the issues and the inability to have a full discussion about those very important issues that the two-one vote to me became significant. Okay. So it's subjected to the importance of the, in other words, the two-one vote tonight wasn't as important as the two-one vote of the case we're referencing, but the issue wasn't important. Madam Chair? Yes. Excuse me. I feel like we're starting to have the debate about the motion to reconsider. I think that the motion is just to put something on the agenda. This is probably, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not debating the case. I'm debating, no, I'm not, I'm not talking about the details of that case. I'm not talking about the reasons that we should reconsider. Right. Which, so my questions are in reference to the motion and not the case that we're, that the motion's about. I'm not, I'm not referencing the case. I think we're voting to put something on the agenda for next time where we would then have a discussion about whether or not we should reconsider, which is the, right. No, the points you're making. So I'm, no, I'm asking questions about the reconsider, the reasoning for the reconsideration so that I can vote on the current motion. I mean, typically, isn't that how Robert's Rules works? Is it you have a motion, a second, discussion, and then a vote? Madam Chair and member Cherry, generally, yes. This discussion here is only being necessitated by the Open Meetings Act. Right. But I'm asking questions of Vice Chair Bienvenu in order to make a decision about how I want to vote on the motion that's on the table. I'm not asking questions in order to vote on, on the case. I'm not debating the case. Okay. Well, Madam Chair, member Cherry, I hope I've answered your question. I mean, this discussion is only because the Open Meetings Act wouldn't allow us to reopen a decision already made without some notice to the public. Yeah, I understand. Yeah. I'm just trying to get clarification on reasoning for the motion so that I can vote on the motion. Okay. But with, that's pretty standard. Madam Chair and member Cherry, I know before you and Mr. Simmons joined the board, we've had many discussions as to whether or not when there are three persons voting, a proposal can pass on a vote of two to one. And I've researched that extensively and, essentially, the reasoning behind it is under Robert's Rules of Order, a person who abstains is not counted as a member present. So therefore, even though there were four members present at the last board meeting because acting Chair Bienvenu could not vote, his abstention does not, he does not count as a fourth member present. It is that the majority is decided by the two votes of the three members that were voting. Yeah. Additionally, our rules and procedures for committees prohibits the chair from voting except to make a tie. So it would essentially make that meaningless if the presence of the chair, who under no, who cannot vote to create a tie, creates a tie simply because he's counted as a member present. And then, I understand. Yeah, I totally understand what you're saying. I'm not, I'm responding to member Biedscheid regarding me discussing this, this case, and I'm, I'm explaining that I'm not. I'm, I'm trying to get some information regarding this motion to decide how I want to vote on this motion, which is my understanding of how the Robert's Rules process for a board works. If I'm not allowed to ask questions, I'll, I'll stop asking questions. No, you're allowed to ask questions. Yeah. So, member Cherry, I'm going to ask for a roll call vote. I hope that you have been satisfied with, I had other questions, but I'll, I'll yield because I understand people want to go home. Roll call vote, please. Member Simmons? No. Member Cherry? No. Member Biedscheid? Yes. Member Bienvenu? Yes. There is a tie. Member, Chair Rios, how do you vote? The motion has passed. I'd just add that, just looking back at the past Paseo de Peralta case, it was, it did reappear under old business. Thank you. Okay. Matters from the board. I understand that there is going to be a meeting with some board members and some council members to discuss the present configuration of the board. And that meeting is going to take place on Friday at 10:00, and I don't believe that all board members were invited. And I feel that all board members that want to attend that meeting should be there. And I, for one, was not one of the persons that was invited to the meeting, and as the chair of the board and as a member of this board for quite a while, I have clear opinions about that particular subject matter, and I feel that I should be present. And I also feel that member Biedscheid has been a member of this board for many years, and I feel that if she's agreeable, that her voice should also be heard. And my question to you, Attorney Rubelita, is, do we have to, if there's a quorum, we have to, how much notice do we have to give? Or to you, Amanda, what is the amount of notice that we have to give? The notice for a quorum meeting is 15 business days, I believe, or 15 days. If it's a full quorum, I am not aware of the meeting that you speak of, Madam Chair, but I will pass the information on to Heather Lamboy or Assistant Director Maggie Moore, which are both out this evening, to get more details. And I will email the board in regards to whatever I discover. Can I ask you, Jenny, if it's, if it's a meeting that is just a discussion and not anything that you're voting on, do, does the quorum apply? Does the quorum apply? Well, with the notice, if a quorum can appear at a discussion without notice to the public if there is no intention that some vote is going to be made in some policy matter, as I understand. If it's just a discussion group, it just needs to be clear. That's what I understand, correct, that it's a discussion group. Yeah. May I ask who, who's hosting this? I have no idea. I didn't know about it either. The notification, I think, came from Heather. Yeah. It's, it, Heather put it together is how I would phrase it. All I know is I was asked. Yeah. So, but I didn't know who else, you know, if there were people who weren't or how it was structured. I just know I was asked, and, and that the invite came from Heather. Right. Director Lamboy is out this week, but I will get a hold of her. But it, but it sounds like, sorry. She's out this entire week? As far as I know. Okay. Yes. She was one of the main persons that was going to participate in this. So if she's out, the meeting has to be rescheduled. I will have to get a hold of her to confirm. Okay. But just out of curiosity, so the full board could go to that meeting without public notice if it's just a discussion and nothing's being voted on. Is this meeting posted at all? No. Oh. So I think this came, this was a result of last hearing. Vice Chair Bienvenu brought, made some comments regarding the outcome of the last case that was overturned by City Council. With respect to 911 Roybal? Right. Okay. Yeah. And, and, the, the comments, I think I actually made a comment saying that, after Vice Chair Bienvenu's comments, saying it would be nice if the City Council could, if we could meet with the City Council in order to discuss what their issues are with the board. That was a result of, of the comments made by Vice Chair Bienvenu in the sense that we haven't been approached by City Council, but there is a lot of, it seems like public discussion from City Council about disbanding the board or getting rid of the board. So the public comments that, that, that I made at that hearing were, I think it'd be nice if we had a meeting so that they could, you know, we could hear from us and talk directly to them because no, none of them have ever contacted us with any issues. So I think that precipitated Director Lamboy facilitating this meeting. So I don't believe it's, I, I believe it's at, we had a discussion or chatted about that today on the field trip. I got a Google invite, so I'm not totally clear if it's just a Google meeting or if it's an in-person. Vice Chair Bienvenu seemed to think it was at the, okay. Yeah. That the Google invite was just a, a way to invite us. Correct. Yeah. So, Amanda, can you look into the, into this and let us know what's cooking for sure? Absolutely, Chair Rios. And I will respond to the board in its entirety. So it's at the Land Use Conference Room is where it is.

Anything else from board members? Nada? Our next meeting is going to be September 22. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. Opposed? I'm sure there are no